The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 young man is one of the three US citizens involved in disarming the gunman during
2015 Thalys train attack, therefore newspaper coverage of him is immense. However is this a
WP:BLP1E? The only content in this article which is not in the main event page, is that apparently he is now going to be appearing on
Dancing with the Stars. Does this justify the article?
Pincrete (
talk)
23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as article creator. Skarlatos was initially notable for one event, but not anymore. He became publicly known for stopping the terrorist attack, but is know notable for being a foreign recipient of the Legion of Honour. He will also be on Dancing with the Stars. He does not satisfy BLP1E because quote on quote " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Skarlatos is very unlikely to be a low-profile individual now that he is a foreign recipient of France's highest award, and will be having coverage of his role on Dancing with the Stars. Quote on quote "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Skarlatos role in the stopping of the French train attack was very well documented by international media. Skarlatos does not satisfy that category. Skarlatos also satisfies the WP:GNG. He has had more attention about him than just his role in the attack by international media. He will know be getting more coverage since he will be on Dancing with the Stars. This article was nominated for deletion too early. He does satisfy the guidelines, and his article should stay. Good day!
CookieMonster755(talk)00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal.
Pincrete (
talk)
17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, if you read what I said, Skarlatos does not meet criteria for BLP1E for several reasons. That is to protect people who don't want fame, obviously he wants fame due to the fact that he will be on Dancing with the Stars. I do agree that I am being biased due to the Crystal rule, but you know there is alternatives to deletion. Also; he meets the Wikipedia notability guide
WP:ANYBIO #1, quote on quote "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." He also meets Wikipedia notability guide
WP:NotableMIL #1, quote on quote "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour."
CookieMonster755(talk)22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Of course I read what you wrote, what information is in this article that is not already in the main 'attack' article, apart from the 'dancing' plug and the assumption that this is going to lead to notability beyond the single event? See my remarks about
WP:CRIME below, because everything in this discussion hinges on whether going to be in 'Dancing', justifies the seperate article.
Pincrete (
talk)
08:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - per
WP:ANYBIO #1, Legion of Honor the highest award in France.
WP:BLP1E requires three criteria to be met but does not meet #1 because Skarlatos will be on Dances with Stars. His decision to appear on Dancing with the Stars tells us he is seeking the spotlight and choosing to be a public figure. BLP1E is meant to protect people from becoming a public figure who otherwise don't seek it but were thrust into the spotlight by some news event. Skarlatos is seeking the spotlight and now involved in multiple events. Also #3 requires an "insignificant event"; this arguably a significant event and he played a prominent role. --
GreenC00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep His Dancing with the Stars is very persuasive for a keep since he would be a war hero and a TV star. Other Dancing with the Stars contestants have Wikipedia pages. A sign of our sad Wikipedia world is that the DWTS stint makes him notable, more than his role in stopping a terrorist attack.
Sandra opposed to terrorism (
talk)
00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Sandra, as I say above to CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal, neither motives nor intentions are known.
Pincrete (
talk)
17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep He's been featured on many media outlets for a significant amount of time and will continue to be covered on, which already establishes some notability. I think an article for him is in order. In fact, I think articles for all the other passengers involved in subduing the gunman is in order.
Versus001 (
talk)
03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment These are all
WP:Crystal arguments, of course his present fame MAY lead to him being known beyond this event, but at present this one event is the sole reason for the coverage.
Pincrete (
talk)
09:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The guy is known for 2 reasons. Just because a particular reader or man on the street is ignorant and doesn't know him is not a disqualifying reason. For example, ask the man on the street who famous author Pablo Neruda or famous painter Jackson Pollack were and maybe 95% of people will say "never heard of him". Given that criteria, most Wikipedia articles would be deleted except the Kardashians and President Obama. Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand would be deleted because 99% of people on the street can't name him.
Sandra opposed to terrorism (
talk)
21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
At present, he is known for one reason, and the best place to incorporate the info about him is the event for which he is known, where it is given context, and will remain permanent. Everything else is crystal-ball gazing based on just over two weeks of news coverage. The media and the public are fickle.
Pincrete (
talk)
08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete What's the big hurry? Look at all the future tense and conditionals above: "will...", "would be...", "will..."; what's the big hurry, here, can we wait for it to happen, first? Agree with Pincrete's comments about
WP:Crystal; he's not there yet, give him time. As of now, he's still part of the aftermath of the Thalys news cycle. As far as Legion of Honor winners, they estimate there's
a million of them, although the exact number is not known.
Mathglot (
talk)
11:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
CookieMonster, I was not aware of
WP:ANYBIO, thanks for bringing that to my attention. If that's legit, I would change my vote (unhappily, but I would). The reason I'm not happy about it, is that it would mean we have about one million articles to add to WP. Would you like to take the first 500,000 and I'll take the rest? ;-)
Mathglot (
talk)
07:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
CookieMonster read on below ANYBIO to
WP:CRIME: " A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." ... What encyclopedic info cannot be incorporated, indeed has not already been incorporated in the main event page ?
Pincrete (
talk)
08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. As has been pointed out many times, the Legion of Honour is the highest order of France, but it comes in five grades. The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability - it's the equivalent of the
Member of the Order of the British Empire or
Queen's Gallantry Medal in Britain, for example, at the most (see Note 1 at
WP:SOLDIER). He did receive considerable media coverage, but it's only a
WP:BLP1E situation. Many people commit brave acts. They're not all eligible for articles. If they were we'd have millions of such articles. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Necrothesp - He still does not fit the BLP1E. I explained above. No, his media coverage is not a BLP1E. What about Dancing with the Stars coverage he has already received. Does that have any connection with the Paris train attack? I don't think so... but it's fine if you beg differently.
CookieMonster755(talk)17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
He has only been asked to be on Dancing with the Stars because of the Paris train attack, so yes, it quite clearly has a connection. How bizarre that you seem to think it doesn't! Reality TV contestants always get a lot of coverage but are not generally considered to be notable just because they're reality TV contestants. This is long-established. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Jakob, the coverage isn't simply significant, it's huge, however all of it relates the the 'trigger event', and
guidelines are clear that he should be covered within the event page. There is anyway no additional content on 'his' page apart from maybe he is going to be on a dance programme.
Pincrete (
talk)
21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete As nominator, the best place for coverage of his role in the train attack is on that event's page and notability outside that event is not established.
Pincrete (
talk)
14:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You can't vote twice, the nomination is considered a vote. You may comment, or engage in discussion, as much as you like, though.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Clarification, I did not nominate this article for deletion because I thought that there was insufficient coverage, nor because I believed that Skarlatos did not 'deserve' coverage. Rather because WP's best interest (and his?) are best served by covering his role within the incident for which he is known. Time will tell whether he carves out a public role outside that event.
Pincrete (
talk)
12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Appears to be notable for both a television role and winning a notable award for heroism; this BLP1E is not relevant. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Third-level (or lower) gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Many thousands of people have won such decorations. Why is he special? Reality TV contestant because of his gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Perfectly well covered in the article on the incident. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Necrothesp. Notability needs to stand the test of time, and this person clearly doesn't. In the world we live in these days, anyone can garner significant coverage in a matter of hours. Does an encyclopaedia benefit from articles about things gone viral? I seriously doubt it. If he becomes notable in the near future, then we can easily recreate this biography. Let's see what happens; from experience I'm about 96% sure there'll be no more coverage about him in a couple of months' time, but then again let's not assume, let's see (which is how Wikipedia works, not assuming people deserve articles but rather observing after there is well-established atemporal and extensive coverage).
FoCuScontribs;
talk to me!02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
note that journalists
[7] and
[8] their
[9] readers
[10] can't seem to get enough Skarlatos. That was just some of what's on a news google search by "most recent first". I propose we all put way our crystal balls, keep this one for now, and revisit in a year, when there may be some clarity as to enduring notability.E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
True. Nor did I just "vote". I "noted" that quite a lot of coverage continues to appear daily in mainstream media. I suggested that the article be kept - because it has a ton of sources; pointed out that calling this a flash in the pan requires the use of a crystal ball; and suggested that a kept article can be revisited if an editor thinks - months from now - that he can persuade the rest of us that Skarlatos was a mere nine days wonder. Cheers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Clarify I am a firm keep. There is notability here. If it comes up for AFD again, I will argue that enduring notability is established by sources now available.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Extensive coverage exists at the present allowing a suitable article to be constructed at the present. I fail to see what Wikipedia would gain by deleting this.
Winner 42Talk to me!00:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Winner 42, as I've said often above, there is enormous coverage, but almost all of it relates directly to the train incident, what point therefore is repeating that info on a 'private' page? Maybe in the future he will establish some notability outside that incident, at present he hasn't. What does WP gain? Gathering all relevant info in one place, where it has context.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete (or maybe redirect--let the tabloids decide whether to redirect to the Thalys attack or to Dancing with the Stars). I don't see why anyone who makes the papers needs an article, hero or not. We have this crazy situation where everything gets written up in some publication which by sheer force of weight gets accepted as a reliable source, and next thing you know we have a million YouTube "personalities" and other biographies of people who otherwise would live a peaceful two-sentence existence in a bigger article. I'm completely with
Necrothesp: coverage is limited (of course) to the one event, and the rest is crystalballery. BTW, someone needs to explain to me, at some point, why a contestant on a TV dance show needs an article. Like, a real explanation please, not one that says "Entertainment Tonight mentioned his name three times, as did Perez Hilton".
Drmies (
talk)
15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comments (probably nothing useful:)), funny when afds become longer then the article concerned, "The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability" - very common??, I don't have one, does anyone else involved in this discussion?, according to the wikiarticle
Legion of Honour, as of 2010 there has only been about 100,000 issued, if we can have thousands of articles about academy award winners and sports people ("competed at the modern Olympic Games" is notable
WP:NOLYMPICS - 1000s compete at each Olympics eg. over 10,000 at
London) why can't recipients of this honor (and obes, mbes as well:)) have an article (and no, I am not volunteering to do them:))? Also, is the
WP:SOLDIER comment relevant as this person is receiving the award as a civilian? If this article is redirected, won't there arise balance/undue weight issues in the main article? "it's only a WP:BLP1E situation" which states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met" (my emphasis) can someone please show where this is the case here as I have not been convinced by the 'deleters'.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Coolabahapple,
WP:CRIME advises: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There are at least 5 people whose actions on the train are highly notable (2 French (one whose full name is not known), 3 US, 1 UK). Is the reader better served by all of the relevant info being in one place (inc. their honours) or being spread across 5-6 articles?
Pincrete (
talk)
17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Pincrete, fair point about
WP:CRIME, although I have been involved in/and read afds where the idea that
WP:GNGtrumps other policies/guidelines has held sway. On the point about the other people involved, if they are seen as notable/more notable then Skarlatos I am sure an editor will remedy their non-article situation. If a reader is interested enough in the subject, a couple of clicks won't put them off.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe! But it's more likely to be the will of consensus based on policy and determined by the closing administrator. If you'd like to consider administrators to be servants of the Lord that is, of course, entirely up to you.
Keegan (
talk)
19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Let’s face it, WP:BLP1E rule is somewhat subjective. For example, most
Congressional Medal of Honor winners are low-viz people who earn their notability with one act of courage. If an individual captures the world’s attention like Skarlatos has, they should be notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page. There’s certainly enough independent, secondary source material to do a good article on him including information about his personal life (which goes beyond his involvement in the train attack). The fact that he have now been selected to be on Dancing with the Stars is good evidence that his notoriety may go beyond just one event. One final point … all of the participants in the 2015 season of Dancing with the Stars now have individual bio articles in Wikipedia (along with all their professional dancing partners)…see
Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20). So are we going to delete Skarlatos bio article now and then add it back when he starts dancing?--
Orygun (
talk)
00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. If all there was was terror attack, then WP:BLP1E might apply. I do think it is too early to decide whether or not
WP:BIO1E is indicated, per
WP:CRYSTAL. But using BLP1E, this individual does not appear to meet all 3 criteria. All that said, with the announcement of his participation on DWTS, BLP1E clearly no longer applies.
Onel5969TT me13:19, 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.
At
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo, three different editors questioned the notability of this person, the inventor of [Shinkendo. When attempting to rewrite this article recently, I was able to find only one source with any coverage at all of his life and achievements (I don't speak or read Japanese). I too question his notability.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
22:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Article doesn't show significant independent coverage and doesn't meet notability for martial artists. Also no indication of notability as an author.
Jakejr (
talk)
18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom and above editors, who do a good job of summarizing the issues with this article. Searches provided nothing which went to notability.
Onel5969TT me13:21, 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.
Most Air Forces have one or more solo display aircraft that fly in events and airshows and unlike multiple aircraft aerobatic teams these are not really notable, I cant see that this solo aircraft is particularly notable outside a mention on the
Turkish Air Force page.
MilborneOne (
talk)
22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Air Forces solo display aircraft teams are notable. Air Forces solo display aircraft teams should have one pages, or at least build into the Air Force page with MORE than just 1-2 sentens.
@Steelpillow I can not see any word on
Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) that single aircraft display Teams are not notable.. There exist a few single aircraft teams who play an important part on international air shows with history and some of them earned aviatic awards. I don't see any reason why Display Teams with 2 or more aircraft can bee on Wikipedia and such with 1 aircraft not.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
16:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
One lone machine is not a "team". The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft. If a given "team" gains enough mention then notability can be established in the usual way by citing reliable sources which actually address the notability of the aircraft and/or its team. That is not the case here, the main sources are concerned with a centenary event and this aircraft's display gets only a passing mention. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Well the therm Team is not only relatet to the numbers of aircraft. I can not agree with "The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft". Whitout more than 1 person no aircraft display would be possibel . Also the definition "One lone machine is not a "team"" is not right
[11] its 1 Superpuma or Cougar.. but its the Super Puma Display Team..Super Puma Display TEAM. Or
[12] again its SWISS HORNET DISPLAY TEAM. Also they don't do just some fly by, they have a real display program with manouvers specialised for a display.
FFA P-16 (
talk) 10:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Still on
Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is no definition about Display Teams nor a definition about the term "Team". To have here on English Wikipedia only the Teams from 2 aircraft and more but suppress informations about single aircraft display teams makes Wikipedia in this aeronautics topic an unusable tool.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
12:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a tool for informations. It is not at wikipeda to define what is an aerobatic team and what is not. If an Air Force like the Greece, Belgian, Swiss , Turkish Air Force(in this case the Turkish Air Force) has given an single aircraft display team the official statuts, it si it. Wikipedia can (should)put in this in its "database". To think Wikipedia could determine over decisions of Air Force is illogical and absurd. Banish teams with only one airplane from Wikipedia, violated the basic idea of Wikipedia about the neutral and equitable access of information.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I appreciate the effort put in creating the article, but I see no notability on it. If single aircraft in airline fleets are not notable, I don't see why a particular military aircraft is.--JetstreamerTalk17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: These single aircraft demonstrations should just be a simple mention on the page of the applicable air force, not their own article. -
Ahunt (
talk)
18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment two issues. 1) is there significant mentions in reliable sources to show notability of the subject, 2) is there sufficient material to write a complete article without padding the article with non-notable material? I think both need to be achieved for the article to stand alone.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment also note that air forces like the Royal Air Force have had four or five solo demonstration aircraft every year for a long time, at the beginning of the season you get a press release as they paint a new scheme on an aircraft to use, although it is the pilot who is the authorised demonstrator so sometimes they dont use the "painted" aircraft. Take the other Swiss example the Swiss Super Puma solo demonstrator uses a different aircraft from the fleet every time as the display authority for solos is the pilot. We might consider a stand-alone article on military aircraft solo demonstrators but if you look at something like the Royal International Air Tattoo these are pretty common and none I would say are notable for a stand-alone article like this one.
MilborneOne (
talk)
08:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The Super Puma Display Team can use any of the Swiss Air Forces Super Puma or Cougar right, but we should not focus on it if the aircraft has a special painting or if there are 1 or more pilots. I think the approach for such single aircraft teams verification of notability should be his continuity in standardized existence for several years (for eg. since min.3 years) with regular displays flown on public events and or airshows. No mater if an aircraft has a special painting or not. I would not count aircraft with a special paint for just a single event (for eg . NATO Tigermeet) to this.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
22:08, 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.
Delete: No assertion of notability. The article basically says that it's a mosque near
Bidar, a town about 100km from Hyderabad. The article about Bidar mentions a long list of monuments in the city, but makes no mention of this mosque, so I seriously doubt that it's very significant. I did web and Google Books searches, but they also failed to turn up anything significant. --
Slashme (
talk)
09:49, 6 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 for now and there's also not a good move target and with my searches not finding anything significant and outstanding aside from
these links, there's not much for improvement and thus keeping.
SwisterTwistertalk06:02, 2 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.
Redirect to
Hit Squad. It seems to have no independent notability. Searches do not produce significant coverage in independent
reliable sources. Also there is no claim to notability stated in the article, except for a possible inherited claim from
Hit Squad and/or
EPMD, which doesn't fly. --
Bejnar (
talk)
22:18, 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.
Comment. This one is a close call. He has a profile at Pro-Football-Reference.com
here, which I think means that he is a regular roster player (as opposed to just practice squad) but lists no regular season game appearances. Then there's
this from NFL.com, which seems to state he remains on the Jacksonville Jaguars roster as of the last preseason game on 9/3/15 (and so far I find no release saying he's been cut). Also, there is some significant coverage. See, e.g.,
this profile from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
this from the New Haven Register,
this short piece from
First Coast News,
this blurb from the Sun Times Network,
this longer story from
Bleacher Report (debatable as reliable source), and
this short blurb from Rolling Stone.
Cbl62 (
talk)
18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - While I appreciate the research efforts that Cbl62 made above, I see exactly one independent, reliable source that rises to the level of significant coverage of the subject (i.e., Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2012, linked above). The remainder of the coverage is routine transactional coverage that every NFL signee receives, one that discussed the purported unpronounceability of his name (i.e., Rolling Stone), with the added coverage of a fansite (i.e., BleacherReport.com). The subject player was not a notable college athlete, and has never played in a regular season NFL game in three previous NFL seasons; he is not a part of any roster, practice otherwise, and the likelihood of him now appearing in an NFL game is slim. I see no loss of encyclopedic content by the deletion of this article.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
22:54, 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.
For
Sgim43 (
talk·contribs), who says that By this own definition [of Dubble A having a single or album on a national music chart] fails the requirement, as the source given in not a recognized or National Music Chart. All Access Music Group, the creator of this "chart" doesn't even have a wikipage. Based on this then I could create and LLC as a upstart publishing company or radio station, create a list with any 10 people I want and then create pages for them!"Mynameisnotdave (
talk/
contribs)
20:25, 5 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 so troubled and my searches found nothing aside from a YouTube video here and a blog there and the current sources aren't very detailed so unless this can actually be improved, I'm not seeing much and this has existed since August 2008 without the slightest significant improvement. Pinging tagger
MBisanz and maybe
Diannaa (removed the wikifying tag).
SwisterTwistertalk19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- the present article says nothing about what he did in a probably long period between his going to Delhi and being poisoned at the age of about 60. I get the feeling that the article has lost its middle and that he is an early holder of some important office, but currently he appears to be utterly NN.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete we can't be left to guess what an article is about, the creator of it should tell us, or there should be sources to enlighten us, but there aren't any.
Kraxler (
talk)
20:01, 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.
Article about a film which only contains one Unreliable source. The article does not meet any sort of notability requirement including
WP:GNG and
WP:NFILM. Searches are difficult as there seem to be several different films by the same name. -
McMatter(
talk)/(
contrib)18:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I am new to wiki so I apologize if not using proper tags, etc. There are approximately two dozen legitimate reviews of the film. I did not post them on the page because I wanted to keep it 100% neutral and not show favoritism in selecting one review over another. Also, if the official website is visited (www.teamorchard.com) there are direct links on the front page to the film online on all major internet video on demand platforms, including Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, iTunes, and Google Play. I did not include these links in the movie's page because I did not want to commercialize it or use it for publicity. The film has also screened at a half dozen film festivals in 2015. There are films with the same title listed that have far less credentials and widescale availability, so I'm unsure why this particular film page is being targeted for deletion.
Niespodj (
talk)
19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Being available for distribution and having screened at festivals aren't things that would automatically give notability, although they do make it much easier for something to gain coverage. I'll try to find the reviews, but I'm concerned that these reviews might not be usable as reliable sources (
WP:RS) and may be the unusable sources that Erik was talking about. Not all reviews are usable as reliable sources, so if something was covered in a self-published blog, those cannot be used. (However if the blog was included in a notable, reliable aggregate website like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes as a critic review, then it could be used.) Also, saying that other things exist (
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) with less notability on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for inclusion, as there are many, many articles on here for films that really don't pass notability guidelines - they just haven't been detected yet. However all of that said, I will try to look for sources and see if I can find enough for the film to pass notability guidelines.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Userfy. Right now it's a little early for it to have an article, as the only true coverage we have is a press release from Dread Central and two articles from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are some blog reviews out there, but not in any places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. However given that the film has just gone to VOD, it's possible that there will be some more reviews coming in the future, so I think it'd be a good idea to userfy the content. I'm willing to do that, since that would help counteract the concerns about a conflict of interest. Now if these reviews come up before the AfD closes, this will of course be a keep on my end.
Niespodj, since you are involved with the film I'd like to suggest that you petition the following sites for reviews: Dread Central, HorrorNews.net, Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Ain't It Cool News. AICN, Fangoria, and HN.N are all very good about reviewing indie horror films. Flickering Myth and We Got This Covered are also good places to look towards for soliciting reviews as well, since they're also good about reviewing indie films and both are considered to be RS on Wikipedia.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's kind of what I figure - if more sources aren't available by the end of the AfD period, it's likely that they'll come about in the next few months with Halloween approaching. Outright deletion wouldn't really be my first impulse here.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)10:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Schmidt, I had to remove the Dread Central bit from the reception section. The
Dread Central article is a reprint of the press release for the most part and the bits that were added as a review were from the press release. You can tell because this was reprinted in
this website and labeled as a press release. The portions about the cast's home bases looks like it was heavily or directly taken from a press release as well, but that's a basic detail so there's no reason not to include that - just be careful about anything italicized on DC since that usually means that they took it from somewhere else. However that said, I did find some probably usable reviews, so yay for that. I'll add them soon.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Argh, all blog reviews. (Got them from
this press package.) I was hoping that Horror Society would at least be usable, but they have nothing on their page about their editorial oversight. The other sites are either outright unusable blogs or also lack anything on their site that would show that they have an editorial board that Wikipedia would approve of as a RS. (sighs) I wish more outlets would label people as editors or whatnot. Horror Society likely does have them, but chooses not to include them. I'll drop them an e-mail about this.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 notability asserted, no third-party sources (the one "reference" is by no means a source for the subject, having nothing to do with the AHumanProject), opinionated incoherent writing. I PRODded it, but the prod was promptly removed by the creator, with the argument that it needs to be on Wikipedia precisely because it is nowhere else, if I understood them correctly.
[13]Bishonen |
talk16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
VS: Well, let me clarify.
I have used many sources, including Wikipedia to create content of aHuman.
This project is not just pages to collect the information, but it contains know-how on how to integrate the information, and auto-generated content.
Quality of data were confirmed several times in private emails to me from science representatives.
Still, as I'm not a part of science community, it's quite hard to have formal references. At least, I have not spend much efforts for that up to the moment.
Nevertheless, I think that it is the quite unique source of information, which have to be available to scientists.
aHuman tag on google search is first line of output - so I can pretend it's sort of referenced actually.
But when google buried its googlecode service and I migrated project to specific hosting, I need smth to let people know where they can find aHuman pages now.
So, it is need both to community an to me (btw, to much lesser extent). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vsavchik (
talk •
contribs)
16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There really don't seem to be sources meeting our criteria at
WP:RS discussing this, let alone discussing it in any depth. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting new ideas, see
WP:NOT.
Doug Weller (
talk)
16:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
VS: Guys, ok, looks like you do not see the point. Wikipedia will miss more than me.
Your pages are also criticized for politicisms and intentional distortions and some people do not trust your information at all.
Now I also can see your rule set is somehow reasonable but fail in some cases.
If you like you can believe that it is a sort of consensus.
Happy with "let alone discussing it in any depth" - gentle enough... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vsavchik (
talk •
contribs)
19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -Although this sounds like an interesting project, it needs, as others have stated, to have been written about in independant reliable sources to be considered notable for Wikipedia.
ABF99 (
talk)
03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
VS: final message from me.
Wikipedia is arranged collection of significant facts. It is the only achievable goal disregarding your personal thoughts about it.
aHuman is a fact confirmed by its author. And it is significant fact because of the concept and volume and quality of published project data.
Hence if your rules prevent people across the world to let know about this fact, it means that existing formal rule set is incorrect.
So is up to you whether to sacrifise Wikipedia mission or to improve rules.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ah nope I was indeed wrong as A7 states " The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear,", so nope you're completely correct, In that case Delete as non notable actress. –
Davey2010Talk14:19, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 The controversies were definitely notable to be mentioned in so many news outlet, and even considering the local sources heavily outweigh any national ones, there's not really a requirement for an article to have multiple national sources for the subject of it to be considered notable. It doesn't overuse a single source, it uses multiple sources from many newspapers, which is why I feel it should be kept.
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I suggest you check again the sources. There are dead links, official election department candidates' listings, and a lot of pieces from the Pichilemu local papers. There are about three sources from bigger newspapers for a few particular points, but that doesn't mean that the whole lot gets suddenly notable. See also
WP:COATRACK.
Kraxler (
talk)
17:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler, I suggest you withdraw this nomination. I could even, myself, give you access to El Mercurio web archives (I'm a suscriber) so that you can see yourself there is plenty of coverage on this series of events. Not to mention, La Tercera, El Rancagüino (offline) and other non-local references... (I see you have a problem with local sources)
Diego Grez-Cañete (
talk)
01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment/Question probably for
Diego Grez-Cañete and
SuperCarnivore591 who are voting keep on this and other articles: I note that none of these subjects has an article in a Spanish-language Wikipedia, even though it takes place in a Spanish-language country and the sources all seem to be in Spanish. Why is that? There is an article in @es WP on Pichilemu, but it has none of these particulars. Thanks.
LaMona (
talk)
03:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It's probably because the Spanish Wikipedia has less editors than the English Wikipedia does, and no one has gotten around to it (although some Spanish-speaking editors have undoubtedly worked on the article here, as most of the references are written in Spanish).
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
03:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I second SuperCarnivore's comment. Also, I have always felt more comfortable editing here than on the Spanish edition, that's why I never got to create articles about these topics there. --
Diego Grez-Cañete (
talk)
04:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I think SuperCarnivore591 misunderstood the question. This article does not exist in the Spanish Wikipedia. Why? Because Chilean and Spanish-languages users have long-ago seen trough Diego Grez's biased (albeit sometimes good) editing. Diego Grez many users have blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia.
Sietecolores (
talk)
10:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, too little coverage to justify an article on its own. There is also a
WP:BIO concern about the subjects here. This material belongs in the website Memoria pichilemina, not here.
Sietecolores (
talk)
10:26, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: she is not notable as politician (limited coverage, limited "power", geographically very limited "power", got elected with very few votes). Note the case is simmilar to
Marta Urzúa.
Sietecolores (
talk)
10:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While it is better that you've found some non-Pichilemu sources, the coverage in those are mentions where he is quoted or interviewed, with very little content on the individual himself. I'm discounting the Pichilemu sources who of course will cover their mayor in-depth but lack scope.
Vrac (
talk)
20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
An entity that itself has a population of about 40k. It has been translated as "province" but a closer equivalent in English would be
county. A province is commonly a principal administrative division, which is not the case in Chile, whose principal administrative divisions are the regions.
Vrac (
talk)
18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Exactly. Even the head of the subdivision itself would be deleted if it only had a population of 40,000 failing another reason to keep him. And that would be the case in Britain or America just as it would anywhere else. Leaders of British county councils don't generally have articles, for example, and they often serve a population of several hundred thousand. He just isn't notable enough. Sorry. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:51, 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.
Non-notable filmmaker. Fails both
WP:FILMMAKER and
WP:BASIC. I could find a passing reference
here,
one interview on Lazydog Films (a blog), and another interview on Flickering Myth (which seems to be a blog as well), but this is insufficient under
WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
Edcolins (
talk)
13:41, 5 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 Probably one of the longest-standing city councilors in Chile (26 years in office, including a term as Codeco -counselor of communal development- between 1989 and 1992). There are references out there, including some of
El Mercurio, passes notability guidelines.
Diego Grez-Cañete (
talk)
01:31, 6 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.
Kuching tower ground breaking ceremony was held in 2005 and is never completed. Apart from news back in 2005, there is no news since then for the progress of the construction.
Cerevisae (
talk)
11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The media release on which the article is based states that is "located on the Kuching Isthmus" - yet satellite and streetview imagery from 2015 shows no indication of such a structure there. No evidence this project went ahead beyond the initial media release. --
ELEKHHT11:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now as this is too
crystally and if it wasn't for the unclear plans, it would've been acceptable but we'll wait for a more solid article.
SwisterTwistertalk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 was nominated for speedy deletion, which I don't think it quite meets. I suspect this person is non-notable (the books are vanity press) but bringing it to AfD just in case.
Black Kite (talk)11:04, 5 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.
PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This is a non-notable list of people, and we don't have (or need) individual squad lists, especially for such a minor tournament / so many non-notable people.
GiantSnowman10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Mike Hadnett: - no, these people are non-notable unless' they have played senior international football for New Zealand (see
WP:NFOOTBALL) and any profiles you create will just wind up deleted as well. I suggest you save your time.
GiantSnowman10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - This is a team competing in the top level of women's football in New Zealand, indeed, it is a team that has won the competition several times in recent years per
RSSSF. I have
moved the article to a more appropriate title per RSSSF, namely
Northern Football and provided additional references to show their repeated successes at the highest national level. @
GiantSnowman:, @
Spiderone:, does this change your opinion? I think this is more a case of a new editor not creating the right article title than a non-notable subject and want to avoid any
biting.
Fenix down (
talk)
16:08, 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.
Keep I don't see how this is a valid reason to delete. Nonetheless, while researching this topic, I did come across some discrepancies between the sources and this article. I tagged them accordingly, and also added a source to the verifiable information. (There is a possibility that the content I tagged is not OR and that I was simply not thorough enough.)
Elspamo4 (
talk)
18:19, 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.
Keep I won't claim any particular expertise on Mexican movies, but this has everything I'd expect to see in a notable one: notable director (who directed several
Cantinflas features), several notable actors, notable studio. We don't have an article on the main star, but he does appear notable enough for one. The fact that it was released on DVD 35 years after it was made shows some measure of enduring cultural interest. The only issue I see is the image is labeled a poster when it's clearly a DVD cover or something similar, but that's far from cause for deletion.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind22:32, 6 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.
Poorly sourced
WP:BLP, tagged as needing reference improvement since 2010 without further action, of a person notable only as a deputy leader of a minor political party. While the party is one whose leader generally gets over the bar, the same can't be said of the deputies — and being a deputy leader isn't a notability freebie under
WP:NPOL. The extant source isn't even substantively about him, either, but merely namechecks his existence — and the article reads very like a campaign brochure, written almost entirely in incomplete sentence fragments and delving far more into unsourced statements of his beliefs and inspirations than into anything encyclopedic that he did. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
09:09, 5 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.
Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as the leader of an unregistered fringe political party. This was fine under the standards that Wikipedia held when it was first created, but
consensus changed and this no longer satisfies
WP:NPOL. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
08:41, 5 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 delete. Some "keep" arguments are notably weak because they don't address the reasons advanced for deletion, such as "as notable as any other video game", or "I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive", when the nomination makes clear that this is not the argument being made here. Among the other opinions, we have consensus that sourcing is too weak at this time to meet
WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I understand the
WP:NOTCENSORED arguments. This is not about censorship. I am not a Muslim, not personally offended. The reality is, this game has simply not received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the first nomination, some suggested additional coverage would occur. This has not happened.
WP:NOTCENSORED does not mandate inclusion of every potentially offensive topic
AusLondonder (
talk)
08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep What weird interpretation of GNG are you using that this subject doesn't qualify? The first two references alone give GNG passing coverage
[23][24] In fact all the references in the article (expect ref 3) offer significant coverage in reliable sources. Please explain how all these sources don't pass GNG.
Winner 42Talk to me!17:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -
WP:NOTNEWS. Throwaway game covered minimally as news posts, no serious reviews or in depth coverage. This has gather less coverage than Vice's
London Piss Dungeon. The game is so stupid that there is no serious commentary, compare that with Slave Tetris, where we have coverage into why people believe the game is wrong, and what we can learn from it.
[25][26] -
hahnchen09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
No. Its the exact opposite. Video games are things people play for entertainment value. This game is controversial and all coverage about the game is about how it is controversial, not about how the game was made, reviews it received, music, sound, graphics, or any other quality that would be fitting of a video game. For that it fails the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG which is defined as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail"
[27].
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails GNG, endorse CerealKillerYum's point that all coverage is about the offensiveness of the name/game. The little coverage there is, is about the controversy not the game itself, which has attracted almost zero coverage.
Pincrete (
talk)
11:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There was alot of talk about this game around the time the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened. I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive.
Illstillbehere (
talk)
09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG which requires not only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but also coverage which persists over time. The sources available are so-so, but all of the coverage comes from the same 3-day span, with next to nothing since then (though I'm content to switch my !vote if others find such sources). — Rhododendritestalk \\
01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This falls under
WP:SENSATION. A game, that caught the attention of a small number of media outlets, briefly. a quick search here:
[28] I cannot find that it got either enduring or extensive coverage, or that objections to it received significant coverage. Flag me if anyone demonstrates significant coverage, and I'll revisit.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
08:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - The game itself seems to fail GNG but the contraversy about it, may not. Is there an article about similar contravercies? It can possibly be merged into it.
Settleman (
talk)
15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Settleman: The controversy would likewise have to pass
WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage [of the controversy] in multiple reliable sources over a period of time. As there seems to be 100% overlap between coverage of the game and coverage of controversy surrounding the game, it seems unlikely sufficient sources about the latter exist. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, the reviewing admin should note that this editor does seem to have difficulties understanding deletion policies. This editor seemed to discover this deletion discussion after I strongly objected to their speedy deletion (!) nomination of
National Hindu Awareness Campaign Nepal a constitutional campaign in Nepal led by a former parliamentarian which has met with the Prime Minister and has achieved national English-language media coverage. Yet they think this is crap is notable on the back of coverage from those who brought us the infamous London Piss Dungeon!
AusLondonder (
talk)
05:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete outside some coverage made by a couple of news media blogs (which usually runs independent from the main source) at the time of release, some of whom are tabloids that don'tmeet our guidelines in reliable sources, this game received 0 long-term coverage. Fails
wp:gng and
wp:notnewsPokerkiller (
talk)
22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - The article clearly has multiple sources that are giving it significant coverage, and were written solely about the game. The persistent coverage point is invalid, as many video games receive coverage only when they're released and are still considered notable. —Torchiesttalkedits13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Rhododendrites: The GNG states: "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." There's nothing in that guideline saying coverage must last for months or years.
WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this topic. —Torchiesttalkedits15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - the arguments about the fact it would be a "video game" are not right. It is not notorious as a video game. It is a provocation/joke/ripost, whatever but in that area. The question is therefore to determine if this "provocation/joke/..." is notorious. For me, the answer is no. The links given in the article are primary sources in the sense that they participate to the provocation/joke or to its promotion. We would need several references in higher quality newspapers to assess notoriaty (eg NYT, LeMonde, Guardian, Das Bield, ...)
Pluto2012 (
talk)
10:18, 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.
Fails notability guidelines. References are dead links and, if they were to be alive, would have been non-notable sources. Nothing came up in Google News or Google. Author is a SPA
[29]CerealKillerYum (
talk)
08:13, 5 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 think
WP:EVENT is saying that event should be "Worthy of Notice".
The Times of India (TOI) is not only largest selling English daily in India but also in World in terms of circulation. TOI finds it "worthy of notice" and "took note" of this event. This event is not notable unless someone proves that these news are paid news.--
Human3015Send WikiLove04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, we have been interacting on many pages for now; thanks for hounding, and its quite clear that you lack competency to understand many a simple things; sorry to point it out. There is no in-depth coverage, or lasting effects of the event, or coverage outside geoscope, or diversity of coverage, etc etc points that are listed in guideline. Also, the minglebox link that you are posting is not
WP:RS.
http://www.minglebox.com/aboutus is a student's portal.
Dainik Bhaskar which is a newspaper with headquarters in MP cared to write exactly 10 sentences about this event in Raipur. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
05:32, 31 August 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: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate
VICTIM; any post 9/11 notability would appear to be a continuing seam or thread from that day onward. I know, I know: I must be a heartless bastard.
Quis separabit?22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply Delete: Agreed, notability isn't fleeting, the book referenced in the article appears to be self published by Lauren's husband and apparently hasn't sold many copies based on it being ranked below #375,000 in books by sales volume.
Nefariousski (
talk)
23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
SisterTwister is a diligent editor, but I have found, as here:
Douglas Al-Bazi that her assertions of a lack of sources can be, well, what can I say, I have found extensive sourcing on AFDs brought or supported by SisterTwister, who works very quickly and deserves credit for spotting many, many legitimate candidates for deletion. However, re: Lauren Manning, take a look at this quick search
[30] which begins with this full profile in vogue magazine
[31].
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Manning's memoir, Unmeasured Strength is now bluelinked. Both articles (person and book) need work. This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep and put the time you would have spend refuting this remarkably lame AFD into improving the page.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
My guess is that the page is weak not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is too painful for many of us to deal with. Even after all these years.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
"This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep" -- interesting. @E.M. Gregory: are you moving pawns around a chess board or making marionettes dance? I see no keep consensus as of yet, much less a SNOWBALL.
Quis separabit?17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. –
Davey2010Talk01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@Davey2010: I mean no disrespect but you should try to base your judgments on guidelines not sentimentality. Your rationale offers no reasoning, just emotion. 9/11 was devastating (I live in Lower Manhatan and was at work a quarter of a mile away from Ground Zero at 26 Federal Plaza that morning, just so you know I am not a heartless dick) but try to keep perspective.
Quis separabit?02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
To me, it looks as though
User:Davey2010 based him assessment on policy: "as per sources." Followed with an expression of strong feeling,
Quis separabit? responded based on feelings. It's oK to have feelings, as long as assessments are based on policy, facts, sources.08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
E.M.Gregory's correct - I did say "per above as well as per sources" so it wasn't all strong feelings but yes I do have strong feelings when it comes to stuff like this, I very very rarely express my feelings here but I don't see a problem just aslong as you keep it relevant and to the point, Wow I'd imagine that was absolutely terrifying!, I've never thought that about anyone on here at all, You nominated based on notability so it's all cool :) –
Davey2010Talk15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Being a victim of a horrible event is one thing, but the point here is notability. And for this person to be behind a well-received book that's brought them recognition, with the likes of
NPR,
the New York Times, etc mentioning her story and her book prominently, then it looks like she passes the notability bar easily.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep In addition to meeting Notability for her story, RS articles from 2008 to 2012, she is also invited to comment on related issues as late as June 2014.
[35] Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON and the article can be easily cleaned up.
009o9 (
talk)
19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources are reliable (NY Times, USA Today, CNN). The book by her husband about her got some national attention (although it itself cannot be considered a neutral source, but it adds to the story). The article is still a stub, and needs work. I was easily able to find 6 NY Times articles specifically about her or with substantial information about her.
LaMona (
talk)
03:55, 6 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 cannot find any sources to show where this film is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's possible that there could be sources in another language, but I'm doubtful of this. I'm getting the impression that this is an indie production.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for while not utterly unsourcable, this brand new article is apparently
TOO SOON. I found that a music video of a major song from the film was only recently released,
[36] and this might indicate the film will follow within six months. Allow
undeletion when
inclusion criteria are met. If the author wishes it placed in a no-wiki'd draft space for work as release approaches, I'd say let him have it. Schmidt, Michael Q.22:52, 22 August 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 not medicore but could certainly use improvement (information and source-wise) and my searches found nothing particularly good,
here,
here,
here and
here. This would've been redirected elsewhere (I was going to be bold but there's no good target) so I'd like to hear from users.
SwisterTwistertalk06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing in
notability for politicians would support automatic keep for a mayor of a medium-sized town. #2 says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." However, it also says that politicians need to meet GNG. Looking at the references here, all of them are from two local papers (along with some primary sources that don't count toward notability). I think that the decision here will need to hinge on whether those local sources are considered sufficient. My judgment is that a town mayor would need to get significant attention in at least a statewide newspaper. Both of the sources here cover a region within the state, not the whole state. They both pronounce themselves to be "local" papers, not statewide.
About Arizona Central /
East Valley Tribune: "We are local. We cover the East Valley."
LaMona (
talk)
04:11, 6 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. The article reads like an advertisement, prompting me to tag it as such. But that is strictly a content issue. At AfD, all we consider is notability. Under
WP:GNG, notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Those sources clearly exist, as demonstrated by the
Business Standard and
Quartz articles.
Msnicki (
talk)
20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
MsnickiNote: All the newspaper and related articles cannot be considered to be reliable one; contents published such as press-releases...reviews is not considered to be the reliable one. Even if we consider these two sources as reliable (which is not that effective ) is not sufficient to establish notability. See
WP:ORGDEPTH which states dept coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. —
CutestPenguinHangout14:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
"Multiple" is generally interpreted as at least two good sources at AfD. The Business Standard and Quartz articles satisfy the requirement. That makes this one a keep.
Msnicki (
talk)
16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Msnicki You are right but press releases and reviews is not general cited or you can say is not treated as good /reliable references even if they are from great sources. These
this and
thisresults from Google points QZ more of an partner than an source for reliability to the article which again questions the
WP:NEWSORG and
WP:IRS. —
CutestPenguinHangout18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
QZ looks reliable to me. From their
Welcome to Quartz page, Quartz is owned by Atlantic Media Co., the publisher of The Atlantic, National Journal, and Government Executive. The publisher of
The Atlantic is good enough for me. To my continual consternation, we often accept far, far less.
Msnicki (
talk)
20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
For someone who claims "near-native" command of English, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with the language. I cited TWO RS in my !vote and that's definitely multiple.
Msnicki (
talk)
19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Msnicki Read once, twice and thrice everything posted under this Afd. Let me quote the cause for you, the great Englishmen "your multiple" sources is actually not multiple as per Wikipedia's policy
WP:IRS (give yourself sometime and read carefully
WP:IRS). Note: ...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources.. And don't force me to drag your
fluent English here. —
CutestPenguinHangout11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
If you're going to quote
WP:IRS, it should be an actual quote, not something manufactured out of your imagination. That page simply does not say what you claim it does. You've made it up out of whole cloth. You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how specious but I have mine. I think these sources qualify and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I am done with you. Let's see what others have to say.
Msnicki (
talk)
15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article is calming to be a news and media company but does not meets the Wikipedia's criteria for
notability for
organizations and companies nor it have significant coverage in reliable sources, except those press-releases and reviews which is again not treated as the reliable source. D Mi™18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Jimbo Wales: have not specified about the existence of the article on the Wikipedia, instead he emphasised that it is not possible legitimately to have an article about the subject. In fact he questioned about the background of the so called company. —
CutestPenguinHangout12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Sir, Jimmy Wales typed " I do think that a small article could legitimately be written." Please check you might have read incorrectly. And even this was nine month back since then the company has become even more famous and notable. And can you please point to the parts that seem advertorial to you , I will rectify them and add neutral tone to them. P.S.-Sorry for my grammatical mistakes. I am not a native.
Blessedhuman111 (
talk)
13:09, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completely unsourced article about a television series produced by and aired on a single local television station in a single media market.
WP:NMEDIA only grants a presumption of notability to nationally-distributed series, not to local ones — and the lack of sourcing means that this doesn't get to claim a
WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NMEDIA. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:37, 22 August 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 insurance business with coverage all sourced to local daily paper; less than 1,000 employees, now a division of a bigger company.
Orange Mike |
Talk17:00, 22 August 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 found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement, there's no good move target and there haven't been any significant edits since the beginning in March 2009.
SwisterTwistertalk21:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: The article currently focuses solely on the awareness week in Singapore, but this is also recognized in the US. From
Emily Fund: "In 2008, the US Senate unanimously apporoved S. Res. 710 declaring the first week of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week," and on January 25, 2010, the Senate expanded the observance by declaring the month of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness & Prevention Month" (S. Res. 373)."
gobonobo+c23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Dating abuse. As
Gobonobo points out, there are other such events/weeks/months in other countries, but I don't see that most of them are actually connected beyond their goals. From the looks of it, the
dating abuse article needs significant work, and could easily sustain an advocacy or similar section. A selective merge here could be a fine start to that section. — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There are plenty of news articles and websites covering this in the US. The article can be significantly improved and quite easily with little effort. As for the AfD, the nominator is asking for a delete based on an editing issue and obviously did not do a basic search on the term. The nominator claims there is no info for improvement. It's a week in February recognized in Texas, Ohio and other states... it seems that it may have been federally recognized. Now if we're looking at it as a singapore-only event, it still may be notable! Not finding information on the web doesn't mean it's not important... much info about Singapore news is available only thru lexis nexus. In addition the amount of information I just turned up on Google alone should be enough to warrant its own article... esp if the scope is global. Also... the lack of improvement shouldn't warrant an AfD. Be bold and fix the article yourself or bring it to the attention of active interested WikiProjects.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If there are enough independent sources it doesn't fail notability. An awareness week can be notable. There seem to be a lot of articles on the topic in the US.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
This article is about an awareness week in Singapore, and has a single source from Singapore. If you want to write an article about several awareness weeks in different places, go right ahead, and see whether it passes AfD. We are concerned now with this article, as is.
Kraxler (
talk)
03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
AfD should be used if there is no way to improve an article. As I've pointed out, there are several good ways to do so. AfD doesn't just mean looking at the article as it is now; articles may still be notable even if they do not contain the relevant existing information in them. See:
WP:NEXIST The article needs copyedit. This should have taken place on the talk page of the article, not gone to AfD.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
03:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: These events are distinct from the general concept of dating abuse; they reflect activism to address the problem. Yes, the article needs work, but deletion is not the answer. This is a women's event in Singapore, which in and of itself is remarkable. Clear evidence of third-party coverage, and no doubt more out there if anyone can address the language barrier. Frankly, I'm kind of offended by Kraxler's tone that implies that this is an irrelevant event of no consequence. We have a lot of problems with
systemic bias on wikipedia and this dismissive tone toward both women's issues and an Asian topic suggests this is a factor to be considered.
Montanabw(talk)02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I wish !voters would stick to the issue, instead of accusing others of bad faith. My !vote was cast when the article lokked like
this. Megalibrarygirl has edited it in the meanwhile, but needed to be reminded that speculating about what an article could look like is not equivalent to actually making an article show its notability and stand-alone usefulness.
Kraxler (
talk)
17:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Notability depends on being shown. In this case, the article was a content fork. Content forks are usually deleted for reasons other than notability. Please don't mix up apples and oranges.
Kraxler (
talk)
18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Local events of this sort are not worth merging to the general article, towards which it makes no contribution whatsoever. This is essentially a PR for the event, and there's a good case for deleting it as G11. DGG (
talk )
03:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This doesn't even approach the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. It is a purely local event, written purely to promote the first (and only?) one in Singapore in 2009. In case no one has noticed, there is no mention out there (or in the article) of any further such weeks in Singapore, despite the claim in the article that it is an "annual event". I've done a pretty thorough search, but if anyone finds sources indicating that it has been held in Singapore and received received significant coverage in the ensuing years, I'd be happy to change my mind. A brief summary, minus the padding can be added to
Teen dating violence, which as it is, is tagged (and rightly so) as not representing a worldwide view of the subject. That atrociously organized article, full of original research and written like an essay, gives massively undue weight to the US, with two lines about the UK, one line about Canada and... er... that's it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
On a related note, in Singapore "Dating Violence Awareness Week" was the second week in February. In the US, "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" is apparently the first week in February, and Chicago seems to have organized its own version of "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" for the third week October. A separate article on
Dating violence awareness with an international scope might be possible, but that's not what this article is (or even can be, given its title).
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can find no references to support this (the event in Singapore) beyond the 2009 launch. If such references exist in other languages, maybe the route to take is to create this article in the appropriate language version of Wikipedia, then have it translated to English if it then meets our notability requirements. I would also support a move to something like
Dating violence awareness/advocacy as previously suggested, with a more global view, which I would consider to be a more encylopaedic approach; or merge this into
Dating abuse with the option of spinning it out later to a seperate article if it becomes too unwieldy.
Derek Andrews (
talk)
11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Incubate - an option I wasn't aware of until now, per
WP:ATD-I. It would seem to me to be a way to enable those who see potential in an article of some nature on this topic to work on it without threat of deletion.
Derek Andrews (
talk)
12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The appropriate place for almost all "awareness weeks" is a brief mention in the topic article, in this case
Dating abuse. There is nothing much to say about the week, except possible lists of misc. dates. See
WP:NOT. There is a lot to say about the topic, and that article is where it should be said. --
Bejnar (
talk)
21:05, 16 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.
My searched found nothing good at all to suggest improvement and better independent notability with the best results of all my searches
here and, as an orphan, I'm not seeing a good move target for this article from February 2007. Pinging taggers @
The JPS and
Geniac:.
SwisterTwistertalk03:58, 29 August 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.
My searches found nothing aside from press releases and other minor coverage
here,
here,
here and
here (searches at Montreal Gazette, browser and CBC found nothing). I was also happening to notice this has stayed since November 2008 and, although it has been edited since, it has not been significant improvement thus less chances why to keep longer.
SwisterTwistertalk07:01, 29 August 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 His "most important" book was published by a small Christian press. The other three are self-published via Lulu. None found for sale on Amazon.
LaMona (
talk)
00:03, 6 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.
OH sheesh, the "redacted" bit was
Wasilla, Alaska ... see:
[37]. I note this just so we aren't reinforcing "Iran Nuclear Weapons 2" ultra-disruptive, Islamaphobic paranoia/James Bond fantasy that someone actually knew where he was located and Iranian commandos are descending on his home at this very moment because of an edit he made on WP. (It is slightly concerning this has to be explained.)
BlueSalix (
talk)
06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge -- the whole thing has a strong feel of being a fork, of a kind that it usually best merged back to the main article. I have not considered whether there is anything worth merging (as opposed to a plain redirect).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:08, 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.
The result was no consensus. No meeting of the minds occurred here, and there were reasonable policy arguments advanced by each side. The article has been made more neutral, and I encourage editors to aggressively ensure that it remains so prior to the election. No prejudice to renomination should the subject not prevail.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done23:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a person notable as the mayor of a town of 25K — which is not large enough to confer automatic inclusion rights on a mayor under
WP:NPOL — and as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election — which is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia if they haven't already passed an inclusion rule for some other reason. The sourcing here fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for a small-town mayor (e.g. by virtue of having become well-known outside of his local area), so there's no strong basis for an exemption from the 50K-minimum test for mayors, and candidates do not get articles just for being candidates — so he'll absolutely be eligible for an article if he wins his seat on October 19, but nothing here adequately demonstrates that he's earned an article today. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October if he wins.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:ROUTINE wouldn't cover this because that only covers the truly routine: press releases, individual sport games, etc. While some of the stuff in the article is local, the NALCOR dispute is with a provincial crown corporation and over a major provincial energy infrastructure project, and is definitely not "routine" as defined by
WP:ROUTINE..-- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The Nalcor controversy would qualify as
WP:BLP1E if it was a major controversy, since it is the only thing that got him a little extra attention. If it was a minor controversy it's still part of
WP:ROUTINE, minor controversies happen everywhere, even in the smallest populated places. Did any national neswpaper report on the Nalcor controversy?
Kraxler (
talk)
13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
This article doesn't meet the criteria for
WP:BLP1E. McDonald is not just notable for one thing, since he derives coverage and notability from his elected office as well as events he did in that office (e.g. Nalcor). As mayor of a major provincial municipality, and now a federal candidate, he's not a low profile individual, but a very public one, which BLP1E explicitly does not apply to ("WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals."). Yahoo New Canada saw fit to mirror the CBC articles on Nalcor
[38],
[39]. Though lack of national coverage (especially where there's significant amounts of provincial and local coverage) doesn't make it routine as defined in
WP:ROUTINE. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions19:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I suggest you read again
WP:NPOL # 2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". And
WP:NPOL # 3 "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The refs in the article are not in-depth on McDonald, and a few stories in local newspapers/TV can not be considered "significant coverage".
Kraxler (
talk)
19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
As I've noted throughout this AfD, my position (backed by a reading of POLOUTCOMES) is that as regionally important mayor, McDonald counts as an major local political figure. The article clearly goes beyond his electoral record and cites instances where's he's made provincial and regional new (e.g. Nova Scotian news and Atlantic Canada news for his construction projects), which I think constitutes significant and independent coverage. The NALCOR articles are entirely about McDonald's role in the dispute, and of the other sources, one is an interview with the leading provincial paper and another is with a 1v1 interview with
NTV, a leading provincial television network. These are IMHO in-depth sources. Even if there is no national level coverage, the depth and frequency of provincial sources (yes by accident of geography, CBS is on the
Avalon Peninsula along with
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, so all major provincial news outlets are technically local), combined with his position as a regionally important mayor are enough to justify keeping the article. Since we fundamentally disagree on the definition of the terms, it'll be up to the closing admin to decide. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Interviews with the subject in media don't count toward satisfying
WP:GNG, because they involve the subject talking about himself. To count toward GNG, a source has to involve other people talking about him.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I brought up the interviews to show that there were clearly in-depth, non-cursory coverage of McDonald among the refs. All the other sources in the article are independent, non-interviews and are mostly similarly in-depth. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Probably the most ridiculous nomination I've ever seen; the man is clearly notable, has received substantial coverage in the media during his mayoralty, and is the political candidate for a major position. The sources "adequately demonstrate" that he deserves an article. And, by the way, your link,
WP:NPOL mentions nothing about a mayor needing 50,000 residents to be notable.
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
18:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
NPOL # 2 says notable are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This is a minor local politician, major local politicians hold office in a capital city or in a city with a million inhabitants, or in cities known all over the world. I've never heard about Conception Bay South before, and I'm a geography buff. Sorry, but guidelines should guide us, not be treated with contempt.
Kraxler (
talk)
23:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Those are state-level politicians, not local ones — a state legislature is an entirely different level of office, with an entirely different set of applicable notability standards, than a city council is. Kraxler is mostly correct about what our standards for local politicians are — to be fair, our standard for mayors isn't actually as restrictive as our standard for city councillors is, but CBS still isn't large or prominent enough to pass our standard for mayors and it's in no way equivalent to a state or provincial legislature. And you can't just read
WP:NPOL and think you fully understand our notability standards for politicians — you also need to read
WP:POLOUTCOMES.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
"is the political candidate for a major position" carries no weight under Wikipedia's inclusion standards. As already explained, being an unelected candidate for a seat in the House of Commons is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — if you cannot adequately show that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate for a seat in the HoC, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And no, you haven't adequately shown that he garnered sufficient notability from the mayoralty either.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Not if those reliable sources are covering him in the context of a role that doesn't qualify him for an encyclopedia article, it isn't. Local media have an obligation to cover local politics, so coverage of his candidacy for an office that he hasn't been elected to yet falls under
WP:ROUTINE, not
WP:GNG — and once you discount those sources, what's left isn't even approaching the lower edges of the volume of coverage of his mayoralty that it would take to grant him NPOL #3 or a GNG-based exemption from our minimum population standards for mayors.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
User:SuperCarnivore591, NPOL is a guideline, not an essay. POLOUTCOMES is a mirror of the past (aka "precedent"), not somebody's personal opinion (as most essays may be). ROUTINE and GNG are guidelines too. Accusing people of trying to delete an article for no other reason than being "deletionists" violates
WP:AGF which is a fundamental principle (two steps above guideline).
Kraxler (
talk)
15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Standards follow consensus, established by the community. If the subject fails the standards, there's not much we can do about it. We have actually (currently at AfD) articles on city councillors who got less than 300 votes in a Chilean city, and the author thinks that these are extremely important people. So, some editors use their own standards when it comes to include their favorite subjects here, but everybody is supposed to bow to the community standards. That's why we have guidelines.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
And POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". In this case, the mayor of the second largest municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador would in fact be a major local figure in the province, whereas the same would not necessarily be true for a mayor of a similarly sized municipality in a more populous province like Ontario or Quebec. Since coverage of McDonald in the article goes beyond the fact that he's CBS's mayor, I don't think POLOUTCOMES applies here.-- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia grants no weight to where a municipality ranks in any given list of municipalities. The only automatic "exemption" that's granted for a city below 50K is if it's the capital of a state, province or country. And the only way the coverage goes anywhere beyond the fact of being a mayor is into his as yet unelected candidacy for a more notable office. He'll be eligible for an article if he wins the federal seat, but nothing here gets him over any of our inclusion rules now.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that POLOUTCOMES disagrees with you, because it specifically mentions "regional prominence" as a factor in evaluating AfD candidates. A municipality of 25k in a province where it's the second largest of its kind has regional prominence. A similarly sized one in a province where it would't break the top 50 municipalities (e.g. Ontario) would have considerably less regional prominence. The article goes into some detail about events during his term as mayor as expected of an article on a mayor. My position is that based on his current elected position and the available sources, he's notable enough for his own article. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
"Regional prominence" is not defined as subjective to the relative size of other municipalities in the same area; it's defined by longstanding AFD consensus as either (a) a minimum population of 50K, or (b) special allowance for a few cities (e.g.
Charlottetown) which fall below that figure but are a state, provincial or federal capital. Absent one of those two conditions, it's either "more notable than the norm for cities of its size, for some substantively nationalized and well-sourced reason", or bust.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If "regional prominence" is not defined as prominence in the region, than the phrase should be removed from POLOUTCOMES and explicitly replaced with the requirements that you and Kraxler have repeated throughout this AfD. No more of this, "these have always been the unwritten rules", when essays like POLOUTCOMES are the places for such matters of longstanding AfD consensus. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You're the one concocting your own self-serving definition of "regional prominence", not me. The problem with your interpretation is that even a village of less than 100 people can be argued as "regionally prominent", if one defines "region" narrowly enough — which is why AFD has a longstanding standard, fully established by thousands of prior AFDs, for what size of community is or isn't accepted as satisfying "regional prominence". And accordingly, it's not within your right to dictate what the people who are familiar with the established precedent are or aren't allowed to say "more of this" or not — consensus makes the rules here, not you.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's a strawman; no one is advocating that broad of an interpretation of "regionally prominent." I've said that CBS is regionally prominent because it's the second largest municipality in a top-level sub-national polity (in this case, a Canadian province). I don't think this is an unreasonable exception to the 50k population or capital consensus on a case by case basis where reliable sources exist. I also don't think it's unreasonable that if the 50k population/capital is the precedent set by most past cases, that it should be stated as such in POLOUTCOMES, which is meant to be a repository of common AfD outcomes. I was not trying to dictate what others can and cannot say, I was just expressing my unfavourable opinion of arguments that are essentially "this is the longstanding precedent" without linking to a policy/guideline/essay to back those specific claims about precedent. I apologize if I came off as trying to silence other participants.----
Patar knight - chat/contributions23:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Close call. Elected mayor of the second largest town in a province — still small, so borderline under the Special Notability Guideline for politicians. I am satisfied that this is a GNG pass based on footnotes showing on the page, however — he's a public figure.
Carrite (
talk)
04:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete He's getting CBC coverage (which I assume is national) but I agree with Bearcat that as only a candidate for a country-wide election he is on tenuous grounds for a WP article. As a winner of that election, he could well be notable. But if he loses, will this article be revised? Deleted? Or will it just linger here? That to me is the main reason to wait until after the election.
LaMona (
talk)
04:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify, while the CBC as a whole is certainly a national entity, the coverage in question isn't coming from the national news division — it's from their local news bureau in
St. John's, so it doesn't prove that he's actually getting coverage anywhere outside of his own local area yet.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The "local" news bureau in St. John's serves the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador. While it's not the national bureau, it's also not as local as the Shoreline News source, which is a CBS local paper. Regional CBC bureaus combine a mix of local journalism and serious journalism that could be used to show notability. -- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There's a difference between "getting provincewide coverage because he's actually a figure of genuinely provincewide notability" and "getting provincewide coverage only because the media outlet in question only has one bureau in the province, and thus every single story they cover automatically goes provincewide whether it's actually of any meaningful provincewide interest or not". McDonald is in the latter camp, not the former. The CBC is obviously a reliable source in principle — but by virtue of the way the CBC is structured, all CBC local bureau coverage, not just in St. John's but everywhere else in Canada too, automatically gets redistributed to at least half of its entire province, so the local bureaux can't in and of themselves prove that a person of local notability has passed the "covered outside his own local area" hump.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, regional CBC bureaus produce banal local news, but they also produce quality journalism. Doing a rudimentary google search of the CBC.ca site also shows that McDonald gets about twice as much coverage as other Newfoundland mayors except for the mayor of St. Johns. This argument also ignores the coverage from non-CBC sources like the St. John's Telegram, Atlantic Construction News, Newfoundland Television, the Nova Scotia Business Journal. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The quality of the journalism that the CBC does isn't the issue (go ahead and just try to find where I said anything even slightly disparaging of the CBC's journalism as a matter of principle.) The issue is the scope of notability that the journalism in question demonstrates — the fact that NTV and the CBC's station in St. John's have repeater transmitters outside of St. John's as well does not automatically nationalize their local coverage of local personalities and issues in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
My point is that because the output of the regional bureaus is a mix of local journalism and issues of provincial importance, judging scope isn't as well-defined as you make it out to be. As you said you can't prove that a person covered by those bureaus is covered outside the local area. However you also can't just dismiss all coverage from the regional bureau as not showing that the mayor of CBS gets coverage from more than the local area. Actions taken by McDonald as mayor have been published in non-Newfoundland journals like the Nova Scotia Business Journal and Atlantic Construction News. McDonald also gets widespread coverage at the provincial level, including more CBC coverage than any other non-St. John's mayor. I think these demonstrate his regional importance and that national coverage isn't necessary in this case. The case of Christine O'Donnell is irrelevant because O'Donnell was just a candidate and never held any elected office of the mayoral level of higher, whereas McDonald has. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
All candidates in all elections always generate local coverage, so that type of coverage does not contribute to getting a person over
WP:GNG — an as-yet-unelected candidate for office gets over GNG only if the coverage nationalizes in a
Christine O'Donnell sort of way. And there isn't enough coverage of him specifically in the context of his mayoralty to grant him an exemption from the fact that our inclusion standards for mayors require a minimum population of 50K — they are not based on where the municipality ranks in a list of the province's municipalities arrayed by population, but are based solely on the raw population figure itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You keep saying a mayor needs at least 50,000 residents in his town/city to be eligible enough for inclusion, yet haven't provided a link to a Wikipedia policy that says so. That's because it is not true. Nowhere in our policies does it say that. Please provide a link to this so-called "inclusion standard." A person being a mayor just needs to generate sufficient, third-party independent coverage to be considered notable, not to have a minimum of 50,000 residents.
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You're right. There's no requirement for 50k, it's more like a million inhabitants, except provincial/state/national capitals. And there's
WP:GEOSCOPE, I asked up there, and will ask again, has any national or foreign newspaper reported on the Nalcor controversy? If not, it remains local ROUTINE coverage. On a side note, I find it odd, that an editor of one month of Wiki presence is trying to lecture experienced AfD participants on the guidelines.
Kraxler (
talk)
18:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's quite an arbitrarily high requirement. GEOSCOPE applies only to events, and in any case, McDonald has gotten repeated coverage in several reputable provincial news sources. An editor of one month who's made nearly 2k edits is more than welcome to participate in AFD discussions and argue for a side. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions20:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler, you still haven't provided links to any policies that a mayor would need 50,000 inhabitants to have a Wikipedia article in provincial/state/national capitals, much less 1,000,000 (!) for mayors who serve every other kind of population. I know the 1,000,000 figure definitely can't be right; I can't imagine any such bogus requirement. Notability is not based on raw numbers. And another thing, please don't try to wikilawyer out of this by saying I can't criticize your AfD actions because I've only been here for a month (I've been here longer than that).
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There is no absolute (or actually any) number written in the guideline, my comment was based on
WP:POLOUTCOMES, precedent and experience in AfD discussions. That doesn't bar you from arguing for the contrary. Back to the main issue, this seeming to be a very borderline case, I'm giving the subject the benefit of the doubt, and strike my !vote.
Kraxler (
talk)
14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
50K is an established consensus established by a wealth of past AFD discussions on mayors of similarly-sized municipalities; those past discussions have indeed established a long-standing precedent that in a city of this size, coverage of a mayor has to nationalize, demonstrating significance far beyond the purely local, before they can be granted an override of the population size criterion. It doesn't have to be explicitly written into policy to be relevant and true; one needs to also be familiar with the conventions and precedents that AFD has established, and a 50K minimum for a mayor to get "automatically in because mayor" rights, with exceptions granted only if you can properly source "way more notable than usual, because national coverage", is one of those established precedents.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler, 1,000,000+ is the approximate minimum standard for city councillors, not for mayors. The minimum standard for mayors is considerably lower than that.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm quite experienced in AfD matters, but I wasn't aware of the 50K consensus for mayors. Thanks for telling me about it. However, I think it is too low, and I expect future arguments about notability-by-size in future AfDs, considering the appearance of new users at these dabates who are likewise unaware of such consensus, and no written rule which specifies this number. We'll have to be patient, like
Sisyphus.
Kraxler (
talk)
17:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. probably speedy delete as G11, if another admin agrees. I note the adjectives in the article, making OR claims about political matters. This is essentially a campaign biography. His previous position is not notable, and neither is his campaign, butthe real problem is promotionalism. DGG (
talk )
04:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I just made edits to make it more neutral. To be fair, the sources themselves used words like "
controversial" and "upset", though I've removed the former. I've kept the use of the word "upset" because that's how the sources described the mayoral election result
[40][41], though I have added an in-text attribution per the advice in
WP:WORDS. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions06:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The
blatant campaign advertising was my prime concern, as can be seen in my first post, way up there. Maybe the article should be trimmed down to half the current size. The elections will be held in a month, and we'll be older and wiser by then. If he wins the article stands anyway, if not...
Kraxler (
talk)
17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I've cut down the article text by about 40% and removed all material that I think could be seen as promotional. Although it's not a valid deletion argument, projections for the electoral district McDonald is running in gave him nearly a 90% chance of winning the riding. -- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 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.
Longtime (February 2010), unsourced and basically nn-notable bio with my searches finding absolutely nothing good aside from
some here (BehindWoods link is found once at News). There's not much info and it's vague about her roles and career. Notifying the only still active tagger
Shirik.
SwisterTwistertalk19:35, 29 August 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
WP:BASIC. Coverage is not substantial, none of the cited sources are actually about the subject. One sentence mentions (trivial coverage) in articles about other topics does not demonstrate notability.
dissolvetalk06:47, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. The only editors to argue for keeping provided no policy-based arguments. I also note that all the keep !voters have extremely limited editing history, and one of them has been indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --
RoySmith(talk)15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources are mainly minor, mostly of the directory or listing type. He is briefly quoted in a couple of short (1-2 paragraph) articles. Many of the sources are from organizations he belongs to. (Jupiter Meds, in particular.) The publications that laud him are not significant. So we are lacking reliable sources, and there is nothing to show that he is notable. There is an air of promotion about the article.
LaMona (
talk)
03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The "Top Doctor" awards are far from establishing notability. This list (of a couple of dozen doctors in a small geographic area) comes from a company that names thousands of "top doctors" every year (one article said 6,000
[42]). Hospitals pay to have their doctors publicly visible in these lists.
[43] While this particular company is considered to be honest, being one of thousands in this list is like being listed by the Better Business Bureau. It helps consumers, but it's not a sign of notability.
LaMona (
talk)
17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - I don't feel very strongly about this case, but
the sourcing is quite weak. Several cites are to a regulatory website, one to a lifestyle magazine, and the others to industry publications. So can we have more tests, doc?
Bearian (
talk)
Keep I can see element of notability in some of the references. However, the write may be asked to source for more usable references to boost the article.
Odogu (
talk)
12:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and Userfy. Searches did not turn up anything to suggest this person meets the notability criteria. But it's a new article, and the article's creator might be able to turn up something I missed.
Onel5969TT me14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete., and absolutely do not userify. This is straightforward promotionalism for a plastic surgeon, by a SPA, and should have been removed as G11. There is nothing here to indicate that a proper article will ever be possible.I see no valid references; everything here is a essentially a press release; a "Top Doctor" reference from the "Palm Beacher Magazine" is not notability--those sort of publications have no authority whatsoever. If it is, it would need to be done by someone with the obvious COI here. DGG (
talk )
04:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Sources do not assert notability, as most of them solely mention the doctor and don't go into much detail about the doctor himself. There's also
WP:NPOV issues as well given the wording in the "plastic surgery career" section. Aerospeed (
Talk)
13:54, 14 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.
WP:BLP of an actress and writer, making no substantive claim of notability that would satisfy either
WP:NACTOR or
WP:AUTHOR and citing no
reliable source coverage — it just asserts her existence, and parks on her
IMDb profile as its sole "source". And, in fact, if you compare the statement of who she is in the IMDb profile to the statement of who she is in this article, it becomes painfully clear that the creator directly imported the IMDb statement and rephrased it just enough to avoid a literal
WP:COPYVIO, without actually adding anything else to it beyond a virtual replication of the IMDb profile. An actress does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists — it takes reliable source coverage about her to get her in here, but none has been shown. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:32, 29 August 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 as my searches found nothing good and, frankly, this should not have stayed here this long if there were concerning issues such as sourcing and even simply improving the article.
SwisterTwistertalk05:03, 2 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.
Hardly found anything about this person and his works that would have this article sustained in Wikipedia.
This is the only source I can find, which includes a mention.
TheGGoose (
talk)
05:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete If this isn't a hoax, this is the best kept pulp fiction gem of all time. (Well, ok, I know a few others). I can't find any evidence of his existence, doing searches only on his last name since his first name seems to vary from Henry to Hank and more. No evidence of his books in libraries or bookstores. No evidence of his Hollywood work in IMDB. I really hope that someone hits the jackpot and finds the hidden cache of information that will bring this person to light. Until then...
LaMona (
talk)
04:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO. Google brings up nothing useable, like
LaMona even searching using the surname only reveals nil worldcat library holdings
[45]. With his apparent prodigious output ("For the next 3 decades he would write 3 to 4 novels a year.") i would expect something to appear at least on bookseller/auction sites but even searching these proved fruitless (probably because of small print runs his books are rare and highly collectable
). ps. what is the "1947 booker award"?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
17:57, 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.
My searches found nothing and, based from the article's current content, it's unlikely she ever got much attention much less likely enough to improve this article. It's worth noting this has stayed basically the same since starting in February 2005 and there's no obvious move target.
SwisterTwistertalk04:53, 5 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 third source provided is pretty good, and puts his notability on the border at least. Not going to withdraw, but I'm now neutral bordering on keep after a close review of the provided sources and a closer check for others out there.
Wizardman21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I need to investigate further, but I think Muboshgu is probably right in that he does not meet
WP:NBASEBALL since being a #1 draft pick is not a baseball criteria, but as a #1 pick there is a good chance he got adequate coverage to meet
WP:GNG.
Rlendog (
talk)
14:36, 2 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.
My searches found several results
here,
here,
here,
here (Scholar, passing mentions),
here and
here but nothing to make considerable, even minimally, improvement and there's hardly any significant edits since March 2004 and no good move target. Although it seems fairly well known in its field and has made recommendations for hearing enhancement measures in theatres, there's not much else.
SwisterTwistertalk19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep perhaps a ref improve tag, but plenty of sources to do an informative article, which I did update somewhat.
Seibel, Tom (27 October 1990). "Conference tackles problems of adults who lose hearing". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
CIEPLY, MICHAEL (21 November 2014). "Theater Owners Join Effort to Add Captioning to Films". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
Loudon, Bennett J. (3 December 2014). "Feds planning new rules on movie captions". USA Today. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
"New software for Google Glass provides captions for hard-of-hearing users" (2 October 2014). Phys.org. 2 October 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2015. "Foley and the students are working with the Association of Late Deafened Adults in Atlanta to improve the program."
Delete The references above are places where the organization is quoted or mentioned (sometimes in a single sentence) on a general issue, not places which discuss the organization. DGG (
talk )
04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google books and Google scholar are better places to look for this sort of thing than the popular press. The article does need rewriting. Two references: Woodcock, Kathryn (1996).
"The Association of Late-Deafened Adults: Rationale, Highlights, History"(PDF). In Mervin D. Garretson (ed.). Deafness: Historical Perspectives. National Association of the Deaf. p. 155to160.
ISBN978-0-913072-84-4. and Dalebout, Susan (2009). The Praeger Guide to Hearing and Hearing Loss: Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention. ABC-CLIO. p. 228.
ISBN978-0-313-36476-1..— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
StarryGrandma (
talk •
contribs) 04:03, 31 August 2015
Weak Delete - a tough one. There are a bunch of sources, but the only ones that seem to cover the organization beyond a mention, citation, or affiliated person, are primary sources (e.g. the one posted by StarryGranma directly above). I'd prefer a merge, but don't see any suitable target (
post-lingual deafness?) — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - references don't really cover the organization unless it was a brief mention. Maybe userfy to creator or merge with an article?
MrWooHoo (
talk)
02:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
MrWooHoo Well, FWIW, the author was a SPA and never seemed to come again last March 2004 (and hardly anyone else has significantly edited the article enough) and chances are very likely they're not returning. If it was userfied, that would simply host it and someone else would have to attend to it.
SwisterTwistertalk02:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Another support/advocacy organization, The Association of Late-Deafened Adults (ALDA), was founded in 1987. For the most part, its members are adults who grew up hearing but are now unable to understand speech without visual aids such as speechreading, sign language, or captioning. The organization's goal is to advocate for relevant legislation, rehabilitation programs, employment opportunities, and communication services. The organization also provides personal support to late-deafened adults as they adjust to becoming deaf. Networking opportunities are offered through local chapters and an annual conference. The association publishes a quarterly newsletter "that blends humor and sensitivity along with first-hand accounts of the frequent absurdities of deafened life.
ALDA, the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, is an international group that recently permitted Ms. Ward to open a chapter in Pasco County
...
The association is for people 21 and older who have a mild or severe hearing impairment and need support. People who attend ALDA meetings can communicate through lip reading, sign language or even written notes.
ALDA was started by Bill Graham, an editor at World Book Encyclopedia in Chicago, after he suddenly became deaf. His loss left him depressed until he entered a support group to deal with the problem.
...
In 1987, Bill Graham received a book titled Who's Who in Science, and thumbed through its pages finding people who he thought to be deaf, and then contacted them. Graham's predictions were mostly right, and he met with the people to discuss plans for an adult deafness group.
ALDA's first chapter opened in Chicago in 1987 with the help of audiologists, psychiatrists and other professionals who could work well with the deaf.
Today, there are chapters of ALDA in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France Australia, and now, Pasco County.
On the day I visited, Mike, Karen and another friend, Stanley Gadsden, 32, were making plans to attend the third annual ALDA International Conference, which began Wednesday and continues through Sunday at the Westin Hotel in Chicago.
ALDA is a four-year-old group with 1,200 members, all of whom became deaf after childhood. Though the late-deafened make up 75 percent of the 1.8 million deaf population, they are often the most isolated. People who were born deaf view them as part of the hearing world. And people who hear view them as deaf.
...
I. King Jordan, president of Gallaudet, the university for deaf students, lost his hearing in a motorcycle accident at age 21. He's giving the keynote address at this year's ALDA conference. In a speech to ALDA in 1989, he talked of how the hearing world interacts with the late-deafened: "The belief is out there that, if we deaf people would simply try a little bit harder, if we would really concentrate, then we would be able to understand. If we really worked at it, we could hear again."
Those who acknowledge that they have moved to a different phase and need to get on with life may be amenable to seeking out contact with other late-deafened persons through venues such as the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc. (ALDA) (
http://www.alda.org, 2008) in their search for a sense of fellowship. At ALDA meetings, attention to diverse communication needs, including signed English, spoken language with speeechreading and assistive listening devices, note writing, and CART [Communication Access Real Time Translation] (
http://www.alda.org, 2008), draws these late-deafened individuals together. Conclusions from data obtained from 97 late-deafened participants in 12 focus groups confirm that while hearing community affiliations remain strong, meetings with ALDA members are valued (Goulder, 1997).
The book notes on page 126 in its "Resources" section:
ALDA
The Association of Late Deafened Adults (ALDA) is a self-help organization for people who have lost their hearing after the development of speech. The organization was founded in Chicago in 1987.
Keep. There's sufficient here for notability of this national organization. This is one of the few recent times I've agreed with
Cunard in these discussions, at least about the conclusion, though I think some of his sources are mere mentions. Books about a condition such as this and patient websites tend to include all posssibly relevant organizations, and I consider them mere listings. The 1st ref. given by
StarryGrandma, however, is substantial enough for notability. DGG (
talk )
04:13, 14 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.
WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The article is written in the first person, cites a single brief namecheck in a book, and rests his notability on having very briefly been in a notable band — however, NMUSIC permits a musician whose notability is band-dependent to have a separate standalone article only if they can be reliably sourced as having independent notability for something independent of the band (such as solo albums). And looking at the band's article, his membership was extremely brief at best — the founding member that Mallinson claims to have replaced was actually replaced within two weeks by a permanent new member who wasn't Mallinson, so even if Mallinson's claim is true he was in the band for a grand total of 10-14 days at most. And all of this occurred before the band had even recorded its first album, meaning they weren't even notable yet. NMUSIC normally recommends a redirect to the band, but I don't think that's appropriate in this case, as his membership in the band isn't even hinted at in the band's article. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:26, 22 August 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.
Oppose per rationale given by another editor at the last nomination, "The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles" and my comment at the Snoop Dogg nomination by the same editor which reads, "The nominator has given his opinion why the whole of the "List of songs recorded by Foo" may be considered for deletion but has failed to explain why the Snoop Dogg list should be singled out. If the nominator thinks that the category should be deleted he should nominate accordingly, singling out certain artists according to personal taste does not benefit Wikipedia." --
Richhoncho (
talk)
18:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Well for some artists a list like this may make sense, but for this group everything here is basically covered in their discography.
Koala15 (
talk)
18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)reply
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Here's some figures.
Meaning that 64 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.
If one of the two articles were to be AfD'd, it would surely be the Ariana Grande list, no? Do you still stand by your claim that this article is redundant to the discography? Strong keep'.
Azealia911talk19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Richhoncho I'm not sure if the genre of the artists brought to AfD has anything to do with it, but they all seem to be very basic, messy, unsourced lists. I sense that having them deleted is an easy cleanup, a way of sweeping them under the rug and getting them out of the way without actually working on them if you get what I mean.
Azealia911talk11:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Azealia911. I am not sure I would call any of the articles basic or messy, but I concur they are unreferenced, but that's not grounds for deletion either. If the nominator wishes to point out I have made an error in my accusation I would apologise and retract my "rapper" comment, although to be fair one of the nominations was for a "hiphop artist". --
Richhoncho (
talk)
08:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Koala15:, could you please give an indication as to weather you wish to proceed with this AfD? If you withdraw, it can speedily be closed as nobody else has !voted delete. Just suggesting it as opposed to letting this drag on until it's closed in a few days. That is, unless you still think the article should be deleted. Thanks,
Azealia911talk23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Note from 1st AFD closer - Incase anyone's confused with the first AFD closure - I originally closed based on
this AFD (I'm sure I closed about 3 or 4 from that nominator relating to these I think)... It made sense at the time anyway
. –
Davey2010Talk00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
If you ask me whether
WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, I'll answer yes. But, your two examples have a reference appended to each song, and the unlinked entries do not grossly outnumber the blue-linked songs.
Kraxler (
talk)
01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah, the ever over-used otherstuffexists, Wikipedia's answer to
Godwin's law. An articles current state should not be viable reasoning for deletion, but its potential. Is the article a dire mess? Completely. Does it have the potential to be a complete, referenced list? Yes.
Azealia911talk02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's all OTHERSTUFF, I just showed that "keep" is as much a possible outcome of this AfD as "delete". It's to be decided on the merits of this subject, and not any other.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If by "what happens", you mean the opinion of you and two other editors at a relatively quiet AfD, then yes ok, there's one example of what happened. But until you can clearly show me that poor referencing is a cause for deletion, and not just a way of sweeping clutter under the rug as opposed to working on said article, I'm not buying it. As of the current listed examples of
reasons for deletion, I'm not seeing any that this list applies to. Take note of number 6 too, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" not "Articles that are currently not attributed to reliable sources". If anything, an easy referencing method would be the respective albums's listed in the articles' liner notes or
AllMusic credits. As for you calling fancruft, preposterous. Someone making a comprehensive "List of songs" article for an artist is most definitely not cruft. I just sourced 35+ entries in the list. Will resume when I wake up.
Azealia911talk02:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
LISTCRUFT applies when the non-notable stuff by far exceeds the notable part. It's 64 nn to 25 n, by your count. This list is just a pretext to squeeze more info on 64 non-notable songs into Wikipedia.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:19, 1 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 subject of this article fails
WP:ONEEVENT as he is known only for his current political candidacy in an upcoming Australian federal by-election, with all references on him having appeared since this was announced and being focused on this fact. The usual convention is that Australian federal political candidates are not independently notable until they are elected, with this being the consensus of a discussion of this article at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Andrew Hastie (politician). While Mr Hastie's Army career was distinguished, it is not a source of independent notability as 1) his identity was legally protected as he was a member of the secretive
Special Air Service Regiment so he received no coverage whatsoever for it until he announced his candidacy 2) the stories about his military service have been in the context of his political candidacy (he's running strongly on his military record) and 3) He did not hold a senior rank (he was a mid-ranked officer until he resigned to contest the election).
Nick-D (
talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Nick-D (
talk)
03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Full disclosure, I was the editor who approved this article through the AfC process.
Nick-D and I have had a cordial back and forth regarding this article, which he felt should be a redirect, and I disagree with. I thought that if he felt strongly that a created article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, he should bring it to the AfD process, which he has graciously done. I understand his viewpoint, but in my opinion, this is a case that regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, this fledgling politician clearly passes
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. It is rather tedious that it has had to come to this, since very possibly this whole affair will be rendered moot in two weeks' time. In the meantime, however, Hastie has no claim of passing GNG. He is known only and entirely for his candidacy for Canning; there is, to my knowledge, no coverage whatsoever of him in any other context, thus he fails ONEEVENT as Nick-D says. If he is successful - which he very well might be - then obviously he passes
WP:POLITICIAN, but in the meantime he is not notable and the article is premature. We also want to discourage this kind of premature creation and actually had a kind of incubator for these a few years ago, which has fallen into abeyance. If someone wanted to host this in userspace until the by-election that would be a satisfactory solution as well - in fact, given that the article in its current state is quite decent, I would be happy to do so myself.
Frickeg (
talk)
04:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Just the national television coverage alone is enough to satisfy
WP:N. Perhaps if this was part of a general election collection of candidates we would not have received the national coverage of the person. But that's not the case here.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:TOOSOON. If he does not win the by-election, he will be just another failed candidate with a flash of fame due to that one event. Redirect to the by-election and give each candidate a neutral paragraph or two if needed. I agree it's a nice article, but I'm sure someone could write an article about each of us if they cared to. --
Scott DavisTalk04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. It should have been speedied or redirected, Onel5969 had no business forcing this time-sensitive situation through AfD, and I would suggest a
WP:SNOW close as soon as possible. Hastie has absolutely no claim to notability besides his political candidacy: if he wins, he will be unquestionably notable, if he loses, he is unquestionably not notable, and the by-election is far too closely contested for an article to be created in advance and only serves as campaign propaganda.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
05:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - regretfully as this article seems to be in good shape and is the work of a new editor. Regardless, I agree with the nominator's 1E rationale. The claim that Hastie has received ongoing nationwide media coverage is not really accurate as he only seems to have received coverage in the lead up to the election (i.e. his candidacy) which I don't think fits the definition of "ongoing". Of cse though this may change and in the future there may be more coverage (of either his political or military career, or both). I wonder if this might be
USERFIED?
Anotherclown (
talk)
07:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Postpone - The by-election will be held in 2 weeks time, and this AFD will run for 1 week. If he is elected (and he is the big favourite to win it, given he needs a 10% swing to lose it), the article will then be undeleted/recreated only 1 week after it's deleted. What a waste of time. If he loses, then I think that it should be selectively merged/redirected to
Canning by-election, 2015.
The-Pope (
talk)
08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That would effectively create a special exemption from
WP:NPOL, by which all candidates in current elections would suddenly become entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign advertising platform for the duration of the campaign, and then only after the results were finalized could we even begin to entertain deletion of any of them. And that wouldn't just apply to by-elections either; it would apply equally to all of the thousands of candidates in a full-on general election, too. No matter how ridiculous it may seem to delete the article and then possibly have to restore it again in a week or two, creating a special waiver from our inclusion rules just because the election's not very far off would be a logistical nightmare that would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a public relations database. There's always the option of sandboxing it, too.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Suspending our normal inclusion standards for politicians, just because the by-election's only a couple of weeks away and we might have to recreate the article again, is a can of worms that no sane editor wants to open — it would require us to accept every article about every candidate in any current election at any level of government in every country in the entire world, and would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a repository of campaign brochures. And even if he is favoured to win, per
WP:CRYSTAL we're not in the business of publishing electoral predictions. Simply put, we have to stick with the rules — granting a temporary special exemption to candidates in current elections, just because we might have to recreate them again (oh, the horror) if the candidate wins, would inherently vitiate the very reason that our inclusion standards for politicians even exist in the first place. Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation if he wins; sandboxing in draft or userspace also acceptable.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Why would the result from a single AFD make a binding precedent that overrules NPOL? If I referred to this article in the next political candidate's AFD, I'd get OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fired at me. This isn't any old minor candidate. It's a
by-election, so only one seat is being voted for, and the media focus is much higher than a normal state or national campaign (as the result is seen as a pointer to the status of the Prime Minister's standing). He isn't representing any old party, it's
one of the two major political parties in the country and the incumbent party for this seat, so the prediction of victory is very high, it's currently paying about $1.22 (or 5/1 on) at the online bookies. This isn't a US style >2-year campaign, it's a 33 day campaign that's seen the Prime Minister appear numerous times alongside this candidate. If there was a case for a IAR on the standard notability guidelines (not rules) for political candidates, this is it. If it is deleted, will you salt it for that week to stop other well meaning people, political staffers or editors who want it to be a "PR database" from recreating it in the meantime? (and a disclaimer, in case anyone thinks I'm COI or connected to Hastie - my politics are almost completely opposite to his. So no, I don't know or support him in any way).
The-Pope (
talk)
14:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete according to regular practice. It would have been better to have been left as a redirect so that it could be easily recreated.--
Grahame (
talk)
02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The claim by
Nick-D that he is only known for his recent candidature ignores role as a member of SASR generally, and the fact he is linked to the incident regarding the severed hands. This case is only the second alleged war crimes investigation in Australia over the last 10 years, and Hastie is the only figure identified in public. For these reasons in my opinion he satisfies
WP:GNG.--
Klobfour (
talk)
07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
He was only identified after, and because, of his political candidacy. According to the media reports, he played no direct role in the incident and was cleared. I'm not sure what you mean by "ignores role as a member of SASR generally" - given that the identities of SAS personnel are legally protected, no notability whatsoever is attached to this: quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, the SAS Regiment has 500+ members at any given point in time, including what must be around 30 officers, so there's no intrinsic notability from being a former member of the unit.
Nick-D (
talk)
07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Firstly, as you did with your original entry arguing for AfD and you’ve done again here, you have conflated the cause of his identification (political candidacy) with the cause of his notoriety (SAS soldier involved in high profile incidents and political candidacy) in an attempt to argue for deletion in accordance with
WP:ONEEVENT. This is a false argument as they are two distinct elements; however, there is of course a relationship between the two. His notoriety extends from his career as a SAS officer AND his political candidacy. Perhaps you can argue that
WP:POLITICIAN shows that listing him prior to election fails to satisfy this rule, but it relies on him having no notoriety other than candidacy, which is clearly not the case. Secondly, as
Graeme said it’s not just an election, it’s a by-election, and it’s a by-election which has attracted more attention than any other in perhaps the last 20 years (maybe since
Ros Kelly in 1995?). It’s in the news every night, and Hastie appears in the newspapers every morning, sometimes more than once. The arguments that if he loses he’ll just be another failed candidate are a weak generalisation, as at the very least we know from the alleged war crimes investigation that there’s more to come. Thirdly, your argument regarding “no notability whatsoever” due to the legally protected status of SAS personnel is a fallacy. It’s the equivalent of saying an event is unimportant because no-one saw or reported it. Maybe that tree never fell in the forest? I’m unsure what the strength of the SAS Regiment officers and men is but seeing as it’s “legally protected” the statistics you’ve used must be a stab in the dark at best, and afford no relevance to the discussion. Finally, there appears to be very limited risk of this amounting to a partisan article seeing as there is no mention of policy or the usual politicking politicians get up to, and the bulk of the article is devoted to his military service. I stand by my comments regarding satisfaction of
WP:GNG. He’s attracted numerous front page stories on BOTH his candidacy and his military career, and I’m certain the media coverage over the next two weeks will further show that this is the case. I’m unsure why but my guess from your entry editorialising his private life and your removal of the references to the “controversial” article in ‘‘The Age’’ (despite it being slammed by politicians and commentators of all persuasions) is that you must really dislike this guy for some reason, hence your attempt to steamroll over all who disagree with you. Prove me wrong with a reasoned argument.
Klobfour (
talk)
12:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Nick-D, Frickeg, Bearcat and the guidelines they linked to. No need to redirect as after election- if that would make him notable- a much better encyclopaedic summary could be written that would be less biased by
WP:RECENTISM. --
ELEKHHT11:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - The article is neutral in presentation and about a individual notable for his army career and political candidacy, and, as such, is superior to many of the biographies allowed to stand.
Jgk168421 (
talk)
13:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, with the acknowledgement that this is process wonkery. I am not keen on seeing Wikipedia used as a tool in political campaigning, as this article seems to be, and even though my money is on Hastie to scrape in, I don't think we should set any precedent that "sure things" are exempted from guidelines like
WP:POLITICIAN and
WP:BLP1E. Undelete if and when he wins.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)07:13, 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.
Non-notable school. No indication it passes
WP:NSCHOOL,
WP:CORP, or
WP:GNG. Most "delete" arguments raised in 2006 AFD still apply. Many "keep" arguments from 2006 have been superceded by changes in Wiki-practice as seen in
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That AFD closed as "no consensus". Note: Potential redirect target to
Garnerville, New York would be potentially confusing to readers as the page doens't have an "education" section. Having said that, I am okay with either delete or redirect.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)
03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
As nominator I have no objection to redirecting the page to any suitable target including this one. A target that mentions the school by name or that at least mentions elementary schools in that geographic area or which could have a mention easily added (i.e. without having to add a bunch of other stuff for context) would likely be more suitable than one that doesn't mention it or which would need a large or awkward edit to mention it. Had there not been any past deletion- or redirect-attempts I would've simply redirect it to somewhere or
WP:PRODed it.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)
14:40, 5 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 newly minted
WP:PROMOTIONAL article consists of 8 largely non-RS references that include YouTube, Kickstarter, Facebook, the company's own website, etc., plus a handful (3) of drive-by product reviews of specific items manufactured by the company (not actual information on the company itself).
LavaBaron (
talk)
03:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I created this article and I am not sure why
LavaBaron insists that it is promotional material. I have no relation to this company, and I do not own these products, nor am I interested in advancing their reputation. I will happily rewrite any material that seems too much like an ad. Primary sources (the YouTube interview, the Kickstarter, the Facebook page) are not unreliable sources by any means. Also, the company's website is not actually cited in the article, and the other 5 references are to secondary sources. Create Digital Music, AskAudio and Fact have regular staff subject to editorial oversight. I can't find as much detailed information about Earmilk, though it appears to have a managing staff. If the concern is that the page covers the product more than the company, couldn't a move/restructuring be more effective? I'd also like to say that I feel like this AfD may have been started hastily and in bad faith after I asked LavaBaron to explain their tags on the article on the
talk page.
Boomur [
☎]
03:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If you're citing a source that you don't know much about but "appears to have an editorial staff" [sic] that's a good clue it's non-RS. As for not explaining my tags to you, it's not my responsibility to explain why Facebook and YouTube are non-RS to a seasoned editor such as yourself. It would be different if you were new here. But asking me to spend time typing out the patently obvious is a nuisance request. If you truly don't know at this point in your WP career, you may want to spend some time observing before continuing editing.
LavaBaron (
talk)
03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Please see
WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources are not necessarily unreliable. The tags you left on the article were mainly related to lack of references, original research, and puffery; I was seeking examples of those things so that they could be corrected, because from my perspective they were not present in the article (which doesn't mean they're not present).
Boomur [
☎]
03:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, as they are not notable. I went through the article and chopped it down to size, and removed the Facebook and Youtube "refs". Setting aside who created the article or why, it seems it is now standard practice for any small Maker-type company that relies on the Internet for sales to have a Wikipedia page like this to promote their product and to tell the world that they are alive. In this case I would say it is
WP:TOOSOON. Companies like
littleBits or
Adafruit are notable for having generated enormous independent third-party press about their products. Look at the refs in
Ayah Bdeir's article: those are notable. The refs in this article are very weak mentions in industry publications and do not denote significant notability.
New Media Theorist (
talk)
17:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, as more companies are learning about
Google Knowledge Graph, there's been a race to claim real estate. We seem to be seeing a lot of small companies desperately lining up to push-through articles about themselves. I've been AfD'ing like a madman lately.
LavaBaron (
talk)
00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Uh, I'd like to clarify once again that I am not associated with Patchblocks, and even if I were that wouldn't be grounds to delete necessarily, just to rewrite.
Boomur [
☎]
01:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes
Boomur, I understood that from when you said as much in your first comment. If you read my comment two up from this, and
LavaBaron's directly above, we do not claim you are associated with the company. We were just talking generally about the appropriateness/notability factor of very small companies having Wikipedia pages. That's the crux of the notability issue here: very small company with minor industry press. Does it need a page, is it notable enough to warrant one? I say WP:TOOSOON. And yes, I know you disagree. Hoping to hear what others have to say.
New Media Theorist (
talk)
02:06, 6 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.
My searches including the simplest found absolutely nothing at all so, given it's an Indian subject, I'm sure if sources are simply not easily accessible. However, it was started in June 2005 by an Indian IP and has not been significantly edited since so that concerns me. I'd like to invite fellow hoax hunter
Calamondin12 for comment.
SwisterTwistertalk00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. Not a hoax. Appears to be a rarely-used spelling; more common is Anbu Kodi Makkal. I've found references to "anbukkodi" as a symbol used by devotees of
Ayya Vaikundar, such as page 47 of
this document: "A global structure called “samattuva sangham” was created with a saffron flag with a white jwala (‘anbukkodi’) in the middle." It's unclear how much the term is actually used, however, so ideally an expert on religion in India may be able to offer some advice on whether to keep the article (which has very little real content) or to redirect to
Ayyavazhi.
Calamondin12 (
talk)
12:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete we can't be left to guess what an article should be about, and in the absence of sources explaining the subject, there's no other way to proceed
Kraxler (
talk)
17:00, 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 As far as I can tell this is just a website, not a "network of ministries". The associated radio show doesn't even use the name Busted Halo.
Carax (
talk)
17:29, 5 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:BEFORE should have prevented this irresponsible nomination. Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG - including these two from the Chicago Tribune:
[51][52] Similar minimal effort turns up third-party news stories for the other players. Recommend this be speedily closed if not withdrawn by nominator.
The Dissident Aggressor21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment This has nothing to do with
WP:BEFORE. The sources you listed, I had also found. I cannot access them without paying for them and I will not do that. It might have been the way they were linked, but I think I have accessed them successfully now. So to comment on the sources. The one source does talk about Clark, I understand that. However, that does not equal significant third party coverage. The second source is a list of players and a small piece on them, something you would generally find for an underage athlete in a local paper. See other
linked discussions in regards to this for reference. As per
WP:NHSPHSATH, "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond
WP:ROUTINE coverage." None of these individuals satisfy this requirement. It goes on to say "The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.", which hammers on the two sources linked above.
The Undead Never Die (
talk)
21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. If a handful of local routine coverage of high school athletes confers notability, I have several thousand articles to create. ~ RobTalk23:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The editor who created this articles have deleted the afd notice in all of them. I have just reverted that. User have removed tfd notices as well as you can see in
his contribution list. Probably enough for ban.--
Osplace01:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete ALL per:
There have already been discussions apparently that U-18 volleyball teams are non notable
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
This young man is one of the three US citizens involved in disarming the gunman during
2015 Thalys train attack, therefore newspaper coverage of him is immense. However is this a
WP:BLP1E? The only content in this article which is not in the main event page, is that apparently he is now going to be appearing on
Dancing with the Stars. Does this justify the article?
Pincrete (
talk)
23:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep as article creator. Skarlatos was initially notable for one event, but not anymore. He became publicly known for stopping the terrorist attack, but is know notable for being a foreign recipient of the Legion of Honour. He will also be on Dancing with the Stars. He does not satisfy BLP1E because quote on quote " We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual." Skarlatos is very unlikely to be a low-profile individual now that he is a foreign recipient of France's highest award, and will be having coverage of his role on Dancing with the Stars. Quote on quote "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met: If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented." Skarlatos role in the stopping of the French train attack was very well documented by international media. Skarlatos does not satisfy that category. Skarlatos also satisfies the WP:GNG. He has had more attention about him than just his role in the attack by international media. He will know be getting more coverage since he will be on Dancing with the Stars. This article was nominated for deletion too early. He does satisfy the guidelines, and his article should stay. Good day!
CookieMonster755(talk)00:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal.
Pincrete (
talk)
17:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, if you read what I said, Skarlatos does not meet criteria for BLP1E for several reasons. That is to protect people who don't want fame, obviously he wants fame due to the fact that he will be on Dancing with the Stars. I do agree that I am being biased due to the Crystal rule, but you know there is alternatives to deletion. Also; he meets the Wikipedia notability guide
WP:ANYBIO #1, quote on quote "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times." He also meets Wikipedia notability guide
WP:NotableMIL #1, quote on quote "Were awarded their nation's highest award for valour."
CookieMonster755(talk)22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Of course I read what you wrote, what information is in this article that is not already in the main 'attack' article, apart from the 'dancing' plug and the assumption that this is going to lead to notability beyond the single event? See my remarks about
WP:CRIME below, because everything in this discussion hinges on whether going to be in 'Dancing', justifies the seperate article.
Pincrete (
talk)
08:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - per
WP:ANYBIO #1, Legion of Honor the highest award in France.
WP:BLP1E requires three criteria to be met but does not meet #1 because Skarlatos will be on Dances with Stars. His decision to appear on Dancing with the Stars tells us he is seeking the spotlight and choosing to be a public figure. BLP1E is meant to protect people from becoming a public figure who otherwise don't seek it but were thrust into the spotlight by some news event. Skarlatos is seeking the spotlight and now involved in multiple events. Also #3 requires an "insignificant event"; this arguably a significant event and he played a prominent role. --
GreenC00:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep His Dancing with the Stars is very persuasive for a keep since he would be a war hero and a TV star. Other Dancing with the Stars contestants have Wikipedia pages. A sign of our sad Wikipedia world is that the DWTS stint makes him notable, more than his role in stopping a terrorist attack.
Sandra opposed to terrorism (
talk)
00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Sandra, as I say above to CookieMonster755, the French police, and the media say at present it was a possible 'terrorist attack', at the moment it's all surmisal, neither motives nor intentions are known.
Pincrete (
talk)
17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep He's been featured on many media outlets for a significant amount of time and will continue to be covered on, which already establishes some notability. I think an article for him is in order. In fact, I think articles for all the other passengers involved in subduing the gunman is in order.
Versus001 (
talk)
03:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment These are all
WP:Crystal arguments, of course his present fame MAY lead to him being known beyond this event, but at present this one event is the sole reason for the coverage.
Pincrete (
talk)
09:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The guy is known for 2 reasons. Just because a particular reader or man on the street is ignorant and doesn't know him is not a disqualifying reason. For example, ask the man on the street who famous author Pablo Neruda or famous painter Jackson Pollack were and maybe 95% of people will say "never heard of him". Given that criteria, most Wikipedia articles would be deleted except the Kardashians and President Obama. Even the Prime Minister of New Zealand would be deleted because 99% of people on the street can't name him.
Sandra opposed to terrorism (
talk)
21:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
At present, he is known for one reason, and the best place to incorporate the info about him is the event for which he is known, where it is given context, and will remain permanent. Everything else is crystal-ball gazing based on just over two weeks of news coverage. The media and the public are fickle.
Pincrete (
talk)
08:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete What's the big hurry? Look at all the future tense and conditionals above: "will...", "would be...", "will..."; what's the big hurry, here, can we wait for it to happen, first? Agree with Pincrete's comments about
WP:Crystal; he's not there yet, give him time. As of now, he's still part of the aftermath of the Thalys news cycle. As far as Legion of Honor winners, they estimate there's
a million of them, although the exact number is not known.
Mathglot (
talk)
11:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
CookieMonster, I was not aware of
WP:ANYBIO, thanks for bringing that to my attention. If that's legit, I would change my vote (unhappily, but I would). The reason I'm not happy about it, is that it would mean we have about one million articles to add to WP. Would you like to take the first 500,000 and I'll take the rest? ;-)
Mathglot (
talk)
07:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
CookieMonster read on below ANYBIO to
WP:CRIME: " A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person. Where there is such an existing article, it may be appropriate to create a sub-article, but only if this is necessitated by considerations of article size." ... What encyclopedic info cannot be incorporated, indeed has not already been incorporated in the main event page ?
Pincrete (
talk)
08:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. As has been pointed out many times, the Legion of Honour is the highest order of France, but it comes in five grades. The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability - it's the equivalent of the
Member of the Order of the British Empire or
Queen's Gallantry Medal in Britain, for example, at the most (see Note 1 at
WP:SOLDIER). He did receive considerable media coverage, but it's only a
WP:BLP1E situation. Many people commit brave acts. They're not all eligible for articles. If they were we'd have millions of such articles. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Necrothesp - He still does not fit the BLP1E. I explained above. No, his media coverage is not a BLP1E. What about Dancing with the Stars coverage he has already received. Does that have any connection with the Paris train attack? I don't think so... but it's fine if you beg differently.
CookieMonster755(talk)17:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
He has only been asked to be on Dancing with the Stars because of the Paris train attack, so yes, it quite clearly has a connection. How bizarre that you seem to think it doesn't! Reality TV contestants always get a lot of coverage but are not generally considered to be notable just because they're reality TV contestants. This is long-established. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
09:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Jakob, the coverage isn't simply significant, it's huge, however all of it relates the the 'trigger event', and
guidelines are clear that he should be covered within the event page. There is anyway no additional content on 'his' page apart from maybe he is going to be on a dance programme.
Pincrete (
talk)
21:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete As nominator, the best place for coverage of his role in the train attack is on that event's page and notability outside that event is not established.
Pincrete (
talk)
14:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You can't vote twice, the nomination is considered a vote. You may comment, or engage in discussion, as much as you like, though.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Clarification, I did not nominate this article for deletion because I thought that there was insufficient coverage, nor because I believed that Skarlatos did not 'deserve' coverage. Rather because WP's best interest (and his?) are best served by covering his role within the incident for which he is known. Time will tell whether he carves out a public role outside that event.
Pincrete (
talk)
12:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Appears to be notable for both a television role and winning a notable award for heroism; this BLP1E is not relevant. --Jakob (
talk) aka Jakec
20:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Third-level (or lower) gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Many thousands of people have won such decorations. Why is he special? Reality TV contestant because of his gallantry decoration? Not inherently notable. Perfectly well covered in the article on the incident. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
21:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Necrothesp. Notability needs to stand the test of time, and this person clearly doesn't. In the world we live in these days, anyone can garner significant coverage in a matter of hours. Does an encyclopaedia benefit from articles about things gone viral? I seriously doubt it. If he becomes notable in the near future, then we can easily recreate this biography. Let's see what happens; from experience I'm about 96% sure there'll be no more coverage about him in a couple of months' time, but then again let's not assume, let's see (which is how Wikipedia works, not assuming people deserve articles but rather observing after there is well-established atemporal and extensive coverage).
FoCuScontribs;
talk to me!02:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
note that journalists
[7] and
[8] their
[9] readers
[10] can't seem to get enough Skarlatos. That was just some of what's on a news google search by "most recent first". I propose we all put way our crystal balls, keep this one for now, and revisit in a year, when there may be some clarity as to enduring notability.E.M.Gregory (
talk)
19:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
True. Nor did I just "vote". I "noted" that quite a lot of coverage continues to appear daily in mainstream media. I suggested that the article be kept - because it has a ton of sources; pointed out that calling this a flash in the pan requires the use of a crystal ball; and suggested that a kept article can be revisited if an editor thinks - months from now - that he can persuade the rest of us that Skarlatos was a mere nine days wonder. Cheers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
21:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Clarify I am a firm keep. There is notability here. If it comes up for AFD again, I will argue that enduring notability is established by sources now available.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
06:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Extensive coverage exists at the present allowing a suitable article to be constructed at the present. I fail to see what Wikipedia would gain by deleting this.
Winner 42Talk to me!00:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Winner 42, as I've said often above, there is enormous coverage, but almost all of it relates directly to the train incident, what point therefore is repeating that info on a 'private' page? Maybe in the future he will establish some notability outside that incident, at present he hasn't. What does WP gain? Gathering all relevant info in one place, where it has context.
Pincrete (
talk)
07:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete (or maybe redirect--let the tabloids decide whether to redirect to the Thalys attack or to Dancing with the Stars). I don't see why anyone who makes the papers needs an article, hero or not. We have this crazy situation where everything gets written up in some publication which by sheer force of weight gets accepted as a reliable source, and next thing you know we have a million YouTube "personalities" and other biographies of people who otherwise would live a peaceful two-sentence existence in a bigger article. I'm completely with
Necrothesp: coverage is limited (of course) to the one event, and the rest is crystalballery. BTW, someone needs to explain to me, at some point, why a contestant on a TV dance show needs an article. Like, a real explanation please, not one that says "Entertainment Tonight mentioned his name three times, as did Perez Hilton".
Drmies (
talk)
15:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comments (probably nothing useful:)), funny when afds become longer then the article concerned, "The lowest grade, which these gentlemen were awarded, is very common and cannot possibly be said to confer inherent notability" - very common??, I don't have one, does anyone else involved in this discussion?, according to the wikiarticle
Legion of Honour, as of 2010 there has only been about 100,000 issued, if we can have thousands of articles about academy award winners and sports people ("competed at the modern Olympic Games" is notable
WP:NOLYMPICS - 1000s compete at each Olympics eg. over 10,000 at
London) why can't recipients of this honor (and obes, mbes as well:)) have an article (and no, I am not volunteering to do them:))? Also, is the
WP:SOLDIER comment relevant as this person is receiving the award as a civilian? If this article is redirected, won't there arise balance/undue weight issues in the main article? "it's only a WP:BLP1E situation" which states "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met" (my emphasis) can someone please show where this is the case here as I have not been convinced by the 'deleters'.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Coolabahapple,
WP:CRIME advises: A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.. There are at least 5 people whose actions on the train are highly notable (2 French (one whose full name is not known), 3 US, 1 UK). Is the reader better served by all of the relevant info being in one place (inc. their honours) or being spread across 5-6 articles?
Pincrete (
talk)
17:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Pincrete, fair point about
WP:CRIME, although I have been involved in/and read afds where the idea that
WP:GNGtrumps other policies/guidelines has held sway. On the point about the other people involved, if they are seen as notable/more notable then Skarlatos I am sure an editor will remedy their non-article situation. If a reader is interested enough in the subject, a couple of clicks won't put them off.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
23:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe! But it's more likely to be the will of consensus based on policy and determined by the closing administrator. If you'd like to consider administrators to be servants of the Lord that is, of course, entirely up to you.
Keegan (
talk)
19:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Let’s face it, WP:BLP1E rule is somewhat subjective. For example, most
Congressional Medal of Honor winners are low-viz people who earn their notability with one act of courage. If an individual captures the world’s attention like Skarlatos has, they should be notable enough for an individual Wikipedia page. There’s certainly enough independent, secondary source material to do a good article on him including information about his personal life (which goes beyond his involvement in the train attack). The fact that he have now been selected to be on Dancing with the Stars is good evidence that his notoriety may go beyond just one event. One final point … all of the participants in the 2015 season of Dancing with the Stars now have individual bio articles in Wikipedia (along with all their professional dancing partners)…see
Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20). So are we going to delete Skarlatos bio article now and then add it back when he starts dancing?--
Orygun (
talk)
00:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. If all there was was terror attack, then WP:BLP1E might apply. I do think it is too early to decide whether or not
WP:BIO1E is indicated, per
WP:CRYSTAL. But using BLP1E, this individual does not appear to meet all 3 criteria. All that said, with the announcement of his participation on DWTS, BLP1E clearly no longer applies.
Onel5969TT me13:19, 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.
At
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinkendo, three different editors questioned the notability of this person, the inventor of [Shinkendo. When attempting to rewrite this article recently, I was able to find only one source with any coverage at all of his life and achievements (I don't speak or read Japanese). I too question his notability.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
22:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Article doesn't show significant independent coverage and doesn't meet notability for martial artists. Also no indication of notability as an author.
Jakejr (
talk)
18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom and above editors, who do a good job of summarizing the issues with this article. Searches provided nothing which went to notability.
Onel5969TT me13:21, 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.
Most Air Forces have one or more solo display aircraft that fly in events and airshows and unlike multiple aircraft aerobatic teams these are not really notable, I cant see that this solo aircraft is particularly notable outside a mention on the
Turkish Air Force page.
MilborneOne (
talk)
22:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Air Forces solo display aircraft teams are notable. Air Forces solo display aircraft teams should have one pages, or at least build into the Air Force page with MORE than just 1-2 sentens.
@Steelpillow I can not see any word on
Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) that single aircraft display Teams are not notable.. There exist a few single aircraft teams who play an important part on international air shows with history and some of them earned aviatic awards. I don't see any reason why Display Teams with 2 or more aircraft can bee on Wikipedia and such with 1 aircraft not.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
16:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
One lone machine is not a "team". The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft. If a given "team" gains enough mention then notability can be established in the usual way by citing reliable sources which actually address the notability of the aircraft and/or its team. That is not the case here, the main sources are concerned with a centenary event and this aircraft's display gets only a passing mention. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
17:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Well the therm Team is not only relatet to the numbers of aircraft. I can not agree with "The team of people is even less notable than the aircraft". Whitout more than 1 person no aircraft display would be possibel . Also the definition "One lone machine is not a "team"" is not right
[11] its 1 Superpuma or Cougar.. but its the Super Puma Display Team..Super Puma Display TEAM. Or
[12] again its SWISS HORNET DISPLAY TEAM. Also they don't do just some fly by, they have a real display program with manouvers specialised for a display.
FFA P-16 (
talk) 10:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)Still on
Wikipedia:Notability (aircraft) is no definition about Display Teams nor a definition about the term "Team". To have here on English Wikipedia only the Teams from 2 aircraft and more but suppress informations about single aircraft display teams makes Wikipedia in this aeronautics topic an unusable tool.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
12:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is a tool for informations. It is not at wikipeda to define what is an aerobatic team and what is not. If an Air Force like the Greece, Belgian, Swiss , Turkish Air Force(in this case the Turkish Air Force) has given an single aircraft display team the official statuts, it si it. Wikipedia can (should)put in this in its "database". To think Wikipedia could determine over decisions of Air Force is illogical and absurd. Banish teams with only one airplane from Wikipedia, violated the basic idea of Wikipedia about the neutral and equitable access of information.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
12:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete I appreciate the effort put in creating the article, but I see no notability on it. If single aircraft in airline fleets are not notable, I don't see why a particular military aircraft is.--JetstreamerTalk17:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: These single aircraft demonstrations should just be a simple mention on the page of the applicable air force, not their own article. -
Ahunt (
talk)
18:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment two issues. 1) is there significant mentions in reliable sources to show notability of the subject, 2) is there sufficient material to write a complete article without padding the article with non-notable material? I think both need to be achieved for the article to stand alone.
GraemeLeggett (
talk)
20:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment also note that air forces like the Royal Air Force have had four or five solo demonstration aircraft every year for a long time, at the beginning of the season you get a press release as they paint a new scheme on an aircraft to use, although it is the pilot who is the authorised demonstrator so sometimes they dont use the "painted" aircraft. Take the other Swiss example the Swiss Super Puma solo demonstrator uses a different aircraft from the fleet every time as the display authority for solos is the pilot. We might consider a stand-alone article on military aircraft solo demonstrators but if you look at something like the Royal International Air Tattoo these are pretty common and none I would say are notable for a stand-alone article like this one.
MilborneOne (
talk)
08:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The Super Puma Display Team can use any of the Swiss Air Forces Super Puma or Cougar right, but we should not focus on it if the aircraft has a special painting or if there are 1 or more pilots. I think the approach for such single aircraft teams verification of notability should be his continuity in standardized existence for several years (for eg. since min.3 years) with regular displays flown on public events and or airshows. No mater if an aircraft has a special painting or not. I would not count aircraft with a special paint for just a single event (for eg . NATO Tigermeet) to this.
FFA P-16 (
talk)
22:08, 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.
Delete: No assertion of notability. The article basically says that it's a mosque near
Bidar, a town about 100km from Hyderabad. The article about Bidar mentions a long list of monuments in the city, but makes no mention of this mosque, so I seriously doubt that it's very significant. I did web and Google Books searches, but they also failed to turn up anything significant. --
Slashme (
talk)
09:49, 6 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 for now and there's also not a good move target and with my searches not finding anything significant and outstanding aside from
these links, there's not much for improvement and thus keeping.
SwisterTwistertalk06:02, 2 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.
Redirect to
Hit Squad. It seems to have no independent notability. Searches do not produce significant coverage in independent
reliable sources. Also there is no claim to notability stated in the article, except for a possible inherited claim from
Hit Squad and/or
EPMD, which doesn't fly. --
Bejnar (
talk)
22:18, 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.
Comment. This one is a close call. He has a profile at Pro-Football-Reference.com
here, which I think means that he is a regular roster player (as opposed to just practice squad) but lists no regular season game appearances. Then there's
this from NFL.com, which seems to state he remains on the Jacksonville Jaguars roster as of the last preseason game on 9/3/15 (and so far I find no release saying he's been cut). Also, there is some significant coverage. See, e.g.,
this profile from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette,
this from the New Haven Register,
this short piece from
First Coast News,
this blurb from the Sun Times Network,
this longer story from
Bleacher Report (debatable as reliable source), and
this short blurb from Rolling Stone.
Cbl62 (
talk)
18:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - While I appreciate the research efforts that Cbl62 made above, I see exactly one independent, reliable source that rises to the level of significant coverage of the subject (i.e., Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 2012, linked above). The remainder of the coverage is routine transactional coverage that every NFL signee receives, one that discussed the purported unpronounceability of his name (i.e., Rolling Stone), with the added coverage of a fansite (i.e., BleacherReport.com). The subject player was not a notable college athlete, and has never played in a regular season NFL game in three previous NFL seasons; he is not a part of any roster, practice otherwise, and the likelihood of him now appearing in an NFL game is slim. I see no loss of encyclopedic content by the deletion of this article.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
22:54, 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.
For
Sgim43 (
talk·contribs), who says that By this own definition [of Dubble A having a single or album on a national music chart] fails the requirement, as the source given in not a recognized or National Music Chart. All Access Music Group, the creator of this "chart" doesn't even have a wikipage. Based on this then I could create and LLC as a upstart publishing company or radio station, create a list with any 10 people I want and then create pages for them!"Mynameisnotdave (
talk/
contribs)
20:25, 5 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 so troubled and my searches found nothing aside from a YouTube video here and a blog there and the current sources aren't very detailed so unless this can actually be improved, I'm not seeing much and this has existed since August 2008 without the slightest significant improvement. Pinging tagger
MBisanz and maybe
Diannaa (removed the wikifying tag).
SwisterTwistertalk19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- the present article says nothing about what he did in a probably long period between his going to Delhi and being poisoned at the age of about 60. I get the feeling that the article has lost its middle and that he is an early holder of some important office, but currently he appears to be utterly NN.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete we can't be left to guess what an article is about, the creator of it should tell us, or there should be sources to enlighten us, but there aren't any.
Kraxler (
talk)
20:01, 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.
Article about a film which only contains one Unreliable source. The article does not meet any sort of notability requirement including
WP:GNG and
WP:NFILM. Searches are difficult as there seem to be several different films by the same name. -
McMatter(
talk)/(
contrib)18:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I am new to wiki so I apologize if not using proper tags, etc. There are approximately two dozen legitimate reviews of the film. I did not post them on the page because I wanted to keep it 100% neutral and not show favoritism in selecting one review over another. Also, if the official website is visited (www.teamorchard.com) there are direct links on the front page to the film online on all major internet video on demand platforms, including Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, iTunes, and Google Play. I did not include these links in the movie's page because I did not want to commercialize it or use it for publicity. The film has also screened at a half dozen film festivals in 2015. There are films with the same title listed that have far less credentials and widescale availability, so I'm unsure why this particular film page is being targeted for deletion.
Niespodj (
talk)
19:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Being available for distribution and having screened at festivals aren't things that would automatically give notability, although they do make it much easier for something to gain coverage. I'll try to find the reviews, but I'm concerned that these reviews might not be usable as reliable sources (
WP:RS) and may be the unusable sources that Erik was talking about. Not all reviews are usable as reliable sources, so if something was covered in a self-published blog, those cannot be used. (However if the blog was included in a notable, reliable aggregate website like Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes as a critic review, then it could be used.) Also, saying that other things exist (
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) with less notability on Wikipedia is not a valid reason for inclusion, as there are many, many articles on here for films that really don't pass notability guidelines - they just haven't been detected yet. However all of that said, I will try to look for sources and see if I can find enough for the film to pass notability guidelines.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Userfy. Right now it's a little early for it to have an article, as the only true coverage we have is a press release from Dread Central and two articles from the Pittsburgh Post Gazette. There are some blog reviews out there, but not in any places that Wikipedia would consider to be a reliable source. However given that the film has just gone to VOD, it's possible that there will be some more reviews coming in the future, so I think it'd be a good idea to userfy the content. I'm willing to do that, since that would help counteract the concerns about a conflict of interest. Now if these reviews come up before the AfD closes, this will of course be a keep on my end.
Niespodj, since you are involved with the film I'd like to suggest that you petition the following sites for reviews: Dread Central, HorrorNews.net, Bloody Disgusting, Fangoria, and Ain't It Cool News. AICN, Fangoria, and HN.N are all very good about reviewing indie horror films. Flickering Myth and We Got This Covered are also good places to look towards for soliciting reviews as well, since they're also good about reviewing indie films and both are considered to be RS on Wikipedia.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's kind of what I figure - if more sources aren't available by the end of the AfD period, it's likely that they'll come about in the next few months with Halloween approaching. Outright deletion wouldn't really be my first impulse here.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)10:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Schmidt, I had to remove the Dread Central bit from the reception section. The
Dread Central article is a reprint of the press release for the most part and the bits that were added as a review were from the press release. You can tell because this was reprinted in
this website and labeled as a press release. The portions about the cast's home bases looks like it was heavily or directly taken from a press release as well, but that's a basic detail so there's no reason not to include that - just be careful about anything italicized on DC since that usually means that they took it from somewhere else. However that said, I did find some probably usable reviews, so yay for that. I'll add them soon.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)03:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Argh, all blog reviews. (Got them from
this press package.) I was hoping that Horror Society would at least be usable, but they have nothing on their page about their editorial oversight. The other sites are either outright unusable blogs or also lack anything on their site that would show that they have an editorial board that Wikipedia would approve of as a RS. (sighs) I wish more outlets would label people as editors or whatnot. Horror Society likely does have them, but chooses not to include them. I'll drop them an e-mail about this.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)03:53, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 notability asserted, no third-party sources (the one "reference" is by no means a source for the subject, having nothing to do with the AHumanProject), opinionated incoherent writing. I PRODded it, but the prod was promptly removed by the creator, with the argument that it needs to be on Wikipedia precisely because it is nowhere else, if I understood them correctly.
[13]Bishonen |
talk16:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
VS: Well, let me clarify.
I have used many sources, including Wikipedia to create content of aHuman.
This project is not just pages to collect the information, but it contains know-how on how to integrate the information, and auto-generated content.
Quality of data were confirmed several times in private emails to me from science representatives.
Still, as I'm not a part of science community, it's quite hard to have formal references. At least, I have not spend much efforts for that up to the moment.
Nevertheless, I think that it is the quite unique source of information, which have to be available to scientists.
aHuman tag on google search is first line of output - so I can pretend it's sort of referenced actually.
But when google buried its googlecode service and I migrated project to specific hosting, I need smth to let people know where they can find aHuman pages now.
So, it is need both to community an to me (btw, to much lesser extent). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vsavchik (
talk •
contribs)
16:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There really don't seem to be sources meeting our criteria at
WP:RS discussing this, let alone discussing it in any depth. Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting new ideas, see
WP:NOT.
Doug Weller (
talk)
16:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
VS: Guys, ok, looks like you do not see the point. Wikipedia will miss more than me.
Your pages are also criticized for politicisms and intentional distortions and some people do not trust your information at all.
Now I also can see your rule set is somehow reasonable but fail in some cases.
If you like you can believe that it is a sort of consensus.
Happy with "let alone discussing it in any depth" - gentle enough... — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Vsavchik (
talk •
contribs)
19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -Although this sounds like an interesting project, it needs, as others have stated, to have been written about in independant reliable sources to be considered notable for Wikipedia.
ABF99 (
talk)
03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
VS: final message from me.
Wikipedia is arranged collection of significant facts. It is the only achievable goal disregarding your personal thoughts about it.
aHuman is a fact confirmed by its author. And it is significant fact because of the concept and volume and quality of published project data.
Hence if your rules prevent people across the world to let know about this fact, it means that existing formal rule set is incorrect.
So is up to you whether to sacrifise Wikipedia mission or to improve rules.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ah nope I was indeed wrong as A7 states " The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criterion does apply if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible. If the claim's credibility is unclear,", so nope you're completely correct, In that case Delete as non notable actress. –
Davey2010Talk14:19, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 The controversies were definitely notable to be mentioned in so many news outlet, and even considering the local sources heavily outweigh any national ones, there's not really a requirement for an article to have multiple national sources for the subject of it to be considered notable. It doesn't overuse a single source, it uses multiple sources from many newspapers, which is why I feel it should be kept.
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I suggest you check again the sources. There are dead links, official election department candidates' listings, and a lot of pieces from the Pichilemu local papers. There are about three sources from bigger newspapers for a few particular points, but that doesn't mean that the whole lot gets suddenly notable. See also
WP:COATRACK.
Kraxler (
talk)
17:55, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler, I suggest you withdraw this nomination. I could even, myself, give you access to El Mercurio web archives (I'm a suscriber) so that you can see yourself there is plenty of coverage on this series of events. Not to mention, La Tercera, El Rancagüino (offline) and other non-local references... (I see you have a problem with local sources)
Diego Grez-Cañete (
talk)
01:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment/Question probably for
Diego Grez-Cañete and
SuperCarnivore591 who are voting keep on this and other articles: I note that none of these subjects has an article in a Spanish-language Wikipedia, even though it takes place in a Spanish-language country and the sources all seem to be in Spanish. Why is that? There is an article in @es WP on Pichilemu, but it has none of these particulars. Thanks.
LaMona (
talk)
03:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It's probably because the Spanish Wikipedia has less editors than the English Wikipedia does, and no one has gotten around to it (although some Spanish-speaking editors have undoubtedly worked on the article here, as most of the references are written in Spanish).
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
03:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I second SuperCarnivore's comment. Also, I have always felt more comfortable editing here than on the Spanish edition, that's why I never got to create articles about these topics there. --
Diego Grez-Cañete (
talk)
04:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I think SuperCarnivore591 misunderstood the question. This article does not exist in the Spanish Wikipedia. Why? Because Chilean and Spanish-languages users have long-ago seen trough Diego Grez's biased (albeit sometimes good) editing. Diego Grez many users have blocked in the Spanish Wikipedia.
Sietecolores (
talk)
10:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, too little coverage to justify an article on its own. There is also a
WP:BIO concern about the subjects here. This material belongs in the website Memoria pichilemina, not here.
Sietecolores (
talk)
10:26, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: she is not notable as politician (limited coverage, limited "power", geographically very limited "power", got elected with very few votes). Note the case is simmilar to
Marta Urzúa.
Sietecolores (
talk)
10:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While it is better that you've found some non-Pichilemu sources, the coverage in those are mentions where he is quoted or interviewed, with very little content on the individual himself. I'm discounting the Pichilemu sources who of course will cover their mayor in-depth but lack scope.
Vrac (
talk)
20:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
An entity that itself has a population of about 40k. It has been translated as "province" but a closer equivalent in English would be
county. A province is commonly a principal administrative division, which is not the case in Chile, whose principal administrative divisions are the regions.
Vrac (
talk)
18:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Exactly. Even the head of the subdivision itself would be deleted if it only had a population of 40,000 failing another reason to keep him. And that would be the case in Britain or America just as it would anywhere else. Leaders of British county councils don't generally have articles, for example, and they often serve a population of several hundred thousand. He just isn't notable enough. Sorry. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:51, 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.
Non-notable filmmaker. Fails both
WP:FILMMAKER and
WP:BASIC. I could find a passing reference
here,
one interview on Lazydog Films (a blog), and another interview on Flickering Myth (which seems to be a blog as well), but this is insufficient under
WP:BASIC: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
Edcolins (
talk)
13:41, 5 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 Probably one of the longest-standing city councilors in Chile (26 years in office, including a term as Codeco -counselor of communal development- between 1989 and 1992). There are references out there, including some of
El Mercurio, passes notability guidelines.
Diego Grez-Cañete (
talk)
01:31, 6 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.
Kuching tower ground breaking ceremony was held in 2005 and is never completed. Apart from news back in 2005, there is no news since then for the progress of the construction.
Cerevisae (
talk)
11:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The media release on which the article is based states that is "located on the Kuching Isthmus" - yet satellite and streetview imagery from 2015 shows no indication of such a structure there. No evidence this project went ahead beyond the initial media release. --
ELEKHHT11:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for now as this is too
crystally and if it wasn't for the unclear plans, it would've been acceptable but we'll wait for a more solid article.
SwisterTwistertalk
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 was nominated for speedy deletion, which I don't think it quite meets. I suspect this person is non-notable (the books are vanity press) but bringing it to AfD just in case.
Black Kite (talk)11:04, 5 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.
PROD contested by article creator, no reason given. This is a non-notable list of people, and we don't have (or need) individual squad lists, especially for such a minor tournament / so many non-notable people.
GiantSnowman10:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Mike Hadnett: - no, these people are non-notable unless' they have played senior international football for New Zealand (see
WP:NFOOTBALL) and any profiles you create will just wind up deleted as well. I suggest you save your time.
GiantSnowman10:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - This is a team competing in the top level of women's football in New Zealand, indeed, it is a team that has won the competition several times in recent years per
RSSSF. I have
moved the article to a more appropriate title per RSSSF, namely
Northern Football and provided additional references to show their repeated successes at the highest national level. @
GiantSnowman:, @
Spiderone:, does this change your opinion? I think this is more a case of a new editor not creating the right article title than a non-notable subject and want to avoid any
biting.
Fenix down (
talk)
16:08, 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.
Keep I don't see how this is a valid reason to delete. Nonetheless, while researching this topic, I did come across some discrepancies between the sources and this article. I tagged them accordingly, and also added a source to the verifiable information. (There is a possibility that the content I tagged is not OR and that I was simply not thorough enough.)
Elspamo4 (
talk)
18:19, 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.
Keep I won't claim any particular expertise on Mexican movies, but this has everything I'd expect to see in a notable one: notable director (who directed several
Cantinflas features), several notable actors, notable studio. We don't have an article on the main star, but he does appear notable enough for one. The fact that it was released on DVD 35 years after it was made shows some measure of enduring cultural interest. The only issue I see is the image is labeled a poster when it's clearly a DVD cover or something similar, but that's far from cause for deletion.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind22:32, 6 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.
Poorly sourced
WP:BLP, tagged as needing reference improvement since 2010 without further action, of a person notable only as a deputy leader of a minor political party. While the party is one whose leader generally gets over the bar, the same can't be said of the deputies — and being a deputy leader isn't a notability freebie under
WP:NPOL. The extant source isn't even substantively about him, either, but merely namechecks his existence — and the article reads very like a campaign brochure, written almost entirely in incomplete sentence fragments and delving far more into unsourced statements of his beliefs and inspirations than into anything encyclopedic that he did. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
09:09, 5 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.
Poorly sourced biography of a person notable only as the leader of an unregistered fringe political party. This was fine under the standards that Wikipedia held when it was first created, but
consensus changed and this no longer satisfies
WP:NPOL. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
08:41, 5 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 delete. Some "keep" arguments are notably weak because they don't address the reasons advanced for deletion, such as "as notable as any other video game", or "I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive", when the nomination makes clear that this is not the argument being made here. Among the other opinions, we have consensus that sourcing is too weak at this time to meet
WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I understand the
WP:NOTCENSORED arguments. This is not about censorship. I am not a Muslim, not personally offended. The reality is, this game has simply not received significant coverage in reliable sources. At the first nomination, some suggested additional coverage would occur. This has not happened.
WP:NOTCENSORED does not mandate inclusion of every potentially offensive topic
AusLondonder (
talk)
08:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep What weird interpretation of GNG are you using that this subject doesn't qualify? The first two references alone give GNG passing coverage
[23][24] In fact all the references in the article (expect ref 3) offer significant coverage in reliable sources. Please explain how all these sources don't pass GNG.
Winner 42Talk to me!17:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -
WP:NOTNEWS. Throwaway game covered minimally as news posts, no serious reviews or in depth coverage. This has gather less coverage than Vice's
London Piss Dungeon. The game is so stupid that there is no serious commentary, compare that with Slave Tetris, where we have coverage into why people believe the game is wrong, and what we can learn from it.
[25][26] -
hahnchen09:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
No. Its the exact opposite. Video games are things people play for entertainment value. This game is controversial and all coverage about the game is about how it is controversial, not about how the game was made, reviews it received, music, sound, graphics, or any other quality that would be fitting of a video game. For that it fails the "significant coverage" requirement of the GNG which is defined as ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail"
[27].
CerealKillerYum (
talk)
03:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails GNG, endorse CerealKillerYum's point that all coverage is about the offensiveness of the name/game. The little coverage there is, is about the controversy not the game itself, which has attracted almost zero coverage.
Pincrete (
talk)
11:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There was alot of talk about this game around the time the Charlie Hebdo shooting happened. I don't think it should be deleted just because it's offensive.
Illstillbehere (
talk)
09:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG which requires not only significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, but also coverage which persists over time. The sources available are so-so, but all of the coverage comes from the same 3-day span, with next to nothing since then (though I'm content to switch my !vote if others find such sources). — Rhododendritestalk \\
01:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This falls under
WP:SENSATION. A game, that caught the attention of a small number of media outlets, briefly. a quick search here:
[28] I cannot find that it got either enduring or extensive coverage, or that objections to it received significant coverage. Flag me if anyone demonstrates significant coverage, and I'll revisit.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
08:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - The game itself seems to fail GNG but the contraversy about it, may not. Is there an article about similar contravercies? It can possibly be merged into it.
Settleman (
talk)
15:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Settleman: The controversy would likewise have to pass
WP:GNG, meaning significant coverage [of the controversy] in multiple reliable sources over a period of time. As there seems to be 100% overlap between coverage of the game and coverage of controversy surrounding the game, it seems unlikely sufficient sources about the latter exist. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, the reviewing admin should note that this editor does seem to have difficulties understanding deletion policies. This editor seemed to discover this deletion discussion after I strongly objected to their speedy deletion (!) nomination of
National Hindu Awareness Campaign Nepal a constitutional campaign in Nepal led by a former parliamentarian which has met with the Prime Minister and has achieved national English-language media coverage. Yet they think this is crap is notable on the back of coverage from those who brought us the infamous London Piss Dungeon!
AusLondonder (
talk)
05:51, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete outside some coverage made by a couple of news media blogs (which usually runs independent from the main source) at the time of release, some of whom are tabloids that don'tmeet our guidelines in reliable sources, this game received 0 long-term coverage. Fails
wp:gng and
wp:notnewsPokerkiller (
talk)
22:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - The article clearly has multiple sources that are giving it significant coverage, and were written solely about the game. The persistent coverage point is invalid, as many video games receive coverage only when they're released and are still considered notable. —Torchiesttalkedits13:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Rhododendrites: The GNG states: "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." There's nothing in that guideline saying coverage must last for months or years.
WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to this topic. —Torchiesttalkedits15:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - the arguments about the fact it would be a "video game" are not right. It is not notorious as a video game. It is a provocation/joke/ripost, whatever but in that area. The question is therefore to determine if this "provocation/joke/..." is notorious. For me, the answer is no. The links given in the article are primary sources in the sense that they participate to the provocation/joke or to its promotion. We would need several references in higher quality newspapers to assess notoriaty (eg NYT, LeMonde, Guardian, Das Bield, ...)
Pluto2012 (
talk)
10:18, 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.
Fails notability guidelines. References are dead links and, if they were to be alive, would have been non-notable sources. Nothing came up in Google News or Google. Author is a SPA
[29]CerealKillerYum (
talk)
08:13, 5 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 think
WP:EVENT is saying that event should be "Worthy of Notice".
The Times of India (TOI) is not only largest selling English daily in India but also in World in terms of circulation. TOI finds it "worthy of notice" and "took note" of this event. This event is not notable unless someone proves that these news are paid news.--
Human3015Send WikiLove04:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, we have been interacting on many pages for now; thanks for hounding, and its quite clear that you lack competency to understand many a simple things; sorry to point it out. There is no in-depth coverage, or lasting effects of the event, or coverage outside geoscope, or diversity of coverage, etc etc points that are listed in guideline. Also, the minglebox link that you are posting is not
WP:RS.
http://www.minglebox.com/aboutus is a student's portal.
Dainik Bhaskar which is a newspaper with headquarters in MP cared to write exactly 10 sentences about this event in Raipur. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
05:32, 31 August 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: cannot derive notability as an indiscriminate
VICTIM; any post 9/11 notability would appear to be a continuing seam or thread from that day onward. I know, I know: I must be a heartless bastard.
Quis separabit?22:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply Delete: Agreed, notability isn't fleeting, the book referenced in the article appears to be self published by Lauren's husband and apparently hasn't sold many copies based on it being ranked below #375,000 in books by sales volume.
Nefariousski (
talk)
23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
SisterTwister is a diligent editor, but I have found, as here:
Douglas Al-Bazi that her assertions of a lack of sources can be, well, what can I say, I have found extensive sourcing on AFDs brought or supported by SisterTwister, who works very quickly and deserves credit for spotting many, many legitimate candidates for deletion. However, re: Lauren Manning, take a look at this quick search
[30] which begins with this full profile in vogue magazine
[31].
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Manning's memoir, Unmeasured Strength is now bluelinked. Both articles (person and book) need work. This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep and put the time you would have spend refuting this remarkably lame AFD into improving the page.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
My guess is that the page is weak not because the topic is unimportant, but because it is too painful for many of us to deal with. Even after all these years.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
"This is such an obvious keep that I suggest that editors coming here simply write Keep or Snow Keep" -- interesting. @E.M. Gregory: are you moving pawns around a chess board or making marionettes dance? I see no keep consensus as of yet, much less a SNOWBALL.
Quis separabit?17:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per above as well as per sources - This is something that should never be deleted and should never have even been nominated, An article likes this needs improving not deleting period. –
Davey2010Talk01:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@Davey2010: I mean no disrespect but you should try to base your judgments on guidelines not sentimentality. Your rationale offers no reasoning, just emotion. 9/11 was devastating (I live in Lower Manhatan and was at work a quarter of a mile away from Ground Zero at 26 Federal Plaza that morning, just so you know I am not a heartless dick) but try to keep perspective.
Quis separabit?02:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
To me, it looks as though
User:Davey2010 based him assessment on policy: "as per sources." Followed with an expression of strong feeling,
Quis separabit? responded based on feelings. It's oK to have feelings, as long as assessments are based on policy, facts, sources.08:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)reply
E.M.Gregory's correct - I did say "per above as well as per sources" so it wasn't all strong feelings but yes I do have strong feelings when it comes to stuff like this, I very very rarely express my feelings here but I don't see a problem just aslong as you keep it relevant and to the point, Wow I'd imagine that was absolutely terrifying!, I've never thought that about anyone on here at all, You nominated based on notability so it's all cool :) –
Davey2010Talk15:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Being a victim of a horrible event is one thing, but the point here is notability. And for this person to be behind a well-received book that's brought them recognition, with the likes of
NPR,
the New York Times, etc mentioning her story and her book prominently, then it looks like she passes the notability bar easily.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
14:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep In addition to meeting Notability for her story, RS articles from 2008 to 2012, she is also invited to comment on related issues as late as June 2014.
[35] Nomination does not meet WP:DEL-REASON and the article can be easily cleaned up.
009o9 (
talk)
19:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Sources are reliable (NY Times, USA Today, CNN). The book by her husband about her got some national attention (although it itself cannot be considered a neutral source, but it adds to the story). The article is still a stub, and needs work. I was easily able to find 6 NY Times articles specifically about her or with substantial information about her.
LaMona (
talk)
03:55, 6 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 cannot find any sources to show where this film is notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. It's possible that there could be sources in another language, but I'm doubtful of this. I'm getting the impression that this is an indie production.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete for while not utterly unsourcable, this brand new article is apparently
TOO SOON. I found that a music video of a major song from the film was only recently released,
[36] and this might indicate the film will follow within six months. Allow
undeletion when
inclusion criteria are met. If the author wishes it placed in a no-wiki'd draft space for work as release approaches, I'd say let him have it. Schmidt, Michael Q.22:52, 22 August 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 not medicore but could certainly use improvement (information and source-wise) and my searches found nothing particularly good,
here,
here,
here and
here. This would've been redirected elsewhere (I was going to be bold but there's no good target) so I'd like to hear from users.
SwisterTwistertalk06:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing in
notability for politicians would support automatic keep for a mayor of a medium-sized town. #2 says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." However, it also says that politicians need to meet GNG. Looking at the references here, all of them are from two local papers (along with some primary sources that don't count toward notability). I think that the decision here will need to hinge on whether those local sources are considered sufficient. My judgment is that a town mayor would need to get significant attention in at least a statewide newspaper. Both of the sources here cover a region within the state, not the whole state. They both pronounce themselves to be "local" papers, not statewide.
About Arizona Central /
East Valley Tribune: "We are local. We cover the East Valley."
LaMona (
talk)
04:11, 6 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. The article reads like an advertisement, prompting me to tag it as such. But that is strictly a content issue. At AfD, all we consider is notability. Under
WP:GNG, notability is demonstrated by multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the subject in detail. Those sources clearly exist, as demonstrated by the
Business Standard and
Quartz articles.
Msnicki (
talk)
20:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
MsnickiNote: All the newspaper and related articles cannot be considered to be reliable one; contents published such as press-releases...reviews is not considered to be the reliable one. Even if we consider these two sources as reliable (which is not that effective ) is not sufficient to establish notability. See
WP:ORGDEPTH which states dept coverage in multiple reliable sources is needed. —
CutestPenguinHangout14:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
"Multiple" is generally interpreted as at least two good sources at AfD. The Business Standard and Quartz articles satisfy the requirement. That makes this one a keep.
Msnicki (
talk)
16:44, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Msnicki You are right but press releases and reviews is not general cited or you can say is not treated as good /reliable references even if they are from great sources. These
this and
thisresults from Google points QZ more of an partner than an source for reliability to the article which again questions the
WP:NEWSORG and
WP:IRS. —
CutestPenguinHangout18:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
QZ looks reliable to me. From their
Welcome to Quartz page, Quartz is owned by Atlantic Media Co., the publisher of The Atlantic, National Journal, and Government Executive. The publisher of
The Atlantic is good enough for me. To my continual consternation, we often accept far, far less.
Msnicki (
talk)
20:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)reply
For someone who claims "near-native" command of English, you seem to be having a lot of trouble with the language. I cited TWO RS in my !vote and that's definitely multiple.
Msnicki (
talk)
19:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Msnicki Read once, twice and thrice everything posted under this Afd. Let me quote the cause for you, the great Englishmen "your multiple" sources is actually not multiple as per Wikipedia's policy
WP:IRS (give yourself sometime and read carefully
WP:IRS). Note: ...press releases, interviews...reviews etc. is not always accepted as "the reliable source" even if it from those great sources.. And don't force me to drag your
fluent English here. —
CutestPenguinHangout11:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
If you're going to quote
WP:IRS, it should be an actual quote, not something manufactured out of your imagination. That page simply does not say what you claim it does. You've made it up out of whole cloth. You are welcome to your opinion, no matter how specious but I have mine. I think these sources qualify and I don't think you know what you're talking about. I am done with you. Let's see what others have to say.
Msnicki (
talk)
15:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article is calming to be a news and media company but does not meets the Wikipedia's criteria for
notability for
organizations and companies nor it have significant coverage in reliable sources, except those press-releases and reviews which is again not treated as the reliable source. D Mi™18:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Jimbo Wales: have not specified about the existence of the article on the Wikipedia, instead he emphasised that it is not possible legitimately to have an article about the subject. In fact he questioned about the background of the so called company. —
CutestPenguinHangout12:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Sir, Jimmy Wales typed " I do think that a small article could legitimately be written." Please check you might have read incorrectly. And even this was nine month back since then the company has become even more famous and notable. And can you please point to the parts that seem advertorial to you , I will rectify them and add neutral tone to them. P.S.-Sorry for my grammatical mistakes. I am not a native.
Blessedhuman111 (
talk)
13:09, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completely unsourced article about a television series produced by and aired on a single local television station in a single media market.
WP:NMEDIA only grants a presumption of notability to nationally-distributed series, not to local ones — and the lack of sourcing means that this doesn't get to claim a
WP:GNG pass in lieu of failing NMEDIA. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:37, 22 August 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 insurance business with coverage all sourced to local daily paper; less than 1,000 employees, now a division of a bigger company.
Orange Mike |
Talk17:00, 22 August 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 found absolutely nothing to suggest improvement, there's no good move target and there haven't been any significant edits since the beginning in March 2009.
SwisterTwistertalk21:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: The article currently focuses solely on the awareness week in Singapore, but this is also recognized in the US. From
Emily Fund: "In 2008, the US Senate unanimously apporoved S. Res. 710 declaring the first week of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week," and on January 25, 2010, the Senate expanded the observance by declaring the month of February as "National Teen Dating Violence Awareness & Prevention Month" (S. Res. 373)."
gobonobo+c23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Dating abuse. As
Gobonobo points out, there are other such events/weeks/months in other countries, but I don't see that most of them are actually connected beyond their goals. From the looks of it, the
dating abuse article needs significant work, and could easily sustain an advocacy or similar section. A selective merge here could be a fine start to that section. — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep There are plenty of news articles and websites covering this in the US. The article can be significantly improved and quite easily with little effort. As for the AfD, the nominator is asking for a delete based on an editing issue and obviously did not do a basic search on the term. The nominator claims there is no info for improvement. It's a week in February recognized in Texas, Ohio and other states... it seems that it may have been federally recognized. Now if we're looking at it as a singapore-only event, it still may be notable! Not finding information on the web doesn't mean it's not important... much info about Singapore news is available only thru lexis nexus. In addition the amount of information I just turned up on Google alone should be enough to warrant its own article... esp if the scope is global. Also... the lack of improvement shouldn't warrant an AfD. Be bold and fix the article yourself or bring it to the attention of active interested WikiProjects.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
12:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If there are enough independent sources it doesn't fail notability. An awareness week can be notable. There seem to be a lot of articles on the topic in the US.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
22:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
This article is about an awareness week in Singapore, and has a single source from Singapore. If you want to write an article about several awareness weeks in different places, go right ahead, and see whether it passes AfD. We are concerned now with this article, as is.
Kraxler (
talk)
03:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
AfD should be used if there is no way to improve an article. As I've pointed out, there are several good ways to do so. AfD doesn't just mean looking at the article as it is now; articles may still be notable even if they do not contain the relevant existing information in them. See:
WP:NEXIST The article needs copyedit. This should have taken place on the talk page of the article, not gone to AfD.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
03:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep: These events are distinct from the general concept of dating abuse; they reflect activism to address the problem. Yes, the article needs work, but deletion is not the answer. This is a women's event in Singapore, which in and of itself is remarkable. Clear evidence of third-party coverage, and no doubt more out there if anyone can address the language barrier. Frankly, I'm kind of offended by Kraxler's tone that implies that this is an irrelevant event of no consequence. We have a lot of problems with
systemic bias on wikipedia and this dismissive tone toward both women's issues and an Asian topic suggests this is a factor to be considered.
Montanabw(talk)02:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I wish !voters would stick to the issue, instead of accusing others of bad faith. My !vote was cast when the article lokked like
this. Megalibrarygirl has edited it in the meanwhile, but needed to be reminded that speculating about what an article could look like is not equivalent to actually making an article show its notability and stand-alone usefulness.
Kraxler (
talk)
17:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Notability depends on being shown. In this case, the article was a content fork. Content forks are usually deleted for reasons other than notability. Please don't mix up apples and oranges.
Kraxler (
talk)
18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Local events of this sort are not worth merging to the general article, towards which it makes no contribution whatsoever. This is essentially a PR for the event, and there's a good case for deleting it as G11. DGG (
talk )
03:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This doesn't even approach the notability criteria for a stand-alone article. It is a purely local event, written purely to promote the first (and only?) one in Singapore in 2009. In case no one has noticed, there is no mention out there (or in the article) of any further such weeks in Singapore, despite the claim in the article that it is an "annual event". I've done a pretty thorough search, but if anyone finds sources indicating that it has been held in Singapore and received received significant coverage in the ensuing years, I'd be happy to change my mind. A brief summary, minus the padding can be added to
Teen dating violence, which as it is, is tagged (and rightly so) as not representing a worldwide view of the subject. That atrociously organized article, full of original research and written like an essay, gives massively undue weight to the US, with two lines about the UK, one line about Canada and... er... that's it.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
On a related note, in Singapore "Dating Violence Awareness Week" was the second week in February. In the US, "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" is apparently the first week in February, and Chicago seems to have organized its own version of "Teen Dating Violence Awareness Week" for the third week October. A separate article on
Dating violence awareness with an international scope might be possible, but that's not what this article is (or even can be, given its title).
Voceditenore (
talk)
18:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can find no references to support this (the event in Singapore) beyond the 2009 launch. If such references exist in other languages, maybe the route to take is to create this article in the appropriate language version of Wikipedia, then have it translated to English if it then meets our notability requirements. I would also support a move to something like
Dating violence awareness/advocacy as previously suggested, with a more global view, which I would consider to be a more encylopaedic approach; or merge this into
Dating abuse with the option of spinning it out later to a seperate article if it becomes too unwieldy.
Derek Andrews (
talk)
11:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Incubate - an option I wasn't aware of until now, per
WP:ATD-I. It would seem to me to be a way to enable those who see potential in an article of some nature on this topic to work on it without threat of deletion.
Derek Andrews (
talk)
12:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The appropriate place for almost all "awareness weeks" is a brief mention in the topic article, in this case
Dating abuse. There is nothing much to say about the week, except possible lists of misc. dates. See
WP:NOT. There is a lot to say about the topic, and that article is where it should be said. --
Bejnar (
talk)
21:05, 16 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.
My searched found nothing good at all to suggest improvement and better independent notability with the best results of all my searches
here and, as an orphan, I'm not seeing a good move target for this article from February 2007. Pinging taggers @
The JPS and
Geniac:.
SwisterTwistertalk03:58, 29 August 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.
My searches found nothing aside from press releases and other minor coverage
here,
here,
here and
here (searches at Montreal Gazette, browser and CBC found nothing). I was also happening to notice this has stayed since November 2008 and, although it has been edited since, it has not been significant improvement thus less chances why to keep longer.
SwisterTwistertalk07:01, 29 August 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 His "most important" book was published by a small Christian press. The other three are self-published via Lulu. None found for sale on Amazon.
LaMona (
talk)
00:03, 6 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.
OH sheesh, the "redacted" bit was
Wasilla, Alaska ... see:
[37]. I note this just so we aren't reinforcing "Iran Nuclear Weapons 2" ultra-disruptive, Islamaphobic paranoia/James Bond fantasy that someone actually knew where he was located and Iranian commandos are descending on his home at this very moment because of an edit he made on WP. (It is slightly concerning this has to be explained.)
BlueSalix (
talk)
06:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete or merge -- the whole thing has a strong feel of being a fork, of a kind that it usually best merged back to the main article. I have not considered whether there is anything worth merging (as opposed to a plain redirect).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:08, 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.
The result was no consensus. No meeting of the minds occurred here, and there were reasonable policy arguments advanced by each side. The article has been made more neutral, and I encourage editors to aggressively ensure that it remains so prior to the election. No prejudice to renomination should the subject not prevail.
XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done23:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:BLP of a person notable as the mayor of a town of 25K — which is not large enough to confer automatic inclusion rights on a mayor under
WP:NPOL — and as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election — which is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia if they haven't already passed an inclusion rule for some other reason. The sourcing here fails to adequately demonstrate that he's more notable than the norm for a small-town mayor (e.g. by virtue of having become well-known outside of his local area), so there's no strong basis for an exemption from the 50K-minimum test for mayors, and candidates do not get articles just for being candidates — so he'll absolutely be eligible for an article if he wins his seat on October 19, but nothing here adequately demonstrates that he's earned an article today. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in October if he wins.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:ROUTINE wouldn't cover this because that only covers the truly routine: press releases, individual sport games, etc. While some of the stuff in the article is local, the NALCOR dispute is with a provincial crown corporation and over a major provincial energy infrastructure project, and is definitely not "routine" as defined by
WP:ROUTINE..-- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The Nalcor controversy would qualify as
WP:BLP1E if it was a major controversy, since it is the only thing that got him a little extra attention. If it was a minor controversy it's still part of
WP:ROUTINE, minor controversies happen everywhere, even in the smallest populated places. Did any national neswpaper report on the Nalcor controversy?
Kraxler (
talk)
13:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
This article doesn't meet the criteria for
WP:BLP1E. McDonald is not just notable for one thing, since he derives coverage and notability from his elected office as well as events he did in that office (e.g. Nalcor). As mayor of a major provincial municipality, and now a federal candidate, he's not a low profile individual, but a very public one, which BLP1E explicitly does not apply to ("WP:BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of living people and to biographies of low-profile individuals."). Yahoo New Canada saw fit to mirror the CBC articles on Nalcor
[38],
[39]. Though lack of national coverage (especially where there's significant amounts of provincial and local coverage) doesn't make it routine as defined in
WP:ROUTINE. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions19:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I suggest you read again
WP:NPOL # 2 "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage". And
WP:NPOL # 3 "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." The refs in the article are not in-depth on McDonald, and a few stories in local newspapers/TV can not be considered "significant coverage".
Kraxler (
talk)
19:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
As I've noted throughout this AfD, my position (backed by a reading of POLOUTCOMES) is that as regionally important mayor, McDonald counts as an major local political figure. The article clearly goes beyond his electoral record and cites instances where's he's made provincial and regional new (e.g. Nova Scotian news and Atlantic Canada news for his construction projects), which I think constitutes significant and independent coverage. The NALCOR articles are entirely about McDonald's role in the dispute, and of the other sources, one is an interview with the leading provincial paper and another is with a 1v1 interview with
NTV, a leading provincial television network. These are IMHO in-depth sources. Even if there is no national level coverage, the depth and frequency of provincial sources (yes by accident of geography, CBS is on the
Avalon Peninsula along with
St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, so all major provincial news outlets are technically local), combined with his position as a regionally important mayor are enough to justify keeping the article. Since we fundamentally disagree on the definition of the terms, it'll be up to the closing admin to decide. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions02:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Interviews with the subject in media don't count toward satisfying
WP:GNG, because they involve the subject talking about himself. To count toward GNG, a source has to involve other people talking about him.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I brought up the interviews to show that there were clearly in-depth, non-cursory coverage of McDonald among the refs. All the other sources in the article are independent, non-interviews and are mostly similarly in-depth. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Probably the most ridiculous nomination I've ever seen; the man is clearly notable, has received substantial coverage in the media during his mayoralty, and is the political candidate for a major position. The sources "adequately demonstrate" that he deserves an article. And, by the way, your link,
WP:NPOL mentions nothing about a mayor needing 50,000 residents to be notable.
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
18:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
NPOL # 2 says notable are "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. This is a minor local politician, major local politicians hold office in a capital city or in a city with a million inhabitants, or in cities known all over the world. I've never heard about Conception Bay South before, and I'm a geography buff. Sorry, but guidelines should guide us, not be treated with contempt.
Kraxler (
talk)
23:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Those are state-level politicians, not local ones — a state legislature is an entirely different level of office, with an entirely different set of applicable notability standards, than a city council is. Kraxler is mostly correct about what our standards for local politicians are — to be fair, our standard for mayors isn't actually as restrictive as our standard for city councillors is, but CBS still isn't large or prominent enough to pass our standard for mayors and it's in no way equivalent to a state or provincial legislature. And you can't just read
WP:NPOL and think you fully understand our notability standards for politicians — you also need to read
WP:POLOUTCOMES.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
"is the political candidate for a major position" carries no weight under Wikipedia's inclusion standards. As already explained, being an unelected candidate for a seat in the House of Commons is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself — if you cannot adequately show that he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article before he became a candidate for a seat in the HoC, then he has to win the seat, not just run for it, to become notable enough for a Wikipedia article. And no, you haven't adequately shown that he garnered sufficient notability from the mayoralty either.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Not if those reliable sources are covering him in the context of a role that doesn't qualify him for an encyclopedia article, it isn't. Local media have an obligation to cover local politics, so coverage of his candidacy for an office that he hasn't been elected to yet falls under
WP:ROUTINE, not
WP:GNG — and once you discount those sources, what's left isn't even approaching the lower edges of the volume of coverage of his mayoralty that it would take to grant him NPOL #3 or a GNG-based exemption from our minimum population standards for mayors.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
User:SuperCarnivore591, NPOL is a guideline, not an essay. POLOUTCOMES is a mirror of the past (aka "precedent"), not somebody's personal opinion (as most essays may be). ROUTINE and GNG are guidelines too. Accusing people of trying to delete an article for no other reason than being "deletionists" violates
WP:AGF which is a fundamental principle (two steps above guideline).
Kraxler (
talk)
15:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Standards follow consensus, established by the community. If the subject fails the standards, there's not much we can do about it. We have actually (currently at AfD) articles on city councillors who got less than 300 votes in a Chilean city, and the author thinks that these are extremely important people. So, some editors use their own standards when it comes to include their favorite subjects here, but everybody is supposed to bow to the community standards. That's why we have guidelines.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
And POLOUTCOMES says "Mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD, although the article should say more than just "Jane Doe is the mayor of Cityville". In this case, the mayor of the second largest municipality in Newfoundland and Labrador would in fact be a major local figure in the province, whereas the same would not necessarily be true for a mayor of a similarly sized municipality in a more populous province like Ontario or Quebec. Since coverage of McDonald in the article goes beyond the fact that he's CBS's mayor, I don't think POLOUTCOMES applies here.-- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia grants no weight to where a municipality ranks in any given list of municipalities. The only automatic "exemption" that's granted for a city below 50K is if it's the capital of a state, province or country. And the only way the coverage goes anywhere beyond the fact of being a mayor is into his as yet unelected candidacy for a more notable office. He'll be eligible for an article if he wins the federal seat, but nothing here gets him over any of our inclusion rules now.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that POLOUTCOMES disagrees with you, because it specifically mentions "regional prominence" as a factor in evaluating AfD candidates. A municipality of 25k in a province where it's the second largest of its kind has regional prominence. A similarly sized one in a province where it would't break the top 50 municipalities (e.g. Ontario) would have considerably less regional prominence. The article goes into some detail about events during his term as mayor as expected of an article on a mayor. My position is that based on his current elected position and the available sources, he's notable enough for his own article. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions19:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
"Regional prominence" is not defined as subjective to the relative size of other municipalities in the same area; it's defined by longstanding AFD consensus as either (a) a minimum population of 50K, or (b) special allowance for a few cities (e.g.
Charlottetown) which fall below that figure but are a state, provincial or federal capital. Absent one of those two conditions, it's either "more notable than the norm for cities of its size, for some substantively nationalized and well-sourced reason", or bust.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If "regional prominence" is not defined as prominence in the region, than the phrase should be removed from POLOUTCOMES and explicitly replaced with the requirements that you and Kraxler have repeated throughout this AfD. No more of this, "these have always been the unwritten rules", when essays like POLOUTCOMES are the places for such matters of longstanding AfD consensus. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You're the one concocting your own self-serving definition of "regional prominence", not me. The problem with your interpretation is that even a village of less than 100 people can be argued as "regionally prominent", if one defines "region" narrowly enough — which is why AFD has a longstanding standard, fully established by thousands of prior AFDs, for what size of community is or isn't accepted as satisfying "regional prominence". And accordingly, it's not within your right to dictate what the people who are familiar with the established precedent are or aren't allowed to say "more of this" or not — consensus makes the rules here, not you.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's a strawman; no one is advocating that broad of an interpretation of "regionally prominent." I've said that CBS is regionally prominent because it's the second largest municipality in a top-level sub-national polity (in this case, a Canadian province). I don't think this is an unreasonable exception to the 50k population or capital consensus on a case by case basis where reliable sources exist. I also don't think it's unreasonable that if the 50k population/capital is the precedent set by most past cases, that it should be stated as such in POLOUTCOMES, which is meant to be a repository of common AfD outcomes. I was not trying to dictate what others can and cannot say, I was just expressing my unfavourable opinion of arguments that are essentially "this is the longstanding precedent" without linking to a policy/guideline/essay to back those specific claims about precedent. I apologize if I came off as trying to silence other participants.----
Patar knight - chat/contributions23:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Close call. Elected mayor of the second largest town in a province — still small, so borderline under the Special Notability Guideline for politicians. I am satisfied that this is a GNG pass based on footnotes showing on the page, however — he's a public figure.
Carrite (
talk)
04:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete He's getting CBC coverage (which I assume is national) but I agree with Bearcat that as only a candidate for a country-wide election he is on tenuous grounds for a WP article. As a winner of that election, he could well be notable. But if he loses, will this article be revised? Deleted? Or will it just linger here? That to me is the main reason to wait until after the election.
LaMona (
talk)
04:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Just to clarify, while the CBC as a whole is certainly a national entity, the coverage in question isn't coming from the national news division — it's from their local news bureau in
St. John's, so it doesn't prove that he's actually getting coverage anywhere outside of his own local area yet.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The "local" news bureau in St. John's serves the entire province of Newfoundland and Labrador. While it's not the national bureau, it's also not as local as the Shoreline News source, which is a CBS local paper. Regional CBC bureaus combine a mix of local journalism and serious journalism that could be used to show notability. -- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There's a difference between "getting provincewide coverage because he's actually a figure of genuinely provincewide notability" and "getting provincewide coverage only because the media outlet in question only has one bureau in the province, and thus every single story they cover automatically goes provincewide whether it's actually of any meaningful provincewide interest or not". McDonald is in the latter camp, not the former. The CBC is obviously a reliable source in principle — but by virtue of the way the CBC is structured, all CBC local bureau coverage, not just in St. John's but everywhere else in Canada too, automatically gets redistributed to at least half of its entire province, so the local bureaux can't in and of themselves prove that a person of local notability has passed the "covered outside his own local area" hump.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, regional CBC bureaus produce banal local news, but they also produce quality journalism. Doing a rudimentary google search of the CBC.ca site also shows that McDonald gets about twice as much coverage as other Newfoundland mayors except for the mayor of St. Johns. This argument also ignores the coverage from non-CBC sources like the St. John's Telegram, Atlantic Construction News, Newfoundland Television, the Nova Scotia Business Journal. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The quality of the journalism that the CBC does isn't the issue (go ahead and just try to find where I said anything even slightly disparaging of the CBC's journalism as a matter of principle.) The issue is the scope of notability that the journalism in question demonstrates — the fact that NTV and the CBC's station in St. John's have repeater transmitters outside of St. John's as well does not automatically nationalize their local coverage of local personalities and issues in and of itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
My point is that because the output of the regional bureaus is a mix of local journalism and issues of provincial importance, judging scope isn't as well-defined as you make it out to be. As you said you can't prove that a person covered by those bureaus is covered outside the local area. However you also can't just dismiss all coverage from the regional bureau as not showing that the mayor of CBS gets coverage from more than the local area. Actions taken by McDonald as mayor have been published in non-Newfoundland journals like the Nova Scotia Business Journal and Atlantic Construction News. McDonald also gets widespread coverage at the provincial level, including more CBC coverage than any other non-St. John's mayor. I think these demonstrate his regional importance and that national coverage isn't necessary in this case. The case of Christine O'Donnell is irrelevant because O'Donnell was just a candidate and never held any elected office of the mayoral level of higher, whereas McDonald has. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions00:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)reply
All candidates in all elections always generate local coverage, so that type of coverage does not contribute to getting a person over
WP:GNG — an as-yet-unelected candidate for office gets over GNG only if the coverage nationalizes in a
Christine O'Donnell sort of way. And there isn't enough coverage of him specifically in the context of his mayoralty to grant him an exemption from the fact that our inclusion standards for mayors require a minimum population of 50K — they are not based on where the municipality ranks in a list of the province's municipalities arrayed by population, but are based solely on the raw population figure itself.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You keep saying a mayor needs at least 50,000 residents in his town/city to be eligible enough for inclusion, yet haven't provided a link to a Wikipedia policy that says so. That's because it is not true. Nowhere in our policies does it say that. Please provide a link to this so-called "inclusion standard." A person being a mayor just needs to generate sufficient, third-party independent coverage to be considered notable, not to have a minimum of 50,000 residents.
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
You're right. There's no requirement for 50k, it's more like a million inhabitants, except provincial/state/national capitals. And there's
WP:GEOSCOPE, I asked up there, and will ask again, has any national or foreign newspaper reported on the Nalcor controversy? If not, it remains local ROUTINE coverage. On a side note, I find it odd, that an editor of one month of Wiki presence is trying to lecture experienced AfD participants on the guidelines.
Kraxler (
talk)
18:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That's quite an arbitrarily high requirement. GEOSCOPE applies only to events, and in any case, McDonald has gotten repeated coverage in several reputable provincial news sources. An editor of one month who's made nearly 2k edits is more than welcome to participate in AFD discussions and argue for a side. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions20:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler, you still haven't provided links to any policies that a mayor would need 50,000 inhabitants to have a Wikipedia article in provincial/state/national capitals, much less 1,000,000 (!) for mayors who serve every other kind of population. I know the 1,000,000 figure definitely can't be right; I can't imagine any such bogus requirement. Notability is not based on raw numbers. And another thing, please don't try to wikilawyer out of this by saying I can't criticize your AfD actions because I've only been here for a month (I've been here longer than that).
SuperCarnivore591 (
talk)
20:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
There is no absolute (or actually any) number written in the guideline, my comment was based on
WP:POLOUTCOMES, precedent and experience in AfD discussions. That doesn't bar you from arguing for the contrary. Back to the main issue, this seeming to be a very borderline case, I'm giving the subject the benefit of the doubt, and strike my !vote.
Kraxler (
talk)
14:47, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
50K is an established consensus established by a wealth of past AFD discussions on mayors of similarly-sized municipalities; those past discussions have indeed established a long-standing precedent that in a city of this size, coverage of a mayor has to nationalize, demonstrating significance far beyond the purely local, before they can be granted an override of the population size criterion. It doesn't have to be explicitly written into policy to be relevant and true; one needs to also be familiar with the conventions and precedents that AFD has established, and a 50K minimum for a mayor to get "automatically in because mayor" rights, with exceptions granted only if you can properly source "way more notable than usual, because national coverage", is one of those established precedents.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Kraxler, 1,000,000+ is the approximate minimum standard for city councillors, not for mayors. The minimum standard for mayors is considerably lower than that.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm quite experienced in AfD matters, but I wasn't aware of the 50K consensus for mayors. Thanks for telling me about it. However, I think it is too low, and I expect future arguments about notability-by-size in future AfDs, considering the appearance of new users at these dabates who are likewise unaware of such consensus, and no written rule which specifies this number. We'll have to be patient, like
Sisyphus.
Kraxler (
talk)
17:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. probably speedy delete as G11, if another admin agrees. I note the adjectives in the article, making OR claims about political matters. This is essentially a campaign biography. His previous position is not notable, and neither is his campaign, butthe real problem is promotionalism. DGG (
talk )
04:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I just made edits to make it more neutral. To be fair, the sources themselves used words like "
controversial" and "upset", though I've removed the former. I've kept the use of the word "upset" because that's how the sources described the mayoral election result
[40][41], though I have added an in-text attribution per the advice in
WP:WORDS. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions06:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
The
blatant campaign advertising was my prime concern, as can be seen in my first post, way up there. Maybe the article should be trimmed down to half the current size. The elections will be held in a month, and we'll be older and wiser by then. If he wins the article stands anyway, if not...
Kraxler (
talk)
17:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I've cut down the article text by about 40% and removed all material that I think could be seen as promotional. Although it's not a valid deletion argument, projections for the electoral district McDonald is running in gave him nearly a 90% chance of winning the riding. -- --
Patar knight - chat/contributions21:20, 14 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.
Longtime (February 2010), unsourced and basically nn-notable bio with my searches finding absolutely nothing good aside from
some here (BehindWoods link is found once at News). There's not much info and it's vague about her roles and career. Notifying the only still active tagger
Shirik.
SwisterTwistertalk19:35, 29 August 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
WP:BASIC. Coverage is not substantial, none of the cited sources are actually about the subject. One sentence mentions (trivial coverage) in articles about other topics does not demonstrate notability.
dissolvetalk06:47, 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Clear consensus to delete. The only editors to argue for keeping provided no policy-based arguments. I also note that all the keep !voters have extremely limited editing history, and one of them has been indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. --
RoySmith(talk)15:24, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The sources are mainly minor, mostly of the directory or listing type. He is briefly quoted in a couple of short (1-2 paragraph) articles. Many of the sources are from organizations he belongs to. (Jupiter Meds, in particular.) The publications that laud him are not significant. So we are lacking reliable sources, and there is nothing to show that he is notable. There is an air of promotion about the article.
LaMona (
talk)
03:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
The "Top Doctor" awards are far from establishing notability. This list (of a couple of dozen doctors in a small geographic area) comes from a company that names thousands of "top doctors" every year (one article said 6,000
[42]). Hospitals pay to have their doctors publicly visible in these lists.
[43] While this particular company is considered to be honest, being one of thousands in this list is like being listed by the Better Business Bureau. It helps consumers, but it's not a sign of notability.
LaMona (
talk)
17:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - I don't feel very strongly about this case, but
the sourcing is quite weak. Several cites are to a regulatory website, one to a lifestyle magazine, and the others to industry publications. So can we have more tests, doc?
Bearian (
talk)
Keep I can see element of notability in some of the references. However, the write may be asked to source for more usable references to boost the article.
Odogu (
talk)
12:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and Userfy. Searches did not turn up anything to suggest this person meets the notability criteria. But it's a new article, and the article's creator might be able to turn up something I missed.
Onel5969TT me14:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete., and absolutely do not userify. This is straightforward promotionalism for a plastic surgeon, by a SPA, and should have been removed as G11. There is nothing here to indicate that a proper article will ever be possible.I see no valid references; everything here is a essentially a press release; a "Top Doctor" reference from the "Palm Beacher Magazine" is not notability--those sort of publications have no authority whatsoever. If it is, it would need to be done by someone with the obvious COI here. DGG (
talk )
04:07, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Sources do not assert notability, as most of them solely mention the doctor and don't go into much detail about the doctor himself. There's also
WP:NPOV issues as well given the wording in the "plastic surgery career" section. Aerospeed (
Talk)
13:54, 14 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.
WP:BLP of an actress and writer, making no substantive claim of notability that would satisfy either
WP:NACTOR or
WP:AUTHOR and citing no
reliable source coverage — it just asserts her existence, and parks on her
IMDb profile as its sole "source". And, in fact, if you compare the statement of who she is in the IMDb profile to the statement of who she is in this article, it becomes painfully clear that the creator directly imported the IMDb statement and rephrased it just enough to avoid a literal
WP:COPYVIO, without actually adding anything else to it beyond a virtual replication of the IMDb profile. An actress does not get an automatic inclusion freebie on Wikipedia just because she exists — it takes reliable source coverage about her to get her in here, but none has been shown. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:32, 29 August 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 as my searches found nothing good and, frankly, this should not have stayed here this long if there were concerning issues such as sourcing and even simply improving the article.
SwisterTwistertalk05:03, 2 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.
Hardly found anything about this person and his works that would have this article sustained in Wikipedia.
This is the only source I can find, which includes a mention.
TheGGoose (
talk)
05:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete If this isn't a hoax, this is the best kept pulp fiction gem of all time. (Well, ok, I know a few others). I can't find any evidence of his existence, doing searches only on his last name since his first name seems to vary from Henry to Hank and more. No evidence of his books in libraries or bookstores. No evidence of his Hollywood work in IMDB. I really hope that someone hits the jackpot and finds the hidden cache of information that will bring this person to light. Until then...
LaMona (
talk)
04:40, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:ANYBIO. Google brings up nothing useable, like
LaMona even searching using the surname only reveals nil worldcat library holdings
[45]. With his apparent prodigious output ("For the next 3 decades he would write 3 to 4 novels a year.") i would expect something to appear at least on bookseller/auction sites but even searching these proved fruitless (probably because of small print runs his books are rare and highly collectable
). ps. what is the "1947 booker award"?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
17:57, 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.
My searches found nothing and, based from the article's current content, it's unlikely she ever got much attention much less likely enough to improve this article. It's worth noting this has stayed basically the same since starting in February 2005 and there's no obvious move target.
SwisterTwistertalk04:53, 5 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 third source provided is pretty good, and puts his notability on the border at least. Not going to withdraw, but I'm now neutral bordering on keep after a close review of the provided sources and a closer check for others out there.
Wizardman21:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)reply
I need to investigate further, but I think Muboshgu is probably right in that he does not meet
WP:NBASEBALL since being a #1 draft pick is not a baseball criteria, but as a #1 pick there is a good chance he got adequate coverage to meet
WP:GNG.
Rlendog (
talk)
14:36, 2 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.
My searches found several results
here,
here,
here,
here (Scholar, passing mentions),
here and
here but nothing to make considerable, even minimally, improvement and there's hardly any significant edits since March 2004 and no good move target. Although it seems fairly well known in its field and has made recommendations for hearing enhancement measures in theatres, there's not much else.
SwisterTwistertalk19:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep perhaps a ref improve tag, but plenty of sources to do an informative article, which I did update somewhat.
Seibel, Tom (27 October 1990). "Conference tackles problems of adults who lose hearing". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
CIEPLY, MICHAEL (21 November 2014). "Theater Owners Join Effort to Add Captioning to Films". The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
Loudon, Bennett J. (3 December 2014). "Feds planning new rules on movie captions". USA Today. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
"New software for Google Glass provides captions for hard-of-hearing users" (2 October 2014). Phys.org. 2 October 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2015. "Foley and the students are working with the Association of Late Deafened Adults in Atlanta to improve the program."
Delete The references above are places where the organization is quoted or mentioned (sometimes in a single sentence) on a general issue, not places which discuss the organization. DGG (
talk )
04:04, 24 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google books and Google scholar are better places to look for this sort of thing than the popular press. The article does need rewriting. Two references: Woodcock, Kathryn (1996).
"The Association of Late-Deafened Adults: Rationale, Highlights, History"(PDF). In Mervin D. Garretson (ed.). Deafness: Historical Perspectives. National Association of the Deaf. p. 155to160.
ISBN978-0-913072-84-4. and Dalebout, Susan (2009). The Praeger Guide to Hearing and Hearing Loss: Assessment, Treatment, and Prevention. ABC-CLIO. p. 228.
ISBN978-0-313-36476-1..— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
StarryGrandma (
talk •
contribs) 04:03, 31 August 2015
Weak Delete - a tough one. There are a bunch of sources, but the only ones that seem to cover the organization beyond a mention, citation, or affiliated person, are primary sources (e.g. the one posted by StarryGranma directly above). I'd prefer a merge, but don't see any suitable target (
post-lingual deafness?) — Rhododendritestalk \\
18:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - references don't really cover the organization unless it was a brief mention. Maybe userfy to creator or merge with an article?
MrWooHoo (
talk)
02:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
MrWooHoo Well, FWIW, the author was a SPA and never seemed to come again last March 2004 (and hardly anyone else has significantly edited the article enough) and chances are very likely they're not returning. If it was userfied, that would simply host it and someone else would have to attend to it.
SwisterTwistertalk02:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
Another support/advocacy organization, The Association of Late-Deafened Adults (ALDA), was founded in 1987. For the most part, its members are adults who grew up hearing but are now unable to understand speech without visual aids such as speechreading, sign language, or captioning. The organization's goal is to advocate for relevant legislation, rehabilitation programs, employment opportunities, and communication services. The organization also provides personal support to late-deafened adults as they adjust to becoming deaf. Networking opportunities are offered through local chapters and an annual conference. The association publishes a quarterly newsletter "that blends humor and sensitivity along with first-hand accounts of the frequent absurdities of deafened life.
ALDA, the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, is an international group that recently permitted Ms. Ward to open a chapter in Pasco County
...
The association is for people 21 and older who have a mild or severe hearing impairment and need support. People who attend ALDA meetings can communicate through lip reading, sign language or even written notes.
ALDA was started by Bill Graham, an editor at World Book Encyclopedia in Chicago, after he suddenly became deaf. His loss left him depressed until he entered a support group to deal with the problem.
...
In 1987, Bill Graham received a book titled Who's Who in Science, and thumbed through its pages finding people who he thought to be deaf, and then contacted them. Graham's predictions were mostly right, and he met with the people to discuss plans for an adult deafness group.
ALDA's first chapter opened in Chicago in 1987 with the help of audiologists, psychiatrists and other professionals who could work well with the deaf.
Today, there are chapters of ALDA in the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, France Australia, and now, Pasco County.
On the day I visited, Mike, Karen and another friend, Stanley Gadsden, 32, were making plans to attend the third annual ALDA International Conference, which began Wednesday and continues through Sunday at the Westin Hotel in Chicago.
ALDA is a four-year-old group with 1,200 members, all of whom became deaf after childhood. Though the late-deafened make up 75 percent of the 1.8 million deaf population, they are often the most isolated. People who were born deaf view them as part of the hearing world. And people who hear view them as deaf.
...
I. King Jordan, president of Gallaudet, the university for deaf students, lost his hearing in a motorcycle accident at age 21. He's giving the keynote address at this year's ALDA conference. In a speech to ALDA in 1989, he talked of how the hearing world interacts with the late-deafened: "The belief is out there that, if we deaf people would simply try a little bit harder, if we would really concentrate, then we would be able to understand. If we really worked at it, we could hear again."
Those who acknowledge that they have moved to a different phase and need to get on with life may be amenable to seeking out contact with other late-deafened persons through venues such as the Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc. (ALDA) (
http://www.alda.org, 2008) in their search for a sense of fellowship. At ALDA meetings, attention to diverse communication needs, including signed English, spoken language with speeechreading and assistive listening devices, note writing, and CART [Communication Access Real Time Translation] (
http://www.alda.org, 2008), draws these late-deafened individuals together. Conclusions from data obtained from 97 late-deafened participants in 12 focus groups confirm that while hearing community affiliations remain strong, meetings with ALDA members are valued (Goulder, 1997).
The book notes on page 126 in its "Resources" section:
ALDA
The Association of Late Deafened Adults (ALDA) is a self-help organization for people who have lost their hearing after the development of speech. The organization was founded in Chicago in 1987.
Keep. There's sufficient here for notability of this national organization. This is one of the few recent times I've agreed with
Cunard in these discussions, at least about the conclusion, though I think some of his sources are mere mentions. Books about a condition such as this and patient websites tend to include all posssibly relevant organizations, and I consider them mere listings. The 1st ref. given by
StarryGrandma, however, is substantial enough for notability. DGG (
talk )
04:13, 14 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.
WP:BLP of a musician with no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC. The article is written in the first person, cites a single brief namecheck in a book, and rests his notability on having very briefly been in a notable band — however, NMUSIC permits a musician whose notability is band-dependent to have a separate standalone article only if they can be reliably sourced as having independent notability for something independent of the band (such as solo albums). And looking at the band's article, his membership was extremely brief at best — the founding member that Mallinson claims to have replaced was actually replaced within two weeks by a permanent new member who wasn't Mallinson, so even if Mallinson's claim is true he was in the band for a grand total of 10-14 days at most. And all of this occurred before the band had even recorded its first album, meaning they weren't even notable yet. NMUSIC normally recommends a redirect to the band, but I don't think that's appropriate in this case, as his membership in the band isn't even hinted at in the band's article. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:26, 22 August 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.
Oppose per rationale given by another editor at the last nomination, "The logic in the nomination is flawed. The two articles serve different purposes and the discography article omits most song titles" and my comment at the Snoop Dogg nomination by the same editor which reads, "The nominator has given his opinion why the whole of the "List of songs recorded by Foo" may be considered for deletion but has failed to explain why the Snoop Dogg list should be singled out. If the nominator thinks that the category should be deleted he should nominate accordingly, singling out certain artists according to personal taste does not benefit Wikipedia." --
Richhoncho (
talk)
18:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Well for some artists a list like this may make sense, but for this group everything here is basically covered in their discography.
Koala15 (
talk)
18:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)reply
How exactly did you come to that conclusion? Here's some figures.
Meaning that 64 songs from the "List of songs" article are not covered in the discography.
If one of the two articles were to be AfD'd, it would surely be the Ariana Grande list, no? Do you still stand by your claim that this article is redundant to the discography? Strong keep'.
Azealia911talk19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Richhoncho I'm not sure if the genre of the artists brought to AfD has anything to do with it, but they all seem to be very basic, messy, unsourced lists. I sense that having them deleted is an easy cleanup, a way of sweeping them under the rug and getting them out of the way without actually working on them if you get what I mean.
Azealia911talk11:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Azealia911. I am not sure I would call any of the articles basic or messy, but I concur they are unreferenced, but that's not grounds for deletion either. If the nominator wishes to point out I have made an error in my accusation I would apologise and retract my "rapper" comment, although to be fair one of the nominations was for a "hiphop artist". --
Richhoncho (
talk)
08:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Koala15:, could you please give an indication as to weather you wish to proceed with this AfD? If you withdraw, it can speedily be closed as nobody else has !voted delete. Just suggesting it as opposed to letting this drag on until it's closed in a few days. That is, unless you still think the article should be deleted. Thanks,
Azealia911talk23:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Note from 1st AFD closer - Incase anyone's confused with the first AFD closure - I originally closed based on
this AFD (I'm sure I closed about 3 or 4 from that nominator relating to these I think)... It made sense at the time anyway
. –
Davey2010Talk00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
If you ask me whether
WP:OTHERSTUFF exists, I'll answer yes. But, your two examples have a reference appended to each song, and the unlinked entries do not grossly outnumber the blue-linked songs.
Kraxler (
talk)
01:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah, the ever over-used otherstuffexists, Wikipedia's answer to
Godwin's law. An articles current state should not be viable reasoning for deletion, but its potential. Is the article a dire mess? Completely. Does it have the potential to be a complete, referenced list? Yes.
Azealia911talk02:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Yes, it's all OTHERSTUFF, I just showed that "keep" is as much a possible outcome of this AfD as "delete". It's to be decided on the merits of this subject, and not any other.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If by "what happens", you mean the opinion of you and two other editors at a relatively quiet AfD, then yes ok, there's one example of what happened. But until you can clearly show me that poor referencing is a cause for deletion, and not just a way of sweeping clutter under the rug as opposed to working on said article, I'm not buying it. As of the current listed examples of
reasons for deletion, I'm not seeing any that this list applies to. Take note of number 6 too, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" not "Articles that are currently not attributed to reliable sources". If anything, an easy referencing method would be the respective albums's listed in the articles' liner notes or
AllMusic credits. As for you calling fancruft, preposterous. Someone making a comprehensive "List of songs" article for an artist is most definitely not cruft. I just sourced 35+ entries in the list. Will resume when I wake up.
Azealia911talk02:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
LISTCRUFT applies when the non-notable stuff by far exceeds the notable part. It's 64 nn to 25 n, by your count. This list is just a pretext to squeeze more info on 64 non-notable songs into Wikipedia.
Kraxler (
talk)
15:19, 1 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 subject of this article fails
WP:ONEEVENT as he is known only for his current political candidacy in an upcoming Australian federal by-election, with all references on him having appeared since this was announced and being focused on this fact. The usual convention is that Australian federal political candidates are not independently notable until they are elected, with this being the consensus of a discussion of this article at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Andrew Hastie (politician). While Mr Hastie's Army career was distinguished, it is not a source of independent notability as 1) his identity was legally protected as he was a member of the secretive
Special Air Service Regiment so he received no coverage whatsoever for it until he announced his candidacy 2) the stories about his military service have been in the context of his political candidacy (he's running strongly on his military record) and 3) He did not hold a senior rank (he was a mid-ranked officer until he resigned to contest the election).
Nick-D (
talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Nick-D (
talk)
03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - Full disclosure, I was the editor who approved this article through the AfC process.
Nick-D and I have had a cordial back and forth regarding this article, which he felt should be a redirect, and I disagree with. I thought that if he felt strongly that a created article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, he should bring it to the AfD process, which he has graciously done. I understand his viewpoint, but in my opinion, this is a case that regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, this fledgling politician clearly passes
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. It is rather tedious that it has had to come to this, since very possibly this whole affair will be rendered moot in two weeks' time. In the meantime, however, Hastie has no claim of passing GNG. He is known only and entirely for his candidacy for Canning; there is, to my knowledge, no coverage whatsoever of him in any other context, thus he fails ONEEVENT as Nick-D says. If he is successful - which he very well might be - then obviously he passes
WP:POLITICIAN, but in the meantime he is not notable and the article is premature. We also want to discourage this kind of premature creation and actually had a kind of incubator for these a few years ago, which has fallen into abeyance. If someone wanted to host this in userspace until the by-election that would be a satisfactory solution as well - in fact, given that the article in its current state is quite decent, I would be happy to do so myself.
Frickeg (
talk)
04:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Just the national television coverage alone is enough to satisfy
WP:N. Perhaps if this was part of a general election collection of candidates we would not have received the national coverage of the person. But that's not the case here.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk)
04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:TOOSOON. If he does not win the by-election, he will be just another failed candidate with a flash of fame due to that one event. Redirect to the by-election and give each candidate a neutral paragraph or two if needed. I agree it's a nice article, but I'm sure someone could write an article about each of us if they cared to. --
Scott DavisTalk04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. It should have been speedied or redirected, Onel5969 had no business forcing this time-sensitive situation through AfD, and I would suggest a
WP:SNOW close as soon as possible. Hastie has absolutely no claim to notability besides his political candidacy: if he wins, he will be unquestionably notable, if he loses, he is unquestionably not notable, and the by-election is far too closely contested for an article to be created in advance and only serves as campaign propaganda.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
05:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - regretfully as this article seems to be in good shape and is the work of a new editor. Regardless, I agree with the nominator's 1E rationale. The claim that Hastie has received ongoing nationwide media coverage is not really accurate as he only seems to have received coverage in the lead up to the election (i.e. his candidacy) which I don't think fits the definition of "ongoing". Of cse though this may change and in the future there may be more coverage (of either his political or military career, or both). I wonder if this might be
USERFIED?
Anotherclown (
talk)
07:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Postpone - The by-election will be held in 2 weeks time, and this AFD will run for 1 week. If he is elected (and he is the big favourite to win it, given he needs a 10% swing to lose it), the article will then be undeleted/recreated only 1 week after it's deleted. What a waste of time. If he loses, then I think that it should be selectively merged/redirected to
Canning by-election, 2015.
The-Pope (
talk)
08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
That would effectively create a special exemption from
WP:NPOL, by which all candidates in current elections would suddenly become entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign advertising platform for the duration of the campaign, and then only after the results were finalized could we even begin to entertain deletion of any of them. And that wouldn't just apply to by-elections either; it would apply equally to all of the thousands of candidates in a full-on general election, too. No matter how ridiculous it may seem to delete the article and then possibly have to restore it again in a week or two, creating a special waiver from our inclusion rules just because the election's not very far off would be a logistical nightmare that would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a public relations database. There's always the option of sandboxing it, too.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Suspending our normal inclusion standards for politicians, just because the by-election's only a couple of weeks away and we might have to recreate the article again, is a can of worms that no sane editor wants to open — it would require us to accept every article about every candidate in any current election at any level of government in every country in the entire world, and would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a repository of campaign brochures. And even if he is favoured to win, per
WP:CRYSTAL we're not in the business of publishing electoral predictions. Simply put, we have to stick with the rules — granting a temporary special exemption to candidates in current elections, just because we might have to recreate them again (oh, the horror) if the candidate wins, would inherently vitiate the very reason that our inclusion standards for politicians even exist in the first place. Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation if he wins; sandboxing in draft or userspace also acceptable.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Why would the result from a single AFD make a binding precedent that overrules NPOL? If I referred to this article in the next political candidate's AFD, I'd get OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fired at me. This isn't any old minor candidate. It's a
by-election, so only one seat is being voted for, and the media focus is much higher than a normal state or national campaign (as the result is seen as a pointer to the status of the Prime Minister's standing). He isn't representing any old party, it's
one of the two major political parties in the country and the incumbent party for this seat, so the prediction of victory is very high, it's currently paying about $1.22 (or 5/1 on) at the online bookies. This isn't a US style >2-year campaign, it's a 33 day campaign that's seen the Prime Minister appear numerous times alongside this candidate. If there was a case for a IAR on the standard notability guidelines (not rules) for political candidates, this is it. If it is deleted, will you salt it for that week to stop other well meaning people, political staffers or editors who want it to be a "PR database" from recreating it in the meantime? (and a disclaimer, in case anyone thinks I'm COI or connected to Hastie - my politics are almost completely opposite to his. So no, I don't know or support him in any way).
The-Pope (
talk)
14:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete according to regular practice. It would have been better to have been left as a redirect so that it could be easily recreated.--
Grahame (
talk)
02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The claim by
Nick-D that he is only known for his recent candidature ignores role as a member of SASR generally, and the fact he is linked to the incident regarding the severed hands. This case is only the second alleged war crimes investigation in Australia over the last 10 years, and Hastie is the only figure identified in public. For these reasons in my opinion he satisfies
WP:GNG.--
Klobfour (
talk)
07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
He was only identified after, and because, of his political candidacy. According to the media reports, he played no direct role in the incident and was cleared. I'm not sure what you mean by "ignores role as a member of SASR generally" - given that the identities of SAS personnel are legally protected, no notability whatsoever is attached to this: quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, the SAS Regiment has 500+ members at any given point in time, including what must be around 30 officers, so there's no intrinsic notability from being a former member of the unit.
Nick-D (
talk)
07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Firstly, as you did with your original entry arguing for AfD and you’ve done again here, you have conflated the cause of his identification (political candidacy) with the cause of his notoriety (SAS soldier involved in high profile incidents and political candidacy) in an attempt to argue for deletion in accordance with
WP:ONEEVENT. This is a false argument as they are two distinct elements; however, there is of course a relationship between the two. His notoriety extends from his career as a SAS officer AND his political candidacy. Perhaps you can argue that
WP:POLITICIAN shows that listing him prior to election fails to satisfy this rule, but it relies on him having no notoriety other than candidacy, which is clearly not the case. Secondly, as
Graeme said it’s not just an election, it’s a by-election, and it’s a by-election which has attracted more attention than any other in perhaps the last 20 years (maybe since
Ros Kelly in 1995?). It’s in the news every night, and Hastie appears in the newspapers every morning, sometimes more than once. The arguments that if he loses he’ll just be another failed candidate are a weak generalisation, as at the very least we know from the alleged war crimes investigation that there’s more to come. Thirdly, your argument regarding “no notability whatsoever” due to the legally protected status of SAS personnel is a fallacy. It’s the equivalent of saying an event is unimportant because no-one saw or reported it. Maybe that tree never fell in the forest? I’m unsure what the strength of the SAS Regiment officers and men is but seeing as it’s “legally protected” the statistics you’ve used must be a stab in the dark at best, and afford no relevance to the discussion. Finally, there appears to be very limited risk of this amounting to a partisan article seeing as there is no mention of policy or the usual politicking politicians get up to, and the bulk of the article is devoted to his military service. I stand by my comments regarding satisfaction of
WP:GNG. He’s attracted numerous front page stories on BOTH his candidacy and his military career, and I’m certain the media coverage over the next two weeks will further show that this is the case. I’m unsure why but my guess from your entry editorialising his private life and your removal of the references to the “controversial” article in ‘‘The Age’’ (despite it being slammed by politicians and commentators of all persuasions) is that you must really dislike this guy for some reason, hence your attempt to steamroll over all who disagree with you. Prove me wrong with a reasoned argument.
Klobfour (
talk)
12:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per Nick-D, Frickeg, Bearcat and the guidelines they linked to. No need to redirect as after election- if that would make him notable- a much better encyclopaedic summary could be written that would be less biased by
WP:RECENTISM. --
ELEKHHT11:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - The article is neutral in presentation and about a individual notable for his army career and political candidacy, and, as such, is superior to many of the biographies allowed to stand.
Jgk168421 (
talk)
13:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, with the acknowledgement that this is process wonkery. I am not keen on seeing Wikipedia used as a tool in political campaigning, as this article seems to be, and even though my money is on Hastie to scrape in, I don't think we should set any precedent that "sure things" are exempted from guidelines like
WP:POLITICIAN and
WP:BLP1E. Undelete if and when he wins.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)07:13, 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.
Non-notable school. No indication it passes
WP:NSCHOOL,
WP:CORP, or
WP:GNG. Most "delete" arguments raised in 2006 AFD still apply. Many "keep" arguments from 2006 have been superceded by changes in Wiki-practice as seen in
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. That AFD closed as "no consensus". Note: Potential redirect target to
Garnerville, New York would be potentially confusing to readers as the page doens't have an "education" section. Having said that, I am okay with either delete or redirect.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)
03:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
As nominator I have no objection to redirecting the page to any suitable target including this one. A target that mentions the school by name or that at least mentions elementary schools in that geographic area or which could have a mention easily added (i.e. without having to add a bunch of other stuff for context) would likely be more suitable than one that doesn't mention it or which would need a large or awkward edit to mention it. Had there not been any past deletion- or redirect-attempts I would've simply redirect it to somewhere or
WP:PRODed it.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)
14:40, 5 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 newly minted
WP:PROMOTIONAL article consists of 8 largely non-RS references that include YouTube, Kickstarter, Facebook, the company's own website, etc., plus a handful (3) of drive-by product reviews of specific items manufactured by the company (not actual information on the company itself).
LavaBaron (
talk)
03:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I created this article and I am not sure why
LavaBaron insists that it is promotional material. I have no relation to this company, and I do not own these products, nor am I interested in advancing their reputation. I will happily rewrite any material that seems too much like an ad. Primary sources (the YouTube interview, the Kickstarter, the Facebook page) are not unreliable sources by any means. Also, the company's website is not actually cited in the article, and the other 5 references are to secondary sources. Create Digital Music, AskAudio and Fact have regular staff subject to editorial oversight. I can't find as much detailed information about Earmilk, though it appears to have a managing staff. If the concern is that the page covers the product more than the company, couldn't a move/restructuring be more effective? I'd also like to say that I feel like this AfD may have been started hastily and in bad faith after I asked LavaBaron to explain their tags on the article on the
talk page.
Boomur [
☎]
03:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
If you're citing a source that you don't know much about but "appears to have an editorial staff" [sic] that's a good clue it's non-RS. As for not explaining my tags to you, it's not my responsibility to explain why Facebook and YouTube are non-RS to a seasoned editor such as yourself. It would be different if you were new here. But asking me to spend time typing out the patently obvious is a nuisance request. If you truly don't know at this point in your WP career, you may want to spend some time observing before continuing editing.
LavaBaron (
talk)
03:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Please see
WP:SELFPUB, self-published sources are not necessarily unreliable. The tags you left on the article were mainly related to lack of references, original research, and puffery; I was seeking examples of those things so that they could be corrected, because from my perspective they were not present in the article (which doesn't mean they're not present).
Boomur [
☎]
03:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete, as they are not notable. I went through the article and chopped it down to size, and removed the Facebook and Youtube "refs". Setting aside who created the article or why, it seems it is now standard practice for any small Maker-type company that relies on the Internet for sales to have a Wikipedia page like this to promote their product and to tell the world that they are alive. In this case I would say it is
WP:TOOSOON. Companies like
littleBits or
Adafruit are notable for having generated enormous independent third-party press about their products. Look at the refs in
Ayah Bdeir's article: those are notable. The refs in this article are very weak mentions in industry publications and do not denote significant notability.
New Media Theorist (
talk)
17:15, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, as more companies are learning about
Google Knowledge Graph, there's been a race to claim real estate. We seem to be seeing a lot of small companies desperately lining up to push-through articles about themselves. I've been AfD'ing like a madman lately.
LavaBaron (
talk)
00:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Uh, I'd like to clarify once again that I am not associated with Patchblocks, and even if I were that wouldn't be grounds to delete necessarily, just to rewrite.
Boomur [
☎]
01:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes
Boomur, I understood that from when you said as much in your first comment. If you read my comment two up from this, and
LavaBaron's directly above, we do not claim you are associated with the company. We were just talking generally about the appropriateness/notability factor of very small companies having Wikipedia pages. That's the crux of the notability issue here: very small company with minor industry press. Does it need a page, is it notable enough to warrant one? I say WP:TOOSOON. And yes, I know you disagree. Hoping to hear what others have to say.
New Media Theorist (
talk)
02:06, 6 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.
My searches including the simplest found absolutely nothing at all so, given it's an Indian subject, I'm sure if sources are simply not easily accessible. However, it was started in June 2005 by an Indian IP and has not been significantly edited since so that concerns me. I'd like to invite fellow hoax hunter
Calamondin12 for comment.
SwisterTwistertalk00:31, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. Not a hoax. Appears to be a rarely-used spelling; more common is Anbu Kodi Makkal. I've found references to "anbukkodi" as a symbol used by devotees of
Ayya Vaikundar, such as page 47 of
this document: "A global structure called “samattuva sangham” was created with a saffron flag with a white jwala (‘anbukkodi’) in the middle." It's unclear how much the term is actually used, however, so ideally an expert on religion in India may be able to offer some advice on whether to keep the article (which has very little real content) or to redirect to
Ayyavazhi.
Calamondin12 (
talk)
12:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete we can't be left to guess what an article should be about, and in the absence of sources explaining the subject, there's no other way to proceed
Kraxler (
talk)
17:00, 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 As far as I can tell this is just a website, not a "network of ministries". The associated radio show doesn't even use the name Busted Halo.
Carax (
talk)
17:29, 5 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:BEFORE should have prevented this irresponsible nomination. Plenty of sources to satisfy GNG - including these two from the Chicago Tribune:
[51][52] Similar minimal effort turns up third-party news stories for the other players. Recommend this be speedily closed if not withdrawn by nominator.
The Dissident Aggressor21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment This has nothing to do with
WP:BEFORE. The sources you listed, I had also found. I cannot access them without paying for them and I will not do that. It might have been the way they were linked, but I think I have accessed them successfully now. So to comment on the sources. The one source does talk about Clark, I understand that. However, that does not equal significant third party coverage. The second source is a list of players and a small piece on them, something you would generally find for an underage athlete in a local paper. See other
linked discussions in regards to this for reference. As per
WP:NHSPHSATH, "High school and pre-high school athletes are notable only if they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is (1) independent of the subject and (2) clearly goes beyond
WP:ROUTINE coverage." None of these individuals satisfy this requirement. It goes on to say "The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability.", which hammers on the two sources linked above.
The Undead Never Die (
talk)
21:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. If a handful of local routine coverage of high school athletes confers notability, I have several thousand articles to create. ~ RobTalk23:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The editor who created this articles have deleted the afd notice in all of them. I have just reverted that. User have removed tfd notices as well as you can see in
his contribution list. Probably enough for ban.--
Osplace01:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete ALL per:
There have already been discussions apparently that U-18 volleyball teams are non notable
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.