The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Fails to pass
WP:BIO. No significant coverage (if any at all) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Several sources are provided but they don't even mention the subject (many are Wikipedia articles), plus some of the internal links inexplicably advertise companies, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
Dontreader (
talk)
03:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apart from accusing Charlie Sheen of paying for sex with her, this person is entirely non-notable. Even if we consider that event to be worthy of note on itself, this still feels ONEEVENTlike.
SpartazHumbug!20:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Some coverage but my sweeps of major media did not find much; sources in article currently somewhat marginal.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep as per others.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
10:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Not the greatest example of a notable person, but "significant" coverage in reliable sources is always subjective, so I don't see how the article can be deleted. The coverage in the newspaper The Age is huge, as pointed above
[5]. Also, after her death, she was the subject of an episode of a TV show called A Current Affair entitled "The sudden death of adult film star Chloe Jones"
[6] confirmed by
UPI[7]. In fact, that UPI source might be useful for the article. Plus the articles purely related to the Charlie Sheen scandal.
Dontreader (
talk)
03:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If she's "entirely non-notable" then why was she featured in the newspaper The Age and on an episode of A Current Affair? Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide but the subject seems to pass
WP:GNG. I quote:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
And keep in mind that many articles that were written about her in reliable sources are now surely dead links. I found several cases while doing the AfD research.
Dontreader (
talk)
23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Given the thoroughly whitewashed, deliberately misleading caliber of the AVN story, it's hard to say Jones was "well-covered" by industry sources. And that's reflected in the article, which attributes her death to "liver failure[3] caused by Vicodin use", although the cited source actually says "liver failure inflicted by an addiction to Vicodin and a lifetime of heavy drug and alcohol abuse". An accurate bio would be horrific and serve to do little beyond inflict pain on her family and her children. The sanitized piece of shit that we've let masquerade as her biography is worse than nothing.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources found and the deletion rationales "The sanitized piece of shit" and "encyclopedia not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide" are hardly guidelines and which portray a hint of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are hardly convincing.
GuzzyG (
talk)
03:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This scholar does not seem to pass
WP:SCHOLAR based on what is written in the article. Also, the article has no independent reliable sources. Instead, it looks very much like the information on
this page, which is the place where he works. I performed Google searches for significant coverage in reliable sources but I was unsuccessful, so I don't think the article passes
WP:BIO either. Even if we could find reliable sources to support all of the claims that are made in the article, I think it would still fail to pass
WP:SCHOLAR and
WP:BIO.
Dontreader (
talk)
21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree, and that link seems to be to an article, not a book, so there's no evidence that the subject's work has ever been cited in a book.
Dontreader (
talk)
05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete- Not notable. The books are really his dissertations and some self-published kindle works. He is a young entry into the field who has not done anything except for several part-time jobs.--
Jayrav (
talk)
02:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant
WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an
SPA as possibly promotional.
Dialectric (
talk)
12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - If "Theatrical Plays" were listed as an article subject that could be tagged for
A7, this article would easily qualify. I found no sources to establish
notability for this play, and the article content clearly shows that it's simply a play that was performed at one university. Definitely not notable for an article.
~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. I also cannot find anything to show that this play is notable. If there were some coverage out there I might have supported a merge to the series' page, but this play seems to have solidly flown under the radar, given that it was only performed four times at one college.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)05:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, though I would note (my vague memory tells me there were sources) that if any specific songs were highlighted by reviews of the games, that can be documented in the main articles for these games. --
MASEM (
t)
23:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. all this article does is confirm the consulate exists. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so.
LibStar (
talk)
06:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete a consulate general is not something that would be inherently notable, and there are no sources to say anything about it - it exists, so what
Kraxler (
talk)
21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet gng or any other notability guideline. The two reliable sources copy on him consists of only his name. All other sources are primary, not reliable or both. Being nominated in the Melbourne, Florida film fest wouldn't buy a film notability, much less its producer.
John from Idegon (
talk)
07:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:PROF - sources are trivial and not independent, there is no evidence of a significant body of work, about all we can say from the reliable independent sources is that this is a man who teaches at a minor college and seems to be a nice chap. Guy (
Help!) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Guy (
Help!)
11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. First, he holds a named chair and Whittier arguably meets the second prong of selective institution for
WP:PROF 5. Second, his book on Tillich and his book "From Season to Season: Sports as American Religion" both seem to be highly cited. I expect his other work is as well. --
Samuel J. Howard (
talk)
22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't really think that anyone would call Whittier, a self described liberal arts college, a major institution of higher education and research. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Except perhaps for readers of
WP:NACADEMICS which says "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." Whittier has a reputation for excellence... except perhaps for its law school.--
Samuel J. Howard (
talk)
14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Samuel J. Howard: Using an objective measure of "excellence", in 2015
Forbes rates Whitter College as #331 Overall, #240 in Private Colleges, and #64 in the West. Forbes rated 650 colleges and universities, #331 places Whitter below 50%, near the top of the bottom half. That does not sound like the kind of excellence the guideline is talking about. That is down from #215 in 2010
here. Excellent schools include Pomona College, a direct competitor with Whitter, at #1. See the top one hundred
here. That does not mean that one cannot get a good education at Whitter College, it just means that it does not meet the
bright-line rule of
WP:NACADEMICS. --
Bejnar (
talk)
19:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
US News and World Report on the other hand, says "[Whittier] is selective..."
[8]. They rank the school as 124 among National Liberal Arts Colleges. Washington Monthly ranks Whittier at 74.
[9] Both rankings substantially better than Forbes's rankings. Given the subjectivity of college rankings, one can hardly call any use of them a bright-line test. From Peterson's guide to colleges we read:"Whittier has earned a reputation for providing a high-quality liberal arts education. The Princeton Review recently named Whittier as one of the country's best institutions for undergraduate education, and it included Whittier in the 2015 edition of 'The Best 379 Colleges.' Whittier is also among 200 schools listed in "Colleges of Distinction," a national college guidebook that showcases colleges who have engaged students, great teaching, a vibrant community, and successful outcomes."
[10]. Finally, ironically, this list of "overrated" colleges testifies to the fact that Whittier has an excellent reputation
[11], a necessary condition of being overrated.--
Samuel J. Howard (
talk)
19:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
124 among National Liberal Arts Colleges is again in the lower 50%. And maybe you are unclear as to what "overrated" means. You do not have to have a good reputation to be overrated. It just means that you are not as good as you are being rated, which in this case is not that good even at #74 in the Washington Monthly. Whitter College is just not a major institution of higher education and research. --
Bejnar (
talk)
17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete his claim to fame is that he has appeared on television and been a guest speaker on NPR. That does not indicate that he has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity. He does not meet any of the criteria for
WP:NACADEMICS. And, no, Whittier College is not a major institution of higher education and research, it is a small liberal arts college with a total enrollment of about 2,000. He lacks the kind of coverage that would support a "substantial impact" analysis. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Setting aside whether this subject meets the SNG for Academics, or whether Whittier is big or little, this strikes me as a GNG pass for a recognized national expert in "Baseball Studies."
HERE is an interview with Price, the Co-Director of Whittier's Institute of Baseball Studies, on MLB.com, the website of professional baseball. And
HERE is the website of the University of Chicago on Price and his quest to sing the national anthem at every MLB park. And
THIS from the website of the AARP, on the same topic.
THIS is Price being cited as an expert by Time magazine back in 2007.
HERE we have the official website of Minor League Baseball on Price's singing the national anthem 100 times in a summer. And so on and so forth. It's a simple GNG pass here; don't overthink this.
Carrite (
talk)
05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Carrite. This is one where we should inhibit our impulses to judge why someone is notable. He's getting prominent coverage for his particular interests in baseball -- that does it.
Stevie is the man!Talk •
Work12:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Don't believe this person is notable. A number of sources are unreliable, including blogs and his own webpage. The CNN "report" clearly states Not verified by CNN making it unreliable
Gbawden (
talk)
11:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - To clarify what the nominator is saying - that source is a CNN
iReport. This is their foray into
citizen journalism. The idea is that if CNN can verify what the iReport says, it is uploaded onto the main CNN website. This iReport hasn't been uploaded. Furthermore,
the user who wrote it has only written this one report. This is definitely an unreliable source. I also found that something was cited to a page on the BP website that doesn't mention the subject so I removed that from the article.
Yaris678 (
talk)
12:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
WP:NJournals or
WP:GNG. Article dePRODded because the journal is published by Springer. However,
WP:NOTINHERITED applies and even Springer starts the occasional dud (see
Research on Language and Computation for an example of a journal that failed after only 7 years - even though that one gained notability through a Scopus listing). At this point,
there's no way of knowing whether this journal will make it and become notable or not.
Randykitty (
talk)
12:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article appears to cover Linux CPU flags and has very little to do with libvirt (I am a libvirt developer). There are plenty of good resources on the internet already about Linux CPU flags (eg
[12]).
Richard W.M. Jones (
talk)
13:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
comment — The nominator says that the article covers Linux CPU flags, but those flags are well known
hardware instruction sets for x86 microprocessors, and aren't related to GNU/Linux, or any particular operating systems. Thus that part of the nomination could be misleading. As a side note, I was expecting a former
Red Hat's employee like
Richard W.M. Jones to be better educated on basic concepts of computer science — or GNU/Linux and procfs.
Toffanin (
talk)
20:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
What a strange and unnecessary ad hominem attack. Some of these -- like 3dnow -- indicate groups of instructions, others -- like nx -- indicate other features of the hardware like fields in the page tables.
Richard W.M. Jones (
talk)
20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Please assume good faith, it wasn't an ad hominem attack. Those flags are all standard ISA nomenclatures; they have nothing to do with GNU/Linux per se, since they are the same even on other operating systems like Windows, MacOS X, and pretty much all the BSD flavours. What I'm criticizing is not your person, but your lack of
WP:BEFORE which is misleading since libvirt explicitly supports those cpu hardware features according to the source code of the project itself:
https://github.com/libvirt/libvirt/blob/87205512565529b8baeb108e3d0fe376fc20c967/src/cpu/cpu_map.xml. Therefore the content of the page is correct, that is why I'm sceptic about your claims: you are suggesting that the page content is unrelated to its title, and even more to libvirt (but that page is not about libvirt itself) which is not true. One could argue that having such list of hardware flags supported by libvirt is non encyclopaedic enough to warrant an entry in WP — and I agree —, but that has nothing to do with cpu flags or GNU/Linux. Per
WP:DEL and
WP:AfD you should provide a better (and valid) reason for considering a list of libvirt feature policies as not notable for WP. And since a page about
Libvirt exists, you should have proposed a merge / redirect instead.
Toffanin (
talk)
21:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't like to throw oil an unnecessary fire, but Richard is right: these are specifically Linux's names for the CPUID feature flags (as reported in /proc/cpuinfo). Intel and AMD use slightly different names for some of these flags. —Ruud09:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Even setting aside all of the other argument's above this article does not have sufficient citations to be considered
WP:VER. Even more troubling is that there was some
WP:NOR done to gather this information the statement that these processor specific CPU features are called this where ever libvirt is deployed is incorrect and only applies to linux and in many cases only x86 .
Andrdema (
talk)
08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I have to say that I agree with
009o9 that the article would be better renamed to something like
First U.S. Ebola patient or similar. This is supported by
WP:1E which states Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. In other words, the article is not truly a biography covering the whole life of the subject, but is only concerned with this one issue. However, I am not declaring that a consensus in this close as there were insufficient other participants supporting the idea of a name change. On the other hand, nobody positively opposed the suggestion (with the possible exception of
Alaynestone whose comment in that regard is unclear to me) so there is no barrier to an editor being bold and making that change outside of this AfD.
Duncan has not generated real (lasting) notability. His only claim to notability was that he had the misfortune of contracting ebola, and traveled to the US. At least one other person after him has done the same. The Ebola virus epidemic that followed his arrival in the US was quickly suppressed, and most of the 'keeps' in the previous delete discussion
[13] were based on WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions that never came to pass. The article should have been deleted, but it seems fear and speculation at the time prevented that.
Geogene (
talk)
01:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per previous AfD, this guy is notable alright, he was a toxic migrant, most likely motivated to travel to the US for better healthcare after handling an infected victim, and he lied to medical staff about being exposed to the virus. I also recall that the CDC departed from stated geographical containment procedures by keeping travel open and despite having billions in the CDC budget they dropped the ball in preparing first responders. I don't recall how much of the information I read was RS, but this and the main article should be revisited with a keen eye for exposing policy failures.
009o9 (
talk)
04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
009o9: The goal is not to remove the information; the problem is that he isn't notable and worthy of his own article. Rather, he is a part of the
Ebola virus cases in the United States, and the article there contains all of the relevant information about him. It isn't like the information is just going to go away; it is that he isn't a notable person, he's just someone who was connected to a notable event. See also
WP:BLP1E.
Titanium Dragon (
talk)
18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ebola virus cases in the United States.
WP:BLP1E doesn't strictly apply (and I'm not willing to stretch the "recently deceased" clause to cover this article), but the principle behind the policy is still apt: individuals who are merely a small part of a larger story with no further biographical context are better treated in the context of that story. I find the Keep !vote above disturbingly incompatible with
WP:NPOV.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete No long-term notability. Notable for getting sick in the midst of a popular press panic. Comments by
User:009o9 blatantly racist comments and
WP:POVPUSHING should be included as grounds for deletion. Referring to someone as a "toxic migrant" is totally unacceptable. On another note, why would someone travel to the US for healthcare when the US healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world? Arguing a keep on the basis that it serves the political interests of someone is astounding.
AusLondonder (
talk)
02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
AusLondonder When you say "blatantly racist," what "race" are you referring to? As far as I'm concerned, migration/immigration is a policy issue plain and simple. He did not just get sick, he was living with someone who died from Ebola four days before he left Liberia, and lied about that contact (carrying her to the ambulance) during his screening. Duncan also had relatives throughout the US, but prior to the outbreak had never visited any of them and only made those plans two weeks before he arrived.
[14] Do you realize how expensive that kind of air travel is? As for the cost of the US healthcare system, the point is irrelevant, emergency rooms must accept everyone, regardless of nationality and ability to pay. Duncan was patient zero in the United States and exposed massive failures in immigration and medical policy.
009o9 (
talk)
04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I think your comment were crass and not relevant to the debate. I fail to understand how being a "toxic migrant" would make someone notable in any case.
AusLondonder (
talk)
05:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That article says that the hospital was unprepared for an ebola patient. What does that have to do with Duncan, except that Duncan was unlucky enough to be the patient? Outside of entering the US with ebola, is there anything about Duncan's biography that is notable and encyclopedic, or even unusual compared to the thousands that died from ebola in Africa?
Geogene (
talk)
17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Most of the Duncan article is duplicated (word for word) in the Ebola Virus in the US article, and there's no content in the Duncan bio "about policy failures", etc., so I don't see the argument to keep.
Geogene (
talk)
23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. While clearly
WP:BLP1E, the key phrase is 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'. This was a very significant event, and this individual's part in it, albeit mostly inadvertent, was a key part of the event.
Onel5969TT me
Keep.
Ebola virus cases in the United States is already
WP:TOOBIG. In addition, TED's relevance isn't simply passive ("just got sick"). His movements and actions that lead to the first U.S. ebola outbreak, his interactions with Presbyterian, and the controversy surrounding how his apartment was handled, are all components of the story.
Alaynestone (
talk)
15:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If "he got sick" doesn't cover it, then "he got sick, and was made a scapegoat" certainly does. But all that stuff about Presbyterian not being able to handle it and, his apartment, are out of scope for his bio article, they belong in the main article, Ebola virus cases in the United States, or some other spinoff. This is a biography. There's no bio here to write about, other than his getting sick, and that's all in the main article already.
Geogene (
talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC
Disagreements on semantics aside, you and I agree that x pieces of information are notable. All we're really debating is where they live, which is fairly minor for such a long AfD. You say it goes in the main article; I say (again) that's great but the article is already too long and needs to be broken out into sub pages, particularly given the potential for that page to continue to grow. TED is a concise heading for the page (vs. "First U.S. Ebola patient" or something else much less encyclopedic). The notable information needs to stay, and it needs to live in a place that is helpful to researchers. He meets the other criteria the other keep voters have made above. Still voting keep, but mostly, I think we're spending more brain power and time on this than it's worth.
Alaynestone (
talk)
18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Excellent analysis by
Alaynestone, the article is not a bio, more fitting is
WP:PERPETRATOR. Renaming the article referencing,"First U.S. Ebola patient", "U.S. Ebola Patient Zero" or the like is a good idea. There is enough contradicting information in various articles as to TED's motives in the press, had he survived, he would likely have been prosecuted. (I.e., abruptly quitting his job with no explanation, purchasing a very expensive airfare (2 week lead) to visit children he'd never visited before -- or the alternative story that he rushed over to the U.S. to marry someone -- all after living with an ebola victim.) This was not "just a guy who happened to get sick," he's a case study in selfishness who risked his family's lives when he lied to customs officials.
009o9 (
talk)
22:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep preferable or redirect alternately -- at least as important as, say
Typhoid Mary. Issue is not if people still know him by name -- it is whether his actions and their consequences generated sufficient notability, which I would say they did. I also commend
@Alaynestone for his analysis.
Quis separabit?23:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Intensity and breadth of coverage at the time carry this article past
WP:GNG. The story has generated ongoing coverage, as the response to the disease outbreak is analyzed. Long-term impact is now required when a story is sufficiently important when it occurs, rather, it is a factor that can indicate notability. In this case, however, there was impact on treatment policies recommended and adopted by other hospitals in the crises period.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is an index case of the best-publicized infectious disease outbreak in many years. There is
far too much information to be merged elsewhere. This is an extremely well-sourced article. Citing ONEEVENT would eliminate all articles of famous sick people.
Bearian (
talk)
13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for the policy reasons behind
WP:BLP1E. There is no need for a redirect as the world will little note nor long remember Thomas Eric Duncan. As to the comments by
Bearian, the infectious disease outbreak is best handled in the
Ebola virus cases in the United States article. If that article is considered to be too large, then it is likely that it carries a lot of non-encyclopedic content, and can be usefully trimmed. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: The main content of the article is a
WP:COPYVIO from the gallery's own website, so would have to go if the article survived - I left it for the moment as it contains the nearest to any claim to notability. However the given references are dead links, and I am not seeing anything substantial: a
Russian Google search delivers some guide listings and
a brief unsigned piece on the gallery owner, but it isn't evident that it is a
WP:RS on the founder or her enterprise. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
07:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: i've updated some information on the gallery and the activity. The main aspect, i guess, is this the only gallery representing artists from Abkhazia on the international market. I will try to maintain the page better - advise is very welcome, Thank you.
Nino (
talk)
23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)User:NKuprava (Nino) is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per
WP:AFDFORMAT.reply
Delete - Non-notable organization with a lack of reliable sources. Most of the article is unsourced except for the final paragraph. The first source just mentions the gallery, the second and third is simply about an exhibiton they held (and even then the sources also just mention the gallery), and the fourth and fifth also talks about another exhibiton they held. None of the sources listed talks in great detail about the gallery itself, and they do not assert the notability of the place. Aerospeed (
Talk)
12:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I checked all the references in the article. Of the ones written in English, none meed the requirements of
WP:RS. I do not read Russian, so I was unable to evaluate all the sources. --
RoySmith(talk)12:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep In response to this nomination for deletion, additional citations were added to demonstrate the notability of the organization and related reliable media coverage. The additional citations include articles and news coverage from established industry publications and journals such as Oil & Gas Journal, Offshore Engineer, E&P Magazine and World Oil. In further support of HWCG's notability, the organization has been invited to testify in front of various US Government committees on the progress in offshore safety since Deepwater Horizon (citations with links to this testimony are included in the entry). HWCG has played a major, notable role in the progress of offshore drilling safety in the United States, as reflected in the cited governmental testimony and 10+ other articles cited. --
Cdevwrites (
talk)
20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)User:Cdevwrites is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per
WP:AFDFORMAT.reply
Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better than
this and similar with browser. Simply not anything to suggest meaningful better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk07:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Still keep You can vote only once As a note for anyone trying to search for additional sources/information, the organization was formerly called
Helix Well Containment Group in the years immediately following Deepwater Horizon and seems only recently dropped down to HWCG. The linked search results for "hwcg llc company" in the previous comment use too narrow of a search term to get a full picture of coverage, as many recent news mentions just say "
HWCG." To get the full sense of notability, it's necessary to evaluate coverage for both Helix Well Containment Group and HWCG together (although Helix Well Containment Group is no longer the organization's correct name). In that sense, you will see the organization has been covered by NPR, National Geographic, the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle, in addition to the sources already cited in the entry. For example, National Geographic called HWCG's containment system one of the "most hopeful energy developments" of 2011.[1]. This coverage doesn't appear in the narrower search above, as it uses the organization's old name.
Cdevwrites (
talk)
15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As far as I can tell (mostly based on
[17] and the journal's website), this journal is indexed in no significant databases and thus fails
WP:NJOURNAL. I don't speak German though, and I'm not super familiar with philosophy journals and their indexing services though. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}17:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - While I suppose this is a borderline case since he's gotten some popular notice for his actions, I feel like the fact that he's only somewhat notable means that in the spirit of the rules (if not the mere words) this article ought to be deleted.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
10:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per (at best) being
TOO SOON. Per
WP:INDAFD, the word "Adahunik" gives
LOTS of results for some company, but not a Bengali drama series, and the Bengali word "আধুনিক" gives
Bengali sources that also appear to NOT be speaking about a drama series. "Apurba Banerjee" gives unrelated results. "Kaberi Bagh" gives no results. "Abhishek Bagh" gives no results. "Rimjhim Gupta" IS an actress, but no news is found in connection with this project. All that is found is the created
social media page which is not RS. Being unverifiable, it misses out on
WP:NF by a wide margin. If or when this ever gets coverage in acceptable sources, an return might be considered. Schmidt, Michael Q.03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is just another failed shooting attempt that only resulted in a couple of injuries. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Many other such articles are merely their own subsections in the school articles themselves, which is probably the best possible treatment for this topic.
Versus001 (
talk)
01:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -This crime had no extended impact or coverage beyond the single event.
ABF99 (
talk) 04:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Retracting my !vote to further research notability for this crime.
ABF99 (
talk)
14:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Campus shootings are usually notable. In this case the tragic details got doverage that goes beyond routine news reporting, here:
[18]. Also look at the stories in this search:
[19] and at the ongoing covearage and referencing of event in political discussions:
[20].
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - If this crime by an unhinged individual were committed at a McDonalds or outside an Arco station, would anyone bother to argue that it wasn't a NOTNEWS situation? I didn't think so. Delete, per NOTNEWS.
Carrite (
talk)
05:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Likely delete as although this is an interesting article, this may be alike to several other events so it would be best mentioned at an article or list of these. Pinging
DGG and
Onel5969 for better consensus.
SwisterTwistertalk05:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - While E.M. Gregory has a good point, the key word in his state is "usually". This one clearly is not. Carrite's argument is most on target, but as Location, Savonneux, and the other editors have pointed out this fails per
WP:NOTNEWS.
Onel5969TT me12:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a mess, to put it lightly. It reads vaguely like my college notes from freshman year. This content is covered in a much more comprehensive and encyclopedic manner at
GDP#Determining GDP. Since the components of GDP and the methods of calculation are crucial to understanding the concept, this is not a good candidate for a
split. ~ RobTalk02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm weakly opposed to a redirect. There has been at least weak consensus that
WP:NOTGUIDE applies to redirects in the past. I would consider that redirect to suggest that the reader will find guide-like content on the target page, which they will not. Also,
GDP does not contain any discussion of the processes used to actually measure GDP as this redirect would suggest (i.e. what the various governmental agencies do to collect data). It only discusses calculating the value if you already know the values of components. Pinging
Hisashiyarouin in case they care to comment on this. ~ RobTalk03:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm unsure because it's not bad as a guide, but there are essentially no citations. If kept, it needs to be trimmed extensively.
Bearian (
talk)
13:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an entirely unsourced article making what is a wholly tendentious claim....(the reason for the alleged blinding was that the British were "hypnotised by the Armenians")acording to an evidently scrupulously impartial website. (not that I have much respect for the British, being one myself). True the POW camp may be notable but imo
WP:TNT applies.
TheLongTone (
talk)
14:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep.This is a well known tragedia of WW1. True, the article is a stub and it needs to be expanded. But there is no reason to delete it. Besides in the article I haven't seen any reference to Armenians and I don't know why the proposer mentions "hypnotised by the Armenians" .
Nedim Ardoğa (
talk)
08:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Well-known my eye. I mention Armenians because both of the very flaky sources I found on the Web mentioned Armenians. Come up with a half-way reputable source for this guff, please. It might be possible to come up with more if the place was referred to by its Egyptian/Arabic name, incidentally.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. The camp itself may be notable, but the article isn't about the camp. It's about an alleged atrocity that hasn't, as far as I can tell, had a single shred of hard evidence put forward to prove it ever actually happened and which can join the serried ranks of conspiracy theories (the British apparently did it at the behest of the Armenians, an unbelievably unlikely story) and urban legends. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless
WP:RS can be provided. I have no doubt that following the campaign in Palestine, the British had a lot of POWs and it may be that a few went blind while imprisoned. I suspect that this is a story that has been greatly exaggerated, if not a plain HOAX. While this was the period before the Geneva Conventions, the British were used to keeping POWs in camps. This happened with captured Germans. I therefore doubt that the British would be incapable of dealing with their Turkish WWI prisoners. I suspect that this is an invented story to use to counter issues about the Armenian genocide. That was wrong, but perhaps capable of justification in Turkish eyes on the basis that their Christian subjects were potential traitors.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment:The creator may be a beginner and the articles may be problematic. But Seydibesir Event is notable. (Nobody can say that blinded 15000 soldiers is not notable) Please see
[21] for the diary of a soldier .
Nedim Ardoğa (
talk)
12:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Indeed. But there is no even halfway reliable source for this lurid and improbable story. And the camp was called Sidi Bishr, btw. And was regularly inspected by the International Red Cross.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Of course it would be notable if 15,000 soldiers had been blinded, especially if they'd been deliberately blinded. But there's no reliable evidence for this incredibly far-fetched story. It seems to be a typical myth that has grown in the telling and is taken as fact by some with no real attempt to question its veracity or gather evidence. If it had happened then it is inconceivable that there would be no reliable sources. The "source" you cite says: "Because the British were brainwashed by Armenians, being told that in a potential new war they could come up against these soldiers again. The solution was massacre..." So the British Empire, which ruled half the world, was brainwashed by a bunch of Armenians into massacring Turkish soldiers, who they'd just defeated, because they might possibly face them again in war? And you expect us to take that as a reliable source? It's about as reliable as Nazi propaganda saying that the Jews were responsible for all the world's ills by hoodwinking every Western government. Those danged Armenians with their supernatural powers of mind control! Pity they didn't use them to stop the Turks massacring them! --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete both - at best these articles seem to refer to a myth that seems to have built up over time which was the probably the result of a far smaller number of prisoners going blind due to a vitamin deficiency caused by a poor diet (see for instance Yucel Yanikdag (2013) Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey, 1914-1939, p. 160
[22] published by Edinburgh University so meets the req's of
WP:RS as far as I can tell). There appears to be some coverage of this topic (i.e. the myth) in Google Books (although I couldn't read the sources so cannot verify the content). Given this I am tempted to say the "myth" itself *might* be notable; however, the manner in which these articles deal with it is entirely different, being the unsourced
WP:FRINGE version presented without context. Quite simply unless someone is able to rewrite these really quickly I think they do indeed need to be
blown up lest Wikipedia further assist the spread of yet another hoax / myth. I've tagged both as disputed for now to alert readers at least.
Anotherclown (
talk)
07:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment : I agree with the above comment by
Andreas Philopater that it's an editing
issue,not a reason for deletion.I feel someone is jumping too quickly to the Deletion Option when it may be a minor editing issue.I have looked at this article a few times and tried to improve it although I am not the original writer of the article.Today I have re-checked many of the given Reference links and they seem to be working fine.So I don't see what's the big problem that the entire article should be deleted.Original writer may have written it from a 'fan's point of view' which your top template message box says that it is allowed in this case.If someone mentions specific wrong things in the article,I am willing to try and correct them.Thanks
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep simply because he seems to have gotten local coverage and thus this honestly needs better familiar attention, my searches found nothing which isn't surprising but, again, this will need to be improved.
SwisterTwistertalk05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep With all due respect to everyone that is raising questions about Siddiq Ismail article's viability,I am wondering,"How could this non-commercial Pakistani singer that sings non-film, non-profit Naat songs in a local language
for local Pakistani public...can get 'coverage' internationally? This is a sincere question and my hope is that it's taken that way. The best the poor guy can hope for is recognition by the local Pakistani people which he has gotten after over 40 years of service by getting many prestigious awards by the Government of Pakistan.Again,I am willing to improve the article in the future,if and when I see more new info and sources on him.Of course I am a fan and I can try to be objective as Wikipedia wants me to be.Wikipedia policy also allows me to write some articles from a 'fan's point of view'.Thanks
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is largely promotional in content and with only one album on iTunes (no physical release) and mentions some performances in a church, it fails
WP:MUSIC entirely. The NPR reference links to a radio session appearance, the billboard.com appears to go to a list. None of this indicates any notability.
Karst (
talk)
11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Seems appropriate to delete as she fails
WP:MUSIC, the article might be userfied afterwards, but I don't think there is any possibility of meeting notability guidelines any time soon. --
Bejnar (
talk)
04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see
ANI report and
SPI report. The article cites no sources and I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources on a quick search (the name being very common makes search difficult). None of the films are notable and the subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:FILMMAKERAbecedare (
talk)
17:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No clear notability. No results at Google Books or Google News. The only Google results I get provide no context. The only reference in the article results in a 403 error and there are no useful archives at the Wayback Machine. It's also curious that the article creator used an
accessdate of 1997. I suspect the only way that notability can be established is through the inclusion of Tamil-language references. Maybe. This could also be a hoax for all I know.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
17:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or maybe redirect to
Video Game High School with which it sees she had the most episodes and my searches found results at Books, News, Highbeam and browser...but nothing to suggest better improvement. Wikipedia is not IMDb and IMDb is better equiped to take these articles.
SwisterTwistertalk05:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet
WP:GNG. Author has turned this page into a hugely promotional piece based on no references or evidence of notability beyond the subject's own website and imdb page, neither of which is considered evidence of notability.
ubiquity (
talk)
14:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as IMDb basically summarizes it to a non-notable actor with no break through or otherwise outstanding work (no awards as well) and my search results at Books and highbeam were not convincingly good.
SwisterTwistertalk05:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My searches found nothing good at all aside from a few non-helpful blogs so there isn't even anything to suggest minimal improvement. Granted although this is a foreign subject and sources may not be easily accessible but we shouldn't keep an article like this simply because of that and there was enough time for any improvement (author's name and tone suggests a family member started this). Pinging taggers
Utcursch and
GorgeCustersSabre.
SwisterTwistertalk21:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This dance hasn't received coverage from what's considered reliable media. It fails
WP:N. The sources cited fail
WP:RS. The article's duration isn't a criterion for its existence.
Tapered (
talk)
19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -Reliable independent sources refer to this dance
here and
here and
here. and
here. Not sure why we'd want to erase these moves from the history of urban dance.
ABF99 (
talk) 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Some cultural interpretation of the Cabbage Patch Dance
here. also included in an encyclopedia of African-American culture
here.ABF99 (
talk)
07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
None of the sources that are reliable a la
WP:RS devote more than a short paragraph to this dance. It certainly exists and is mentioned it other articles. None of the sources justify a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
Tapered (
talk)
21:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete since it meets none of the "Other evidence of notability" criteria, it would only be saved by having significant coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Schmidt is incorrect about the guideline, the mere having of sources is not sufficient. One newspaper article from the hometown paper about their mayor's project and a couple of videos from the local Rhode Island NBC affiliate (channel 10) don't make it. By the way, the video links in the article are dead. The correct links are
Interview: Steve Laffey… Feb 15, 2013 and
Laffey Making A Documentary… Feb 15, 2013 and they work with Micosoft IE, but not Chrome. --
Bejnar (
talk)
15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
LOL Thanks for the chuckles. Please review WP:N which tells us that having sources available IS sufficient:
IE: topic notability is based upon sources being available, NOT upon their actually being used. And please,
OEN is not an inclusion mandate, and are only listed "attributes to consider" when searching for sources. If you found dead links, you are welcome
to fix them. And that your computers's version of chrome does not allow you to watch the two News 10 interviews (my own Chrome works just fine), is a problem with you and your computer, NOT with Wikipedia... which does not mandate Internet explorer only or Chrome only or Firefox or Mozilla only browsers. That "you" cannot personally view sources does not make them non-existent. Try updating your Chrome and your flash player and good luck. And please, Wikipedia does not demand world-wide or country-wide coverage. If
WJAR were only some local backwater station, it might be dismissable as "too tiny to matter" that they made the editorial choice to cover a topic notable to their state. A little research reveals WJAR was Rhode Island's first television station and the fourth NBC station in all of New England, and we learn it is the NBC-affiliated television station for the entire state of
Rhode Island (
est.pop 1,055,173) and expanding into
Bristol County, Massachusetts (
est. pop 554,19). As Wikipedia does not demand nor require worldwide notability, determinable as notable in and to even a small state such as Rhode Island is just fine. It is a grave injustice to declare an entire state as inconsequential... specially as this NBC station serving nearly 2 million people is not exactly some" minor" church news bulletin. Again, thanks for the smiles. Best of luck in fixing your computer issues. Schmidt, Michael Q.16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I have had a long on-Wikipedia relationship with, and a great deal of respect for Benjar. We rarely disagree on matters of policy and guideline. So I can only think it was a jest of some sort when he appeared to denigrate an entire state as "local", made a hilariously incorrect statement about my understanding of guideline, and was able to share that he has what must be computer issues when viewing online news sources. Schmidt, Michael Q.12:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
MichaelQSchmidt: Please, could you share with us the indepedent reliable sources for the notability of Fixing America that exist but are not used? Right now from the three cited sources (two video from the same interview) and what I have found, I do not see the substantial coverage, and my initial searching showed no coverage in Gale's magazine and academic databases. I did find a review in Rhode Island's The Current-Anchorhere, a mention on the local radio station
here, and a mention on Rhody Beat
here. The imdb did not provide any direction
Fixing America at
IMDb. It would appear that there isn't much coverage, and that the coverage is not substanntial and is purely local to Rhode Island. I am happy to consider any other sources that you may have found. --
Bejnar (
talk)
18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I agree with nom and SwisterTwister, I can't find anything to add. And the existing sources do not add up to GNG.
Piotr: Anybody can
WP:DEPROD so the IP knows our policies. They are not "trying to bypass them". --
Sam SailorTalk!15:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I found 2 sources in English in a quick search which I added to the article. I don't know Polish, but searching for the Polish words brings up articles that Google translate tells me are about the topic. The article passes notability, but does need copyedit.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator,
User:Magi4444 with no rationale. I see he added a reply on his talk page, and expanded the article a bit, but I don't see any required independent, in-depth, reliable coverage that would satisfy our requirements. Not all performers are notable, and this one doesn't seem to make the cut to encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The article has 27 independent and reliable references. Furthermore, the subject in the article is a notable figure within his profession. Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment and propose that this article not be deleted.
Magi4444 (
talk)
17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, he is a notable figure within his profession, for example: "Mr. Trace has completed in one year what virtually none of us will accomplish in a lifetime. When the dust settled in Reno a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Trace emerged with a First Place win in the Stage Competition, The People's Choice Award, and the rarely given IBM Gold Medal for Excellence in Stage Magic. Mr. Trace's sweep of the big three competitions is about as rare as a Triple Crown winner in horse racing."[1] Also, here are just 4 of the independent and reliable sources that provide in depth coverage on the subject: Chicago Tribune,[2]Gazettes,[3]Vail Daily,[4]Genii Magazine (Cover Article), [5]Magi4444 (
talk)
18:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and seems to be a
Wikipedia:Original research policy violation" It was deprodded by creator,
User:Jutrasj with the following rationale "The proposed deletion was removed as it is believed this list is notable due to it receiving significant coverage. Many architects have their own Wikipedia page and this list further connects their individual pages in a convenient manner." I am afraid the list is still not believed to be notable. There are no sources suggesting it is not an OR compilation, and as such, the notable architects on that list, if any, should be simply categorized (through we would first need to define the term
current traditional architect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi Prokonsul Piotrus,
Your "reply here" link doesn't seem to work so I'll write my comments here instead.
I find the many compiled lists on Wikipedia extremely convenient and useful. I fail to see the difference between the Current Traditional Architects list and all the lists located here:
/info/en/?search=List_of_lists_of_lists Why would you want to make Wikipedia less convenient and useful?
-Joseph — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jutrasj (
talk •
contribs)
14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by 212.83.148.19 with the following rationale "Added many references to make it match to Wikipedia:General notability guideline". Sadly, I don't see how the new refs help; no refs I see are independent, reliable and providing in-depth coverage. As I discussed in my
Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
FoCuSandLeArN: Passing mentions do not count: the fact that The Guardian mentions one of the company products in its article about cool gadgets does not mean the company can be said to have been covered by it (
[34]). All the other links you have seem to be either passing mentions, or niche outlets, some of them possibly PR "you pay we write" ones. If you disagree, please tell us which of the links you provided are reliable, and why. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Vrac: While those are reliable outlets, the Figaro article seems to be a brief review of one of their products (a camera) and the fact it got some awards. Le Monde links are mostly passing coverage, through
[35] seems to be a more in-depth, and so far seems to me the only good source we have. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There is
more at Le Figaro, including
this. Then there is L'Express, which I hadn't looked at, with
this and
others. I'll grant you that not all of the coverage is in-depth, but compared to the things we usually fight over at AFD this company passes
WP:CORPDEPTH with flying colors.
Vrac (
talk)
11:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There's no question about it, Vrac. Piotr merely stating that reviews are paid for without providing evidence for that accusation is no justification for deletion. I'm starting to think he's pushing some agenda here. Note that the reviews are by no means "passing mentions", and sources have without a doubt an editorial process. Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch, a notability claim in a reliable source if there ever was one. What does the nom have against these people? The stub is already bordering on citation overkill and Piotr's request for more references is absurd. Sources abound and were politely presented (an onus on the nominator, per WP:BEFORE), now kindly desist with the deletion crusade. Best,
FoCuScontribs;
talk to me!13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Since you accuse me of being on a crusade and having a hidden agenda, I'll ping an experienced editor and mediator, whom I'll ask to review both this article and my (and yours) arguments here:
User:DGG. I'll add to my prior arguments that the Figaro entry seems to be your average run of the mill "start up gets financing" type of a news piece.
[36] seems more promising, and seems the 2nd good source presented here, through I'd appreciate a review by a more neutral French-speaker (who can distinguish between a reworded press release and proper journalism). Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for failure to meet the notability guidelines at
WP:CORP. Those guidelines are rather specific about what constitutes significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Netatmo has not received that kind of coverage. At best this article is
WP:TOOSOON. Having award winning products is certainly a start for gaining the kind of coverage the guidelines require, but by itself does not make the company notable. --
Bejnar (
talk)
16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete The awards may not be important enough for implying that the company notable notability. As far as I can tell from the references, the CES gives multiple awards for every product judged to above a certain standard, with one product being rated "best" in each the category. There is nothing here reliable enough to show that these products were actually so rated as "best", or merely honored. The CES website is insufficiently explicit. I'm not an expert in this, but it certainly isn't obvious.
The CNET review is in my opinion the best of the references; though fairly brief, I do know they have reasonably high standards. . I cannot distinguish in this field for the articles in Figaro and LeMonde the difference between PR-instigated articles and and true coverage. Certainly, it is my impression that giving such full articles to what after all are quite minor peripheral products, that PR placement is the more important. But I would have to judge it not by the language used only, but by their habitual standards. And I do not know this. But I could quite as likely have come to the opposite conclusion; in fact, I wrote this out both ways! In the end, I'm going by the impression that it is not likely that a firm limiting itself to such products is really very important. There's a place for common sense, even in WP.
This shows the absurdity of our judging things like this by WP:GNG. The world is actually such that it is impossible for us in many cases to judge the difference between journalism and advertising, and this unfortunate fact makes a mockery out of our standards. It's time we went by the RW, not the media business, which I do not trust to be honest for topics such as this.
Incidentally, The pseudo-guideline INHERITORG has it exactly backwards. A product is not notable because it is produced by a notable company, because not everything even the most important company makes is important; but a company making notable products can not do so without being itself important. Inheritance, both in the RW as well as WP, ordinarily goes downwards, not upwards. A company becomes notable by its accomplishments--which for the ordinary business concern, are its products. Normally, it's easy to see the difference--most notable companies make several notable products. If in doubt whether we need a separate article on each, we go with the larger topic: the company, with sections for the products. When there is a company with only one important product, it can be a doubtful, because the product may indeed sometimes be much conspicuous than the company, and should be the topic of the article. In this case, there are multiple products of equal importance, so if they have each won a major award --for which there is insufficient evidence-- the article would be on the company. DGG (
talk )
05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: this situation is more a commentary on the absurdity of AFD than the absurdity of GNG. The company has gotten significant coverage in the French press because its products are interesting. Le Monde and Le Figaro are the top two reliable sources for France and L'Express is not far behind. Le Monde is one of the best reliable sources this planet has to offer. We cover what reliable sources cover so GNG is amply satisfied. If the equivalent coverage were to be found in the equivalent UK or US sources this AFD would have been a snow keep.
AFD outcomes depend on who shows up; and in this case who shows up with how much linguistic knowledge, how much knowledge of the sources in question; and, frankly, with what agenda. The nominator has referenced a Signpost op-ed they wrote about promotion in Wikipedia; dare I say they may feel that they can't back down on this delete because of that. When I compare this to some of the other corporate crap I've seen kept at AFD like
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera or
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Horizon Group, the
WP:ABSURDITY of the situation is demoralizing.
Vrac (
talk)
12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch. Those are two prime examples of the state of AfD. AfC is quite similar in that regard...depending on who's available at any given time. That's the problem with running a quasi-collaborative endeavour.
FoCuScontribs;
talk to me!19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment not the same author as previous versions (G7 deletes), but still likely a COI issue. I think he might be notable if better sourcing can be found, but I've not located any.
StarM01:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by
User:AusLondonder with the following rationale "definitely not suitable for prod, seems to meet notability requirements". Well, please explain how he meets that. I don't see much coverage; appearing in one TV show does not seem to cut it, not unless it would generate coverage itself, which I do not see. All other sources seem to mention him in passing, or are not independent/reliable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - While this businessperson is a bit notable, it looks like he's pretty much known just for his association with more notable things-- such as the TV show in which he appeared-- rather than for his own actions. In the spirit of the general Wikipedia guidelines on notability, I feel like this article probably should be deleted.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
23:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus: I think you should have a read of
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if you think I have to do anything at all. You put this article up for discussion and I foolishly assumed that meant you wanted people's opinions. I Googled the man's name in combination with "Shark" (otherwise you get lots of irrelevant hits to wade through), and I saw coverage of him specifically, in his capacity as "Shark" (or using that to identify him to readers), in the Sydney Morning Herald and other major news publications. It was enough for me to offer a (weak) "keep" opinion, but I don't care enough about the outcome to want to do it a second time just so you don't have to. What worries me a good deal more is your gladiatorial and rather pestering pinging of me for proffering an opinion that you don't share. --
Andreas Philopater (
talk)
21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I am sorry I am wasting your time asking for your opinion, I will not ping you anymore per your request. Since you couldn't be bothered linking the article you found, I had to spend my time recreating your search. I did find
[37], which discusses him for several paragraphs in the
Private Syndey celebrity column. While it is a reliable source, it is the first one we found, and we do require multiple (2+) reliable, in-depth sources. Also, there's the
WP:ONEEVENT problem, suggesting that he is better of being mentioned on the show's page then in a stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here01:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This one's edited at least two dozen times in over 11 years. I don't see a reason to keep an article about a type of character depending on their medium (see "static character" section), especially I can't locate similar standalone articles about characters in other formats. Then the article goes into character depth which has to do nothing with character format. Perhaps it should merge into
character animation?
TheGGoose (
talk)
03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. It seems like something that would be encyclopedic, but looking for refs I was able to find only one definition:
[38] ("Digital Character Development", Rob O'Neill); the book is not searchable online outside scribid. As scribid is not free, I can't even fully verify it anyway. Unless we can produce sources, I support the merge to
Character animation as proposed by the op. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep-This topic is definitely encyclopedic although I had trouble finding accessible books to use as sources. I did find one reference related to 'how-to' create one of these digital characters and inserted it into the article. Also, it is no longer an orphan since I was able to link it to another article. This topic has the potential of becoming valuable information if someone with access to the references were to edit it. Isn't there a video gaming project that would be interested in this? Isn't wikipedia bursting at the seams with articles about video gaming? This article should be a MAJOR article since it is the root all video games. Bfpage |
leave a message05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep the lack of accessible electronic sources is not an impediment. Use you libraries! There is plenty written on topic. I have tagged the article as "refimprove". --
Bejnar (
talk)
02:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge the Information in relation to the topic is sparse and repetitive of other Wikipedia pages I see little of value to merge into other articles but there is no point in keeping a page that is mostly point form summaries of other summaries.
Andrdema (
talk)
09:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. No claim the subject meets PORNBIO. No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial biographical content. The "lady of the lake" AVN reference is surpassingly ludicrous, demonstrating the general cluelessness of the commenter and the failure of AVN to have minimal editorial standards regarding reliability on subjects that won't get them sued.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Making one of Complex magazine's lists of hottest porn stars also doesn't establish notability. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG. Even if you count the Hannah Harper AVN column as semi-reliable (I don't), it's not enough.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG, the many sources presented at the 3rd AfD fail to establish notability, being mostly in-trade publications, and some very trivial mentions in mainstream media (as having a minor appearance in a film which won an award at an adult film festival)
Kraxler (
talk)
20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Looked at the PORN BIO guide, linked here: ---->
[39]. Noticed the guideline says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." AVN is mainstream for that industry. The same way ESPN is mainstream for sports, just as Aviation Week is to aviation and so on. Without looking at the past nominations, it seems likely this was kept for that very reason.
Anynobody(
?)
23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's just not an accurate interpretation of PORNBIO. "Mainstream media" there means non-pornographic performing arts. See this PORNBIO talk discussion from a few months back
[40], which includes links to some AFDs demonstrating the consensus interpretation.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's and Kraxler's accurate assessments, the logic of my prior nomination, and the policy-based arguments in prior AFDs. Article does not include a single reliable biographical source (or, far that matter, any nontrivial biographical content whatsoever.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
17:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not sure If I am doing this correctly but I removed the references in question but disagree with the Forbes comment as this was written from their communications department. I also added newsweek source that shows the company is notable and Mr. Perez is a board member. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mediaoneincus (
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Whose communication department? The Forbes piece is marked "Promotion" at the top of the page, has no author listed save the HH Global logo, on a website that clearly states at the page bottom: "Forbes Custom is a custom publishing site that features special advertising sections from Forbes magazine as well as industry articles and videos from our partners. The editors at Forbes were not involved in the creation of this content." (emphasis added). The Bloomberg profile verifies existence but not necessarily notability (see
WP:COMPANY for guidelines on demonstrating notability for companies), and even if HH Global is notable,
notability is not inherited, thus not all board member may warrant individual articles- they still need to satisfy
basic notability or other guidelines described at
WP:BIO.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
22:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be a notable political party. Other than coverage from a libertarian website called Libertarian Home, I wasn't able to find enough significant coverage from reliable sources. Most hits are blogs on Blogspot, election/registration news (aka listing of candidates, not of whom appear to have won any election), and pretty much that's it. I would not be against a merge to
Libertarian Party (UK), a party which it is affiliated with.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew14:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KEEP:
WP:AUTHOR: "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." = Washington Post; London Times; Seattle Times; BBC; Deutche Welle reviews.
Duckduckstop (
talk)
16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: This matter has come up on Wikipedia
before, i.e. whether or not we should have articles for the children and grandchildren of Nazi war criminals. With
very few exceptions, the answer is
generally no. Also there are
WP:BLP concerns when articles begin appearing on Wikipedia about living relatives of major Nazis. -
O.R.Comms16:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment a notablilty policy trumps your list article's deletion 4 years ago; sorry for your loss. perhaps you should review notability policy before nominating other articles, lest this come up before admins.
Duckduckstop (
talk)
18:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Feel free to report what you like to administrators. In general, AfDs nominators who act in good faith are not subject to any sort of punitive action. -
O.R.Comms19:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. It appears that her book has received reviews in various sources like the
Washington Post,
Seattle Times,
MacLean's,
Irish Times, and the
Jewish Book Council, all places that are considered to be reliable sources. Some of other sources appear to be about the basic gist of her discovering who her grandfather was, but they are also in RS:
BBC,
NBC, and
People. People would probably be considered a little tabloid-y, but it's still considered a RS.
Sixth&I and
DW appear to be unusable for various reasons. Now if it was just the news articles about her discovering her heritage then I'd argue for a firm delete, but she has written a book about this that has received coverage and the reviews for that are enough to push her into notability territory, if only just so. The question we need to ask right now is this: would it be better to have an article on the author or one on the book itself? A book article would be a bit tidier, although since there's already an article about the author we could probably just add this information into the article that's already existent.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Obviously notable per reliable third-party sources. Being a book author who's a relative of the major Nazi war criminal on
her biological mother's side (she placed her in foster care at the age of three) makes the whole affair exponentially more interesting actually. Her memoir is a bestseller in Germany, says Macleans. This AfD must be a misunderstanding. Poeticbenttalk18:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clear pass of
WP:AUTHOR. This nomination appears to be based on a common misunderstanding of
WP:NOTINHERITED. NOTINHERITED states that having a more-famous relative and having your own notability based on a connection to that relative is not by itself a
sufficient condition for notability. But neither is it a sufficient condition for non-notability; it's still possible in such cases to have independent notability, gained in the usual way through stories about you or your works. And the subject here clearly has such notability. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -Clearly notable per reliable sources mentioned above by
Tokyogirl79 as well as many other sources
here. Agree that this is not a case of
WP:NOTINHERITED. She is notable on her own as an author. In response to the question by
Tokyogirl79, maybe just keep this article on the author for now, rather than change it to an article on the book. Easier to add to it later if author writes more in the future.
ABF99 (
talk)
15:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
RENAME to
My Grandfather Would Have Shot Me as clearly
WP:AT the scope and coverage of the article is mostly about the book, and not the author per se. The Book is notable and properly referenced. The author apart from the book has very little content separate from what is necessary for the book. So the article, as it is written is not a biography, it is a book article. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk)
05:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The case made for deletion by red bean is mere
proof by assertion, and reflects failures to (1) read the article carefully (it's about a company, not a product), and (2) perform some due diligence before AfD nom, considering that a news search turns up not only the sources cited already in the article at this writing (Technology Review, Wall Street Journal -- possibly enough to establish notability in themselves), but many more: at CNN
[41][42], The Independent
[43], Bloomberg
[44], USA Today
[45], not to speak of all the gadget-review websites. Of course, it's a crappy article at this point. I should know: I wrote it. But "crappy" =/= "un-notable". I almost sandboxed it, but then thought, "No, maybe the next thing that happens is somebody will be
WP:BOLD and improve it. So be
WP:BOLD and create it." Unfortunately, there's always the possibility in such cases that "what happens next" will be something counterproductive. Like an itchy-trigger-finger AfD nom :-(
Yakushima (
talk)
04:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable, fails
WP:ARTIST. The only reference is a blurb for an audio compilation. Note: possible self-promotion. Note 2: this is not the Dan Diaz whose wife chose assisted suicide (the dates of birth are different).
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
12:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Likely delete for now as I simply found nothing better with the search "Dan Diaz composer music" aside from a few mentions but nothing to suggest outstandingly good improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. Even though the Champions League is the most prestigious club football tournament in the world, hat-tricks are still not that notable in it. As well as season articles, we have
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers and
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers. This topic comfortably documented already, ratehr than this slightly arbitrary repackaging.
It's important to note that, by and large, lists such as this do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. A list of hat-tricks in these tournaments is simply unnecessary and not notable.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Please also note the following related discussions:
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong keep This list is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as it is a list of hattricks made during UEFA Champions League matches. See
WP:DISCRIMINATE for an essay on what ‘indiscriminate’ means. Also, the nomination fails to mention why exactly this list is not notable. I believe that, given the fact hattricks are often mentioned in news reports, this list is very notable. —
37(talk)14:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. Though both the Confederations Cup and Copa America are infrequent and important tournaments, we already comfortably document the goals, statistics and events of these competitions - we have articles like
Copa América records and statistics and
FIFA Confederations Cup records. The hat-trick lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, in a slightly arbitrary way.
It's important to note that, by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. A list of hat-tricks in these tournaments is simply unnecessary.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. We already have season articles for most clubs and the leagues themselves. We also list top goalscorers, notable matches, finals etc. As such These lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's important to note that, by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. There are hundreds of professional football leagues - a list of hat-tricks in each of these is simply unnecessary.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all. I think hat-tricks in a professional league is a notable subject. For example,
The Scotsman newspaper noted that
Steven Naismith's hat-trick for Everton last week was the first by a Scottish player in a Premier League match for 17 years. It then also lists all other hat-tricks by Scottish players since the PL was formed in 1992/93.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all -
List of Premier League hat-tricks is a featured list. I simply cannot understand why a list identified as one of the best on WP is now suddenly not notable. All the other lists here are similarly from
fully professional leagues, so see no reason why these are inherently less notable. I also think that this AfD should be closed (by an uninvolved admin as I closed the last mass nomination 24 hours ago) procedurally as the nominator was specifically asked to let a wider discussion
here run its course to ascertain a wider consensus about the notabilityof hat tricks in football and there suitability as list subjects.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all - hat-tricks occur less than "semi-commonly" and can often be outstanding achievements, contrary to what the nominator suggests. If "these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia" then that would be something to consider on a case-by-case basis, not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deleting everything at once, because I know for a fact that they often do exist. Hat-tricks are notable - there is a siginificance attached to that figure that cannot be said of 2, 4 or any other number of goals in media and statistics alike. These lists are therefore not indiscriminate, and, in my opinion, ought to be kept.
Macosal (
talk)
09:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all stop this crusade, deal with things individually, try to establish some kind of sensible level here rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
15:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This deletion listing includes all national football team hat trick lists that I could find. Note that this is a relisting after the first AfD was closed for bundling too many articles together.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. For national teams, results are already listed (eg
Japan national football team results and fixtures;
Romania national football team results etc) which will of course list hat-tricks. We also list top goalscorers, notable matches, finals etc. Hat-trick lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, in a way which most alamancs, encylopedias and football websites don't bother doing. I think that's key for judging the worth of a list - by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. There are 200+ national football teams - a list of hat-tricks in each of these is simply unnecessary.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all. A hat-trick for a national team is a notable event. For example, hat-tricks scored by Scotland players is discussed by many sources (
search). Loads of articles in reliable sources discussing the fact that Colin Stein was (for a very long time) the last player to score a hat-trick (eg1
Sky Sports, eg2
The Scotsman).
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
As
WP:BEFORE notes, subject-specific guidelines should be checked. I don't think we have previously had a discussion here about the notability of hat-trick lists, therefore a discussion was needed at
WP:FOOTY first before placing all of the articles on AfD. You ignored comments from two users (Fenix Down and GiantSnowman) in the WP:FOOTY discussion that we should have a full discussion about the issue first.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
11:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all - the irregular occurrance of hat tricks at international level as seen in these lists completely negates the initial rationale presented above.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep This is a long established company with a substantial share of the SA biscuit market
[46]; an independant website
[47] describes them as one of SA's oldest & best loved biscuit brands.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep whilst the article needs some substantial re-working / copy-edits to bring it up to a satisfactory standard - the subject is definitely a notable brand in South Africa and if you search under 'Bakers Limited' there are plenty of references (
[48]) to establish its notability.
Dan arndt (
talk)
14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: According to the Wikipedia deletion policy I believe this article should not be deleted. The source is a trade publication that is well read and referenced in the ecommerce industry, and is notable because of the large amount of trade publications publishing content around the concept as it is separate from other concepts in the industry. Here is another independent and reliable source that discusses the concept
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500249048/Unified-commerce-the-next-step-for-retailers. The concept of Unified Commerce is young, true, and as a result some mainstream publication haven't published work around it yet. However, it will last because it is so unique from other concepts in the industry.
KroweLet's discuss—Preceding
undated comment added
14:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Wikipedia is not a university prospectus; this is an unremarkable hall of residence, & I agree that given the name redirecting is not a suitable option.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to the university I find nothing that indicates notability. It was built in 1995, so is not a historic structure. Can find nothing about an architect that might make it notable. No news mentions or other RS to indicate that it is anything other than a standard university living facility.
SusunW (
talk)
18:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree fully with the above: for this to be a suitable redirect it would have to be renamed mentioning the university & the redirect created by the move deleted. Seems like a lot of work for no good reason.
TheLongTone (
talk)
14:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relatively small non notable organization, whose only claim to importance is that it is associated with or part of some umbrella groups, which also have some members that are in fact notable. RThe contents are either its internal affairs of no interest to anyone outside the organization, of its listing of worthy goals.
We have tended to give a free pass on both notability and promotionalism to groups with noble purposes that we approve of. That's not the right approach for an encycopedia. DGG (
talk )
02:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I am a tad confused on this article. The group themselves seems to refer to themselves mostly by their acronym and the usage of The International Federation for Human Rights and the International Federation of Human Rights varies. They themselves are a umbrella group, though most active outside the English speaking world from what I can gather - I suspect more sources exist in other languages. A couple of notable groups are members of this group, the
Center for Justice and Accountability,
SUARAM,
Human Rights in China and the
Center for Constitutional Rights being some. They also appear to be used as an expert group by the media;
1,
2,
3,
4. And it has existed for nearly a 100 years. Surely there is more out there?
JTdaleTalk~13:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah. Found out why the name is a mess. It's a translation; the group is French and is official name is the La Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme;
5JTdaleTalk~13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Yes, the article is poorly sourced, but, as JTdale pointed out, the organization seems to be a well-known and well-respected organization in Europe whose expertise is often called upon by the media, which I think satisfies
WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, the organization has a long history, and judging it based on the lack of sources online strikes me as a form of recentism. I also think it's very significant that the FIDH is the oldest human rights organization in the world; I don't know if that's attracted the requisite widespread attention, but if it has, that would also satisfy
WP:NGO. --
Irn (
talk)
23:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - One of those situations when language barrier poses a challenge but what is known about the subject suggests sources are available. I would presume being the oldest such organization is a good indicator of notability (i.e. it doesn't mean it's notable, but just like winning an Oscar award, having an endowed professorship, or a charting album don't take the place of sources but indicate sources should be available). — Rhododendritestalk \\
19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The organisation's webpage www.fidh.org is in perfectly sound English with translated options, albeit with a European flavour of presentation. To call this a relatively small non -notable organisation seems absurd; their page says that it's pushing a century old, has a multi million dollar budget and broad international presence. The webpage is current and recently updated which indicates a good professionalism in their staff. I'd label it a long established significant player in the field of human rights and monitoring. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FreedAshmore2013 (
talk •
contribs)
23:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't see significant notability, and the promotionalism, even after a little cleanup by other editors, self evident. As for notability 1/ There is obviously no notability under
WP:PROF. The publications are popular, not scholarly. 2/ Looking quickly, I thought he might be notable as an author, because I remember encountering The Fifth Discipline. Checking Worldcat, I find he wasn't the author--and looking carefully at the article, he wrote at most only one chapter. There are two other less well-known books given--again, he wrote a chapter. ( The sort of minor magazine articles listed don't make for a notable author. He is apparently about to publish a book that he did write as sole author, Systems Thinking For Social Change; the publisher is Chelsea Green Publishing, a publisher of books on sustainable living, not on business management. If and only if the new book becomes a best seller would he be notable as an author.
As for promotionalism , writing an article with emphasis on the names of more important people and trying to assert one's own importance by having worked with them can best be described as advertising. The use of adjectives of praise and quality throughout adds to the effect. The usual reason for writing an autobiography here is the desire to have the public know more about oneself. Very few people are able correctly to judge their own importance. There's been considerable cleanup by
Voceditenore, but the promotionalism keeps getting re-added. And there's no fundamental notability in the first place. . This article should have been deleted in 2010, when it was first submitted. DGG (
talk )
04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The actual content of the article is virtually all unsourced, though liberally laced with references to the publications of the subject or the WorldCat listings of those publications. His highest
Scholar cite appears to be 10.
Voceditenorewrote in 2010 "inappropriate promotional tone, no independent evidence of notability"; nothing has changed.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are two ways this could pass the criteria for inclusion: (1) the general notability guideline (
WP:GNG) which requires significant and in depth coverage from multiple independent sources, or (2) the alternative criteria at
WP:PROF. The subject pretty comprehensively fails both at this point. I have not been able to find any independent coverage of the subject himself. I did find one pre-publication review of his forthcoming book in Publisher's Weeklyhere, but that isn't nearly sufficient for either an article on the book or on its author. Things may change if the book turns out to make a considerable impact accompanied by significant independent coverage of its author. At that point, and only at that point, should the article be recreated. The obvious COI and promotionalism are not in themselves a rationale for deletion. Promotionalism can be fixed, but the non-notability cannot.
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only sources I can find about Caddell are from her employers (past and present) and news surrounding the sex scandal. I don't think that this one event is enough to make her a notable individual, and without it she's just a reporter doing her job. No significant awards or distinctions.
Primefac (
talk)
19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as although I found several results at Books, News, browser and highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement especially with the fact this looks more like a personal and LinkedIn page.
SwisterTwistertalk06:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I couldn't find any coverage of anyone by this name in RS so probably not notable per
WP:GNG. The fact that it was created by a known sock is probably sufficient grounds in itself.
Anotherclown (
talk)
17:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as the article was written and moved to mainspace by socks of a banned editor, and the only other contributions come from IPs editing at the same time who were probably the same person. Hut 8.521:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Many of the claims for significance aren't backed up by the references. I cannot find anything relating to the womens safety app being launched by the government minister mentioned in the article, and the 'supercop' government project appears to just be a solution to an issue the government might be facing rather than something endorsed or commissioned by the government. Nz101UserpageTalkpage23:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. None of the references, support notability. Some of them a explicitly market as a reprint of the company's own press releases. DGG (
talk )
00:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I'm local from here and can't say I'm familiar with him and although my searches found results at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete but not speedy. There is a claim of notability in the article: that he holds a named chair at what is claimed to be a particularly large seminary. Superficially this would seem to pass
WP:PROF#C5. However, it does not. The press release I found from his employer noting the chair
[49] makes it clear that such titles are given even to assistant professors at that institution, and also makes it clear that he was given that chair while he held a purely administrative role (one too low-level to pass #C6). So regardless of the seminary's size or prestige such chairs do not count as the step above full professor that is the intended meaning of the WP:PROF criterion. Nothing else in the article gives any hint of any other kind of notability. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I was going to vote keep as the holder of a named chair and as a Dean, which is normally a higher post than professor, but perhaps I do not adequately understand the American academic system.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Dean is not "higher" than a professor, it is merely a different type of job. A professor's main job functions are to teach students and perform research; a dean's main job function is to manage a subunit of the university. People who are professors can become deans, and people who are deans can go back to being professors, with no change in their academic rank. We have a criterion for being at a high enough level as an academic administrator to warrant keeping an article, it is
WP:PROF#C6, and the level it describes is the head of a whole university, typically one or two steps above the deans in the administrative hierarchy. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Fails to pass
WP:BIO. No significant coverage (if any at all) in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Several sources are provided but they don't even mention the subject (many are Wikipedia articles), plus some of the internal links inexplicably advertise companies, which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
Dontreader (
talk)
03:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Apart from accusing Charlie Sheen of paying for sex with her, this person is entirely non-notable. Even if we consider that event to be worthy of note on itself, this still feels ONEEVENTlike.
SpartazHumbug!20:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete Some coverage but my sweeps of major media did not find much; sources in article currently somewhat marginal.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 00:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC) Changing to Weak keep as per others.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
10:02, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Not the greatest example of a notable person, but "significant" coverage in reliable sources is always subjective, so I don't see how the article can be deleted. The coverage in the newspaper The Age is huge, as pointed above
[5]. Also, after her death, she was the subject of an episode of a TV show called A Current Affair entitled "The sudden death of adult film star Chloe Jones"
[6] confirmed by
UPI[7]. In fact, that UPI source might be useful for the article. Plus the articles purely related to the Charlie Sheen scandal.
Dontreader (
talk)
03:45, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If she's "entirely non-notable" then why was she featured in the newspaper The Age and on an episode of A Current Affair? Wikipedia is not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide but the subject seems to pass
WP:GNG. I quote:
"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
And keep in mind that many articles that were written about her in reliable sources are now surely dead links. I found several cases while doing the AfD research.
Dontreader (
talk)
23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect to List of Penthouse Pets. Given the thoroughly whitewashed, deliberately misleading caliber of the AVN story, it's hard to say Jones was "well-covered" by industry sources. And that's reflected in the article, which attributes her death to "liver failure[3] caused by Vicodin use", although the cited source actually says "liver failure inflicted by an addiction to Vicodin and a lifetime of heavy drug and alcohol abuse". An accurate bio would be horrific and serve to do little beyond inflict pain on her family and her children. The sanitized piece of shit that we've let masquerade as her biography is worse than nothing.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
00:55, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources found and the deletion rationales "The sanitized piece of shit" and "encyclopedia not a gossip magazine nor a porn guide" are hardly guidelines and which portray a hint of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are hardly convincing.
GuzzyG (
talk)
03:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This scholar does not seem to pass
WP:SCHOLAR based on what is written in the article. Also, the article has no independent reliable sources. Instead, it looks very much like the information on
this page, which is the place where he works. I performed Google searches for significant coverage in reliable sources but I was unsuccessful, so I don't think the article passes
WP:BIO either. Even if we could find reliable sources to support all of the claims that are made in the article, I think it would still fail to pass
WP:SCHOLAR and
WP:BIO.
Dontreader (
talk)
21:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree, and that link seems to be to an article, not a book, so there's no evidence that the subject's work has ever been cited in a book.
Dontreader (
talk)
05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete- Not notable. The books are really his dissertations and some self-published kindle works. He is a young entry into the field who has not done anything except for several part-time jobs.--
Jayrav (
talk)
02:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant
WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an
SPA as possibly promotional.
Dialectric (
talk)
12:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - If "Theatrical Plays" were listed as an article subject that could be tagged for
A7, this article would easily qualify. I found no sources to establish
notability for this play, and the article content clearly shows that it's simply a play that was performed at one university. Definitely not notable for an article.
~Oshwah~ (talk)(contribs)22:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per above. I also cannot find anything to show that this play is notable. If there were some coverage out there I might have supported a merge to the series' page, but this play seems to have solidly flown under the radar, given that it was only performed four times at one college.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)05:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, though I would note (my vague memory tells me there were sources) that if any specific songs were highlighted by reviews of the games, that can be documented in the main articles for these games. --
MASEM (
t)
23:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. all this article does is confirm the consulate exists. embassies are not inherently notable and consulates even less so.
LibStar (
talk)
06:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete a consulate general is not something that would be inherently notable, and there are no sources to say anything about it - it exists, so what
Kraxler (
talk)
21:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet gng or any other notability guideline. The two reliable sources copy on him consists of only his name. All other sources are primary, not reliable or both. Being nominated in the Melbourne, Florida film fest wouldn't buy a film notability, much less its producer.
John from Idegon (
talk)
07:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:PROF - sources are trivial and not independent, there is no evidence of a significant body of work, about all we can say from the reliable independent sources is that this is a man who teaches at a minor college and seems to be a nice chap. Guy (
Help!) 11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC) Guy (
Help!)
11:03, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. First, he holds a named chair and Whittier arguably meets the second prong of selective institution for
WP:PROF 5. Second, his book on Tillich and his book "From Season to Season: Sports as American Religion" both seem to be highly cited. I expect his other work is as well. --
Samuel J. Howard (
talk)
22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't really think that anyone would call Whittier, a self described liberal arts college, a major institution of higher education and research. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Except perhaps for readers of
WP:NACADEMICS which says "Major institutions, for these purposes, are those that have a reputation for excellence or selectivity." Whittier has a reputation for excellence... except perhaps for its law school.--
Samuel J. Howard (
talk)
14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Samuel J. Howard: Using an objective measure of "excellence", in 2015
Forbes rates Whitter College as #331 Overall, #240 in Private Colleges, and #64 in the West. Forbes rated 650 colleges and universities, #331 places Whitter below 50%, near the top of the bottom half. That does not sound like the kind of excellence the guideline is talking about. That is down from #215 in 2010
here. Excellent schools include Pomona College, a direct competitor with Whitter, at #1. See the top one hundred
here. That does not mean that one cannot get a good education at Whitter College, it just means that it does not meet the
bright-line rule of
WP:NACADEMICS. --
Bejnar (
talk)
19:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
US News and World Report on the other hand, says "[Whittier] is selective..."
[8]. They rank the school as 124 among National Liberal Arts Colleges. Washington Monthly ranks Whittier at 74.
[9] Both rankings substantially better than Forbes's rankings. Given the subjectivity of college rankings, one can hardly call any use of them a bright-line test. From Peterson's guide to colleges we read:"Whittier has earned a reputation for providing a high-quality liberal arts education. The Princeton Review recently named Whittier as one of the country's best institutions for undergraduate education, and it included Whittier in the 2015 edition of 'The Best 379 Colleges.' Whittier is also among 200 schools listed in "Colleges of Distinction," a national college guidebook that showcases colleges who have engaged students, great teaching, a vibrant community, and successful outcomes."
[10]. Finally, ironically, this list of "overrated" colleges testifies to the fact that Whittier has an excellent reputation
[11], a necessary condition of being overrated.--
Samuel J. Howard (
talk)
19:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
124 among National Liberal Arts Colleges is again in the lower 50%. And maybe you are unclear as to what "overrated" means. You do not have to have a good reputation to be overrated. It just means that you are not as good as you are being rated, which in this case is not that good even at #74 in the Washington Monthly. Whitter College is just not a major institution of higher education and research. --
Bejnar (
talk)
17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete his claim to fame is that he has appeared on television and been a guest speaker on NPR. That does not indicate that he has had a substantial impact outside academia in his academic capacity. He does not meet any of the criteria for
WP:NACADEMICS. And, no, Whittier College is not a major institution of higher education and research, it is a small liberal arts college with a total enrollment of about 2,000. He lacks the kind of coverage that would support a "substantial impact" analysis. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Setting aside whether this subject meets the SNG for Academics, or whether Whittier is big or little, this strikes me as a GNG pass for a recognized national expert in "Baseball Studies."
HERE is an interview with Price, the Co-Director of Whittier's Institute of Baseball Studies, on MLB.com, the website of professional baseball. And
HERE is the website of the University of Chicago on Price and his quest to sing the national anthem at every MLB park. And
THIS from the website of the AARP, on the same topic.
THIS is Price being cited as an expert by Time magazine back in 2007.
HERE we have the official website of Minor League Baseball on Price's singing the national anthem 100 times in a summer. And so on and so forth. It's a simple GNG pass here; don't overthink this.
Carrite (
talk)
05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Carrite. This is one where we should inhibit our impulses to judge why someone is notable. He's getting prominent coverage for his particular interests in baseball -- that does it.
Stevie is the man!Talk •
Work12:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Don't believe this person is notable. A number of sources are unreliable, including blogs and his own webpage. The CNN "report" clearly states Not verified by CNN making it unreliable
Gbawden (
talk)
11:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - To clarify what the nominator is saying - that source is a CNN
iReport. This is their foray into
citizen journalism. The idea is that if CNN can verify what the iReport says, it is uploaded onto the main CNN website. This iReport hasn't been uploaded. Furthermore,
the user who wrote it has only written this one report. This is definitely an unreliable source. I also found that something was cited to a page on the BP website that doesn't mention the subject so I removed that from the article.
Yaris678 (
talk)
12:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable new journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet
WP:NJournals or
WP:GNG. Article dePRODded because the journal is published by Springer. However,
WP:NOTINHERITED applies and even Springer starts the occasional dud (see
Research on Language and Computation for an example of a journal that failed after only 7 years - even though that one gained notability through a Scopus listing). At this point,
there's no way of knowing whether this journal will make it and become notable or not.
Randykitty (
talk)
12:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article appears to cover Linux CPU flags and has very little to do with libvirt (I am a libvirt developer). There are plenty of good resources on the internet already about Linux CPU flags (eg
[12]).
Richard W.M. Jones (
talk)
13:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
comment — The nominator says that the article covers Linux CPU flags, but those flags are well known
hardware instruction sets for x86 microprocessors, and aren't related to GNU/Linux, or any particular operating systems. Thus that part of the nomination could be misleading. As a side note, I was expecting a former
Red Hat's employee like
Richard W.M. Jones to be better educated on basic concepts of computer science — or GNU/Linux and procfs.
Toffanin (
talk)
20:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
What a strange and unnecessary ad hominem attack. Some of these -- like 3dnow -- indicate groups of instructions, others -- like nx -- indicate other features of the hardware like fields in the page tables.
Richard W.M. Jones (
talk)
20:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Please assume good faith, it wasn't an ad hominem attack. Those flags are all standard ISA nomenclatures; they have nothing to do with GNU/Linux per se, since they are the same even on other operating systems like Windows, MacOS X, and pretty much all the BSD flavours. What I'm criticizing is not your person, but your lack of
WP:BEFORE which is misleading since libvirt explicitly supports those cpu hardware features according to the source code of the project itself:
https://github.com/libvirt/libvirt/blob/87205512565529b8baeb108e3d0fe376fc20c967/src/cpu/cpu_map.xml. Therefore the content of the page is correct, that is why I'm sceptic about your claims: you are suggesting that the page content is unrelated to its title, and even more to libvirt (but that page is not about libvirt itself) which is not true. One could argue that having such list of hardware flags supported by libvirt is non encyclopaedic enough to warrant an entry in WP — and I agree —, but that has nothing to do with cpu flags or GNU/Linux. Per
WP:DEL and
WP:AfD you should provide a better (and valid) reason for considering a list of libvirt feature policies as not notable for WP. And since a page about
Libvirt exists, you should have proposed a merge / redirect instead.
Toffanin (
talk)
21:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't like to throw oil an unnecessary fire, but Richard is right: these are specifically Linux's names for the CPUID feature flags (as reported in /proc/cpuinfo). Intel and AMD use slightly different names for some of these flags. —Ruud09:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Even setting aside all of the other argument's above this article does not have sufficient citations to be considered
WP:VER. Even more troubling is that there was some
WP:NOR done to gather this information the statement that these processor specific CPU features are called this where ever libvirt is deployed is incorrect and only applies to linux and in many cases only x86 .
Andrdema (
talk)
08:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I have to say that I agree with
009o9 that the article would be better renamed to something like
First U.S. Ebola patient or similar. This is supported by
WP:1E which states Editors are advised to be cognizant of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. In other words, the article is not truly a biography covering the whole life of the subject, but is only concerned with this one issue. However, I am not declaring that a consensus in this close as there were insufficient other participants supporting the idea of a name change. On the other hand, nobody positively opposed the suggestion (with the possible exception of
Alaynestone whose comment in that regard is unclear to me) so there is no barrier to an editor being bold and making that change outside of this AfD.
Duncan has not generated real (lasting) notability. His only claim to notability was that he had the misfortune of contracting ebola, and traveled to the US. At least one other person after him has done the same. The Ebola virus epidemic that followed his arrival in the US was quickly suppressed, and most of the 'keeps' in the previous delete discussion
[13] were based on WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions that never came to pass. The article should have been deleted, but it seems fear and speculation at the time prevented that.
Geogene (
talk)
01:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per previous AfD, this guy is notable alright, he was a toxic migrant, most likely motivated to travel to the US for better healthcare after handling an infected victim, and he lied to medical staff about being exposed to the virus. I also recall that the CDC departed from stated geographical containment procedures by keeping travel open and despite having billions in the CDC budget they dropped the ball in preparing first responders. I don't recall how much of the information I read was RS, but this and the main article should be revisited with a keen eye for exposing policy failures.
009o9 (
talk)
04:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
009o9: The goal is not to remove the information; the problem is that he isn't notable and worthy of his own article. Rather, he is a part of the
Ebola virus cases in the United States, and the article there contains all of the relevant information about him. It isn't like the information is just going to go away; it is that he isn't a notable person, he's just someone who was connected to a notable event. See also
WP:BLP1E.
Titanium Dragon (
talk)
18:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Ebola virus cases in the United States.
WP:BLP1E doesn't strictly apply (and I'm not willing to stretch the "recently deceased" clause to cover this article), but the principle behind the policy is still apt: individuals who are merely a small part of a larger story with no further biographical context are better treated in the context of that story. I find the Keep !vote above disturbingly incompatible with
WP:NPOV.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete No long-term notability. Notable for getting sick in the midst of a popular press panic. Comments by
User:009o9 blatantly racist comments and
WP:POVPUSHING should be included as grounds for deletion. Referring to someone as a "toxic migrant" is totally unacceptable. On another note, why would someone travel to the US for healthcare when the US healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world? Arguing a keep on the basis that it serves the political interests of someone is astounding.
AusLondonder (
talk)
02:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
AusLondonder When you say "blatantly racist," what "race" are you referring to? As far as I'm concerned, migration/immigration is a policy issue plain and simple. He did not just get sick, he was living with someone who died from Ebola four days before he left Liberia, and lied about that contact (carrying her to the ambulance) during his screening. Duncan also had relatives throughout the US, but prior to the outbreak had never visited any of them and only made those plans two weeks before he arrived.
[14] Do you realize how expensive that kind of air travel is? As for the cost of the US healthcare system, the point is irrelevant, emergency rooms must accept everyone, regardless of nationality and ability to pay. Duncan was patient zero in the United States and exposed massive failures in immigration and medical policy.
009o9 (
talk)
04:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I think your comment were crass and not relevant to the debate. I fail to understand how being a "toxic migrant" would make someone notable in any case.
AusLondonder (
talk)
05:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That article says that the hospital was unprepared for an ebola patient. What does that have to do with Duncan, except that Duncan was unlucky enough to be the patient? Outside of entering the US with ebola, is there anything about Duncan's biography that is notable and encyclopedic, or even unusual compared to the thousands that died from ebola in Africa?
Geogene (
talk)
17:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Most of the Duncan article is duplicated (word for word) in the Ebola Virus in the US article, and there's no content in the Duncan bio "about policy failures", etc., so I don't see the argument to keep.
Geogene (
talk)
23:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. While clearly
WP:BLP1E, the key phrase is 'if an event is of sufficient importance, even relatively minor participants may require their own articles'. This was a very significant event, and this individual's part in it, albeit mostly inadvertent, was a key part of the event.
Onel5969TT me
Keep.
Ebola virus cases in the United States is already
WP:TOOBIG. In addition, TED's relevance isn't simply passive ("just got sick"). His movements and actions that lead to the first U.S. ebola outbreak, his interactions with Presbyterian, and the controversy surrounding how his apartment was handled, are all components of the story.
Alaynestone (
talk)
15:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If "he got sick" doesn't cover it, then "he got sick, and was made a scapegoat" certainly does. But all that stuff about Presbyterian not being able to handle it and, his apartment, are out of scope for his bio article, they belong in the main article, Ebola virus cases in the United States, or some other spinoff. This is a biography. There's no bio here to write about, other than his getting sick, and that's all in the main article already.
Geogene (
talk) 18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC
Disagreements on semantics aside, you and I agree that x pieces of information are notable. All we're really debating is where they live, which is fairly minor for such a long AfD. You say it goes in the main article; I say (again) that's great but the article is already too long and needs to be broken out into sub pages, particularly given the potential for that page to continue to grow. TED is a concise heading for the page (vs. "First U.S. Ebola patient" or something else much less encyclopedic). The notable information needs to stay, and it needs to live in a place that is helpful to researchers. He meets the other criteria the other keep voters have made above. Still voting keep, but mostly, I think we're spending more brain power and time on this than it's worth.
Alaynestone (
talk)
18:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Excellent analysis by
Alaynestone, the article is not a bio, more fitting is
WP:PERPETRATOR. Renaming the article referencing,"First U.S. Ebola patient", "U.S. Ebola Patient Zero" or the like is a good idea. There is enough contradicting information in various articles as to TED's motives in the press, had he survived, he would likely have been prosecuted. (I.e., abruptly quitting his job with no explanation, purchasing a very expensive airfare (2 week lead) to visit children he'd never visited before -- or the alternative story that he rushed over to the U.S. to marry someone -- all after living with an ebola victim.) This was not "just a guy who happened to get sick," he's a case study in selfishness who risked his family's lives when he lied to customs officials.
009o9 (
talk)
22:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep preferable or redirect alternately -- at least as important as, say
Typhoid Mary. Issue is not if people still know him by name -- it is whether his actions and their consequences generated sufficient notability, which I would say they did. I also commend
@Alaynestone for his analysis.
Quis separabit?23:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Intensity and breadth of coverage at the time carry this article past
WP:GNG. The story has generated ongoing coverage, as the response to the disease outbreak is analyzed. Long-term impact is now required when a story is sufficiently important when it occurs, rather, it is a factor that can indicate notability. In this case, however, there was impact on treatment policies recommended and adopted by other hospitals in the crises period.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. This is an index case of the best-publicized infectious disease outbreak in many years. There is
far too much information to be merged elsewhere. This is an extremely well-sourced article. Citing ONEEVENT would eliminate all articles of famous sick people.
Bearian (
talk)
13:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for the policy reasons behind
WP:BLP1E. There is no need for a redirect as the world will little note nor long remember Thomas Eric Duncan. As to the comments by
Bearian, the infectious disease outbreak is best handled in the
Ebola virus cases in the United States article. If that article is considered to be too large, then it is likely that it carries a lot of non-encyclopedic content, and can be usefully trimmed. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: The main content of the article is a
WP:COPYVIO from the gallery's own website, so would have to go if the article survived - I left it for the moment as it contains the nearest to any claim to notability. However the given references are dead links, and I am not seeing anything substantial: a
Russian Google search delivers some guide listings and
a brief unsigned piece on the gallery owner, but it isn't evident that it is a
WP:RS on the founder or her enterprise. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
07:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: i've updated some information on the gallery and the activity. The main aspect, i guess, is this the only gallery representing artists from Abkhazia on the international market. I will try to maintain the page better - advise is very welcome, Thank you.
Nino (
talk)
23:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)User:NKuprava (Nino) is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per
WP:AFDFORMAT.reply
Delete - Non-notable organization with a lack of reliable sources. Most of the article is unsourced except for the final paragraph. The first source just mentions the gallery, the second and third is simply about an exhibiton they held (and even then the sources also just mention the gallery), and the fourth and fifth also talks about another exhibiton they held. None of the sources listed talks in great detail about the gallery itself, and they do not assert the notability of the place. Aerospeed (
Talk)
12:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I checked all the references in the article. Of the ones written in English, none meed the requirements of
WP:RS. I do not read Russian, so I was unable to evaluate all the sources. --
RoySmith(talk)12:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep In response to this nomination for deletion, additional citations were added to demonstrate the notability of the organization and related reliable media coverage. The additional citations include articles and news coverage from established industry publications and journals such as Oil & Gas Journal, Offshore Engineer, E&P Magazine and World Oil. In further support of HWCG's notability, the organization has been invited to testify in front of various US Government committees on the progress in offshore safety since Deepwater Horizon (citations with links to this testimony are included in the entry). HWCG has played a major, notable role in the progress of offshore drilling safety in the United States, as reflected in the cited governmental testimony and 10+ other articles cited. --
Cdevwrites (
talk)
20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)User:Cdevwrites is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per
WP:AFDFORMAT.reply
Delete for now (draft & userfy if needed) as my searches found nothing better than
this and similar with browser. Simply not anything to suggest meaningful better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk07:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Still keep You can vote only once As a note for anyone trying to search for additional sources/information, the organization was formerly called
Helix Well Containment Group in the years immediately following Deepwater Horizon and seems only recently dropped down to HWCG. The linked search results for "hwcg llc company" in the previous comment use too narrow of a search term to get a full picture of coverage, as many recent news mentions just say "
HWCG." To get the full sense of notability, it's necessary to evaluate coverage for both Helix Well Containment Group and HWCG together (although Helix Well Containment Group is no longer the organization's correct name). In that sense, you will see the organization has been covered by NPR, National Geographic, the New York Times and the Houston Chronicle, in addition to the sources already cited in the entry. For example, National Geographic called HWCG's containment system one of the "most hopeful energy developments" of 2011.[1]. This coverage doesn't appear in the narrower search above, as it uses the organization's old name.
Cdevwrites (
talk)
15:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
As far as I can tell (mostly based on
[17] and the journal's website), this journal is indexed in no significant databases and thus fails
WP:NJOURNAL. I don't speak German though, and I'm not super familiar with philosophy journals and their indexing services though. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}17:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - While I suppose this is a borderline case since he's gotten some popular notice for his actions, I feel like the fact that he's only somewhat notable means that in the spirit of the rules (if not the mere words) this article ought to be deleted.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
10:06, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per (at best) being
TOO SOON. Per
WP:INDAFD, the word "Adahunik" gives
LOTS of results for some company, but not a Bengali drama series, and the Bengali word "আধুনিক" gives
Bengali sources that also appear to NOT be speaking about a drama series. "Apurba Banerjee" gives unrelated results. "Kaberi Bagh" gives no results. "Abhishek Bagh" gives no results. "Rimjhim Gupta" IS an actress, but no news is found in connection with this project. All that is found is the created
social media page which is not RS. Being unverifiable, it misses out on
WP:NF by a wide margin. If or when this ever gets coverage in acceptable sources, an return might be considered. Schmidt, Michael Q.03:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is just another failed shooting attempt that only resulted in a couple of injuries. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Many other such articles are merely their own subsections in the school articles themselves, which is probably the best possible treatment for this topic.
Versus001 (
talk)
01:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -This crime had no extended impact or coverage beyond the single event.
ABF99 (
talk) 04:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC) Retracting my !vote to further research notability for this crime.
ABF99 (
talk)
14:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Campus shootings are usually notable. In this case the tragic details got doverage that goes beyond routine news reporting, here:
[18]. Also look at the stories in this search:
[19] and at the ongoing covearage and referencing of event in political discussions:
[20].
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - If this crime by an unhinged individual were committed at a McDonalds or outside an Arco station, would anyone bother to argue that it wasn't a NOTNEWS situation? I didn't think so. Delete, per NOTNEWS.
Carrite (
talk)
05:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Likely delete as although this is an interesting article, this may be alike to several other events so it would be best mentioned at an article or list of these. Pinging
DGG and
Onel5969 for better consensus.
SwisterTwistertalk05:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - While E.M. Gregory has a good point, the key word in his state is "usually". This one clearly is not. Carrite's argument is most on target, but as Location, Savonneux, and the other editors have pointed out this fails per
WP:NOTNEWS.
Onel5969TT me12:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is a mess, to put it lightly. It reads vaguely like my college notes from freshman year. This content is covered in a much more comprehensive and encyclopedic manner at
GDP#Determining GDP. Since the components of GDP and the methods of calculation are crucial to understanding the concept, this is not a good candidate for a
split. ~ RobTalk02:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm weakly opposed to a redirect. There has been at least weak consensus that
WP:NOTGUIDE applies to redirects in the past. I would consider that redirect to suggest that the reader will find guide-like content on the target page, which they will not. Also,
GDP does not contain any discussion of the processes used to actually measure GDP as this redirect would suggest (i.e. what the various governmental agencies do to collect data). It only discusses calculating the value if you already know the values of components. Pinging
Hisashiyarouin in case they care to comment on this. ~ RobTalk03:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm unsure because it's not bad as a guide, but there are essentially no citations. If kept, it needs to be trimmed extensively.
Bearian (
talk)
13:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is an entirely unsourced article making what is a wholly tendentious claim....(the reason for the alleged blinding was that the British were "hypnotised by the Armenians")acording to an evidently scrupulously impartial website. (not that I have much respect for the British, being one myself). True the POW camp may be notable but imo
WP:TNT applies.
TheLongTone (
talk)
14:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep.This is a well known tragedia of WW1. True, the article is a stub and it needs to be expanded. But there is no reason to delete it. Besides in the article I haven't seen any reference to Armenians and I don't know why the proposer mentions "hypnotised by the Armenians" .
Nedim Ardoğa (
talk)
08:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Well-known my eye. I mention Armenians because both of the very flaky sources I found on the Web mentioned Armenians. Come up with a half-way reputable source for this guff, please. It might be possible to come up with more if the place was referred to by its Egyptian/Arabic name, incidentally.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. The camp itself may be notable, but the article isn't about the camp. It's about an alleged atrocity that hasn't, as far as I can tell, had a single shred of hard evidence put forward to prove it ever actually happened and which can join the serried ranks of conspiracy theories (the British apparently did it at the behest of the Armenians, an unbelievably unlikely story) and urban legends. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
14:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless
WP:RS can be provided. I have no doubt that following the campaign in Palestine, the British had a lot of POWs and it may be that a few went blind while imprisoned. I suspect that this is a story that has been greatly exaggerated, if not a plain HOAX. While this was the period before the Geneva Conventions, the British were used to keeping POWs in camps. This happened with captured Germans. I therefore doubt that the British would be incapable of dealing with their Turkish WWI prisoners. I suspect that this is an invented story to use to counter issues about the Armenian genocide. That was wrong, but perhaps capable of justification in Turkish eyes on the basis that their Christian subjects were potential traitors.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment:The creator may be a beginner and the articles may be problematic. But Seydibesir Event is notable. (Nobody can say that blinded 15000 soldiers is not notable) Please see
[21] for the diary of a soldier .
Nedim Ardoğa (
talk)
12:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Indeed. But there is no even halfway reliable source for this lurid and improbable story. And the camp was called Sidi Bishr, btw. And was regularly inspected by the International Red Cross.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Of course it would be notable if 15,000 soldiers had been blinded, especially if they'd been deliberately blinded. But there's no reliable evidence for this incredibly far-fetched story. It seems to be a typical myth that has grown in the telling and is taken as fact by some with no real attempt to question its veracity or gather evidence. If it had happened then it is inconceivable that there would be no reliable sources. The "source" you cite says: "Because the British were brainwashed by Armenians, being told that in a potential new war they could come up against these soldiers again. The solution was massacre..." So the British Empire, which ruled half the world, was brainwashed by a bunch of Armenians into massacring Turkish soldiers, who they'd just defeated, because they might possibly face them again in war? And you expect us to take that as a reliable source? It's about as reliable as Nazi propaganda saying that the Jews were responsible for all the world's ills by hoodwinking every Western government. Those danged Armenians with their supernatural powers of mind control! Pity they didn't use them to stop the Turks massacring them! --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete both - at best these articles seem to refer to a myth that seems to have built up over time which was the probably the result of a far smaller number of prisoners going blind due to a vitamin deficiency caused by a poor diet (see for instance Yucel Yanikdag (2013) Healing the Nation: Prisoners of War, Medicine and Nationalism in Turkey, 1914-1939, p. 160
[22] published by Edinburgh University so meets the req's of
WP:RS as far as I can tell). There appears to be some coverage of this topic (i.e. the myth) in Google Books (although I couldn't read the sources so cannot verify the content). Given this I am tempted to say the "myth" itself *might* be notable; however, the manner in which these articles deal with it is entirely different, being the unsourced
WP:FRINGE version presented without context. Quite simply unless someone is able to rewrite these really quickly I think they do indeed need to be
blown up lest Wikipedia further assist the spread of yet another hoax / myth. I've tagged both as disputed for now to alert readers at least.
Anotherclown (
talk)
07:08, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment : I agree with the above comment by
Andreas Philopater that it's an editing
issue,not a reason for deletion.I feel someone is jumping too quickly to the Deletion Option when it may be a minor editing issue.I have looked at this article a few times and tried to improve it although I am not the original writer of the article.Today I have re-checked many of the given Reference links and they seem to be working fine.So I don't see what's the big problem that the entire article should be deleted.Original writer may have written it from a 'fan's point of view' which your top template message box says that it is allowed in this case.If someone mentions specific wrong things in the article,I am willing to try and correct them.Thanks
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
17:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep simply because he seems to have gotten local coverage and thus this honestly needs better familiar attention, my searches found nothing which isn't surprising but, again, this will need to be improved.
SwisterTwistertalk05:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep With all due respect to everyone that is raising questions about Siddiq Ismail article's viability,I am wondering,"How could this non-commercial Pakistani singer that sings non-film, non-profit Naat songs in a local language
for local Pakistani public...can get 'coverage' internationally? This is a sincere question and my hope is that it's taken that way. The best the poor guy can hope for is recognition by the local Pakistani people which he has gotten after over 40 years of service by getting many prestigious awards by the Government of Pakistan.Again,I am willing to improve the article in the future,if and when I see more new info and sources on him.Of course I am a fan and I can try to be objective as Wikipedia wants me to be.Wikipedia policy also allows me to write some articles from a 'fan's point of view'.Thanks
Ngrewal1 (
talk)
22:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article is largely promotional in content and with only one album on iTunes (no physical release) and mentions some performances in a church, it fails
WP:MUSIC entirely. The NPR reference links to a radio session appearance, the billboard.com appears to go to a list. None of this indicates any notability.
Karst (
talk)
11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Seems appropriate to delete as she fails
WP:MUSIC, the article might be userfied afterwards, but I don't think there is any possibility of meeting notability guidelines any time soon. --
Bejnar (
talk)
04:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is one of a series of articles created by editors/socks with conflict of interest, who also apparently run some movie and music PR websites; see
ANI report and
SPI report. The article cites no sources and I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources on a quick search (the name being very common makes search difficult). None of the films are notable and the subject fails
WP:GNG and
WP:FILMMAKERAbecedare (
talk)
17:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No clear notability. No results at Google Books or Google News. The only Google results I get provide no context. The only reference in the article results in a 403 error and there are no useful archives at the Wayback Machine. It's also curious that the article creator used an
accessdate of 1997. I suspect the only way that notability can be established is through the inclusion of Tamil-language references. Maybe. This could also be a hoax for all I know.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
17:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or maybe redirect to
Video Game High School with which it sees she had the most episodes and my searches found results at Books, News, Highbeam and browser...but nothing to suggest better improvement. Wikipedia is not IMDb and IMDb is better equiped to take these articles.
SwisterTwistertalk05:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet
WP:GNG. Author has turned this page into a hugely promotional piece based on no references or evidence of notability beyond the subject's own website and imdb page, neither of which is considered evidence of notability.
ubiquity (
talk)
14:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as IMDb basically summarizes it to a non-notable actor with no break through or otherwise outstanding work (no awards as well) and my search results at Books and highbeam were not convincingly good.
SwisterTwistertalk05:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My searches found nothing good at all aside from a few non-helpful blogs so there isn't even anything to suggest minimal improvement. Granted although this is a foreign subject and sources may not be easily accessible but we shouldn't keep an article like this simply because of that and there was enough time for any improvement (author's name and tone suggests a family member started this). Pinging taggers
Utcursch and
GorgeCustersSabre.
SwisterTwistertalk21:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This dance hasn't received coverage from what's considered reliable media. It fails
WP:N. The sources cited fail
WP:RS. The article's duration isn't a criterion for its existence.
Tapered (
talk)
19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -Reliable independent sources refer to this dance
here and
here and
here. and
here. Not sure why we'd want to erase these moves from the history of urban dance.
ABF99 (
talk) 07:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) Some cultural interpretation of the Cabbage Patch Dance
here. also included in an encyclopedia of African-American culture
here.ABF99 (
talk)
07:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
None of the sources that are reliable a la
WP:RS devote more than a short paragraph to this dance. It certainly exists and is mentioned it other articles. None of the sources justify a dedicated article in Wikipedia.
Tapered (
talk)
21:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete since it meets none of the "Other evidence of notability" criteria, it would only be saved by having significant coverage in
reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Schmidt is incorrect about the guideline, the mere having of sources is not sufficient. One newspaper article from the hometown paper about their mayor's project and a couple of videos from the local Rhode Island NBC affiliate (channel 10) don't make it. By the way, the video links in the article are dead. The correct links are
Interview: Steve Laffey… Feb 15, 2013 and
Laffey Making A Documentary… Feb 15, 2013 and they work with Micosoft IE, but not Chrome. --
Bejnar (
talk)
15:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
LOL Thanks for the chuckles. Please review WP:N which tells us that having sources available IS sufficient:
IE: topic notability is based upon sources being available, NOT upon their actually being used. And please,
OEN is not an inclusion mandate, and are only listed "attributes to consider" when searching for sources. If you found dead links, you are welcome
to fix them. And that your computers's version of chrome does not allow you to watch the two News 10 interviews (my own Chrome works just fine), is a problem with you and your computer, NOT with Wikipedia... which does not mandate Internet explorer only or Chrome only or Firefox or Mozilla only browsers. That "you" cannot personally view sources does not make them non-existent. Try updating your Chrome and your flash player and good luck. And please, Wikipedia does not demand world-wide or country-wide coverage. If
WJAR were only some local backwater station, it might be dismissable as "too tiny to matter" that they made the editorial choice to cover a topic notable to their state. A little research reveals WJAR was Rhode Island's first television station and the fourth NBC station in all of New England, and we learn it is the NBC-affiliated television station for the entire state of
Rhode Island (
est.pop 1,055,173) and expanding into
Bristol County, Massachusetts (
est. pop 554,19). As Wikipedia does not demand nor require worldwide notability, determinable as notable in and to even a small state such as Rhode Island is just fine. It is a grave injustice to declare an entire state as inconsequential... specially as this NBC station serving nearly 2 million people is not exactly some" minor" church news bulletin. Again, thanks for the smiles. Best of luck in fixing your computer issues. Schmidt, Michael Q.16:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I have had a long on-Wikipedia relationship with, and a great deal of respect for Benjar. We rarely disagree on matters of policy and guideline. So I can only think it was a jest of some sort when he appeared to denigrate an entire state as "local", made a hilariously incorrect statement about my understanding of guideline, and was able to share that he has what must be computer issues when viewing online news sources. Schmidt, Michael Q.12:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
MichaelQSchmidt: Please, could you share with us the indepedent reliable sources for the notability of Fixing America that exist but are not used? Right now from the three cited sources (two video from the same interview) and what I have found, I do not see the substantial coverage, and my initial searching showed no coverage in Gale's magazine and academic databases. I did find a review in Rhode Island's The Current-Anchorhere, a mention on the local radio station
here, and a mention on Rhody Beat
here. The imdb did not provide any direction
Fixing America at
IMDb. It would appear that there isn't much coverage, and that the coverage is not substanntial and is purely local to Rhode Island. I am happy to consider any other sources that you may have found. --
Bejnar (
talk)
18:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I agree with nom and SwisterTwister, I can't find anything to add. And the existing sources do not add up to GNG.
Piotr: Anybody can
WP:DEPROD so the IP knows our policies. They are not "trying to bypass them". --
Sam SailorTalk!15:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I found 2 sources in English in a quick search which I added to the article. I don't know Polish, but searching for the Polish words brings up articles that Google translate tells me are about the topic. The article passes notability, but does need copyedit.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
14:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by creator,
User:Magi4444 with no rationale. I see he added a reply on his talk page, and expanded the article a bit, but I don't see any required independent, in-depth, reliable coverage that would satisfy our requirements. Not all performers are notable, and this one doesn't seem to make the cut to encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The article has 27 independent and reliable references. Furthermore, the subject in the article is a notable figure within his profession. Respectfully, I disagree with your assessment and propose that this article not be deleted.
Magi4444 (
talk)
17:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, he is a notable figure within his profession, for example: "Mr. Trace has completed in one year what virtually none of us will accomplish in a lifetime. When the dust settled in Reno a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Trace emerged with a First Place win in the Stage Competition, The People's Choice Award, and the rarely given IBM Gold Medal for Excellence in Stage Magic. Mr. Trace's sweep of the big three competitions is about as rare as a Triple Crown winner in horse racing."[1] Also, here are just 4 of the independent and reliable sources that provide in depth coverage on the subject: Chicago Tribune,[2]Gazettes,[3]Vail Daily,[4]Genii Magazine (Cover Article), [5]Magi4444 (
talk)
18:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and seems to be a
Wikipedia:Original research policy violation" It was deprodded by creator,
User:Jutrasj with the following rationale "The proposed deletion was removed as it is believed this list is notable due to it receiving significant coverage. Many architects have their own Wikipedia page and this list further connects their individual pages in a convenient manner." I am afraid the list is still not believed to be notable. There are no sources suggesting it is not an OR compilation, and as such, the notable architects on that list, if any, should be simply categorized (through we would first need to define the term
current traditional architect. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Hi Prokonsul Piotrus,
Your "reply here" link doesn't seem to work so I'll write my comments here instead.
I find the many compiled lists on Wikipedia extremely convenient and useful. I fail to see the difference between the Current Traditional Architects list and all the lists located here:
/info/en/?search=List_of_lists_of_lists Why would you want to make Wikipedia less convenient and useful?
-Joseph — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jutrasj (
talk •
contribs)
14:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. " It was deprodded by 212.83.148.19 with the following rationale "Added many references to make it match to Wikipedia:General notability guideline". Sadly, I don't see how the new refs help; no refs I see are independent, reliable and providing in-depth coverage. As I discussed in my
Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
FoCuSandLeArN: Passing mentions do not count: the fact that The Guardian mentions one of the company products in its article about cool gadgets does not mean the company can be said to have been covered by it (
[34]). All the other links you have seem to be either passing mentions, or niche outlets, some of them possibly PR "you pay we write" ones. If you disagree, please tell us which of the links you provided are reliable, and why. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Vrac: While those are reliable outlets, the Figaro article seems to be a brief review of one of their products (a camera) and the fact it got some awards. Le Monde links are mostly passing coverage, through
[35] seems to be a more in-depth, and so far seems to me the only good source we have. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There is
more at Le Figaro, including
this. Then there is L'Express, which I hadn't looked at, with
this and
others. I'll grant you that not all of the coverage is in-depth, but compared to the things we usually fight over at AFD this company passes
WP:CORPDEPTH with flying colors.
Vrac (
talk)
11:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There's no question about it, Vrac. Piotr merely stating that reviews are paid for without providing evidence for that accusation is no justification for deletion. I'm starting to think he's pushing some agenda here. Note that the reviews are by no means "passing mentions", and sources have without a doubt an editorial process. Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch, a notability claim in a reliable source if there ever was one. What does the nom have against these people? The stub is already bordering on citation overkill and Piotr's request for more references is absurd. Sources abound and were politely presented (an onus on the nominator, per WP:BEFORE), now kindly desist with the deletion crusade. Best,
FoCuScontribs;
talk to me!13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Since you accuse me of being on a crusade and having a hidden agenda, I'll ping an experienced editor and mediator, whom I'll ask to review both this article and my (and yours) arguments here:
User:DGG. I'll add to my prior arguments that the Figaro entry seems to be your average run of the mill "start up gets financing" type of a news piece.
[36] seems more promising, and seems the 2nd good source presented here, through I'd appreciate a review by a more neutral French-speaker (who can distinguish between a reworded press release and proper journalism). Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for failure to meet the notability guidelines at
WP:CORP. Those guidelines are rather specific about what constitutes significant coverage of the company in independent reliable sources. Netatmo has not received that kind of coverage. At best this article is
WP:TOOSOON. Having award winning products is certainly a start for gaining the kind of coverage the guidelines require, but by itself does not make the company notable. --
Bejnar (
talk)
16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete The awards may not be important enough for implying that the company notable notability. As far as I can tell from the references, the CES gives multiple awards for every product judged to above a certain standard, with one product being rated "best" in each the category. There is nothing here reliable enough to show that these products were actually so rated as "best", or merely honored. The CES website is insufficiently explicit. I'm not an expert in this, but it certainly isn't obvious.
The CNET review is in my opinion the best of the references; though fairly brief, I do know they have reasonably high standards. . I cannot distinguish in this field for the articles in Figaro and LeMonde the difference between PR-instigated articles and and true coverage. Certainly, it is my impression that giving such full articles to what after all are quite minor peripheral products, that PR placement is the more important. But I would have to judge it not by the language used only, but by their habitual standards. And I do not know this. But I could quite as likely have come to the opposite conclusion; in fact, I wrote this out both ways! In the end, I'm going by the impression that it is not likely that a firm limiting itself to such products is really very important. There's a place for common sense, even in WP.
This shows the absurdity of our judging things like this by WP:GNG. The world is actually such that it is impossible for us in many cases to judge the difference between journalism and advertising, and this unfortunate fact makes a mockery out of our standards. It's time we went by the RW, not the media business, which I do not trust to be honest for topics such as this.
Incidentally, The pseudo-guideline INHERITORG has it exactly backwards. A product is not notable because it is produced by a notable company, because not everything even the most important company makes is important; but a company making notable products can not do so without being itself important. Inheritance, both in the RW as well as WP, ordinarily goes downwards, not upwards. A company becomes notable by its accomplishments--which for the ordinary business concern, are its products. Normally, it's easy to see the difference--most notable companies make several notable products. If in doubt whether we need a separate article on each, we go with the larger topic: the company, with sections for the products. When there is a company with only one important product, it can be a doubtful, because the product may indeed sometimes be much conspicuous than the company, and should be the topic of the article. In this case, there are multiple products of equal importance, so if they have each won a major award --for which there is insufficient evidence-- the article would be on the company. DGG (
talk )
05:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: this situation is more a commentary on the absurdity of AFD than the absurdity of GNG. The company has gotten significant coverage in the French press because its products are interesting. Le Monde and Le Figaro are the top two reliable sources for France and L'Express is not far behind. Le Monde is one of the best reliable sources this planet has to offer. We cover what reliable sources cover so GNG is amply satisfied. If the equivalent coverage were to be found in the equivalent UK or US sources this AFD would have been a snow keep.
AFD outcomes depend on who shows up; and in this case who shows up with how much linguistic knowledge, how much knowledge of the sources in question; and, frankly, with what agenda. The nominator has referenced a Signpost op-ed they wrote about promotion in Wikipedia; dare I say they may feel that they can't back down on this delete because of that. When I compare this to some of the other corporate crap I've seen kept at AFD like
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invoicera or
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Horizon Group, the
WP:ABSURDITY of the situation is demoralizing.
Vrac (
talk)
12:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Not only that, but its products constitute "the largest network of home weather sensors in the world", according to TechCrunch. Those are two prime examples of the state of AfD. AfC is quite similar in that regard...depending on who's available at any given time. That's the problem with running a quasi-collaborative endeavour.
FoCuScontribs;
talk to me!19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment not the same author as previous versions (G7 deletes), but still likely a COI issue. I think he might be notable if better sourcing can be found, but I've not located any.
StarM01:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by
User:AusLondonder with the following rationale "definitely not suitable for prod, seems to meet notability requirements". Well, please explain how he meets that. I don't see much coverage; appearing in one TV show does not seem to cut it, not unless it would generate coverage itself, which I do not see. All other sources seem to mention him in passing, or are not independent/reliable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete - While this businessperson is a bit notable, it looks like he's pretty much known just for his association with more notable things-- such as the TV show in which he appeared-- rather than for his own actions. In the spirit of the general Wikipedia guidelines on notability, I feel like this article probably should be deleted.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
23:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Piotrus: I think you should have a read of
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if you think I have to do anything at all. You put this article up for discussion and I foolishly assumed that meant you wanted people's opinions. I Googled the man's name in combination with "Shark" (otherwise you get lots of irrelevant hits to wade through), and I saw coverage of him specifically, in his capacity as "Shark" (or using that to identify him to readers), in the Sydney Morning Herald and other major news publications. It was enough for me to offer a (weak) "keep" opinion, but I don't care enough about the outcome to want to do it a second time just so you don't have to. What worries me a good deal more is your gladiatorial and rather pestering pinging of me for proffering an opinion that you don't share. --
Andreas Philopater (
talk)
21:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I am sorry I am wasting your time asking for your opinion, I will not ping you anymore per your request. Since you couldn't be bothered linking the article you found, I had to spend my time recreating your search. I did find
[37], which discusses him for several paragraphs in the
Private Syndey celebrity column. While it is a reliable source, it is the first one we found, and we do require multiple (2+) reliable, in-depth sources. Also, there's the
WP:ONEEVENT problem, suggesting that he is better of being mentioned on the show's page then in a stand-alone article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here01:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This one's edited at least two dozen times in over 11 years. I don't see a reason to keep an article about a type of character depending on their medium (see "static character" section), especially I can't locate similar standalone articles about characters in other formats. Then the article goes into character depth which has to do nothing with character format. Perhaps it should merge into
character animation?
TheGGoose (
talk)
03:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. It seems like something that would be encyclopedic, but looking for refs I was able to find only one definition:
[38] ("Digital Character Development", Rob O'Neill); the book is not searchable online outside scribid. As scribid is not free, I can't even fully verify it anyway. Unless we can produce sources, I support the merge to
Character animation as proposed by the op. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep-This topic is definitely encyclopedic although I had trouble finding accessible books to use as sources. I did find one reference related to 'how-to' create one of these digital characters and inserted it into the article. Also, it is no longer an orphan since I was able to link it to another article. This topic has the potential of becoming valuable information if someone with access to the references were to edit it. Isn't there a video gaming project that would be interested in this? Isn't wikipedia bursting at the seams with articles about video gaming? This article should be a MAJOR article since it is the root all video games. Bfpage |
leave a message05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep the lack of accessible electronic sources is not an impediment. Use you libraries! There is plenty written on topic. I have tagged the article as "refimprove". --
Bejnar (
talk)
02:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge the Information in relation to the topic is sparse and repetitive of other Wikipedia pages I see little of value to merge into other articles but there is no point in keeping a page that is mostly point form summaries of other summaries.
Andrdema (
talk)
09:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. No claim the subject meets PORNBIO. No independent reliable sourcing. No nontrivial biographical content. The "lady of the lake" AVN reference is surpassingly ludicrous, demonstrating the general cluelessness of the commenter and the failure of AVN to have minimal editorial standards regarding reliability on subjects that won't get them sued.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
19:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Fails
WP:PORNBIO with only a scene-related award win. Making one of Complex magazine's lists of hottest porn stars also doesn't establish notability. Lacks significant coverage by independent reliable sources to pass
WP:GNG. Even if you count the Hannah Harper AVN column as semi-reliable (I don't), it's not enough.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete fails PORNBIO and GNG, the many sources presented at the 3rd AfD fail to establish notability, being mostly in-trade publications, and some very trivial mentions in mainstream media (as having a minor appearance in a film which won an award at an adult film festival)
Kraxler (
talk)
20:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Looked at the PORN BIO guide, linked here: ---->
[39]. Noticed the guideline says "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." AVN is mainstream for that industry. The same way ESPN is mainstream for sports, just as Aviation Week is to aviation and so on. Without looking at the past nominations, it seems likely this was kept for that very reason.
Anynobody(
?)
23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's just not an accurate interpretation of PORNBIO. "Mainstream media" there means non-pornographic performing arts. See this PORNBIO talk discussion from a few months back
[40], which includes links to some AFDs demonstrating the consensus interpretation.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
00:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's and Kraxler's accurate assessments, the logic of my prior nomination, and the policy-based arguments in prior AFDs. Article does not include a single reliable biographical source (or, far that matter, any nontrivial biographical content whatsoever.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk)
17:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not sure If I am doing this correctly but I removed the references in question but disagree with the Forbes comment as this was written from their communications department. I also added newsweek source that shows the company is notable and Mr. Perez is a board member. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mediaoneincus (
talk •
contribs)
22:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Whose communication department? The Forbes piece is marked "Promotion" at the top of the page, has no author listed save the HH Global logo, on a website that clearly states at the page bottom: "Forbes Custom is a custom publishing site that features special advertising sections from Forbes magazine as well as industry articles and videos from our partners. The editors at Forbes were not involved in the creation of this content." (emphasis added). The Bloomberg profile verifies existence but not necessarily notability (see
WP:COMPANY for guidelines on demonstrating notability for companies), and even if HH Global is notable,
notability is not inherited, thus not all board member may warrant individual articles- they still need to satisfy
basic notability or other guidelines described at
WP:BIO.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
22:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not appear to be a notable political party. Other than coverage from a libertarian website called Libertarian Home, I wasn't able to find enough significant coverage from reliable sources. Most hits are blogs on Blogspot, election/registration news (aka listing of candidates, not of whom appear to have won any election), and pretty much that's it. I would not be against a merge to
Libertarian Party (UK), a party which it is affiliated with.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew14:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
KEEP:
WP:AUTHOR: "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." = Washington Post; London Times; Seattle Times; BBC; Deutche Welle reviews.
Duckduckstop (
talk)
16:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: This matter has come up on Wikipedia
before, i.e. whether or not we should have articles for the children and grandchildren of Nazi war criminals. With
very few exceptions, the answer is
generally no. Also there are
WP:BLP concerns when articles begin appearing on Wikipedia about living relatives of major Nazis. -
O.R.Comms16:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment a notablilty policy trumps your list article's deletion 4 years ago; sorry for your loss. perhaps you should review notability policy before nominating other articles, lest this come up before admins.
Duckduckstop (
talk)
18:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Feel free to report what you like to administrators. In general, AfDs nominators who act in good faith are not subject to any sort of punitive action. -
O.R.Comms19:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. It appears that her book has received reviews in various sources like the
Washington Post,
Seattle Times,
MacLean's,
Irish Times, and the
Jewish Book Council, all places that are considered to be reliable sources. Some of other sources appear to be about the basic gist of her discovering who her grandfather was, but they are also in RS:
BBC,
NBC, and
People. People would probably be considered a little tabloid-y, but it's still considered a RS.
Sixth&I and
DW appear to be unusable for various reasons. Now if it was just the news articles about her discovering her heritage then I'd argue for a firm delete, but she has written a book about this that has received coverage and the reviews for that are enough to push her into notability territory, if only just so. The question we need to ask right now is this: would it be better to have an article on the author or one on the book itself? A book article would be a bit tidier, although since there's already an article about the author we could probably just add this information into the article that's already existent.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Obviously notable per reliable third-party sources. Being a book author who's a relative of the major Nazi war criminal on
her biological mother's side (she placed her in foster care at the age of three) makes the whole affair exponentially more interesting actually. Her memoir is a bestseller in Germany, says Macleans. This AfD must be a misunderstanding. Poeticbenttalk18:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clear pass of
WP:AUTHOR. This nomination appears to be based on a common misunderstanding of
WP:NOTINHERITED. NOTINHERITED states that having a more-famous relative and having your own notability based on a connection to that relative is not by itself a
sufficient condition for notability. But neither is it a sufficient condition for non-notability; it's still possible in such cases to have independent notability, gained in the usual way through stories about you or your works. And the subject here clearly has such notability. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
00:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -Clearly notable per reliable sources mentioned above by
Tokyogirl79 as well as many other sources
here. Agree that this is not a case of
WP:NOTINHERITED. She is notable on her own as an author. In response to the question by
Tokyogirl79, maybe just keep this article on the author for now, rather than change it to an article on the book. Easier to add to it later if author writes more in the future.
ABF99 (
talk)
15:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
RENAME to
My Grandfather Would Have Shot Me as clearly
WP:AT the scope and coverage of the article is mostly about the book, and not the author per se. The Book is notable and properly referenced. The author apart from the book has very little content separate from what is necessary for the book. So the article, as it is written is not a biography, it is a book article. --
70.51.202.113 (
talk)
05:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The case made for deletion by red bean is mere
proof by assertion, and reflects failures to (1) read the article carefully (it's about a company, not a product), and (2) perform some due diligence before AfD nom, considering that a news search turns up not only the sources cited already in the article at this writing (Technology Review, Wall Street Journal -- possibly enough to establish notability in themselves), but many more: at CNN
[41][42], The Independent
[43], Bloomberg
[44], USA Today
[45], not to speak of all the gadget-review websites. Of course, it's a crappy article at this point. I should know: I wrote it. But "crappy" =/= "un-notable". I almost sandboxed it, but then thought, "No, maybe the next thing that happens is somebody will be
WP:BOLD and improve it. So be
WP:BOLD and create it." Unfortunately, there's always the possibility in such cases that "what happens next" will be something counterproductive. Like an itchy-trigger-finger AfD nom :-(
Yakushima (
talk)
04:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable, fails
WP:ARTIST. The only reference is a blurb for an audio compilation. Note: possible self-promotion. Note 2: this is not the Dan Diaz whose wife chose assisted suicide (the dates of birth are different).
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
12:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Likely delete for now as I simply found nothing better with the search "Dan Diaz composer music" aside from a few mentions but nothing to suggest outstandingly good improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk06:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. Even though the Champions League is the most prestigious club football tournament in the world, hat-tricks are still not that notable in it. As well as season articles, we have
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers and
List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers. This topic comfortably documented already, ratehr than this slightly arbitrary repackaging.
It's important to note that, by and large, lists such as this do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. A list of hat-tricks in these tournaments is simply unnecessary and not notable.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Please also note the following related discussions:
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong keep This list is not an indiscriminate collection of information, as it is a list of hattricks made during UEFA Champions League matches. See
WP:DISCRIMINATE for an essay on what ‘indiscriminate’ means. Also, the nomination fails to mention why exactly this list is not notable. I believe that, given the fact hattricks are often mentioned in news reports, this list is very notable. —
37(talk)14:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. Though both the Confederations Cup and Copa America are infrequent and important tournaments, we already comfortably document the goals, statistics and events of these competitions - we have articles like
Copa América records and statistics and
FIFA Confederations Cup records. The hat-trick lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, in a slightly arbitrary way.
It's important to note that, by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. A list of hat-tricks in these tournaments is simply unnecessary.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. We already have season articles for most clubs and the leagues themselves. We also list top goalscorers, notable matches, finals etc. As such These lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's important to note that, by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. There are hundreds of professional football leagues - a list of hat-tricks in each of these is simply unnecessary.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all. I think hat-tricks in a professional league is a notable subject. For example,
The Scotsman newspaper noted that
Steven Naismith's hat-trick for Everton last week was the first by a Scottish player in a Premier League match for 17 years. It then also lists all other hat-tricks by Scottish players since the PL was formed in 1992/93.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all -
List of Premier League hat-tricks is a featured list. I simply cannot understand why a list identified as one of the best on WP is now suddenly not notable. All the other lists here are similarly from
fully professional leagues, so see no reason why these are inherently less notable. I also think that this AfD should be closed (by an uninvolved admin as I closed the last mass nomination 24 hours ago) procedurally as the nominator was specifically asked to let a wider discussion
here run its course to ascertain a wider consensus about the notabilityof hat tricks in football and there suitability as list subjects.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all - hat-tricks occur less than "semi-commonly" and can often be outstanding achievements, contrary to what the nominator suggests. If "these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia" then that would be something to consider on a case-by-case basis, not by throwing the baby out with the bathwater and deleting everything at once, because I know for a fact that they often do exist. Hat-tricks are notable - there is a siginificance attached to that figure that cannot be said of 2, 4 or any other number of goals in media and statistics alike. These lists are therefore not indiscriminate, and, in my opinion, ought to be kept.
Macosal (
talk)
09:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all stop this crusade, deal with things individually, try to establish some kind of sensible level here rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
15:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This deletion listing includes all national football team hat trick lists that I could find. Note that this is a relisting after the first AfD was closed for bundling too many articles together.
A hat-trick is a semi-common occurrence in football which while notable in the context of regular news reporting, is not an outstanding achievement in and of itself.
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - lists need to have some justification to their existence beyond the collection of statistics. Notable hat-tricks will be described in player, team or where relevant match articles. For national teams, results are already listed (eg
Japan national football team results and fixtures;
Romania national football team results etc) which will of course list hat-tricks. We also list top goalscorers, notable matches, finals etc. Hat-trick lists simply repackage goals that are listed elsewhere on Wikipedia, in a way which most alamancs, encylopedias and football websites don't bother doing. I think that's key for judging the worth of a list - by and large, these lists do not exist outside of Wikipedia: they have been collated together from football results databases. This is evidence, I think, of the indiscriminate and unnecessary nature of these pages, which also makes them border on being
original research. There are 200+ national football teams - a list of hat-tricks in each of these is simply unnecessary.
Super Nintendo Chalmers (
talk)
08:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all. A hat-trick for a national team is a notable event. For example, hat-tricks scored by Scotland players is discussed by many sources (
search). Loads of articles in reliable sources discussing the fact that Colin Stein was (for a very long time) the last player to score a hat-trick (eg1
Sky Sports, eg2
The Scotsman).
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Note, there is a discussion about this issue at
WP:FOOTY. The nominating user has relisted all of these articles without first obtaining any consensus that these articles should be deleted.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
09:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
As
WP:BEFORE notes, subject-specific guidelines should be checked. I don't think we have previously had a discussion here about the notability of hat-trick lists, therefore a discussion was needed at
WP:FOOTY first before placing all of the articles on AfD. You ignored comments from two users (Fenix Down and GiantSnowman) in the WP:FOOTY discussion that we should have a full discussion about the issue first.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
11:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep all - the irregular occurrance of hat tricks at international level as seen in these lists completely negates the initial rationale presented above.
Fenix down (
talk)
09:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep This seems like a ridiculous nomination. Hat-tricks are usually notable events, especially in professional leagues. Often when one occurs, reference is made to previous records (i.e. last hat-trick by that player / team / against that opposition, etc.). That in itself suggests maintaining an article with the hat-trick records in a league has encyclopedic value. --
R45 talk!15:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep This is a long established company with a substantial share of the SA biscuit market
[46]; an independant website
[47] describes them as one of SA's oldest & best loved biscuit brands.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep whilst the article needs some substantial re-working / copy-edits to bring it up to a satisfactory standard - the subject is definitely a notable brand in South Africa and if you search under 'Bakers Limited' there are plenty of references (
[48]) to establish its notability.
Dan arndt (
talk)
14:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep: According to the Wikipedia deletion policy I believe this article should not be deleted. The source is a trade publication that is well read and referenced in the ecommerce industry, and is notable because of the large amount of trade publications publishing content around the concept as it is separate from other concepts in the industry. Here is another independent and reliable source that discusses the concept
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500249048/Unified-commerce-the-next-step-for-retailers. The concept of Unified Commerce is young, true, and as a result some mainstream publication haven't published work around it yet. However, it will last because it is so unique from other concepts in the industry.
KroweLet's discuss—Preceding
undated comment added
14:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Wikipedia is not a university prospectus; this is an unremarkable hall of residence, & I agree that given the name redirecting is not a suitable option.
TheLongTone (
talk)
13:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to the university I find nothing that indicates notability. It was built in 1995, so is not a historic structure. Can find nothing about an architect that might make it notable. No news mentions or other RS to indicate that it is anything other than a standard university living facility.
SusunW (
talk)
18:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Agree fully with the above: for this to be a suitable redirect it would have to be renamed mentioning the university & the redirect created by the move deleted. Seems like a lot of work for no good reason.
TheLongTone (
talk)
14:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relatively small non notable organization, whose only claim to importance is that it is associated with or part of some umbrella groups, which also have some members that are in fact notable. RThe contents are either its internal affairs of no interest to anyone outside the organization, of its listing of worthy goals.
We have tended to give a free pass on both notability and promotionalism to groups with noble purposes that we approve of. That's not the right approach for an encycopedia. DGG (
talk )
02:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I am a tad confused on this article. The group themselves seems to refer to themselves mostly by their acronym and the usage of The International Federation for Human Rights and the International Federation of Human Rights varies. They themselves are a umbrella group, though most active outside the English speaking world from what I can gather - I suspect more sources exist in other languages. A couple of notable groups are members of this group, the
Center for Justice and Accountability,
SUARAM,
Human Rights in China and the
Center for Constitutional Rights being some. They also appear to be used as an expert group by the media;
1,
2,
3,
4. And it has existed for nearly a 100 years. Surely there is more out there?
JTdaleTalk~13:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah. Found out why the name is a mess. It's a translation; the group is French and is official name is the La Fédération internationale des ligues des droits de l'Homme;
5JTdaleTalk~13:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: Yes, the article is poorly sourced, but, as JTdale pointed out, the organization seems to be a well-known and well-respected organization in Europe whose expertise is often called upon by the media, which I think satisfies
WP:ORGDEPTH. Also, the organization has a long history, and judging it based on the lack of sources online strikes me as a form of recentism. I also think it's very significant that the FIDH is the oldest human rights organization in the world; I don't know if that's attracted the requisite widespread attention, but if it has, that would also satisfy
WP:NGO. --
Irn (
talk)
23:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - One of those situations when language barrier poses a challenge but what is known about the subject suggests sources are available. I would presume being the oldest such organization is a good indicator of notability (i.e. it doesn't mean it's notable, but just like winning an Oscar award, having an endowed professorship, or a charting album don't take the place of sources but indicate sources should be available). — Rhododendritestalk \\
19:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The organisation's webpage www.fidh.org is in perfectly sound English with translated options, albeit with a European flavour of presentation. To call this a relatively small non -notable organisation seems absurd; their page says that it's pushing a century old, has a multi million dollar budget and broad international presence. The webpage is current and recently updated which indicates a good professionalism in their staff. I'd label it a long established significant player in the field of human rights and monitoring. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
FreedAshmore2013 (
talk •
contribs)
23:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't see significant notability, and the promotionalism, even after a little cleanup by other editors, self evident. As for notability 1/ There is obviously no notability under
WP:PROF. The publications are popular, not scholarly. 2/ Looking quickly, I thought he might be notable as an author, because I remember encountering The Fifth Discipline. Checking Worldcat, I find he wasn't the author--and looking carefully at the article, he wrote at most only one chapter. There are two other less well-known books given--again, he wrote a chapter. ( The sort of minor magazine articles listed don't make for a notable author. He is apparently about to publish a book that he did write as sole author, Systems Thinking For Social Change; the publisher is Chelsea Green Publishing, a publisher of books on sustainable living, not on business management. If and only if the new book becomes a best seller would he be notable as an author.
As for promotionalism , writing an article with emphasis on the names of more important people and trying to assert one's own importance by having worked with them can best be described as advertising. The use of adjectives of praise and quality throughout adds to the effect. The usual reason for writing an autobiography here is the desire to have the public know more about oneself. Very few people are able correctly to judge their own importance. There's been considerable cleanup by
Voceditenore, but the promotionalism keeps getting re-added. And there's no fundamental notability in the first place. . This article should have been deleted in 2010, when it was first submitted. DGG (
talk )
04:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The actual content of the article is virtually all unsourced, though liberally laced with references to the publications of the subject or the WorldCat listings of those publications. His highest
Scholar cite appears to be 10.
Voceditenorewrote in 2010 "inappropriate promotional tone, no independent evidence of notability"; nothing has changed.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. There are two ways this could pass the criteria for inclusion: (1) the general notability guideline (
WP:GNG) which requires significant and in depth coverage from multiple independent sources, or (2) the alternative criteria at
WP:PROF. The subject pretty comprehensively fails both at this point. I have not been able to find any independent coverage of the subject himself. I did find one pre-publication review of his forthcoming book in Publisher's Weeklyhere, but that isn't nearly sufficient for either an article on the book or on its author. Things may change if the book turns out to make a considerable impact accompanied by significant independent coverage of its author. At that point, and only at that point, should the article be recreated. The obvious COI and promotionalism are not in themselves a rationale for deletion. Promotionalism can be fixed, but the non-notability cannot.
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:22, 25 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The only sources I can find about Caddell are from her employers (past and present) and news surrounding the sex scandal. I don't think that this one event is enough to make her a notable individual, and without it she's just a reporter doing her job. No significant awards or distinctions.
Primefac (
talk)
19:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as although I found several results at Books, News, browser and highbeam, there's nothing to suggest better improvement especially with the fact this looks more like a personal and LinkedIn page.
SwisterTwistertalk06:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I couldn't find any coverage of anyone by this name in RS so probably not notable per
WP:GNG. The fact that it was created by a known sock is probably sufficient grounds in itself.
Anotherclown (
talk)
17:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as the article was written and moved to mainspace by socks of a banned editor, and the only other contributions come from IPs editing at the same time who were probably the same person. Hut 8.521:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Many of the claims for significance aren't backed up by the references. I cannot find anything relating to the womens safety app being launched by the government minister mentioned in the article, and the 'supercop' government project appears to just be a solution to an issue the government might be facing rather than something endorsed or commissioned by the government. Nz101UserpageTalkpage23:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. None of the references, support notability. Some of them a explicitly market as a reprint of the company's own press releases. DGG (
talk )
00:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - I'm local from here and can't say I'm familiar with him and although my searches found results at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete but not speedy. There is a claim of notability in the article: that he holds a named chair at what is claimed to be a particularly large seminary. Superficially this would seem to pass
WP:PROF#C5. However, it does not. The press release I found from his employer noting the chair
[49] makes it clear that such titles are given even to assistant professors at that institution, and also makes it clear that he was given that chair while he held a purely administrative role (one too low-level to pass #C6). So regardless of the seminary's size or prestige such chairs do not count as the step above full professor that is the intended meaning of the WP:PROF criterion. Nothing else in the article gives any hint of any other kind of notability. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I was going to vote keep as the holder of a named chair and as a Dean, which is normally a higher post than professor, but perhaps I do not adequately understand the American academic system.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Dean is not "higher" than a professor, it is merely a different type of job. A professor's main job functions are to teach students and perform research; a dean's main job function is to manage a subunit of the university. People who are professors can become deans, and people who are deans can go back to being professors, with no change in their academic rank. We have a criterion for being at a high enough level as an academic administrator to warrant keeping an article, it is
WP:PROF#C6, and the level it describes is the head of a whole university, typically one or two steps above the deans in the administrative hierarchy. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
22:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.