The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Lack of notability Wykx ( talk) 21:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Agree with Mikenorton "This earthquake caused no deaths, injuries or major damage. Comparing it against the earthquake notability guidelines, it's marginal at best." Wykx ( talk) 22:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: minor damage with liquefaction and cliffs that collapsed is not common in christchurch-- Planecrashexpert ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Weak delete - The lack of significant damage (apart from the cliff fall) and no injuries sustained makes me lean towards deletion (obviously with the salient details captured in the list of earthquakes in New Zealand). Mikenorton ( talk) 09:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Earthquakes do not have to cause loss of life to be notable. See 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake for example. While obviously not the most news-grapping earthquake to happen this year it still received significant coverage and caused some damage. Notable. Inter&anthro ( talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep While the New Zealand earthquake mentioned here did not do as much widespread damage as the 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake, where I believe this article is notable is in the impact the earthquake had on New Zealand's landmass. For example, it caused a noted cliff to collapse. Notable, and worth keeping on Wikipedia. Juneau Mike ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment: For some reason, the notability was questioned on the article's talk page immediately before putting it to AfD. There are quite a few editors who have commented on the talk page, but who have not commented here as yet. Schwede 66 18:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: Regarding the earthquake notability guidelines, it says on that page that it "would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed". The intensity felt in the central city was VIII (the guidelines require VII). It's not magnitude 7.0 (far from it), but it's part of a swarm. Where the notability guidelines are lacking in my opinion is that it doesn't take into account the area affected. It's a sizeable city that is affected, and this impact is something that should also be taken into account. The same earthquake in a part of New Zealand where hardly anybody lives - who cares? There are a lot of people living in the Christchurch (360,000) and that, combined with the fact that this has been going on for five and a half years by now, has caused quite a bit of interest in international media. I've had a look last night and there is a large number of newspapers that didn't just mention this in a couple of lines, but had quite a bit of reporting, and most of them included a photo or two. I shall add the international reaction when I get the time. Schwede 66 18:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge: While I agree (as a local) that this article alone is unnecessary, some of this information should be moved to another page. It is nevertheless a reasonably major event in the 2010 aftershock sequence, occurring years after the main event. So far, this aftershock hasn't got even a single mention in the aftershock section of the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake article, when many other ML 5.0+ events with little damage or notability have gained a mention. Alternatively, given there have been other major aftershocks without Wikipedia articles of their own that have either caused major damage or else imperilled lives(I'm thinking Boxing Day 2010, December 23rd 2011, plus possibly this earthquake), how about creating a Wikipedia article on some of these more major aftershocks? (And I apologize for initially posting this in the wrong section.) 125.238.116.151 ( talk) 23:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: I think the proximity to Christchurch, the magnitude and the MMI is reason enough. ThE~fUtUrE~2014 ( talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: So as I said in the article's talk page, atm I wanted to keep it. I stated: "Despite the article is not at good quality, adding more information and major fixing-ups should already make the article to good. Yes I know that the earthquake is relatively minor, but imo adding this into the List of NZ earthquakes article is great. However, if nothing happens in the future (anything related to this or future "great" earthquakes) and the article is still below the standards, deleting this article is necessary." As of now, I have been updating with Geonet quakes and have measure some moderate earthquakes after February 14 (especially on the 18th), also an article states "because of this, Christchurch might be seeing another great earthquake by next year", so therefore, keep atm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: As I stated on the article's talk page: "It could meet the criteria listed in earthquake notability guidelines as it is a) part of "a swarm of events" and b) the intensity was at VII on the Mercalli scale [1]. Also, with the 5th anniversary of the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake 8 days after the quake listed in this article, it has a social impact and relevance in that regard. In addition, the June 2011 Christchurch earthquake is a part of the same swarm and only one person died (an elderly man who fell over) as a result but it has its own article. Then again, the December 2011 Christchurch earthquake redirects to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake despite two (if not more) of the quakes on that day also met the intensity requirement (albeit with no deaths I am aware of) [2] [3]. So maybe some consistency needs to applied with which of these articles stays or goes, as, in my mind, they are all significant parts of the "swarm" we are experiencing here." -- IrasNZ ( talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete all. WP:SNOW applies here. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
*Keep - The
Saudi Professional League is considered professional at
WP:FPL. If sources can be given showing that the subjects of the areticles played a game, than the articles should be kept.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) W. P. Uzer ( talk) 20:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. While I am nominating this for possible deletion, I do so with some reservations and would be interested in feedback from the community. The subject appears to be a band of very limited notoriety that were it not for the tragic circumstances of their deaths coupled with a very slow news cycle for the British press would likely not rate any notice on these pages. That said the band IS getting a lot of post mortem attention including front page coverage in some of the tabloids. And yes there have been cases of obvious 1E subjects (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) where 1E got chucked by community acclamation. I am not convinced this band rises to that level. That said, this is not the strongest Delete !vote I have ever cast and will happily bow to consensus if the community thinks that this merits inclusion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. Article's been improved since nomination so obivous keep (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Article has only one source, and a quick web search throws up nothing else. The article appears copied more or less straight from the single source. The subject's political activities are not notable. His business activities may be if there were sources available, which there appear not to be. Frinton100 ( talk) 19:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is in Kannada. It was deleted two days ago through WP:PROD after having been listed for two weeks at WP:Pages needing translation into English with no translation having occurred. Its time remains up. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
*Speedy. This article meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under
WP:G4 as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion (or in this case a PROD), is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.
Zeke Essiestudy (
talk)
00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing but a list of technical specifications. No context provided. No claim of notability. Not very notable anyway. T v x1 18:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. And will salt both versions of the name. MelanieN ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO. Article was speedy deleted twice in the last two weeks, after creation by User:GeghamAyvazyan, who has since been blocked for sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InnaBeglaryan/Archive. This time the article was created as Petrosyan Aghajan. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 18:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW applies as well as the arguments given below. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The topic of this article does not meet WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥ 311 13:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about non-notable band that fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. It originally had one source, the band's web page when I added a prod template. The article's creator, Dfisek, added three sources and removed the prod. None of the three sources are reliable sources and they were simply placed at the end of sentences without any other changes to the article. Aspects ( talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Procedural close. Already deleted at 15:32, on 14 February 2016 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Move to the Facebook wikia. 333 -blue 13:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Unnotable video game. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment – It's not even a video game. It's a game engine. You might want to check the actual articles and sources present before going on a deletion spree. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Could be recreated if new or better sources appear. MelanieN ( talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Possibly too soon for an article. No indication of notability. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
As the author of pretty much all the article's (small) content, I'm going to TRY not to be biased and use logic, rather than emotion, to defend it. Please bear with me.
This is the first article I have created, so I read through various policies, and concluded that Sol 0 just barely met the criteria for inclusion. In my opinion, "just barely enough" is enough, and as time goes on it will increase in notability (or at the very least, its notability will not decrease).
I hadn't seen the TOOSOON criteria before, but I read through the film section (it's the nearest to a video game in there). I'm not sure if most films on Wikipedia would actually meet any of the "Attributes to consider"!
Sol 0 has been released and sold around 15,000 copies as of 14 February 2016, so it's not too soon in that respect, but I accept that there has been little media coverage of the game as yet. I have found a couple of pre-release reviews, and have added them to the article.
I would prefer to let the article stand for a while. Having been properly released only a few weeks ago, I expect reviews to turn up shortly. Awards or nominations will, obviously, take a bit longer, but I believe Sol 0 will eventually become at least 20% [4] as notable as Braid. Cosmogoblin ( talk) 09:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Following deletion I will redirect it to Gawker Media which already has content about it. MelanieN ( talk) 01:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely a synthesis of primary sources; no indication that significant coverage in secondary sources exists. I had redirected it to parent organization Gawker Media but was reverted without either explanation or improvement. Bringing it here per WP:BLAR. Huon ( talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Can't see how the article passes WP:GNG. Dahlberg's channels combined totals around 13 million subscribers. But, he is hardly notable as anything else other than a YouTube celebrity. Wikipedia does not grant automatic articles for every single YouTube celebrity with many subscribers, or someone who is somewhat of a figure to a single game, not to mention the number of subscribers a YouTube channel has absolutely nothing to do with anything either. When searched up to find detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources, the best things I can find are things about his recent anime voice role casting and collaboration for a anti-smoking campaign done two years ago, but nothing else related directly about him as a subject. The article contains info about Dahlberg's YouTube content and multiple Minecraft series that follow WP:OR. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 07:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Article on a theory that the states that form the Trans-Pacific Partnership may unite further. Fails WP:FUTURE, only citation is to WorldNetDaily. Blythwood ( talk) 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No assertion of notability, no sources cited. This would be a speedy deletion candidate except that we have no CSD criteria for films. Hard to find sources for this, I see trivial mentions, directory listings, maybe a review or two but can't tell if the reviews are from notable reviewers. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 07:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
lack of notability. Haptokar ( talk) 06:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Previously deleted via AfD over five years ago at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Capone (linguist). I would normally just tag this for
G4, but the passage of time makes me wonder if something is different. I don't personally have an opinion on whether this should be deleted or kept, but (see below) I think the question of whether Capone passes
WP:PROF in 2016 ought to be discussed. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
06:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
PROD remained in place for seven days but IP removed it before an administrator got to it. Subject fails WP:GNG, achieved nothing of note. LM2000 ( talk) 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Candidate in the Alberta general election, 2015. The seat was won by Lorne Dach Uhooep ( talk) 04:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG giso6150 ( talk) 04:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no credible indication of notability here. We have a couple of directory entries/PR pieces ( [15], [16], [17]), a couple of magazine covers repeated across a few sites ( [18], [19], [20], [21]), and a gossip rag interview. What we don't have is any indication the subject meets WP:ENT, or WP:BIO ("significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). - Biruitorul Talk 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive and constructive feedback. Following your advise I intend to add sources from New York Magazine, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror (web edition) International Business Times and Harper's Bazaar. Are they all reliable? -- Odysses (○) 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Justin Vernon. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Reopening due to no other participants in the last discussion, but the notability problems I addressed last time still remain. See the last discussion for the reasons on why I've nominated this. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. America's Test Kitchen is not what he's known for by a massive margin, so it would be confusing to redirect there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a "keeper of the Equipment Corner" on a television program does but if it is the primary occupation of Ried, I don't believe this makes him notable. It appears that his biggest accomplishment was that his book Thoroughly Modern Milkshakes won an award but I don't think this meets GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Multiple archers not notable. Only claim to fame is attendance at a single world archery championship - archers have not been reported through multiple sources, and otherwise show no inkling of notability besides the one event (which did not have Olympic-like entry criteria). Aeonx ( talk) 10:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same lack of notability:
The result was merge to Uiju County. Near-unanimous consensus that this should not be a stand-alone article. Less clear between delete and merge camps. Going with merge because there's a slight numerical tilt in that direction, plus WP:PRESERVE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:
Dawnseeker2000 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This event is not notable. The mistake that was made here was in the choice of newspapers as the final word on this being the largest event in North Korea, but even if this was the largest event, it still wouldn't be notable because there is no claim of damage, injuries, or deaths —it is not meaningful that this was the "largest event in North Korea since official observation began by South Korea".
So, what's happened here is that the creator of the article hasn't adequately-defended the article. The fact that there are larger earthquakes in the North Korea region is irrelevant to this discussion. I only brought it to help them understand that this one does not stand out. I did not realize it would become the focus of their attention—so much so that they would neglect the reason why we are here. So, to state the facts again as I see it: Wikipedia does not need articles like this. The event doesn't qualify for a stand-alone article or as an entry on one of our list articles. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 16:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Valoem, I think I may have left some things out and I also might not have been as clear as I could. I'm going to add a little detail and background and that may help a little bit. First, let me say that I enjoy writing about earthquakes and I have written about a number of events that have occurred in diverse places. If there were enough adequate and appropriate source to expand the Uiji article, I would consider doing it.
I created a table to show some of the differences between the 2011 Virginia and the Uiji earthquakes. I think this will help show that they're not on equal ground. The main thing to consider, and that I mentioned at the very top of this deletion request, is significant coverage. As it stands, the Uiji article has two newspaper sources. By themselves, I would consider these inappropriate and flimsy for an earthquake article. If there were scientific interest in this event, that would qualify it for us to consider writing an article about it, but we usually would need a handful of journal articles to create a meaningful article. It can be done with less, but it's not an ideal situation.
1980 Uiju | 2011 Virginia | |
---|---|---|
Magnitude | 5.3 ? | 5.8 Mw |
Intensity | ? | VII (Very strong) |
Deaths | ? | No |
Injuries | ? | No |
Damage | ? | Moderate |
Type | ? | Oblique-slip |
Unusually large? | No | No |
Mainstream coverage | Yes | Yes |
Scientific coverage | No |
IRIS Consortium American Geophysical Union Seismological Society of America Geological Society of America |
Peak ground acceleration | ? | .26 |
WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines |
Dawnseeker2000 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope you reconsider. Valoem talk contrib 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I know that there has been a good amount of discussion and participation on this, but I want to post one more time to improve on what I've been trying to say. Wikipedia is well past its infancy, and now that we have millions of articles, we need to start focusing on quality and less on quantity. WP:Earthquakes has articles on about 800 events. I have worked on many of them and it's clear to me that this one does not qualify to have its own article or an entry on a list. Some of our articles are quite polished and readable but many are not, and what we don't need at this point are more articles that can't be expanded into something that's reasonably descriptive. The sources are inadequate and there's nothing that's known about it, but if there were adequate sources and there was something to say, I would write the article myself. Dawnseeker2000 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This whole list reeks of desperation.
Dawnseeker2000 20:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a 6.2 Mw strike-slip event that occurred near Pyongyang in 1952. So if we toss the claim of largest for the 1980 event, we are left with practically nothing (encyclopedia entries and articles are based on much more than that).
Dawnseeker2000 01:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Dawnseeker2000, Mr. Magoo, Let's discuss it, has anyone check Korean sources? If not does anyone mind if I ping some editors with experience in Korean subject? I don't want to be accused of canvassing again. Valoem talk contrib 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This clearly passes GNG given the sources provided and also earthquake GNG per:
User:Cullen328 The 1952 earthquake occurred before official monitoring began in 1978 so this is officially the largest. Valoem talk contrib 15:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After three weeks of debate, pretty evenly split on opinions, and no killer arguments on either side. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia not dictionary - üser:Altenmann >t 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia"In other words, it would need to have "informative explorations of the listed terminology" and connect to an existing article (i.e. Puerto Rican slang or something similar). Hence why I'm fine userfying or draftifying so the content isn't lost if someone wants to make such an article or narrow down the subject I've updated my !vote slightly to clarify regarding the former). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD A7: Article about an organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:RUMOUR Adam9007 ( talk) 00:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was keep. The article's subject is found to be notable. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:47, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Lack of notability Wykx ( talk) 21:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete: Agree with Mikenorton "This earthquake caused no deaths, injuries or major damage. Comparing it against the earthquake notability guidelines, it's marginal at best." Wykx ( talk) 22:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: minor damage with liquefaction and cliffs that collapsed is not common in christchurch-- Planecrashexpert ( talk) 04:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Weak delete - The lack of significant damage (apart from the cliff fall) and no injuries sustained makes me lean towards deletion (obviously with the salient details captured in the list of earthquakes in New Zealand). Mikenorton ( talk) 09:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep - Earthquakes do not have to cause loss of life to be notable. See 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake for example. While obviously not the most news-grapping earthquake to happen this year it still received significant coverage and caused some damage. Notable. Inter&anthro ( talk) 13:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep While the New Zealand earthquake mentioned here did not do as much widespread damage as the 2016 Old Iliamna earthquake, where I believe this article is notable is in the impact the earthquake had on New Zealand's landmass. For example, it caused a noted cliff to collapse. Notable, and worth keeping on Wikipedia. Juneau Mike ( talk) 17:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment: For some reason, the notability was questioned on the article's talk page immediately before putting it to AfD. There are quite a few editors who have commented on the talk page, but who have not commented here as yet. Schwede 66 18:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: Regarding the earthquake notability guidelines, it says on that page that it "would normally be expected to match one or preferably more of the criteria listed". The intensity felt in the central city was VIII (the guidelines require VII). It's not magnitude 7.0 (far from it), but it's part of a swarm. Where the notability guidelines are lacking in my opinion is that it doesn't take into account the area affected. It's a sizeable city that is affected, and this impact is something that should also be taken into account. The same earthquake in a part of New Zealand where hardly anybody lives - who cares? There are a lot of people living in the Christchurch (360,000) and that, combined with the fact that this has been going on for five and a half years by now, has caused quite a bit of interest in international media. I've had a look last night and there is a large number of newspapers that didn't just mention this in a couple of lines, but had quite a bit of reporting, and most of them included a photo or two. I shall add the international reaction when I get the time. Schwede 66 18:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Merge: While I agree (as a local) that this article alone is unnecessary, some of this information should be moved to another page. It is nevertheless a reasonably major event in the 2010 aftershock sequence, occurring years after the main event. So far, this aftershock hasn't got even a single mention in the aftershock section of the 2010 Canterbury Earthquake article, when many other ML 5.0+ events with little damage or notability have gained a mention. Alternatively, given there have been other major aftershocks without Wikipedia articles of their own that have either caused major damage or else imperilled lives(I'm thinking Boxing Day 2010, December 23rd 2011, plus possibly this earthquake), how about creating a Wikipedia article on some of these more major aftershocks? (And I apologize for initially posting this in the wrong section.) 125.238.116.151 ( talk) 23:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: I think the proximity to Christchurch, the magnitude and the MMI is reason enough. ThE~fUtUrE~2014 ( talk) 22:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: So as I said in the article's talk page, atm I wanted to keep it. I stated: "Despite the article is not at good quality, adding more information and major fixing-ups should already make the article to good. Yes I know that the earthquake is relatively minor, but imo adding this into the List of NZ earthquakes article is great. However, if nothing happens in the future (anything related to this or future "great" earthquakes) and the article is still below the standards, deleting this article is necessary." As of now, I have been updating with Geonet quakes and have measure some moderate earthquakes after February 14 (especially on the 18th), also an article states "because of this, Christchurch might be seeing another great earthquake by next year", so therefore, keep atm. Typhoon2013 (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: As I stated on the article's talk page: "It could meet the criteria listed in earthquake notability guidelines as it is a) part of "a swarm of events" and b) the intensity was at VII on the Mercalli scale [1]. Also, with the 5th anniversary of the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake 8 days after the quake listed in this article, it has a social impact and relevance in that regard. In addition, the June 2011 Christchurch earthquake is a part of the same swarm and only one person died (an elderly man who fell over) as a result but it has its own article. Then again, the December 2011 Christchurch earthquake redirects to the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake despite two (if not more) of the quakes on that day also met the intensity requirement (albeit with no deaths I am aware of) [2] [3]. So maybe some consistency needs to applied with which of these articles stays or goes, as, in my mind, they are all significant parts of the "swarm" we are experiencing here." -- IrasNZ ( talk) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete all. WP:SNOW applies here. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 21:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
*Keep - The
Saudi Professional League is considered professional at
WP:FPL. If sources can be given showing that the subjects of the areticles played a game, than the articles should be kept.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
14:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) W. P. Uzer ( talk) 20:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS. While I am nominating this for possible deletion, I do so with some reservations and would be interested in feedback from the community. The subject appears to be a band of very limited notoriety that were it not for the tragic circumstances of their deaths coupled with a very slow news cycle for the British press would likely not rate any notice on these pages. That said the band IS getting a lot of post mortem attention including front page coverage in some of the tabloids. And yes there have been cases of obvious 1E subjects (i.e. Lee Harvey Oswald) where 1E got chucked by community acclamation. I am not convinced this band rises to that level. That said, this is not the strongest Delete !vote I have ever cast and will happily bow to consensus if the community thinks that this merits inclusion. Ad Orientem ( talk) 19:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Snow Keep. Article's been improved since nomination so obivous keep (non-admin closure) – Davey2010 Talk 02:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Article has only one source, and a quick web search throws up nothing else. The article appears copied more or less straight from the single source. The subject's political activities are not notable. His business activities may be if there were sources available, which there appear not to be. Frinton100 ( talk) 19:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is in Kannada. It was deleted two days ago through WP:PROD after having been listed for two weeks at WP:Pages needing translation into English with no translation having occurred. Its time remains up. —Largo Plazo ( talk) 18:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
*Speedy. This article meets Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion under
WP:G4 as a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion (or in this case a PROD), is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted.
Zeke Essiestudy (
talk)
00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing but a list of technical specifications. No context provided. No claim of notability. Not very notable anyway. T v x1 18:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. And will salt both versions of the name. MelanieN ( talk) 01:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
No indication of notability per WP:NMODEL or WP:BIO. Article was speedy deleted twice in the last two weeks, after creation by User:GeghamAyvazyan, who has since been blocked for sockpuppetry: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/InnaBeglaryan/Archive. This time the article was created as Petrosyan Aghajan. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, just passing mentions. NeemNarduni2 ( talk) 18:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. WP:SNOW applies as well as the arguments given below. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 00:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The topic of this article does not meet WP:ORG. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 17:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Nikki♥ 311 13:41, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an article about non-notable band that fails both WP:BAND and WP:GNG. It originally had one source, the band's web page when I added a prod template. The article's creator, Dfisek, added three sources and removed the prod. None of the three sources are reliable sources and they were simply placed at the end of sentences without any other changes to the article. Aspects ( talk) 07:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was Procedural close. Already deleted at 15:32, on 14 February 2016 by RHaworth ( talk · contribs) (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 16:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Move to the Facebook wikia. 333 -blue 13:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was withdrawn Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Unnotable video game. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:44, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment – It's not even a video game. It's a game engine. You might want to check the actual articles and sources present before going on a deletion spree. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 08:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Could be recreated if new or better sources appear. MelanieN ( talk) 01:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Possibly too soon for an article. No indication of notability. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 08:33, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
As the author of pretty much all the article's (small) content, I'm going to TRY not to be biased and use logic, rather than emotion, to defend it. Please bear with me.
This is the first article I have created, so I read through various policies, and concluded that Sol 0 just barely met the criteria for inclusion. In my opinion, "just barely enough" is enough, and as time goes on it will increase in notability (or at the very least, its notability will not decrease).
I hadn't seen the TOOSOON criteria before, but I read through the film section (it's the nearest to a video game in there). I'm not sure if most films on Wikipedia would actually meet any of the "Attributes to consider"!
Sol 0 has been released and sold around 15,000 copies as of 14 February 2016, so it's not too soon in that respect, but I accept that there has been little media coverage of the game as yet. I have found a couple of pre-release reviews, and have added them to the article.
I would prefer to let the article stand for a while. Having been properly released only a few weeks ago, I expect reviews to turn up shortly. Awards or nominations will, obviously, take a bit longer, but I believe Sol 0 will eventually become at least 20% [4] as notable as Braid. Cosmogoblin ( talk) 09:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Following deletion I will redirect it to Gawker Media which already has content about it. MelanieN ( talk) 01:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
The article is almost entirely a synthesis of primary sources; no indication that significant coverage in secondary sources exists. I had redirected it to parent organization Gawker Media but was reverted without either explanation or improvement. Bringing it here per WP:BLAR. Huon ( talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Can't see how the article passes WP:GNG. Dahlberg's channels combined totals around 13 million subscribers. But, he is hardly notable as anything else other than a YouTube celebrity. Wikipedia does not grant automatic articles for every single YouTube celebrity with many subscribers, or someone who is somewhat of a figure to a single game, not to mention the number of subscribers a YouTube channel has absolutely nothing to do with anything either. When searched up to find detailed coverage in reliable, independent sources, the best things I can find are things about his recent anime voice role casting and collaboration for a anti-smoking campaign done two years ago, but nothing else related directly about him as a subject. The article contains info about Dahlberg's YouTube content and multiple Minecraft series that follow WP:OR. "Hey there! How's it goin'?" 07:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete-- Ymblanter ( talk) 09:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Article on a theory that the states that form the Trans-Pacific Partnership may unite further. Fails WP:FUTURE, only citation is to WorldNetDaily. Blythwood ( talk) 08:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was nomination withdrawn. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 03:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
No assertion of notability, no sources cited. This would be a speedy deletion candidate except that we have no CSD criteria for films. Hard to find sources for this, I see trivial mentions, directory listings, maybe a review or two but can't tell if the reviews are from notable reviewers. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 07:15, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
lack of notability. Haptokar ( talk) 06:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Previously deleted via AfD over five years ago at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alessandro Capone (linguist). I would normally just tag this for
G4, but the passage of time makes me wonder if something is different. I don't personally have an opinion on whether this should be deleted or kept, but (see below) I think the question of whether Capone passes
WP:PROF in 2016 ought to be discussed. —/
Mendaliv/
2¢/
Δ's/
06:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. MelanieN ( talk) 01:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
PROD remained in place for seven days but IP removed it before an administrator got to it. Subject fails WP:GNG, achieved nothing of note. LM2000 ( talk) 05:11, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 08:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Candidate in the Alberta general election, 2015. The seat was won by Lorne Dach Uhooep ( talk) 04:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Bishonen | talk 21:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG giso6150 ( talk) 04:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
There's no credible indication of notability here. We have a couple of directory entries/PR pieces ( [15], [16], [17]), a couple of magazine covers repeated across a few sites ( [18], [19], [20], [21]), and a gossip rag interview. What we don't have is any indication the subject meets WP:ENT, or WP:BIO ("significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject"). - Biruitorul Talk 17:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive and constructive feedback. Following your advise I intend to add sources from New York Magazine, Daily Mail, Daily Mirror (web edition) International Business Times and Harper's Bazaar. Are they all reliable? -- Odysses (○) 12:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Justin Vernon. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Reopening due to no other participants in the last discussion, but the notability problems I addressed last time still remain. See the last discussion for the reasons on why I've nominated this. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī😎 17:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. America's Test Kitchen is not what he's known for by a massive margin, so it would be confusing to redirect there. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what a "keeper of the Equipment Corner" on a television program does but if it is the primary occupation of Ried, I don't believe this makes him notable. It appears that his biggest accomplishment was that his book Thoroughly Modern Milkshakes won an award but I don't think this meets GNG. Liz Read! Talk! 17:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 06:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Multiple archers not notable. Only claim to fame is attendance at a single world archery championship - archers have not been reported through multiple sources, and otherwise show no inkling of notability besides the one event (which did not have Olympic-like entry criteria). Aeonx ( talk) 10:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same lack of notability:
The result was merge to Uiju County. Near-unanimous consensus that this should not be a stand-alone article. Less clear between delete and merge camps. Going with merge because there's a slight numerical tilt in that direction, plus WP:PRESERVE. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Earthquakes is not documenting insignificant events like this one, either as standalone articles or as list entries. Our efforts are instead being focused on creating complete, interesting, and encyclopedic articles that require significant coverage. This one fails multiple aspects of WP:EVENT and our own notability guidelines because of the following concerns:
Dawnseeker2000 22:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
This event is not notable. The mistake that was made here was in the choice of newspapers as the final word on this being the largest event in North Korea, but even if this was the largest event, it still wouldn't be notable because there is no claim of damage, injuries, or deaths —it is not meaningful that this was the "largest event in North Korea since official observation began by South Korea".
So, what's happened here is that the creator of the article hasn't adequately-defended the article. The fact that there are larger earthquakes in the North Korea region is irrelevant to this discussion. I only brought it to help them understand that this one does not stand out. I did not realize it would become the focus of their attention—so much so that they would neglect the reason why we are here. So, to state the facts again as I see it: Wikipedia does not need articles like this. The event doesn't qualify for a stand-alone article or as an entry on one of our list articles. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 16:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Valoem, I think I may have left some things out and I also might not have been as clear as I could. I'm going to add a little detail and background and that may help a little bit. First, let me say that I enjoy writing about earthquakes and I have written about a number of events that have occurred in diverse places. If there were enough adequate and appropriate source to expand the Uiji article, I would consider doing it.
I created a table to show some of the differences between the 2011 Virginia and the Uiji earthquakes. I think this will help show that they're not on equal ground. The main thing to consider, and that I mentioned at the very top of this deletion request, is significant coverage. As it stands, the Uiji article has two newspaper sources. By themselves, I would consider these inappropriate and flimsy for an earthquake article. If there were scientific interest in this event, that would qualify it for us to consider writing an article about it, but we usually would need a handful of journal articles to create a meaningful article. It can be done with less, but it's not an ideal situation.
1980 Uiju | 2011 Virginia | |
---|---|---|
Magnitude | 5.3 ? | 5.8 Mw |
Intensity | ? | VII (Very strong) |
Deaths | ? | No |
Injuries | ? | No |
Damage | ? | Moderate |
Type | ? | Oblique-slip |
Unusually large? | No | No |
Mainstream coverage | Yes | Yes |
Scientific coverage | No |
IRIS Consortium American Geophysical Union Seismological Society of America Geological Society of America |
Peak ground acceleration | ? | .26 |
WikiProject Earthquakes notability guidelines |
Dawnseeker2000 19:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I hope you reconsider. Valoem talk contrib 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I know that there has been a good amount of discussion and participation on this, but I want to post one more time to improve on what I've been trying to say. Wikipedia is well past its infancy, and now that we have millions of articles, we need to start focusing on quality and less on quantity. WP:Earthquakes has articles on about 800 events. I have worked on many of them and it's clear to me that this one does not qualify to have its own article or an entry on a list. Some of our articles are quite polished and readable but many are not, and what we don't need at this point are more articles that can't be expanded into something that's reasonably descriptive. The sources are inadequate and there's nothing that's known about it, but if there were adequate sources and there was something to say, I would write the article myself. Dawnseeker2000 23:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
This whole list reeks of desperation.
Dawnseeker2000 20:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a 6.2 Mw strike-slip event that occurred near Pyongyang in 1952. So if we toss the claim of largest for the 1980 event, we are left with practically nothing (encyclopedia entries and articles are based on much more than that).
Dawnseeker2000 01:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Dawnseeker2000, Mr. Magoo, Let's discuss it, has anyone check Korean sources? If not does anyone mind if I ping some editors with experience in Korean subject? I don't want to be accused of canvassing again. Valoem talk contrib 20:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This clearly passes GNG given the sources provided and also earthquake GNG per:
User:Cullen328 The 1952 earthquake occurred before official monitoring began in 1978 so this is officially the largest. Valoem talk contrib 15:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. After three weeks of debate, pretty evenly split on opinions, and no killer arguments on either side. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia not dictionary - üser:Altenmann >t 06:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
"alphabetical, topical lists of terms, rather than of notable entities – are encyclopedic when the entries they provide are primarily informative explorations of the listed terminology, pertaining to a notable topic that already has its own main article on Wikipedia"In other words, it would need to have "informative explorations of the listed terminology" and connect to an existing article (i.e. Puerto Rican slang or something similar). Hence why I'm fine userfying or draftifying so the content isn't lost if someone wants to make such an article or narrow down the subject I've updated my !vote slightly to clarify regarding the former). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted by RHaworth, CSD A7: Article about an organized event that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
WP:RUMOUR Adam9007 ( talk) 00:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)