The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep.
Cavarrone 12:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Really bad speedy call. Meets
WP:N with the sources in the article. (BBC, Wisconsin Public are the best).
Hobit (
talk) 06:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, the references are there, as Hobit says, and it's quite a nicely written little article. The reference in
The Advocate for me resonates slightly with the Featured Article on yesterday's Main Page –
From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
Thincat (
talk) 08:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and the source above is still not substantial enough for genuinely convincing this article of both keeping and meaningful improvements, the article itself barely has any claims of significance and none of it amounts to substance, thus notability has not been established.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
SwisterTwister: Could you comment on the two sources (in the article) which I mention? Between those 3 sources, I don't see how we aren't well above
WP:N but I'm curious about your thoughts.
Hobit (
talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Hobit. Expand and merge into anything about the Redskins naming controversy.
South Nashua (
talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Per G5 ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉ 16:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment most if not all of the sources in this article do not even refer to
Sor Piseth, but to
Um Vichet.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 22:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
WP:NSPORT and
WP:GNG. The article may also be
WP:G5 eligible as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:52, 7 November 2016 (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.
Joyous! |
Talk 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No notability. The notable characters have been effectively merged into the main article. Three years has passed since my last nomination, and of course nothing has been done to improve this article. All of the "good writing" here were taken from the main article when Ryulong restored the article from a redirect in his opposition to having romajis placed in footnotes. This AFD needs eyes outside of A/M project which contains loads of terrible and non-notable character lists.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: The purpose of having a subarticle is to detail info of the characters that are otherwise wasting too much space on the main article. There is a total of three anime adaptions and two manga series. There is hardly enough space to merge all relevant info of the characters into the main article. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 09:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see any convincing arguments here, this character list is an extension of the plot that otherwise couldn't fit on the main page. There are characters for example that are anime/manga only. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I am changing my opinion to Delete, Dragon did a great job at condensing the characters into the main article here. Lets face it... the article IS all
WP:OR meaning that even if it is recreated the info would still be re-added in another shape or form. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I request that the nominee be barred from starting a 3rd AFD of this subarticle if the result is KEEP. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Please assume good faith here, I may disagree with the deletion but do not think it is in malice. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I implore you to check the archive of the previous AFD one more time. Weren't you a participant on the 1st AFD as well? Clearly, I don't think the nominee understands that the concensus for this AFD is not going to be different than the first one. In short, he is wasting everyone's time when there are much more articles out there that have way more grounds for deletion. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 16:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The way you're counting the media adaptation sequels as separate medias to justify the existence of this list is incorrect. Asides from that, only one "anime only" character is notable enough to be kept in the character list. You haven't dealt with enough non-notable fictional character lists to see how the merge is beneficial; like how I was able to take only the main characters from
List of The Irregular at Magic High School characters (111 kb of text), and placed it within
The Irregular at Magic High School. Are you an expert on the series, do you know the plot well enough to know what characters should be kept or not? Have you seen the history when Ryulong just overturned the consensus of February 2014? I am free to nominate this article for AFD since much time has passed; this is not disruptive and I am doing this to improve the overall quality of the Rozen Maiden articles.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I hope you understand that regardless of what justification you might have had, this nomination will turn out to be exactly like it was from 3 years ago. Good luck with trying to waste space. Nobody's gonna buy that. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Additionally, if you are so dedicated in "improving" the content, you might as well just copy whatever edits you made on the main page into the subarticle. After all, that is what subarticles are for. Instead, you just chose to waste even more time in making an AFD that is 99% guaranteed to fail, based on the last nomination. If you failed to delete it last time, you will surely fail this time, too. It's common sense. Only push for a 2nd AFD if you feel that the arguments presented in the previous AFD were weak and irrelevant, like
thesenominations, for instance. Bear in mind, most of us do not agree with your idea of "improvement", so I suggest that you withdraw this AFD to save yourself from embarrassment. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Yeesh, tone down the aggression Sk8erPrince, we're all here to work together on an encyclopedia, not yell at each other.
Consensus can change and three years is plenty of time for a re-nomination. On the other hand, you should take your own advice with
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaya Hashi (2nd nomination), where you nominated an article two days after the last one failed.
Opencooper (
talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It did not fail. No consensus is an unacceptable outcome, especially if there's barely any participation to begin with. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 00:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete DragonZero is correct when they say that eyes outside WP:A&M are needed. Offshoot articles might be a precedent, but like here they quickly devolve into dumping grounds for
original research. One thing that used to happen in the past was that we had
"X in popular culture" articles because the authors of the main articles would rather not deal with such content. However, that is what is needed and here DragonZero has merged any usable information on the main characters into the parent article. While main characters of series are often notable, side characters usually lack any coverage to write about them without devoting to original research or synthesis. This is the case here. Lastly we should remember why articles are split off in the first place: because of size; the content of this article would have been deleted in the main article because it is OR, or else the article would have never gotten to GA.
Opencooper (
talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete I think it's something our project (A&M) should debate further and thoroughly (some time ago I had a brief debate with
TheFarix for the sake of record
[1],
[2]). Most of
these lists are just "let's get rid of content we don't want in the main page". Our policy on
stand-alone lists says "being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." I think most lists are written in a completely
WP:IN-U perspective and don't comply with
WP:WAF#Accuracy and appropriate weight as it can be said they are "disproportionately long plot summaries" about characters. To justify a stand-alone list I think there should be significant content to create a "conception" and a "reception" section so it will be balanced between in-universe and out-universe content (ex.
here and
here). And to justify the inclusion of a character in the list it should be considered the screen time the character has within the series or if the part it plays within the series is important.
Gabriel Yuji (
talk) 04:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The nominator put some character information into the main article early last year.
[3] Then on the day he reverted someone's attempt to remove it three times, he decides to nominate this article for deletion, since the argument made in the edit summaries by the other guy was that all the information should just be linked to here. That is what is normally done.
DreamFocus 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. Characters were there since Rozen Maiden existed in my Sandbox (2013).
[4] Nothing was taken from the list because it was all OR.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 05:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
This list article was created on March 2007
[5] Characters were added to the main article in one of the first edits there on May 2005.
[6] As the article got larger, people just shifted the character list to a separate article is as common. A character section seems to have been added and removed from the main article at various times by different people over the years.
DreamFocus 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
So let's settle this dispute once and for all and decide whether or not it's ultimately the best to keep this article and fix it, or merge it with the main article. Reverting edits like this is extremely tiresome, and honestly, I just want to get it over with already. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article does not establish notability, so it has no reason to exist at this time.
TTN (
talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Reasonable
WP:SS breakout of characters from a notable fictional franchise.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per Gabriel Yuji's comments.
Aoba47 (
talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete; fancruft, no third-party sources, in-universe content only (
WP:NOTPLOT). Sandstein 22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I just want to remind editors that every "list of characters in x series" is a different case. These articles should be handled on a singular basis. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 13:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Easy keep, and the fact that "no third-party sources" is being used as a legitimate deletion rationale here leads me to suspect that somehow everyone was too lazy to
WP:BEFORE when !voting. Found in just a 5-minute Google search:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8. There's definitely more out there,
including Japanese sources, and the vast majority of anime reviews also include analysis on the characters. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Summarizing sources: Most of those links are merchandise such as dolls. This is a classic for anime/manga characters. Even though the characters of
Tales of Graces also have merchandise, it's not notable enough to establish their creation. Those two character polls you listed were from ANN readers, and the second is from the streets of Akihabara. These polls were not from significant sources, and is something I've left our of various articles such as
No Game No Life (It's been a while but I believe there were also street polls with the characters). Instead, it's better to focus on big polls in Japan, such as those hosted by TV networks or those yearly polls by Animage??? (What is it called again?) and
Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi!.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 06:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Merchandise helps establish notability as it demonstrates that the character has achieved real-world popularity and recognition, as opposed to just in-universe mentions. While the polls may not be from a "significant" source, it was reported upon by
Anime News Network, a
WP:RS. All RS coverage counts towards notability (some a bit more than others), you can't just pick-and-choose what is usable and what isn't. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Would you like to userfy the article to work on it? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I would be interested in fixing up the article. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Slightly Weak Keep I almost always vote to keep lists of characters from notable fiction franchises as I think the benefits are clear both for readers and the encyclopedia. This one is a little less clear as the main characters are adequately summarised on the main article. Still, I think deleting this would not benefit the encyclopedia.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 20:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
DeleteRedirect to the main article's Characters section. Firstly, I've been through numerous character list AfDs like this. I first noticed how the main article already has a very large section for the characters:
Rozen Maiden#Characters. That alone would probably be reason enough to delete. Then add to that the classic character list crux: the list has almost no sourcing. That too is usually enough for deletion. Thirdly, like mentioned, the depictions written are heavily plot and best fit for a fan wikia like always. Adding to the insult is the fact that there actually exists a comprehensive fan wikia with very detailed character bios. I've never seen a character list begging to be deleted more than this one.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I mean from an archivist's point of view, the information is all there at the fan wikia. If someone wants to find out about the characters or just googles them randomly, they'll find the comphrehensive fan wikia articles. In fact, our descriptions are substandard in comparison. We are doing a disservice to the people with our descriptions and list. --
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC
Changed vote to redirect, as there of course was the section listing the characters at the main article that the term should redirect to.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to main article characters section. All the character lists publicized by the anime focus on the 9 or so main characters already mentioned, not the 20-30 possible ones like some series publicize.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 07:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect Looking at the entries for individual characters, most of the ones not already covered on the parent article seem to be struggling to show their importance. Generally I'm in favour of separate character lists but in this case there doesn't seem to be any compelling content reasons for a separate article based on the text of the article. There is always the scope for improvement of course, but let's be honest character lists have never been a priority and by and large never attract any serious attention from experienced editors. I'm not against recreation if an editor can prove it's merits, but experience suggests that it won't happen.
SephyTheThird (
talk) 11:05, 13 November 2016 (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.
Redirect as above - there is no attempt at a prose summary really. If there were then I might consider it worth keeping
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:08, 9 November 2016 (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 We don't even have an article for the league itself, so individual seasons certainly aren't notable. If there were a league article, this should be redirected there per
WP:NSEASONS but there isn't.
Smartyllama (
talk) 17:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Redirect To
Kanga Cricket League per
WP:NSEASONS which says that is preferable to deletion. I didn't realize the league had an article, but it's still not significant enough for individual seasons to be notable.
Smartyllama (
talk) 17:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect as above. No attempt at a prose summary to make it keepable.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:09, 9 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
As with the other similar lists, if you want to find a result from any ODI India have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is
refactoring their content.
Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Then by given logic page
List of Indian Test matches should also be deleted. Why this page is still exist then?
Sdm2211 (
talk) 8 November 2016 (IST)
Espncricinfo isn't Wikipedia. And Wikipedia isn't Espncricinfo.
Ajf773 (
talk) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Sdm2211 You're only allowed to vote once, and please stop repeating the same thing. The India test page is also up for deletion. Also, do not remove valid votes from other people.
Joseph2302 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and by all means provide an external link as part of a section on ODIs on the Indian team page
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:10, 9 November 2016 (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 absolutely nothing here for substance and this is in fact speedy delete G11 material considering how advert-formatted it is, overall nothing convincing.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I was unable to find any potential references. Anarchyte(
work |
talk) 07:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable, no sources, written like a promotional piece. I'm from the SFBA and bands like this are a dime a dozen.
sixtynine• speak up • 01:13, 9 November 2016 (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.
Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company
Light2021 (
talk) 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - I was able to find a lot of sources for the company, including at least four in-depth sources that are very reliable
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10]. I could possibly be convinced to !vote merge into
VocaLink but I don't see anything in the nomination other than a recommendation to delete based on promotion at the moment. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CNMall41 (
talk •
contribs) 23:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete & redirect to
VocaLink#Zapp where the subject is already being discussed in sufficient detail suitable for this otherwise unremarkable subject.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect this service to the existing subsection on the provider page at
VocaLink#Zapp.
AllyD (
talk) 21:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG. Article tagged for more than 8 years regarding notabilty and sources. Apparently dead too, but nothing to source that either. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. He sounds fairly notable from
this extensive obituary in the Fulton County Daily Report and
this one issued by the Georgia State University College of Law (which helps with
WP:V, if not
WP:N). Even though the article as written focuses mostly on the Dow Corning case, it seems like his civil rights work and his prisoner advocacy are at least equally important, if not more so. There is extensive coverage of his college time at Alabama, including his opposition to George Wallace as student body president, in
this book,
this piece and
this book discuss his civil rights work, and there are articles describing his work on behalf of prisoners, including his time as director of the National Prison Project,
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here (in the "Judge Orders Reforms at New Mexico Pen" article on p. 3). And that's just with a fairly cursory search of five or ten minutes. The sourcing in the current article is inadequate, but this does seem to me like a legitimately notable subject whose article needs improvement, not deletion. -
208.81.148.195 (
talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with the logic of the other voter above. The article needs work, yes, but it definitely seems to me this person is notable. --
Krelnik (
talk) 18:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 7 November 2016 (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 virtually just a list and seems poorly titled after seeing what the content on the page is. I may be jumping ahead with this but I feel like this type of article may not fit with Wikipedia's notability policy. The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk) 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 7 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Please don't repeat your plea over and over again, once is more than enough. It won't help in any case, we don't have articles to be able to host copyrighted images, it's probably the worst argument you could possibly use.
Fram (
talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
"Is an important character": why? He appears in one episode, and is mentioned in a book that exhaustively lists all episodes and characters; we get this by now. All this proves is that he is a character, not that he is an important one.
Fram (
talk) 07:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
If you see three episodes you will understand --
ColeB34 (
talk) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
You are making less sense with every reply. So, let's say I watch the first three episodes of UpDown, I will then understand why Dyson is an important character who is
notable enough to have an article here? Really?
Fram (
talk) 12:34, 18 November 2016 (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 does not establish notability. The sources in the article appear to be pure fluff that do not provide significant coverage on the topic.
TTN (
talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed.
Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone 09:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Question@
Montanabw: what is your suggested redirect target? I'm in agreement with you in principle. I'm just not as familiar with the Transformers universe to know if there is an article other than the main article that would be a good target?
Delete and then Redirect as these have been established, as it is, as not convincing for their own articles because we're simply not a series-focused encyclopedia, and there wouldn't be anything to suggest an otherwise better article.
SwisterTwistertalk 03:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply: Redirect to
Transformers. My take on these types of articles about toys and cartoon-type characters is that deletion just leaves a redlink that is bait for the article to be recreated (and AfD'd) again, and again... it is actually wise to keep the bluelink and do a redirect. There also appears to be a fair bit of content here, and some of it can probably be added to the main article.
Montanabw(talk) 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Transformers per Montanabw. I agree with the reasoning. Redlinks on relatively popular subjects such as this invite recreation.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 15:00, 15 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
In December 2015 the inter-ministerial working group on free software of the French government (Socle Interministériel de logiciel libre) included Bareos on their recommendation list among 130 other open source programs.[11]
Numerous (video-)blog posts about Bareos, here just some examples[12][13][14][15]
Google search for 'bareos' lists > 60k results
Independent open source platform
Open Hub affirms "High Activity" of the project.[16]
International conferences (excerpt) with presentations about Bareos:
Niels de Vos from
Red Hat and
Gluster co-maintainer at Open Source Backup Conference about Bareos and Gluster [17]
Comment Notability for inclusion in Wikipedia can be based only on reliable sources, not number of Google hits. Admin Magazine, Linux Magazin and OpenNet news may be reliable sources - I will review these later and try to find more, if there are any...
Pavlor (
talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Source mini-review:
Linux Magazin - seems to be reliable source, several short news about article subject = useable source
iX/heise.de - behind pay-wall, if most of the article is about Bareos = good source; if passing mention only = weak source
pro-linux.de - few news about article subject, seems to be one-man news page = somewhat weak source
Admin magazine - written of authors of Bareos = weak source
habrahabr.ru - seems to be blog = weak source
Conclusion: No good reliable sources - or only one (iX, hard to say, how broad coverage is there) and several short news (Linux Magazin). There is some coverage in reliable sources, but still too few, I fear.
Pavlor (
talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The number Google gives at the top is meaningless. If you page through the search results, you find out how many distinct sources Google will actually show you. In this case, at this moment, it's 169. As for the presentations, notability doesn't come from people presenting their projects at conferences, but from evidence in independent reliable sources (not, generally, blog posts) that others have taken note of them, possibly as a result of those presentations.
Largoplazo (
talk) 11:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Added another magazine and online-site(s). The wide range of international conferences with Bareos presentations (not only by Bareos project members) but also by recognized speakers from companies like Red Hat, Universities[22] or
Max Planck Society[23], shows that the experts at the conferences' program committees see Bareos at least at 'notable'.
Gul.maikat (
talk) 11:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - the admin-magazine piece is a detailed one, but look at the authors: two guys from Bareos, not an
WP:INDY source. The fr wiki points to
[11] which (although a passing mention) is a list of free software that the French administration is encouraged to use (by opposition to proprietary software); but Bareos' status in there is "O, in observation" which probably means the "administration modernization guys" are considering to use it in the future, not even recommending it right now. And
the Linux-Magazin hits seem to all be very passing mentions.
TigraanClick here to contact me 15:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see. Shame on me, I missed authors of the Admin Magazine article.
Pavlor (
talk) 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No problem
Pavlor, that's the kind of thing AfD is supposed to dig up. Also, may I respectfully suggest you take a look at
WP:REDACT, which you do not seem to be aware of?
TigraanClick here to contact me 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Tigraan: Thanks, I know
WP:REDACT, I only forget to use it... I think I will leave it as it is now. With my weak skills, I could add even more mess. I will be more careful next time.
Pavlor (
talk) 18:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I, too, didn't think to check the authors on that article, which is the one I did cite in my deletion proposal. Thanks for catching it.
Largoplazo (
talk) 18:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment added 3 more references, all German. An Admin Magazin article by an author not from Bareos, and two books, both with chapter about Bareos (80 pages and 16 pages)
joerg.steffens
Keep Looking at the references above, I see among others:
iX as IT professionals journal has a small but dedicated article about Bareos version 16.2.
2 articles in Admin-Magazine (1 from project members but accepted by the editors, which shows that editors find the subject 'notable', plus another dedicated and multi-pages article by an independent author)
small, but dedicated and continuous (2013-2016) news-articles in Linux Magazine (online)
broad coverage in 2 printed books (both referenced above, written by recognized open source authors / journalists)
continuous news-items and articles in the two leading Russian open source portals
OpenNet (website) and
Linux.org.ru.
Program committees of several international recognized open source conferences accepted Bareos presentations from project members and others (IT Professionals, Universities, Max-Planck-Institutes, Red Hat)
Delete as still all only advertising this software, and none of it amounting to actual notable substance hence nothing to suggest acceptance.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a book review of what appears to be a non-notable book of reminiscences. No claim of notability, no notable content.
KDS4444 (
talk) 07:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I would suggest that the reminiscences of a notable person carry notability by association.
Valetude (
talk) 12:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone 09:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a sefl-cited essay with no indications of notability or significance. Optionally redirect to the author's page
J. B. Priestley.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not seem to fulfill
WP:GNG when you look at his "notable design" it seems anything but notable.
Domdeparis (
talk) 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Part of the problem may be the first name. When I searched for him as Myron, I did find
this long obit in the Globe and Mail. (I see the G&M lead called him "Mac" Kalman, but didn't find much more.) The Globe and Mail is Canada's leading national daily, and it's an impressively long article. Taken with the fact that he was given
a centennial retrospective by McGill University prior to his death -- a feat more of longevity one might argue -- and his prolific work as listed in the Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950 ref, I'm inclined to say keep, if barely. He did a lot of mid-century residential and commercial buildings, schools, synagogues, etc.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 16:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
to be clear, the only source I actually found was
this one. But it's a biggie.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Based on the reliable, verifiable and encyclpedic sources in the article, the subject meets the notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: I expanded the article with reliable sources. After the deletion is closed, the page should be moved to
Maxwell M. Kalman.
Yoninah (
talk) 23:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate Mr. Kalman's notability. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 19:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Based on the sources cited in the page.
WikiEK (
talk) 20:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Important Quebec architect presented in a well-sourced article.--
Ipigott (
talk) 19:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eventual merge could be discussed in the article's talk page, obviously.
Cavarrone 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is a valid one though, this unit does exist and does get news coverage, and presumably even more coverage in Chinese. I've pinged the originator asking them if they want it moved to Draft so they can take their time adding sources.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No, wait, the
Special Duties Unit is much older, sorry. Anyway, this seems to be a case where an editor has made a content fork unnecessarily: there is no mention of the Special Tactical Squad that I can see in the PTU main article, and that's why it remains an unreferenced orphan. I'd suggest a merge and redirect to
Police Tactical Unit (Hong Kong), claimed to be the parent organization, based on the poor state of this stub -- unless someone wishes to roll up their sleeves and really expand it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone 10:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: A recruitment agency taking inspiration from Heidegger is unusual but I am not seeing evidence of notability. Reviewing the references provided: the O Tempo item is a routine announcement (see later comment on IMD), the Exame item is a brief Q&A with one of the company's principals, the Infomoney and both Hoje em dia items involve brief quotation from company officials in articles also quoting others in their trade, the Época item is a brief routine announcement and the IMD reference is a deadlink press release (IMD's website now lists another firm and not Dasein for Brazil:
[15]). These aside, I can also see that a piece of their survey research was namechecked in
The Economist – via
HighBeam(subscription required) in 2011. These are all examples of typical business-media coverage for a firm going about its business, but are not the in-depth coverage of the firm itself needed for
WP:CORPDEPTH.
AllyD (
talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is
just another recruiting firm. I can't see what's so special, and the sources don't prove anything. It seems to be little more than
spam.
Bearian (
talk) 01:45, 19 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI PNG have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content.
Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete no attempt at prose and the list can be better served by being an external link on the team page to a specialist directory website which is going be far more reliable and up to date.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI Australia have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content.
Joseph2302 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per all the above.
WP:NOTSTATS has become a problem in the cricket portfolio. What has happened to narrative? Jack | talk page 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is what sites such as espncricinfo is for, not Wikipedia.
WP:NOTMIRROR.
Ajf773 (
talk) 19:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
CommentUser:Sdm2211 Thanks for pointing that out. That page should not exist either under the same guidelines. I will nominate for deletion.
Domdeparis (
talk) 11:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as with the other similar pages all up for AfD just now.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:17, 9 November 2016 (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 provides no tourist information whatsoever, so reads nothing at all like a tourist webpage.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:00, 7 November 2016 (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 reads like a slightly poorly written encyclopedia article, not a poorly written tourist webpage.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per
WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be dealt by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page.
Anup[Talk] 10:42, 8 November 2016 (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 redirect to
Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Don't usually close on one !vote however participation is low and far as I can tell all prev years so far redirect back to the above target so am closng as redirect (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010Talk 00:16, 15 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI USA have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Also, they've played 2 ODIs, and a list of 2 is not worthy of being on Wikipedia.
Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and by all means provide a link to an external reference site which keeps these things in a much better state than we will ever do.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:17, 9 November 2016 (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: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per
WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page.
Anup[Talk] 11:11, 8 November 2016 (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 have cited a source confirming that this passes
WP:GEOLAND. These deletion nominations with a total lack of
WP:BEFORE, and with the untrue statement that the articles are written like tourist webpages, are very tiresome and border on the disruptive.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
86.17.222.157: well you are certainly welcome to your opinion but as an annonymos IP that refuses to make an account your accusations don't matter much to me. These were 4 articles that were complete duplicates of one another. The only things changed were the names of the towns and the numbers of people. --
Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
First, I have the same concerns about the lack of BEFORE work, or understanding of all that
WP:GEOLAND requires for named populated places, and I am not "an annonymos" (sic) account. Second, the notion that IP accounts somehow have less rights here is bollocks.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Just as you lied when you said that this article was written like a tourist webpage you also just lied when you said that you didn't say that we unregistered editors have less rights. What else does "as an anonymous IP ... your accusations don't matter much to me" mean other than you consider me to have less rights? You have been advised on your talk page by an admin,
Ritchie333, to avoid passing judgement on other people's work until you you have familiarised yourself with the basics of how things work on Wikipedia, but have obviously chosen to ignore that advice.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: Legally recognised populated villages should be kept per
WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page.
Anup[Talk] 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. The article is currently linked from the main page, so please re-nominate when this is no longer the case. If you believe the problem with the article is urgent, please make a post at
WP:ERRORS.(
non-admin closure)
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this article. Water bottle flipping is a trivia at best if not only a fad. I cannot see how this article participates in human knowledge in the encyclopedic sense, I don't even understand how this reached DYK and the main page. This is making Wikipedia look like any random internet website on social trivia. If we let this kind of article stay on Wikipedia, we are effectively opening the floodgate to any and all fad with no discernible end to what should be included.
Iry-Hor (
talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nov. 7 DYK – This inanity was extremely annoying as a Main Page DYK.
Sca (
talk) 16:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Sca I guess you support the deletion then?
Iry-Hor (
talk) 16:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, delete.
Sca (
talk) 00:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - More than 50 different unique authors of the article found it notable enough to edit. That should speak volumes, even if I do find the appearance in DYK a bit odd. --
Fuzheado |
Talk 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - We have articles for things like the Ice Bucket Challenge, that was just a one time viral "fad", and while that did raise money for charity, it is the same concept.
MBlairMartin (
talk) 16:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Notability established by reliable sources.
Gamaliel (
talk) 17:00, 7 November 2016 (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 page belongs to
Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure
WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per
WP:NOT. Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Jat people. Save what little editing history there is. Someone can always expand it later.
Montanabw(talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:35, 7 November 2016 (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.
Recently deleted via AfD. Non-notable artist/composer/writer etc etc with only one notable source in article, being "Rolling Stone" magazine. Google search comes up with nothing, other than website of said artist. NordicNightfury 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for exactly the same reasons as before – I said "Fails WP:COMPOSER as it all appears to be inherited notability: the song being notable and charting doesn't make him automatically notable. And even most of the songs listed in the article fail WP:NSONG notability themselves, despite their blue links (often to an unrelated article): "Mood Ring" is just an extra track on the Japan-only version of the Britney Spears album, "I" is one of five tracks on an EP, the Aaron Carter song didn't chart, etc." I don't see anything to make me change my opinion, there is no major coverage of Mr Asher himself apart from the occasional passing mention (the Rolling Stone article and second Billboard reference make no mention of Mr Asher at all). The author is an SPA who just works on getting Jon Asher-related articles onto Wikipedia and is quite possibly Mr Asher himself. Purely
WP:PROMO.
Richard3120 (
talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is another AfD for this really needed? I did not see the previously deleted version, but from the comment given by
Richard3120 it looks as if this is just a recreation of a previously deleted article which probably could have just been tagged for speedy deletion per
WP:G4. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete for reasons of recreation; I requested a speedy deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete, per G4 and also does not meet GNG.
Kierzek (
talk) 18:12, 11 November 2016 (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 - Although Baywater Drive is mentioned in the article it's only mentioned once and it's not very informative, Usually I would go with Redirect but in this case it's just confusing & IMHO it won't serve any purpose so best off deleted. –
Davey2010Talk 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be
reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:32, 13 November 2016 (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 non-notable road.
MB 02:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be
reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Concur with nom. I verified it exists on the map, but why is it notable?
MB 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be
reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (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. No consensus on a redirect, but definitively in favour of removing the page.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Momo (software). This page does look like a CV, so a redirect to his apparently notable company seems like the best option.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 13:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. I don't think a redirect is necessary at this time.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:31, 15 November 2016 (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. MBisanztalk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America1000 15:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete both. These may have been important episodes in the show's story line, but there's no coverage that I can see in reliable sources. Of course, it's a lot harder to find any kind of mention 30+ years later, but there's usually some kind of mention in Google Books or the Google News Archive. I did find
this retrospective on the series at Entertainment Weekly, which briefly mentions a few episodes. There's also
this brief critique of how the pilot tackled a tomboy character. These sources are certainly promising, but there isn't really enough to go on for an entire article. I think these sources can be used in the main article and the list of episodes to expand them without problem. If someone locates offline sources, I don't see any reason why we can't recreate these articles. Right now, though, I think they're best left to
Wikia and
TV.com, which aren't saddled with the requirement to find significant coverage.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 17:36, 10 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Lack of general notability, complete lack of sources, semi-translated, concerns for self-advertising - not to mention it is also Dimitar, not Dimiter. Either way, this is a reality TV participant and not a politician, and lacks any notability for a separate article. For comparison - among the other candidates running in this election are a clairvoyant and a former criminal.
Skycycle (
talk) 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete This article is poorly written article about a person who has no notable status as a politician.
Domdeparis (
talk) 15:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Unsourced article on a person who has been regularly defeated in his runs for political office.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:57, 9 November 2016 (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 know the election will only be a couple weeks away, and I know that there is probably a 99% change of Skillicorn winning the election. However, he has not yet been elected, and he has done nothing, as of the moment, that is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Until he wins, the article should be deleted. --
1990'sguy (
talk) 01:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator: As others have already pointed out, Skillicorn has won his election. Now he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. --
1990'sguy (
talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
At the time I first saw this article a couple of weeks ago while nominating several of the creator's other new articles about unelected Illinois legislative candidates for deletion, this article contained the claim that Skillicorn is a former member of the legislature who left office but is now running to return for a second kick at the can. I'm not an expert on Illinois politics and had no substantive reason to doubt that the statement was true (I'm Canadian, so there's just one state legislator in the entire United States that I could name off the top of my head without consulting a list to do the "oh, wait, yeah, I think I have heard of that one before too" thing first), so on the basis of that claim I left it alone with some maintenance tags — but now that 1990sguy has disputed the claim, I googled Skillicorn and indeed can't find any confirmation that he ever served a prior term in the legislature, because even the legislature's own list of its own members in the 2005-07 term doesn't include him. As always, however, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates: if a person does not already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they do not qualify for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat and thereby become a holder of a notable office. And even if he does win the seat and become notable on that basis, the article will still have to be significantly rewritten from the quasi-campaign brochure format it's following right now. So no prejudice against recreation on or after November 8 if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. (Prior discussion, for the record, is about a different person of the same name, so has no bearing on this at all.)
Bearcat (
talk) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oops! Didn't notice that. Is there a way we can change the article to make clear that the two Allen Skillicorns' are different people? --
1990'sguy (
talk) 02:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
In this context it's not necessary. The first one got deleted, so as long as the fact that they're two different people is clarified in this discussion so that people know that "
Speedy G4" won't work as a deletion argument, we don't need to do anything special to the article.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Update: Due to low participation, this discussion was still open as of election day, and Skillicorn did indeed win his seat. Accordingly, this does now need to be kept, and merely flagged for content and referencing repair.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:18, 7 November 2016 (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.
May not be notable; no reliable secondary sources. Reads like an advertisement and is not possible to fix.
Okamialvis (
talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as corporate spam; an overly detailed product brochure in the guise of a Wikipedia article.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:35, 9 November 2016 (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.
Joyous! |
Talk 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This is an article about a phrase used once by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The phrase has not been used by ethnologists.
Ground Zero |
t 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - it's a phrase that was used once and is not used to describe an ethnic group in published sources.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 15:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, or merge a redacted version to
Canadian federal election, 2015 or elsewhere. Although presented as an article about ethnicity, this is clearly not an ethnicity article. If a suitable target is found, use of the term and its relevance should be merged into that target (perhaps
Canadian federal election, 2015), but the
original research and
synthesis present in this article should be excised.
Mindmatrix 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not notable. It's a specific example of a generic expression, defined
here at the Oxford online dictionary:
old-stock: adjective, Designating a person or people whose ancestors have lived in a certain country or area for several generations.
Origin - Late 19th century ; earliest use found in The New York Times.
We don't have articles about Red-headed Canadians, or Guitar-playing Canadians, why Old stock? The only reason this article exists is because it garnered a few days of media notice when used by the then Prime Minister; see (
WP:NOTNEWS) and (
WP:PERSISTENCE). I have added a single line for (September 17 under "Conservatives") to the appropriate section of the appropriate article:
Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies, which I propose is proportional to its significance. If the decision here is keep I will go back and link it.
nerdgoonrant (
talk) 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes, others have said it well. Unlike the long-established and notable concept of
Pure laine in my home province, this was a momentary, short-lived controversy. And I'd be surprised if Harper really had in mind to appeal only to those whose parents emigrated here prior to 1900 -- but then much of what he did puzzled me. Anyway,
European Canadian isn't the same. Pure laine is too distinct. I agree a redirect to
Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies is best.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
strike redirect pending current rewrite by
User:E.M.Gregory per discussion below Meters (
talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Change to keep after nice rewrite. Now more than sufficient sources to show the notability and prior use of the term, and the article no longer attempts to define this as an ethic group.
Meters (
talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP cant believe no one here is actually looking for sources. I see age makes a differences here...very common term when I was young (1960-70s)......very old term ....not a new Stephen Harper term at all. Its used by our historians/ Not sure how deletion over correction will help our readers.Very bad idea to redirect this to 2015 elections. Best to get real sources to educated people here and our readers. --
Moxy (
talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
most but not all of those book references do indeed make mention of the term as a way to describe Canadians of English and French descent, descended from those original settler groups. (The Vijay Agnew book, for one, does not, it refers only to "old stock" French, i.e.
Pure laine). At the very least, it's an argument for redirecting somewhere else.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply@
Moxy: I, for one, wasn't trying to suggest that Harper had coined the term. I was suggesting that no one would have thought of creating the article if it weren't for the brief furor that erupted after his use of it during the leaders debate in 2015. And while it wasn't in common usage in Manitoba in the 70's and 80's when I grew up (here - preceded by Extra - it referred to a brand of beer, if anything), I don't doubt that it was in use elsewhere. I would observe, however, that most of those who use it in the references you cite above (many of which are cited in the Old Stock Canadians article) still feel the need to put it in quotes, indicating that it isn't all that common.
My main reason for supporting deletion is that I don't see what insightful or nuanced analysis an encyclopedia article could provide. Or why Old Stock Americans and Old Stock Canadians would merit separate articles. With the increase in immigration throughout Europe, there could conceivably be an Old Stock article for any country with a significant number of New Stock citizens. It's a straightforward concept easily understood in any nationalist context from a generalized
dictionary definition, and (
WP:WINAD). I agree with you that redirecting to the 2015 elections is a bad idea, because it does then give the impression that Harper had something to do with coining the phrase, but I respectfully disagree that it deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia.
nerdgoonrant (
talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This pretty much sums up my feelings, too. Note that we do have a
Old Stock Americans article, created by the same editor, too.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 17:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
As for a better redirect target, I was looking at
Immigration_to_Canada#First_wave and
Immigration_to_Canada#Second_wave? The difficulty is that an "old wool" Quebecois has little or nothing in common with an "old stock" English Canadian, with immigrations often separated by century or more, and a vast cultural divide. Again, Quebecois/French Canadians are descended from a group that would have basically stopped arriving by the
Conquest of 1760, whereas we're told old stock English parentage continues until the dawn of the 20th century.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is not a unified ethnic group, but simply refers to anybody of British Isles or French descent whose ancestors arrived in Canada before a certain specific arbitrary cutoff — while strangely ignoring the aboriginal peoples who were already here before the Europeans started arriving. Basically, it's a dog-whistle for "white Canadians of European descent", not a unified ethnocultural group with anything in common beyond census statistics.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Merge into 2015 election article. You could mention it in the Racism in Canada article. But, by itself, I don't see the merit of the stand-alone article.
Alaney2k (
talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Due to strong sources on page and above. Although the term appears to have gone out of fashion (Bernie Sanders got caught in a similar way, using a term that was mainstream when he was young), the category: people whose ancestors have been in Canada for generations, is a valid one. i would be willing ot consider a redirect if someone can source a contemporary term for this concept (something parallel to "first nations") but the deletion arguments appear to me to be a form of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT indicating repugnance for the term, but leaving us with a a well-sourced term for a significant category of Canadians. We can't just delete them. Or this reliably-sourced but archaic term.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 21:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)reply
And which of those sources define "old stock Canadians" as an ethnic group? If you wish to rewrite the article so that it makes sense then go right ahead, but right now it defines the term, in one sentence, in a way that appears not to be supported by the sources used, and then the rest of the article is a discussion of the recent political controversy over the term. If this is about hte controversy then either the article should be redirected somewhere, or the title should be change to reflect the actual topic. If this is to be an article about the concept of "old stock Canadians" then it should be completely rewritten. Amusingly, approximately one-quarter of the article's content is actually an argument against the definition of the term as used in the lede.
Meters (
talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Will do. Give me 24 hours.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I agree that the material shown in this thread seems to justify some type of article. I'll try to help out.
Meters (
talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you. The article and can certainly use all the help we can get.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I made a start; only a start. Sources certainly exist, "old stock" as a term for Canadians of long-standing Canadian descent has been discussed in Academic sources for decades, although perhaps not until after the middle of the 20th century. I have no doubt that this is a valid topic.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 01:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:HEYMANN I have revised lede and written/sourced a section on the definition and use of this term, that I beleive to be objectively worded and to satisfy NOTABILITY. I have not touched the existing section on the 2015 political brouhaha. I leave others to deal with that. @
Meters:@
Moxy:E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nice job. I suggest every editor who !voted to delete or redirect should take another look at the new version.
Meters (
talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (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 99% of dentists are not notable. Smigel is one of the exceptions. The New York Times published a 20 paragraph article about him signed by a staff writer when he died this month. Back in 1981, New York magazine published a
"Irwin+Smigel"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvwNnYw4HQAhULs1QKHWxpAyIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Irwin%20Smigel%22&f=false several page article about Smigel and his innovations. A Google Books search shows that he is discussed in many books. So, he is notable. How can the article be personally promotional? He is dead. Yes, the article has problems, such as uncited quotations, excessive red links, and overenthusiastic language. As for being "irreformable", I disagree. We have editors here on Wikipedia for a reason, and there is no reason why this article cannot be improved dramatically through a logical series of edits.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
delete per TNT. There may be a Wikipedia article in here somewhere but this is not it; this cannot remain in WP. If somebody actually does the work to find the WP article that might be here I will change my !vote but this is an embarassment to WP and cannot remain.
Jytdog (
talk) 17:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article isn't great at the moment, but the sources above provided by Cullen328 (the NYT obit in particular) prove he passes
WP:GNG easily.
Nohomersryan (
talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Needs to be updated, and the references need to be fixed, but it meets
WP:GNG; I don't see any compelling reason(s) to delete it.
keep and improve. Article is poorly sourced, Smiggel is notable as sources borught to AFD by editors above establishes.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - and improve after closing. This article passes WP:GNG. However needs to be improved. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion.
BabbaQ (
talk) 16:49, 14 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Any notability she has is inherited from her father, and notability is not inherited. 1 series on a childrens tv channel that is basically 3rd or 4th choice for this genre in the UK is
WP:ONEEVENT. No third party sources to satisfy
WP:GNG.
AlessandroTiandelli333 (
talk) 16:01, 7 November 2016 (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. It seems like the sources provided by E.M.Gregory and Unscintillating have not been contested beyond perfunctory "not notable" arguments. There does not seem to be enough support for a
WP:TNT based deletion, either, and the article is already tagged for cleanup.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 10:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The standard her is not what sources are currently on the page, but, rather, Do good sources exist?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 05:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems to just need someone to source the page to the many articles that cover him in substantive detail in articles about his companies. And ther are profiles of him Here's
[16] a juicy profile in the
New York Observer. Another in a 2006 book Makers: All Kinds of People Making Amazing Things in Garages, Basements, and Backyards'.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The vague arguments of the delete !votes clearly ignore the
alternatives to deletion. Why try to get this edit history deleted? And as for the redirect that could have been done without a deletion discussion, Payoneer barely mentions this CEO, and the article here is the only coverage we have for BorderFree. Another article involved here is
Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, where readers would have good reason to want to know what reliable sources have to say about this topic, just as the Wall Street Journal saw fit to write a related article, as referenced by E.M.Gregory. Also as E.M.Gregory has noted, this topic is sufficiently established to be referenced in a book.
Unscintillating (
talk) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as clear advertising and I concur with the nomination as it fluidly and noticeably shows the concerns, I see no compromises of which would not affect both substance and its considerable advertising-formatted, hence delete.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
comment fails to address either notability of topic or the substantive sources that have been found by editors here.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 12:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a vanity page on a businessman not notable outside of the companies he was affiliated with.
Payoneer itself is only marginally notable, so delete.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 02:50, 18 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:35, 7 November 2016 (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 redirect to
Metasploit Project. Seems to have a notable product, which it can be redirected to. If there are issues with article creation, this can be addressed in the future. (
non-admin closure)
Natg 19 (
talk) 19:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)reply
this pages adds no encyclopedia value. It is claimed as public company. still only 1 paragraph to write about like its a Bloomberg business profile.
Light2021 (
talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Salt as especially for advertising, note this has literally been deleted 3 times in the past few years, including the 2013 AfD itself, since 2013 was still a troublesome where advertisements were still noticeably accepted and not deleted as they should've; therefore, it's not surprising that not only the 1 involved account was an advertising-only account tied to another, now both kicked, this article's contents are all still PR advertising, none of it coming close to actual substance, and we shouldn't expect any since the actual author was an advertising-only account.
When we start accepting such blatancy and question whether company-initiated advertising is compromisable, we're damned as an encyclopedia.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- it looks like the company could be notable, given that it's public, but I was unable to find any sources to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps too soon (as shown by the relatively low revenue of $100M).
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: inexplicably the article doesn't mention their best known product,
Metasploit which is one of the most widely-used tools of its type. Of course just because Metasploit is notable, it doesn't infer notability on Rapid7 but IMO it makes it worth keeping.. just.
Shritwod (
talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Metasploit then; this would preserve the article history and could be reverted to a stand-alone article should the company become more notable.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and SALT. Between 2010 and now, this page has been deleted three times and keeps on coming back. Article is purely promotional, company is just not notable and fails
WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM. Did not chart.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 11:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
To say the song isn't notable because the article isn't extensive is unfair. I personally remember a lot of buzz about this song, though the article needs SEVERE expansion. I still feel there's reason to keep the article, but it needs major expansion.
Aleccat (
talk) 21:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per coverage identified above, passes GNG.
Cavarrone 12:36, 15 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 13:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't find any references to this program outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Of the two external links provided, one is a broken link and the other doesn't mention this program. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 14:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:V, no reliable secondary sources listed nor available.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 19:43, 13 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This article has no sources cited. It is fancruft and listcruft of the worse kind. Take it to a Dr Who wiki if wanted, but it's not encyclopaedic.
Bondegezou (
talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Like stated, this article is just completely unsourced fancruft. I'm not finding any sources that back up why the idea of "historical characters" appearing on one specific show about time travel is particularly notable as a group. Additionally, the article itself is not especially great, as its title claims its about historical figures, and then goes on to include a huge amount of completely fictional characters.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment (warning extremely tongue-in-cheek), above editors obviously
Star Trek fans.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The list cites the episodes in which these historical figures were dramatized, and those episodes are reliable for their own content. So while it would be correct to note there are no secondary sources, it is not correct to say there are "no" sources. This is a persistent point of confusion among editors when dealing with articles about cultural works. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, you are right that
MOS:FICT does allow the use of the work itself to act as a source for basic information about the work. I was using a shorthand to refer to reliable, independent, secondary sources, which is what is needed to satisfy
notability criteria. I also note that this article fails
MOS:FICT in almost every other way. 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bondegezou (
talk •
contribs)
"No sources" is not a clear or appropriate shorthand to use for "no sources supporting notability", because it instead suggests you're claiming unverifiability. Keep also in mind
WP:BEFORE; the present lack of sources in an article is not relevant to deletion, rather what matters is if no sources can be found. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The use of historical characters in Doctor Who was one of the original points of the show, and has received substantial attention in reliable sources, including books about the show (e.g.
[18][19] )and other media (e.g.
[20][21]). Even if there is some debate about the extent of RS coverage of this subject, I'd view this article as a valid spinoff in the overall structure of Doctor Who coverage. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 05:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The use of historical characters in Doctor Who is certainly an important part of the show and its own history. That Doctor Who did this is something that should be and is described in the Doctor Who article, with some pertinent examples. That's where your first two references come in. However, that's not a reason for an unreferenced,
WP:INUNIVERSE-style list here that makes no distinction between the very different uses, from an
WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective, of historical characters in the William Hartnell era with Barack Obama appearing in The End of Time or Nefertiti in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship". Your third reference fails RS (not independent), so only your fourth reference directly speaks to an article like this, and it's not the job of an encyclopaedia to replicate a lazy listicle clickbait article.
Bondegezou (
talk) 10:30, 14 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic.
♥ShriSanamKumar♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article reads more like a promotional piece. If the necessary changes where made, I'd change my vote to keep.
Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.) N. GASIETA|talk 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and Revise. The article refers to a popular website entity with a large world-wide following, covers relevant topics which include publications of said entity. It goes without saying that the article must be revised to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone but to go from that to a full-on deletion would be unwise. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Revised History section to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone. Any other revisions would be more than welcomed. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced with the sources. We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All I see are passing mentions or articles written by the author of the site. I do not see any secondary coverage and we specifically require that. I would be glad to change by !vote, but after extensive searching I was unable to find any. Please not that the Forbes and HuffingtonPost sources are contributor articles (not staff article) and hence count was
WP:SPS - not good enough for notability. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk) 18:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable web site; sources are not there for GNG or CORP.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I concur with the comments above, nothing actually convincing and there's nothing to suggest the current sources aren't PR or republished PR and triviality, because they in fact are. A keep vote acknowledging the concerns is enough to suggest this is in fact deleted, regardless of any notability, and that's clear enough.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:06, 20 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:ORG.
WP:CSD#A7 wrongly declined even though the lead sentence clearly states "JTVNews Is The News Division Of JTV". -
MrX 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete There are NO signs of notability, based on what's in this article. If there are any reliable sources, subject needs to add. Otherwise, this article needs to be deleted.
Scorpion293 (
talk) 03:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable, almost unintelligible - I assume it refers to
JTV (Indonesia) not
JTV (New Zealand) - If we were sure, it could possibly be made a redirect -
Arjayay (
talk) 14:01, 14 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. A list like this will not be maintained long-term. I notice the "current" stats have not recently been updated. Fails
WP:NOTSTATS,
WP:NOTMIRROR and
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anyone wanting to see a list of these averages is better referred to one of the two main specialist sites that publish cricket statistics or, better still, to the latest Wisden or Playfair. Jack | talk page 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same problems arise:
No maintenance or update. Fails same criteria. Jack | talk page 14:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - just seems like a massive and overly vague topic to be considered notable.
JMWt (
talk) 16:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep to
List of List A cricket records - Which section here isn't up to date? As you will see looking at the page history, I update this article regularly, as do others. If a section has a date last updated of over a year it is likely because no one has entered the top 10 or the top 10 hasn't changed.
Jevansen (
talk) 00:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Also, given that the deletion rationale doesn't apply to the above list and it has no connection to
List of cricket batting averages other than being another cricket related list, can you please make this a separate nomination like you have with the others?
Jevansen (
talk) 00:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTSTATS. As Jack noted, these sorts of lists are never updated to the standard they should be. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a (poor-quality) duplicate of other websites. IgnorantArmies(talk) 07:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the list of batting averages one. Impossible to keep up to date reasonably for starters, but more pertinently it's just stats. A summary of key examples could be used on the page about batting averages.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. If, as
Jevansen says, there are people out there maintaining this, then it seems a reasonably important list to have, although its title really ought to include the words "Test", "LOI" and "T20I", and perhaps the word "highest" would be useful. With all these lists, my view is that if it doesn't do any harm, is well-maintained and answers a question about cricket that someone might reasonably ask, then I see no need to delete. Not every user of WP can wander into their local bookstore to locate a copy of Wisden or Playfair.
Johnlp (
talk) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The editors responsible cant't even be bothered to find out who has the 10th best T20I average among retired players. It is just a copy of 3 pages on ESPNcricinfo
WP:NOTMIRRORSpike 'em (
talk) 15:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
And looking into who was 10th, I realise all has been done is the move of 1 column in the cricinfo list. I can see no rationale about who appears on the retired list other than they haven't played for a year or 2. Have Cameron White and Misbah-ul-Haq really retired from this form of cricket, or just aren't being picked anymore. I've also gone and added Ravi Bopara, though I don't think he has retired either.
Spike 'em (
talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic theism".
Though the general concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish the discussion of concepts, but they do not establish a historical or significant use of the term "agnostic theism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the discussion on a blog or two, the term does not appear to have caught on in popular use and the the term has no significant philosophical history. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers understanding of "agnostic" and "atheist" where the term is seen as a contradiction.
There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...
My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism.
7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used or accepts with ssignificant frequency or context.
I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic theism" is widely used, or even known.
The term "agnostic theism" (and "theistic agnosticism") is found in a couple atheist blogs and an activist author Austin Cline writing for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology, or that it is in significant use.
The article citations refer to sources discussing an idea that there may be an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic theism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss. That is, the sources don't support the use of the term.
8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG
The terms the article calls a philosophical concept appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.
One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.
Credible and meaningful citations to the term "agnostic theism" with as described in the article do not appear to exist.
The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.
Keep - The sources currently in the article, though they are few, are strong enough for the concept to meet the
general notability guideline. Part of the argument in the nomination would apply to
agnostic atheism as well (i.e. "the meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism"). Furthermore, I disagree; agnosticism isn't an alternative to theism and atheism, nor is it mutually exclusive with atheism, one can be an
agnostic theist or an
agnostic atheist. In regard to "One of the citations is a broken link": per
WP:LR, "
Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online", but rather merely that it exists.—
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Nothing in the article suggests that "agnostic theism" is a discussed concept, let alone notable. Wikipedia is
not an essay.--
Rpclod (
talk) 02:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@MRD2014 and @Godsy, thank you for providing your comments. Here are the applicable rules.
The WP:RULES case for deletion: I came to edit this article to add citations and detail, but I couldn't reliable sources for "agnostic theism" or "theistic agnosticism" being a notable philosophical term. Yet the first line of the lead:"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism." I believe this article from line one is in need of support and violates the following WP policies. unless reliable sources can be found for all of the content, which appears to be original research. Our article needs reliable sources showing that "agnostic theism" is a noteworthy topic of discussion. Here are the relevant Wikipedia "nutshell" descriptions with links to the relevant section.
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
Another concern I have is with the existing sources. The sources support the idea, but they do not show that the concept has ever been noteworthy or that the idea of "agnostic theism" is actually in noteworthy use.
This page in a nutshell: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
It may be that those calling to "keep" will be more successful at finding reliable verifiable sources for "agnostic theism" as a noteworthy and support for the article's content.
My research on this term found no authoritative sources showing that there is notable philosophical use of the therm "agnostic theism" in philosophical resources. I also found no noteworthy sources stating that they or someone else is regarded by philosophers to be an "agnostic theist". The article only speculated that some people were "agnostic atheism' by relying on original research. With so little support and no verification that there are reliable sources discussing the topic of 'agnostic theism' the term is a neologism.
Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
Taking a look at the first citation, for example, where the lead defines the term "agnostic atheism" of the article. The following is not supported by the citations:
"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
The single referenced source, George Hamilton Smith, is not a reliable source. He was a lay "political philosopher" without the academic credentials required to be seen as authoritative on this topic. Even if he were reliable, the citation doesn't verify because he does not tell us anything about the meaning of the term "agnostic theism," the term the citation is saying he defined.
At best, the way it is now, the article builds the definition using original research from a single lay source and no sources on 'agnostic theism". A valid citation must be someone with credentials in philosophy telling us the meaning of agnostic theism'.
If you think I'm wrong on the above please straighten me out. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. If reliable verifiable sources can establish that this is a term with notable use rather than a neologism, I'll withdraw the deletion request.
Delete I see only three references, one of which is dead. The two that work reference agnosticism... just agnosticism, not "agnostic theism." The fact that there does not seem to be enough notability for the specific term is sufficient grounds for deletion.
TechBear |
Talk |
Contributions 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP. There are plenty of scholarly papers that talk about Kierkegaard's agnosticism - and he was certainly a theist. Also see section on religious agnosticism in
https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism . Also, wikipedia articles are about concepts, not terms.
JimWae (
talk) 07:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
In response to the forgoing 'Keep' opinion, there are no third party sources that tell us about the meaning of the term 'agnostic theism'. The term and its definition appear to be a synthesis of ideas to produce a neologism. Nothing in the article is supported by reliable sources making describing a topic with this name.
From: WP:3PARTY
Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.
I thank you all for your replies. I think we still need to address the question concerning compliance with Wikipedia policies about original research, reliable sources, and verifiability. It would be sincerely appreciated if someone requesting 'keep' either add the missing citations, or tell me how you think this article complies with our WP policies.
@JimWae We think we need a source saying Kierkegaard was an 'agnostic theist', we cannot draw that conclusion ourselves. I think it is original research if we coin the terms "agnostic theism' or 'theistic agnosticism' and make up our own definition for the terminology. We need reliable verifiable third party sources establishing the existance of the philosophical terminology and stating what the term means. If we make up the term and its meaning, I think we'll be creating a neologism. Please let me know why you disagree. or even better, add the citations.
@Godsy @MRD2014 I don't think the existance of
agnostic atheism addresses the problem that this article cannot be supportaed by reliable, verifiable, third party sources that can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would greatly appreciate your views on this topic. Adding citations that address the problem would be even better and put the discussion to rest. How does this article meet notability guidelines if we can't find the requisite sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Summary of the delete rationale: The article creates two neologisms, 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' using original research; there are no reliable verifiable sources using these terms or stating their meaning. These neologisms can be found only on a couple cause-related blogs and a cause-related interest writing for about.com. No independent reliable third party sources can be found using or defining these supposedly 'philosophical' terms. The article body describes the original research needed for a step by step synthesis citing controversial philosophies implied to be mainstream. No opposition views can be found representing the opposing view because the terms are too new and unknown outside of the cause. Wikipedia is the only available encyclopedia source with an article on these terms, including philosophy encyclopedias.
From "WP:Original Research"WP:OR - "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
From "RWP:Reliable sources"
WP:RS - "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception..."
From "WP:Verifiability"
WP:V - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."
From: "WP:Independent"
WP:IS - "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."
The following quote from the article text defining the topic is contrary to the above policies, a condition that cannot be corrected:
"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
At this time, none of the editors responding 'keep' has argued that these deficiencies can be addressed:
@Patar knight, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that there are a notable number of people using this term or it would not have 600 hits on Google's hit counters. The problem is that this doesn't address the problem I think we must address. That problem is that we cannot use Wikipedia voice to open up an article telling readers "Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism," without reliable, verifiable, sources, including third-party independent sources that define "agnostic theism" and "theistic agnosticism" and specifically define these terms to attribute the meaning the article claims. The one citation cited doesn't use either of thes terms, nor does it define them. Without the requisite sources we are not in compliance with the important Wikipedia policies and guidelines I listed above. We can't use our own reasoning to arrive at conclusions, we can only say things when they are properly sourced. KSci(talk) 19:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC) KSci(talk) 04:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism, as nearly as I can tell.Carrite (
talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Hmmmm... Although Patar knight's "but it gets 600 hits" argument isn't as effective as actually putting up three or four book links for us to examine here, a quick glance at the Google Books hits for the term quickly verifies that what they say is true: this is a readily used, scholarly term appearing in multiple published sources and seems a concept about which an article can readily be moved past a simple dictionary definition. Passes GNG.
Carrite (
talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: It is a thing on
social media; I've seen people labeled themselves as such. Our core readership might be looking for this article. If it is not kept, the closing sysop should take serious consideration to redirect it or merge instead.
Bearian (
talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The problem is with the sources: Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for this repetition. I'd like to redirect our discussion back to addressing the actual problem. This article's subject terms 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' and their meanings must be attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. What I found is that these terms and their meaning cannot be so attributed, but instead appear to be neologism. Neologisms are often in use by their promoters, so showing that the terms are in use doesn't address the concern that matters. Wikipedia's policies require that the terms the article is about and everything in the article must be directly attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. I think there aren't any such sources for these terms. In this discussion nobody has yet to address this particular concern. Also, combining this article with another article would not address the sourcing problem either. Thanks again for your patience. KSci(talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
agnosticism - There are enough sources to mention it somewhere on Wikipedia, but I fail to see a compelling argument for why we need a stand-alone article for a neologism that seems to so clearly be a flavor of
agnosticism. Indeed, that article touches on atheism and theism, quoting e.g. Kierkegaard. I'm surprised not to see anyone else suggesting a merge. If, in the future, this concept begins to take up an undue portion of the space in the agnosticism article, and/or if the body of literature on the concept sufficiently distinguishes it for a stand-alone article, then I wouldn't be opposed to spinning it off again. At this point, however, merge. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@Rhododendrites in addition to the points you raised, a merge into
agnosticism would give the content visibility to more editors so it would no longer be neglected as it appears to have been as a separate subject. What you suggest appears to be a workable alternative. KSci(talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
references provided give no indication of notability-mostly trade paper mentions. this appears to be a nonnotable travel business.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.
Spam created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Non
notable business.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article by a blocked user whose contributions were almost entirely on this article. The given references are routine announcements and a company conference report. My own searches are finding nothing better. A company going about its business but not
notable.
AllyD (
talk) 13:31, 7 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
O'Kelley is not only notable for winning Miss North Carolina USA, but so much so only notable for that that the article is stuck in time. The article still says O'Kelley is a junior at North Carolina State University, which she was in 2006-2007 when the article was created, but clearly is not 10 years later. Yet she is of so little note that not only do no editors bother to change this statement, but there are no sources to update it either other than a linkedin profile, that I am only mostly sure is for the same person. Her previous win in the teen competition is so minor, we do not even have contemporary sources on it, and it appears to me that the Charlotte Observer article used as a source is probably more on O'Kelley's successor than on her.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Subject won Miss North Carolina USA 2007 that is not enough to confer
notability. One reference (Charlotte Observer) lists "Eyes on the crown, with eyes on her", a dead link (Asheville Citizen-Times) listed twice "Roberson grad savoring thrills of Miss North Carolina crown", and a
way back machine reference that names a "Sarah Chakales" and "Jenelle Vannoy" receiving scholarships. A search brought up a listing at the Donna Baldwin Agency and this Wikipedia article. The bottom line is that this article will never advance pass a
stubpseudo-biography. She does not meet the
basic criteria for an article.
Otr500 (
talk) 10:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Despite her photo I sadly have to agree with
Otr500Domdeparis (
talk) 18:13, 7 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Promotional article on a non-notable artist. Speedy tag removed by a technically "independent" user, but both accounts have few edits and have edited the same articles. --
Finngalltalk 00:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
delete possible sock or meat puppet removed the delete tag. The single reference is not independent. gsearch only finds social networking or database sites.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - by the admission of the author of the article, this photographer is a latecomer to serious photography and has only come to the attention of her local newspaper. Fails
WP:GNG at the moment.
Sionk (
talk) 18:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. What
Sionk says. --
Hoary (
talk) 11:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the subject has not received any serious critical attention.
Mduvekot (
talk) 23:43, 19 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Is this writer sufficiently notable? I don't think there is sufficient indication of it. (And as an aside, the article was created by an editor whose only edits are to this article.) Delete unless notability established. --
Nlu (
talk) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: The two offered references are to books on French cuisine published more than 20 years ago; it is extremely improbable that they predicted the subject's 2016 book, so they cannot be considered as references for this
WP:BLP which is otherwise unsourced. Nor are my searches (albeit of non-Chinese sources only) finding better: fails
WP:AUTHOR,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete For a blogger, his blogs
[22] and
[23] are completely nonnotable.
Timmyshin (
talk) 14:55, 13 November 2016 (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.
Nothing to show notability
WP:BIO, just appears to be promotional for individual and work (
previous version for TimelineBlogs, now changes to promote GhOccasions)
KylieTastic (
talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Promotional article for a subject who does not meet GNG.
JSFarman (
talk) 21:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I have G11 tagged as this is quite clearly advertising and we should've all saved ourselves serious time-efforts by simply starting with speedy.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable sub genre, the article appears
original research and no significant sources to indicate its notability. Redirect to
house music.
Karst (
talk) 10:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect per nom: article is full of
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH, and some contradictory statements. For example, it states that the music appeared in the 1990s as an amalgamation of house music and bass music, but the article for bass music states that it didn't emerge until the mid-2000s. The article also states (unsourced) that the first record of the genre was Double 99's "Rip Groove" in 2012, but that song was originally released in 1997.
Richard3120 (
talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (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. MBisanztalk 16:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The only references given are a blog and an advertisement placed by a person with
conflict of interest. It should also be noted that notability is not inherited (from his father, who was a notable magician).
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
(
talk) @Robert McClenon| Hello, I have corrected the reference issues, and orphan link issues. Could you please remove the speedy deletion and close this discussion. Thank you.
Ibrahim skillz (
talk) 06:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete promotional article with COI paragraphs. The subject does not beat the GNG benchmark since notability isn't inherited. —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The article is indeed promotionaly written, but a reference search turns up numerous mentions, some of which are medium-quality sources, such as
this. There's enough there to keep. He seems to be very widely mentioned in the Nigerian press. This makes me wonder if
Systemic bias should be taken into account.
104.163.140.57 (
talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete instead as what's been shown in his career is enough, and suggesting "there's potential" is not what improves an article by itself and convinces us it's in fact acceptable, therefore there's currently enough to suggest it's simply unacceptable at this time. The listed award is not convincing and the other information is simply not convincing of a substantial article, hence delete. I also concur with the earlier comment of there being no inherited notability from simply another person, which seems to be the case here perhaps since it begins with said other person.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:53, 23 November 2016 (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.
Insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. Most used source is a Forbes blog (see
here on sorting out the kinds of things you find at Forbes) - other refs cited are also laudatory in-bubble in the online marketing hype world. I did a google search ten pages out and it is just more of the same. There aren't sufficient independent, non-Woo! sources with which we can actually write a decent, neutral, encyclopedia article on this person; we just have a
WP:PROMO piece now.
Jytdog (
talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. author or even coauthor of a NYT bestseller is 1notability . Authors are notable for the books they write, and references or lack of references on their persona life is irrelevant. DGG (
talk ) 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
User:DGG surprising. There is a whole world of hypers like this. See
The Syndicate (business group) - we succeeded by the skin our teeth to get the articles on the individuals in that hype-circle condensed to that. This guy is just more of the same. Online hype. But what matters are good refs with substantial discussion; we don't have them on this person.
Jytdog (
talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am generally very skeptical about people in this field. But when they write best-selling books, they become notable authors, and we have to cover them. The principle is NPOV. DGG (
talk ) 15:46, 14 November 2016 (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 soundtrack article was created as the main article had grown too large. Oh god, what a crime.
Kailash29792 (
talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Avoid vague arguments. Please provide sizes in your arguments to enable others value it. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 10:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect/merge into
1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack - From quick glance, there seems to be enough reliable sources to warrant the existence of the topic. However, I do believe that it can be merged into
1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack. As an example, merging the track listing and release section into the main article would not be harmful. The readable prose size of
1: Nenokkadine is 22 kB, while the readable prose size of the soundtrack article is only 1094 B.
WP:SIZERULE says that length alone does not justify division. Therefore, a merge would be appropriate. —
SomeoneNamedDerek (
talk) 04:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect/merge to
1: Nenokkadine: Can be adjusted in parent article. Above size-analysis gives more insight into issue (however I don't agree with "enough" rs thing. Most of cited sources are of questionable-reliability).
Anup[Talk] 11:03, 8 November 2016 (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. MBisanztalk 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:45, 7 November 2016 (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.
Joyous! |
Talk 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I used an earlier version of this article as a screenshot to illustrate the
WP:CORPSPAM Signpost Op-Ed I wrote last year. It was deleted, but it has been recreated since by
User:Ferma with the edit summary "clearly notable". Well, I don't see it - please explain how this small company doing business as usual passes our notability criteria. Pinging
User:Randykitty who added notability tag, and
User:Stesmo who was also involved in editing this and noted that most of the content here is trivial (well, of course there is, because there is no in-depth coverage to speak of - company exists, and this is all we can say...
WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Coverage is all trivial, no notability apparent. --
Randykitty (
talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Major law firms are significant, and this firm has clearly long been one of the leading law firms in Colorado. A long string of distinguished attorney, including Senator
Gary Hart and Supreme Court Justice
Byron R. White are alumni of the firm; the pages of these notable people link to this page and it is useful to have this information available, even though the page needs to be improved.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Notability is inherited, so it doesn't matter who worked or works there. And which part of NCORP states that "major law firms are significant"? Heck, do you even have a source that states it is a major law firm? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete instead as this only has the expected sources and information that comes with this article, none of it substantiating to actual substance and significance and the history and past deletion suggest enough; there's nothing beyond the trivial information listed to suggest better.
SwisterTwistertalk 22:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Seek and ye shall find. (corollary: those who do not look, do not find.)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Sources Here
[24] is a 1979 New York Times article about hos the energy boom was causing Davis Graham to grow very fast, and to compete for the first time for the nation's top law school grads. Here
[25] Davis Graham is described as " a major Denver law firm". Here a Nevada newspaper describes Davis Graham as "known for its corporate finance, energy and mining, natural resources and..." Here
[26] the
Washington Post describes the firm as one of Colorado's largest, one of a number of articles about the firm in the Post; several of which cover the firm's Washington office - which ws opened in 1982
[27]. Having a D.C. office is a sure sign that a law firm is of more than local importance. I remind editors that the quesiton at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The NYT article describes law firms in Denver (not just this one), and mentions it as one of the Denver law firms, but it is not an in-depth coverage, and it opens with "NOT one of Denver's law firms ranks among the top 100 in the country." which suggests this is not a firm of national importance. Nor is there any source that suggests it is a major regional (Colorado) firm. It is just a local company, and according to
The Durango Herald (a local Colorado newspaper with a very small circulation) it is a "a major Denver law firm", and yes, the same is said by a much bigger
Washington Post (
[28]), but it is not an in-depth coverage, but a mention in passing.
[29] is pretty much business as usual irrelevant trivia mention. Nothing shown suggests the company passes GNG or NCORP - the coverage is passing, and arguing that "it is notable because it has offices in Washington" is grasping at straws, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: "the question at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability". Absolutely. However, this should not be interpreted that those sources do not need to be shown here to exist. Just arguing that it's likely those sources exist doesn't do it. --
Randykitty (
talk) 07:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
In fact, the NYTimes article you dismiss contains solid information on this firm, "When Mr. Hoagland, a graduate of Yale University and the Columbia law school, arrived at Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Byron White (now a United States Supreme Court Justice) was practicing there, but was still definitely small‐townish. No Denver firm had more than 10 lawyers then. Now Davis, Graham & Stubbs and three other firms — Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard; Holland & Hart, and Holme, Roberts & Owen — have 80 to 100 lawyers each." Brief discussions in RS can be assembled into good articles.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 13:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
More sources [[U.S. News & World Report]
[30].
Lex MundiFirst ‘Best Law Firms’ Analysis Slots Davis Graham & Stubbs as a National Leader[31].
Martindale-Hubbell "For the last 90 years, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP has ranked among the region's most prominent law firms..."
[32]. Comment I hope editors who specialize in law firms will look at this. To me, it appears that we risk losing verified, useful information (about a firm linked from the bio pages of a series of major national figures) if we delete this page on a firm that can be expanded by brief references to it in RS, including the national media that I linked to above, and from information found in a number of biographies. I do not think it is a stretch to assume that an aritcle on a law firm that has been a leading regional firm for almost a century, and that has had a D.C. office since before Al Gore invented the internet, is likely to have sources that can lead to a better article. I do think that the sources already in the article and those that I have provided suffice to establish notability. And also that when a firm's alumni are such a distinguished bunch, lack of notability is unlikely.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No, this is not a passing mention in a single paragraph; it is
signifcantly more than that. And it's nothing like the Yellow Pages as there are zero "phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses".
Andrew D. (
talk) 14:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that I have added some sources to the article. This AFD appears to have been brought and is now being defended in an instance of
WP:POINTy. To me, an editor who works frequently at AFD, this AFD appears to be becoming a
WP:BOOMERANG, demonstrating that major regional law firms almost always pass
WP:GNG if editors make good-faith efforts to source them. I suggest that Nom might want to demonstrate good faith by flagging editors who disagree with his position, in addition to known allies on the point he wants to make.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I am sorry, I don't think we interact often so I can't remember who might, in the past, have had disagreed or support some points in discussions. I pinged some users in the OP as they were part of the article's history. But in the gesture of good faith, I'll invite you to look at my prod at
Vicente Sederberg, LLC - can you find better refs? Do you believe we should deprod it and take it to AfD? I certainly am no fan of stealthy deletions. Discussions are good, as long as we are all trying to fix this project. I do however encourage you to read my OP-ED at
WP:CORPSPAM, so you can see where I am coming from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I certainly agree that CORPSPAM is a problem, but I do not agree that deleting articles on notable corporations is the solution - even in the case where a firm monitors it's page and repeatedly whitewashes it/turns it into an advert. in re:
Vicente Sederberg, LLC, the firm has certainly found a market niche (promoting legalized marijuana) that garners it a great deal of media coverage. Far too much coverage to make deletion by PROD appropriate, in my opinion. (My google news search here:
[33] I suggest that you withdraw the PROD. You might then decide to turn it into a reasonably good article, to leave it tagged for improvement, or to take it to AFD.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- notability is generally not inherited, but in this case sufficient number of notable people worked there. Per recent article improvements, sources seem OK for GNG.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. the material in the article is so trivial that it makes it likely that nothing better could be found. The awards is for "Top 150 Under 150" list of leading midsized US law firms. Real evidence it was the leading law firm in the country would be notability , and I'd even consider the top 10 or so as presumptive. But top 150, and not just top 150, but top 150 of a subsidiary category? Other ranks are best in a niche in one particular small state, and references for a few of its attorneys who turned out to be notable for their later careers. DGG (
talk ) 08:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - large, 101-year-old law firm, with notable lawyers, thus passing
my standards. FWIW, I have tended to be more inclusionist than
DGG as far as law firms are concerned.
Bearian (
talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
"deleted ... recreated since"? Let us be very clear about the chronology. The article on this law firm was deleted as an expired PROD on 9 April 2015. I would have removed the PROD notice if I had seen it, but no matter, the old article was pretty rudimentary anyway, so I wrote a new article, based on the cited sources, less than 24 hours later. The new article has been sitting there happily for the last 18 months. This law firm is clearly notable. As I wrote
elsewhere about the same time: "there seems to have been a spate of summary deletions of obviously notable law firms recently, such as
Bae, Kim & Lee,
Gleiss Lutz [ed: since recreated], and
Cuatrecasas [ed: now a disambiguation page]. These are among the largest law firms in South Korea, Germany and Spain, respectively ... I think these deletions are just plain wrong. ... No doubt there may be unduly promotional material in this sort of article, like any other article about a commercial organisation or product, but that is a reason to improve them and make them more neutral, not a reason to delete them.."
Ferma (
talk) 00:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep a clear consensus has developed that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure).
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Only one source, which looks like it was prepared by the subject, or a friend or associate of the subject
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk) 08:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as per page two of the source dismissed by the nom, there were two obits in national newspapers and a retirement biography of her in the major national magazine of her profession.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 08:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Also: Dedicated to lifting nursing standards in the
Gisborne herald, 5 Sep 2001; p.10 24cm.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. While the stub doesn't show notability, she was included in government-published encyclopedia, and that means she is notable by that virtue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep There is community consensus that people with a DNZB entry are inherently notable. Schwede66 15:58, 7 November 2016 (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. The list has no context to indicate what Veginati and Gotrams are, and even if that context were added, there are no sources provided. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 14:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm not quite sure what encyclopedic purpose this article is supposed to serve. it lacks sourcing and context to understand the topic. As of now, it looks like an unwanted page for Wikipedia.
Anup[Talk] 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - uninformative and no evidence of passing
WP:GNGSpiderone 21:30, 11 November 2016 (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 The only thing notable about this guy (so far) is his relatives.
18abruce (
talk) 12:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep He was named to the Hockey East All-Rookie team last year and has a high probability of meeting
WP:NHOCKEY requirement #4 or #6 this season or next. There is also a significant amount of news coverage for him from NCAA hockey sources, for
WP:GNG requirements.
Mushh94 (
talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect Per Rlendog. That seems to be the norm in cases like this. He's clearly not notable, but it's a plausible search term.
Smartyllama (
talk) 20:10, 17 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 7 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Way way too early for this guy, nothing notable about him yet.
18abruce (
talk) 12:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Umm... Delete Move to draft space Funny because I created this article, but I believe it is a bit early for Lockwood, as he has not enter the minors yet. WikiPancake 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails NHOCKEY and as far as I can find he fails GNG so not notable. -
DJSasso (
talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as the one major team listed, he was not even an actual player, and then the other is a college team, hence there's nothing convincing here.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:37, 13 November 2016 (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.
Brian training programmes are a scam, the evidence shows that they have no actual effect. Amazingly, this distinctly promotional article instead notes that the brain is more plastic than previously imagined - which may or may not be true but is of course irrelevant to the fact that these training programmes don't work.
So I tried to make the article more neutral, but as I investigated the sources I found that those cited are
churnalism - press releases printed in the newspapers without investigation or commentary - and I found no evidence of anything else that could be used instead. Guy (
Help!) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree.
But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere—an important asset for children or adults struggling with issues of attention and focus. ... Moreover, many of the tasks that Learning Rx uses are the same kinds used by other cognitive trainers, except that they have been translated from a computer format to tabletop exercises performed with playing cards and other materials.
On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.
“We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.
Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.
She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.
The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.
Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.
But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.
Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.
LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.
...
Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.
...
The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.
LearningRx, a Colorado Springs company that operates a franchised network of 80 tutoring centers in 25 states, is just beginning to recover after a 1½-year battle with the Federal Trade Commission over whether it could back up its advertising claims with scientific studies and other research.
The company settled in May a lawsuit filed in federal court last year by the agency that alleged it "deceptively claimed their programs were clinically proven to permanently improve serious health conditions like ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, strokes, and concussions." The suit said LearningRx also claimed the "training substantially improved school grades and college admission test scores, career earnings, and job and athletic performance" and that its "brain training is 10 times more cost-effective than tutoring."
The settlement included a $4 million judgment against Learning Rx, though all but $200,000 was suspended, and bars the company from claiming its programs improve performance on the job or in athletics or increase cognitive function of people with age-related memory loss, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ADHD, autism, traumatic brain injury or stroke.
...
LearningRx, formally known as LearningRx Franchise Corp., traces its roots back more than 30 years in Florida to Gibson's work as an pediatric optometrist to help his patients more easily learn to read. Gibson, who had difficulty reading as a child as a result of dyslexia, found that reading skills could be improved through "interval training" similar to what professional athletes use to raise the level of their athletic performance. He began to sell licenses for his research and reading program to other optometrists and later psychologists, numbering 500 by 2000.
The company behind the LearningRX “brain training” program has agreed to pay a $200,000 settlement and to stop making claims that its system is clinically proven to treat serious health conditions, or that it can dramatically improves a user’s IQ or income.
According to the complaint [PDF] filed with a federal court in LearningRx’s home state of Colorado, the company made numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program.
Included among the allegedly unsubstantiated statements made by LearningRx are boasts about the program’s ability to boost IQs, and therefore income.
...
In settling the complaint, LearningRx denies any wrongdoing, but agrees to pay $200,000 (of a $4 million judgment against the company) and to cease making unsubstantiated claims about the performance, benefits, or efficacy of their programs. LearningRx is also barred from misrepresenting the existence or results of any tests or studies, and from providing others with the means to make the prohibited claims.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the developers and marketers of the LearningRx “brain training” programs have settled to pay $200,000 and agreed to stop making allegedly false and unsubstantiated claims.
The FTC had said LearningRx Franchise Corp and its CEO, Dr. Ken Gibson, made allegations that their programs were clinically proven to help with conditions like ADHD, autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, strokes and concussions. The company marketed these allegations through its website and blog, as well as Facebook, Twitter, print and radio ads and direct mail pieces. The FTC believes these claims were inaccurate and therefore deceptive.
Comment and analysis - This is all literally from the apparent sources above:
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree....But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere
is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information, but it cares to go to actual specifics about "What the company will make you feel if you use it!" Nobody would care about that but only their own clients and investors (and it is a fact because it advertises its own words), and that's why it was supplied, and there was no actual journalism efforts; the fact it came from a book, that is not guaranteeing safety from company-initiated advertising, because if it's simply a guide, that's exactly what the company involves itself with. See the next one:
a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter. (information is followed by an extensive paragraph quote by the businesswoman giving number specifics about the company itself and what she thinks about it)
The next one is followed by:
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year. (following information is literally about business & clients overall, not the actual company)
The next article is literally about how and why people are using the company, followed by the specifics about where you can find the company, how to use it and the specific numbers so far....that's all company advertising because it's simply made by the company's own hands, not actual journalism efforts, hence it's company PR. The next one although about a law case, still cares to go to specifics about the localities and specifics about the company, which of course bear nothing for notability or substance, let alone significance, and the same can be said for the next article. When an "article" cares to mention "the company's goals and plans are...." you know that's not a journalism source talking, it's the own company.
Delete - Finally the last link listed here is, once again, about the company's business negotiations because of said law case, and what happened so none of that establishes notability, because not only was it still such a trivial law case, it would be shoehorning PR along with trivial pieces about a law case, something no one would honestly care about, especially if it's not showing any actual substance. When the best all can be offered is (beginning) advertising about how, where and why the company should be used by its clients and literal quotes from its own businesspeople, followed by law case situations, it honestly shows how bare genuine sources are.
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance, it's because there isn't any....especially not if there are still in fact articles about its own republished advertising. Another thing I'll note is that the current article is literally advertising "company history, "functions ["Company's clients are....") and "reception" where it lists quotes (not from media itself, but simply from named mentions).
SwisterTwistertalk 04:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information – the author called LearningRx the "most expensive, least supported by published research" and said "neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree". This is negative information. If the book were publishing advertising for LearningRx, it would omit this negative information.
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance – sources 6–8 were published in 2016, which is after
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination) was closed 30 May 2015. The sources discuss the federal lawsuit against LearningRx for making "numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program". The Consumerist, which focuses on "consumerism and consumers' experiences and issues with companies and corporations" (according to the Wikipedia article), does not "shoehor[n] PR along with trivial pieces about a law case".
Delete -- an unremarkable franchise company with some dubious claims. Tone of the article is promotional (despite one "negative" paragraph"). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion by non-notable entities.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Whatever one's personal opinion about about the company or its product, the company clearly has signficant coverage in reliable sources and passed GNG and CORP. Sources posted above and in the article. The notion that it's promotional makes no sense in light of how many neutral editors have worked on it. Furthermore, simply being on Wikipedia is not promotional, it's the opposite.
Studies have shown that corporations with Wikipedia articles has a negative impact on stock price for a number of reasons but mainly due to open access to information. The crusaders trying to delete this article are helping LearningRx - the very thing they claim to be concerned about - by keeping information buried from public view. Regardless of that larger debate, for this article it passes notability as I noted in the first couple sentences. --
GreenC 14:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cunard and Green Cardamom.--
Taeyebar 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - Advertising is something we should take seriously and the comments of "Why should it matter?" are not applicable because this is exactly what it is as shown by my listed quotes where literally advertised company services are shown; the claims that Wikipedia in fact causes damages for companies because of these articles are not quite so because of the sheer fact they continue using said articles for advertising and any AfD about a blatant advertisement involving a company will show this. Once we start making any excuses about accepting advertising, we're damned.
Because of the blatancy of advertising, these are not "significant, notable and acceptable" because that's not acknowledging the advertising and the advertisement of this currently existing article. Also, simply saying "per users above saying Keep" is also not acknowledging the concerns or attempting to counteract them even though the concerns still apply.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article may suffer from low quality and PR-activities, but the company is notable. Covered by NYT, by other reasonably reliable media (
[34]) - through usually in a negative fashion (as a likely scam), but this is nonetheless in-depth coverage by a number of sources. There are also academic sources discussing the company's product:
[35],
[36]. The latter estabilish notability for the product, which can be discussed in the parent article about company. It's a shame that we are bickering here instead of improving the article. PR people should expand using sources that discuss their side of view, and critics have plenty of reliable criticism to cite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
possibly Keep. but only if a responsible editor (such as
Piotrus ) is prepared to rewrite and maintain the article. The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. Some of the sources in the article or asserted above are useless PR, like the miranda and AP articles. Oneof the basic principles of WPis NPOV, and an article that cannot be maintained in an NPOV state should be deleted. DGG (
talk ) 03:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
DGG: With all due respect, and also with all of my dislike of spammers, I do not think this is TNTable. Tag it with NPOV, PROMOTIONAL and such templates, cut problematic materials, even gut it to a single lead sentence, but delete - if it is notable - I don't see why we should. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Obviously, we have no clear rule on when to use
WP:TNT. 5years ago, I was very reluctant to risk losing significant content, but now I see a priority in removing the half million existing promotional articles. -- and not adding to them, if we are to remain an encyclopedia. I suggest as a possible compromise, that they only be retained if someone is willign to personally take responsibility,instead of leaving it for the indefinite future. DGG (
talk ) 06:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. – I
rewrote the article in October 2015. Your suggestion that my rewrite "does not honestly describe the subject" is unproven, offensive, and in very bad faith.
The negative material about the lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission surfaced one year after my rewrite in October 2016. I
have updated the article to include this information.
Keep: Even if it is a scam, it is a notable scam and eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia (sources are cited in the article and provided above in this discussion).
Anup[Talk] 17:40, 12 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment If you search for the singles mentioned in the article you will get results and it is definitely her. See:
Greater Love,
Enough is Enough.
Hold onto Me,
Forever Young (2nd last entry). She seems to be credited as "XYZ FT Elizabth Troy" or similar difficult to parse-able names. Regarding notability, she seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO in several points. She had a several singles on the UK music charts, which were very likly aired in national broadcasting stations due to their chart positions. Sources are probably partially offline, because some of her work was in the 90s. Article should therefore not be deleted.
Dead Mary (
talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Likely keep per Dead Mary's research - being featured vocalist for multiple acts prima facie passes
WP:NMUSIC, though I'd like RSes that are more than a passing mention in articles about Clean Bandit if we're to keep this BLP. (Also, the article needs some cleanup, saying the full band names.) -
David Gerard (
talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Here are some RS:
Washington Post reviews her "assured, diva level vocals" on "Sincere" with MJ Cole,
Cape Times confirms she's a backing vocalist for Matt Bianco,
Daily Mail describes her vocals on "Sincere,"
Straits Times mentions her work on "Sincere,"
Scotland on Sunday says that Troys's vocals elevate "Sincere,"
The Scotsman calls her vocals "honey tonsilled" and
LA Times review of her performance in 2014 (along with others). These resources establish that she's a respected musician in her field.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 00:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - she is a regular part of
Clean Bandit performances (which certainly meets notability guidelines). The structure of Clean Bandit is unusual in that it doesn't have a resident lead singer (apart from occasionally Grace Chatto). But since none of the permanent members of the band currently have their own biography pages then it seems inconsistent to list this one, given that Elisabeth Troy's primarily notability is for her work with that band.
Shritwod (
talk) 09:20, 18 November 2016 (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 organisation is not a total failure – it has been around for 282 years, which is longer than the USA, say. See also
&c..
Andrew D. (
talk) 18:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This is not April Fools, so let's stick to arguments that are at least semi-grounded in policy. I have never seen as ridiculous agreement for keeping an entry for organization as "it is old". There are many trees older than that, not to mention rocks, not that we should entries for them, you know. This is
WP:ITEXISTS fallacy. Please try to use
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG to base your arguments in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
None of the links that Piotrus provides are policies; not one of them. My position is based on three separate policies:
WP:PRESERVE,
WP:ATD and
WP:NOTPAPER. Three policies trump three non-policies.
Andrew D. (
talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Piotrus – just for information, "&c" is another way (not so common now in the 21st century) of writing "etc" or "et cetera".
Richard3120 (
talk) 00:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I was able to find a few brief sources on the society:
BBC,
a book on Oxford,
St. Giles bell history website, but nothing in depth. Notability, if this society has it, will be in offline sources. There is some verifiable material; are there any decent merge/redirect targets? --
Mark viking (
talk) 03:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The BBC source is good enough as it is quite respectable and confirms the age of the institution. As it's so old, I'd expect there to be offline sources which a Google search won't reveal easily – like back issues of The Ringing World. We have a
Wikimedian-in-residence at Oxford who has good access to the
Bodleian and may be able to help with such topics. I was invited to an
Oxford Wikimeet recently; I'll visit and see what can be done.
Andrew D. (
talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
It would be good to ask them. Let's however keep in mind that
WP:NOTNEWS, and while BBC is reliable, not everything they write about is notable. And if all we have to go with is a passing mention that "Foo organization, which is one of the oldest Foo organizations in UK, had a party" or something like this - it is not the stuff that makes it encyclopedic. We write only about important, i.e. notable organizations, and they have to meet GNG. 2-3 short sentences in passing do not suffice for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Added some reliable sources. the Oxford University Press book has details form which the article can be expanded. This is yet another example of an old organization for which sources are readily available that has a brief and poorly sourced article.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:24, 8 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:49, 7 November 2016 (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. The one "keep" does not establish more than passing mentions. Sandstein 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't seem to find this term used in reliable sources. Cited book is published by
Xlibris (self-publishing). Could be a hoax or just a bad piece of research, mispronouncing another term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – In case the tribe fails notability, Magsi can be kept as a
surname list article, as there are notable people with surname Magsi - for details, see this revision of Magsi. There is no primary topic here. So, need to add the tag "(surname)", i.e.,
WP:APOTITLE is not applicable. -
NitinMlk (
talk) 17:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk) 19:51, 7 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
User:Piotrus, as a side note, why don't you try to improve/expand articles instead of deleting them? You may have a point with this one, seen as it's a stub, but this deletionist pattern has a chilling effect.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
User:Zigzig20s: because having created several thousand of articles, those days I am distressed by the flood of spam we are dawning in. See
WP:CORPSPAM for an Op-Ed I wrote on this. If I can create a chilling effect for spam... that would be great. Sadly, I don't believe my efforts are putting much of a dent in the spammers campaign to dilute our content with their vanity/PR content. But I try my best - as much as I'd love to go back to content creation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't think a philosopher is "spam". The way I see it, we'd need to flesh out what her philosophical ideas/contributions are, and thus add to the "the sum of all human knowledge". I would highly encourage you to make yourself happy and refocus on content creation!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 08:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, it's a spam in the meaning of failing
WP:NBIO, through I certainly would see it as a much better "spam" than entry for some company. But the bottom line is - not all philosophers are notable. If you want to talk about her as a researcher, you have to show how she meets
WP:PROF. Just working at a university and publishing a few books or articles which have had negligible impact is not enough to make it to an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 09:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
She publishes in Polish and you speak Polish apparently. Why don't you try to expand her article instead of deleting it? My fear is that you're not just creating a chilling effect on spam, but on content creation as a whole. Please stop, and try to expand/improve articles!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 09:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Expand with what? There are no sources about her, Polish or otherwise. What am I supposed to write about her? That she exists? That is already in the article, and this is not sufficient to be in an encyclopedia. Find me a better source and I'll reconsider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 09:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There are matches on JSTOR for example. In Polish, could you not find more articles in the press or academic reviews of her books?
Zigzig20s (
talk) 09:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Matches, well, two (good finds though). Her 2015 article is not cited by anyone (but it is just a years old, so I can't criticize her for that). But the only other thing I see here is a 3 page edited volume introduction. I can't find her in
Polish scientist database. I can't find her CV. I am sorry, but as a scholar she fails
WP:PROF by a long-shot, and I were to say anything good it is that she has published one article with potential (her 2015), and maybe if she keeps it up and publishes in better venues she will be notable in few years. At best it is
WP:TOOSOON. If the creator would like to, we could userfy the article, through sadly they don't seem to want to participate in this discussion so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, nothing else better otherwise.
SwisterTwistertalk
Delete for lack of evidence of passing
WP:PROF. Spam floods and chilling affects aside, this sort of academic stub that lists just positions and a few publications, without even any honors to validate the subject's accomplishments, adds too little value to the encyclopedia to make it worth fighting to keep it. The Polish version is better, with several specific claims (directs a department, specializes in some research topics, advocates for liberal Judaism) but still doesn't provide convincing evidence of notability. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that this television program is notable. North America1000 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep:A notable serial running in a prominant television channel in West bengal.Also see the sources provided by
User:Anupmehra in his comment.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: notability now demonstrated.
Bondegezou (
talk) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (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. czar 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. "References" are mostly articles by founder. Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited.
reddogsix (
talk) 04:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, no credible claim to notability. I have the same concerns about the biography of the company's namesake
Anders Gronstedt, which was written by the same account and is similarly weighted with primary sources, articles by Mr. Gronstedt.
2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (
talk) 05:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment "Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited" - are you talking about me?
Adam9007 (
talk) 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as certainly advertising and there are no sensible signs this can actually be accepted, therefore there's nothing to suggest anything close to otherwise better.
SwisterTwistertalk 22:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I just added 19 more secondary sources (16 journals and three books) that reference work by the Gronstedt Group, which should address the concerns that the article relies too much on primary resources and doesn’t meet the notability guidelines. I’ve also done substantial rewrites to remove promotional content and added encyclopedic content.
ClarkeCaywood (
talk) 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Non-notable entity.
Anup[Talk] 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I pruned the number of references and left the most reliable ones, including detailed client case studies reported in books by industry leading professors, published by Stanford Business Books, Pfiffer, and McGraw-Hill, and a case in the Harvard Business Review. This is perhaps the most notable professional service firm in its industry.
ClarkeCaywood (
talk) 18:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - only one !vote per person.
reddogsix (
talk) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (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 as I've been watching this AfD and we'll note we have always accepted secondary schools and with that basis alone.
SwisterTwistertalk 23:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep it's a secondary school that exists. It is notable.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) .
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Not sure why he's described as a "youth striker". He made 60 appearances during three seasons in the Hungarian top division, so passes
WP:NFOOTY.
Number57 11:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Spiderone 19:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Passes
NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a
fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Needs expansion not deletion.
Fenix down (
talk) 09:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Having played in the Hungarian top flight, he meets
WP:NSPORT.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 16:22, 9 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
A7 Material. Removed by someone for their personal reason. Now here to waste community time on this one. No depth coverage. Only for promotional and nothing else. This is being used to build many Wikipedia Spam like
The Next Web ,
YourStory or many others.
Light2021 (
talk) 03:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm the one who removed the speedy tag for my personal reason, and wishes to waste community time — or whatever this strange nominator is getting at. It's obviously not a speedy candidate, as being "the largest Northern European media company reporting on the development of growth companies in the region" is an assertion of notability and, if duly sourced, would probably make the publication notable. Notability of small media companies is difficult, as they are known mostly by their works, not by people writing articles about them. It is clear from a google news search
[43] that the company exists, it is real, it publishes content, and other sources sometimes talk about what the company publishes. However, most of these are relatively minor, passing mentions in minor sources. In the context of an AfD, as opposed to an inapt speedy, I'll scour the sources if I have a chance to see if there are enough to support an article. Right now it's looking iffy. -
Wikidemon (
talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am afraid I have to agree with nom that by declining this deletion
User:Wikidemon is not doing us a good service. The largest claim is not sufficient for notability (do you see it at
WP:NCOMPANY or GNG or anywhere else?), it is not properly referenced, neither. I have to point to
WP:CORPSPAM - this kind of spam should not be here. It would be better if we could speedy more of it, rather then spend time here trying to save some spammer's creation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - This nomination appears somewhat
WP:POINTed, and declining the speedy was fully understandable in context. That said, the article really does have serious problems. (Comparisons to YourStory, which has been blacklisted, are apt and damning, and a
a closer look for spamming couldn't hurt.) Searching for reliable, independent coverage of the website, I'm finding nothing substantial. There are plenty of passing quotes taken from them, a couple of interviews and puff pieces, but non-superficial coverage in reliable sources is what's needed, and I don't see it.
Grayfell (
talk) 07:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Salt, as TechCrunch itself is not a good and convincing comparison because that website itself has become a powerhouse of publishing and republishing advertising and it seems this website is fitting it, therefore that summarizes it to something not at all convincing and nothing that can be based from non-advertising sources therefore delete. I suggest Salting with the sole basis of a 2009 deletion and the fact this was then literally restarted, therefore we should play it safe and have to go AfC before touching mainspace again.
SwisterTwistertalk 21:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep (user author): ArticStartup's Arctic15 is the most influential and popular startup conference in the Nordic region, and has attracted over 20 international speakers - including
Justin Waldron,
Trip Hawkins and
Paul Bragiel, and has been covered by reputable organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, New Europe, and the Helsinki Times. I'll admit that the article does need cleanup, and I'm adding sources now.
JenniBee (
talk) 23:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
One, there is no inherited notability from anything or anyone else, and second, every single source listed is published and republished PR by what the company wants to advertise about itself, and I've noted it above and it shows in the article as it is. Even with Finnish sources, it would perhaps still be questionable, and given everything else, there's still enough to suggest deletion would be best. "significant information on the profit and growth of the company", that may be, but that's not automatically establishing notability, especially if its only methods of causing that are by advertising itself, including in these listed links. I'll then note nearly all of the listed links are websites we've pegged as being notoriously "republish PR", so the fact these may be the best there is, is self-explanatory.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The reason why many of the English websites rely on public relations materials is because of the language barrier - the website itself is in English, but the convention (which is what gives ArcticStartup notability) is in Finland, so much of the event is in Finnish. Arctic15 is known as the premier convention for startups in the Nordic region. That's the reason why notable publications like Wall Street Journal go to ArcticStartup for the CEO's opinion on Nordic startups (as noted above). Neither The Wall Street Journal article nor the articles on Talouselama are public relations articles (there is a wealth of information in the Finnish sources that aren't public relations pieces). Arctic15 has brought investors into Finland (
http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/arktisia-kasvajia-kovat-nimet-koolla-arctic15-startuptapahtumassa-3429149 ), has included entrepreneurs from English speaking countries as speakers (as noted in the article), and is used as a source in regards to Nordic startups by organizations deemed notable by English Wikipedia (WSJ, as I noted previously, and CNBC (
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/16/the-global-entrepreneurship-boom-is-about-jobs.html ) for example).
Talouselama itself is a reliable mainstream outlet - and there is a lot of articles that aren't "fluff" pieces in that magazine. It has significant independent coverage from reliable sources - especially the Finnish journals - and is sought out by English speaking sources for it's expertise in Nordic startups. Because of that, it meets the
Wikipedia Notability guidelines.
JenniBee (
talk) 07:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The WSJ and CNBC articles are poor for notability, as the mentions are very brief and provide little context about the site, merely calling it "a technology blog" as context for a quote from the CEO. The Talouselama linked is better (I think), but as a source it's limited in circulation and focused by both topic and region, which does diminish its weight somewhat (
WP:AUD). Even with that focus, it's still surprisingly brief. I am reluctant to use Google Translate, but if that's accurate, it's not particularly good for
WP:CORPDEPTH, either. It's usable, and better than nothing, but it's underwhelming. Yes, non-English sources absolutely can be used, but is that source actually providing any information that's not available anywhere else? Also, asking us to do a Google search is understandable, but not persuasive when we likely don't actually speak the language, so can you tell us if that is the best coverage in the magazine? If that's what's going on, it's not a good sign, but I'm hoping you can show otherwise.
Event listings are only slightly more useful than press releases, per
WP:ROUTINE and
Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, and sources which focus on the conference should be evaluated with that in mind. I am also curious why this website is only published in the English language, but is so extensively covered by Finnish-language sources. Who is the intended audience? I'm not sure if it even matters, but it would make evaluating sources easier.
Grayfell (
talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There is also an article on
Kauppalehti about the awards at Arctic 15:
http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/smarp-pitchasi-voittoon-startup-tapahtumassa/Cu6NHq62 There's likely more articles in Finnish sources, but it'll take a while for me to scour through them as it's harder than finding English sources (I have to search each publication on Google individually as Google News doesn't aggregate most Finnish language sources and there is no news aggregator on google.fi).
JenniBee (
talk) 11:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't see any legit claim to being "central" in either of those sources. Both are passing mentions which treat the blog as an indicator of Finland's startup activity, definitely not as a central part of it. "Paraphernalia" is not central. They are no better than the CNBC and WSJ mentions.
Grayfell (
talk) 16:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
That's exactly my point. Those two sources are highly regarded in the business field, and the fact that they cited ArcticStartup as an indicator of the startup boom in Finland (and note that they didn't mention any of ArcticStartup's competitors such as
Slush) certainly adds to the company's notability.
JenniBee (
talk) 21:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I think additional Finnish sources might be more useful, but these are weak. These add to the company's notability, but very little. Being an indicator of something else is not the same as being central. Notability is
not inherited. The notability of the scene doesn't translate to every product of that scene. Wired only gives one sentence to mentioning Arctic Startup, in passing, as an example product of the scene. It's definitely not describing it as central to that scene. The Economist is even worse for this: The country has also acquired the paraphernalia of a tech cluster, such as a celebratory blog (Arctic Startup) and a valley-related name (Arctic Valley). That's as passing as they get, and "celebratory blog" is harsh, if not downright condescending, to the company, and should be weighed accordingly.
Slush looks like it needs a ton of work, and
Finnish startup scene is even worse. There are too many bad articles out there, so precedent isn't very persuasive. See
WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on that.
Grayfell (
talk) 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I concur with the above, "being involved in a starting company boom in Finland" itself in fact it's not yet notable and especially if all that is available are said trivial mentions, therefore simply naming the fact the news publication is a major one, is not meaning anything, because the contents themselves are still trivial. In all this time and the amount of apparent searching, nothing has shown of actual significance, therefore it states enough there's simply no substantial improvements to be made.
SwisterTwistertalk 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as a promo page on an unremarkable event. Sources presented at this AfD have not been sufficient to warrant an encyclopedia entry, I am afraid.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Could not quite figure out what this guy does, but none of the sources cited seem to be actually about him. Ref no. 3, the webpage of AADCU, his main company/venture/organization/whatever, is a dead link. Googling does not produce much either.
Nsk92 (
talk) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. No Reliable, independent sources. The
Baidu site is, I believe, something like Wikipedia. In other words, it is not Reliable.
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk) 07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note:
Baidu Baike is an online, collaboratively built encyclopedia, just like Wikipedia. Baike is also censored by the government. I've removed all the Baike refs.
Bgwhite (
talk) 21:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
of course find sources of Bruce Q, Lan Just would be try best for impoving of the page of Brcuce Q.Lan, Bruce is a very important figuer make contrubution to the field of architecture design, acting like designer,curator and editor, not only in China, but also to United States and Europe. Over 40 architectural books he curated and edited and published, he used to work with someone like Eric Owen Moss, Neil Denari,Hernan Diaz Alonso ect. if you know these guys how important to Amrican's architecture design, then you know what Bruce is... he worked in Beijing, no wonder sources come from Baidu,yeah...since the chinese verison Wikipedia has been blocked by chinese government, like google and other USA's internet media, so today the Baidu is the only and leading source to Chinese society, in the article of Bruce Q. Lan, the source link of his published books, you can find half sources from library database of University of Illinois, The Ohio State University and Getty Institution,here looking forward to hear from you guys again... many thanks!
Susanzone77 (
talk) 14:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
edits:
Thanks Bgwhite for the edits, I got it to know for next article submitt.
Susanzone77 (
talk) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - there appears to be not a single source about this person, rather than publications edited by him. The
walls of citations and excuses do not help. In the end, the page is little more than a
resume.
Bearian (
talk) 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see anything in the references that resembles and independent, reliable source saying something about the subject.
Mduvekot (
talk) 23:33, 19 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. clear consensus DGG (
talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This article is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It has little content and is unlikely to develop any further. It is also written very poorly and the sources are not credible.
NikolaiHo☎️ 01:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as not-yet-sufficiently-notable. The main purpose of this article is as a youtube/twitter-link magnet where WP editors cherry-pick examples of the topic. But instead, WP is an encyclopedia that requires notability of the topic itself via multiple independent references, and references to determine/highlight "notable examples" (to use the article's section-title). It's yet another hit'n'run job by
User:NotablePeopleFan and related SPAs that seems primarily written to highlight what he feels is interesting about his school. No.
DMacks (
talk) 03:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Made it to CNN this morning
[44] and Washington Post.
[45] It was featured/reproduced on FOX Sports NFL Sunday and a number of NFL teams contributed their videos too.
[46] Significant trend, even if one thinks it is odd/silly. --
Fuzheado |
Talk 10:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Addendum - the University of Kentucky got the entire home arena at a basketball game to do a video. It's a thing.
[47] --
Fuzheado |
Talk 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – Poor writing and lack of content are not criteria for article deletion, nor is lack of posted citations, and certainly other articles by an editor cannot be used as leverage to delete a discrete article. Our *policies* are that there are
WP:alternatives to deletionWP:BEFORE an article may even be nominated for deletion. Like the Pet Rock, the Mannequin Challenge may be a fad, but it is a fad with enough legs that future anthropologists will appreciate having an encyclopedia article on it. Cheers!, {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk} 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's all over the news and influencing professional sports teams, famous musicians and millions of young people across the country.
BlaccCrab (
talk) 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge The article states "It is considered a form of
freeze mob or
flash mob..." I suggest the article's content be merged with
flash mob, and that both
mannequin challenge and
freeze mob be redirects to
flash mob. Given that
freeze mob doesn't even exist yet, and (based on a search for "freeze" or "frozen")
flash mob only seems to include one instance which would be referred to as such (see reference: "Time Freezes in Central London"), it doesn't make sense to me for
mannequin challenge to exist as a separate article. Other thoughts before I decided to recommend "Merge"... For comparison with regard to notability, I looked at
ice bucket challenge and see that the initial revision only included 4 "Notable Participants", which is far less than the number of "Notable Instances" in
mannequin challenge. So that's an argument for "Keep". But perhaps supporting "Delete" is the fact that, according to the article, the trend was only started 2 weeks ago.
Gmporr (
talk) 16:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm on the fence about the notability of this, but given that the characteristics of the Mannequin Challenge and Flash Mob are entirely different, I would oppose a merge. By characteristics, I'm referring to the manner in which they begin. Flash mobs form suddenly, disperse suddenly. That's not what mannequin challenges do. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Your feedback makes sense. I wish the article had a reference as to why it's "considered a form of freeze mob or flash mob" 'cause I do agree that they seem to have very different characteristics. So my "Merge" recommendation is based on the assumption that a mannequin challenge really is considered (by whom?) to be a type of flash/freeze mob.
Gmporr (
talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Gmporr and
Hammersoft: - I have removed the "flash mob" or "freeze mob" since it is not supported by any of the sources. The logic behind arguing that is should not be a separate article because it is a flash mob is odd. Now that it is removed, it should clear the path for the article to exist on its own. --
Fuzheado |
Talk 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Fuzheado: Thanks for the article update & the ping. My reasoning for the merge (prior to your removal of the flash mob reference) was that it would be a reasonable alternative to deletion if the consensus turns out to be that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article.
Gmporr (
talk) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The nomination says this is "unlikely to develop any further" yet we have no clue what the future holds for this trend. The nomination also indicates that being poorly written is a reason for deletion. It's not (see
WP:RUBBISH). The nomination states the sources are not credible. At the time of the nomination, there were few sources. Now, there's 30. That brings us to the last point; is it notable per Wikipedia guidelines? Given there's now sources from literally dozens of reliable news outlets,
WP:GNG is clearly passed. More needs to be done to improve the article, but the state of the article is not a deletion reason. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - this passes
WP:GNG.. Even Hillary Clinton led her campaign team in doing one.
here,
here and
here. TushiTalk To Me 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Those of you who might wish to discredit Grossmisconduct's 'vote' because he's been here 8 years and has less than 50 edits; please keep in mind
AfD isn't a vote. This link provided by Grossmisconduct from usatoday.com clearly shows the prevalence and notability of the mannequin challenge. That's what matters here. This further substantiates my earlier post that we don't know the future, and the nominator's claim that this won't develop further has been proven false. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge -I looked it up to understand background to BBC content.
[49]JeremyCarroll (
talk) 05:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per above, the subject of the article as had a lot of coverage and most definitely passes
WP:GNG.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 16:21, 13 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I couldn't verify notability. With no reliable sources at all, best to delete this one-line stub rather than merge unverifiable info.
Boleyn (
talk) 01:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete – A line with no references, not a notable topic either. Clearly fails
WP:GNG. It is just something like a definition, can be deleted per
WP:NOT. Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 03:20, 7 November 2016 (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. sufficient consensus DGG (
talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as clear advertising, especially the fact the account was advertising-only but that the article literally says "The company services are....and the company now wants to say", there's nothing better beyond that hence delete.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep.
Cavarrone 12:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Really bad speedy call. Meets
WP:N with the sources in the article. (BBC, Wisconsin Public are the best).
Hobit (
talk) 06:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Yes, the references are there, as Hobit says, and it's quite a nicely written little article. The reference in
The Advocate for me resonates slightly with the Featured Article on yesterday's Main Page –
From The Doctor to my son Thomas.
Thincat (
talk) 08:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and the source above is still not substantial enough for genuinely convincing this article of both keeping and meaningful improvements, the article itself barely has any claims of significance and none of it amounts to substance, thus notability has not been established.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
SwisterTwister: Could you comment on the two sources (in the article) which I mention? Between those 3 sources, I don't see how we aren't well above
WP:N but I'm curious about your thoughts.
Hobit (
talk) 15:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Hobit. Expand and merge into anything about the Redskins naming controversy.
South Nashua (
talk) 15:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Per G5 ☺ ·
Salvidrim! ·
✉ 16:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment most if not all of the sources in this article do not even refer to
Sor Piseth, but to
Um Vichet.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 22:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails
WP:NSPORT and
WP:GNG. The article may also be
WP:G5 eligible as there is an ongoing sockpuppet investigation into the articles creator.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:52, 7 November 2016 (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.
Joyous! |
Talk 02:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No notability. The notable characters have been effectively merged into the main article. Three years has passed since my last nomination, and of course nothing has been done to improve this article. All of the "good writing" here were taken from the main article when Ryulong restored the article from a redirect in his opposition to having romajis placed in footnotes. This AFD needs eyes outside of A/M project which contains loads of terrible and non-notable character lists.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 09:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: The purpose of having a subarticle is to detail info of the characters that are otherwise wasting too much space on the main article. There is a total of three anime adaptions and two manga series. There is hardly enough space to merge all relevant info of the characters into the main article. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 09:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't see any convincing arguments here, this character list is an extension of the plot that otherwise couldn't fit on the main page. There are characters for example that are anime/manga only. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 16:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I am changing my opinion to Delete, Dragon did a great job at condensing the characters into the main article here. Lets face it... the article IS all
WP:OR meaning that even if it is recreated the info would still be re-added in another shape or form. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 18:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I request that the nominee be barred from starting a 3rd AFD of this subarticle if the result is KEEP. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 16:18, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Please assume good faith here, I may disagree with the deletion but do not think it is in malice. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 16:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I implore you to check the archive of the previous AFD one more time. Weren't you a participant on the 1st AFD as well? Clearly, I don't think the nominee understands that the concensus for this AFD is not going to be different than the first one. In short, he is wasting everyone's time when there are much more articles out there that have way more grounds for deletion. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 16:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The way you're counting the media adaptation sequels as separate medias to justify the existence of this list is incorrect. Asides from that, only one "anime only" character is notable enough to be kept in the character list. You haven't dealt with enough non-notable fictional character lists to see how the merge is beneficial; like how I was able to take only the main characters from
List of The Irregular at Magic High School characters (111 kb of text), and placed it within
The Irregular at Magic High School. Are you an expert on the series, do you know the plot well enough to know what characters should be kept or not? Have you seen the history when Ryulong just overturned the consensus of February 2014? I am free to nominate this article for AFD since much time has passed; this is not disruptive and I am doing this to improve the overall quality of the Rozen Maiden articles.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 18:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I hope you understand that regardless of what justification you might have had, this nomination will turn out to be exactly like it was from 3 years ago. Good luck with trying to waste space. Nobody's gonna buy that. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 21:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Additionally, if you are so dedicated in "improving" the content, you might as well just copy whatever edits you made on the main page into the subarticle. After all, that is what subarticles are for. Instead, you just chose to waste even more time in making an AFD that is 99% guaranteed to fail, based on the last nomination. If you failed to delete it last time, you will surely fail this time, too. It's common sense. Only push for a 2nd AFD if you feel that the arguments presented in the previous AFD were weak and irrelevant, like
thesenominations, for instance. Bear in mind, most of us do not agree with your idea of "improvement", so I suggest that you withdraw this AFD to save yourself from embarrassment. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 09:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Yeesh, tone down the aggression Sk8erPrince, we're all here to work together on an encyclopedia, not yell at each other.
Consensus can change and three years is plenty of time for a re-nomination. On the other hand, you should take your own advice with
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Takaya Hashi (2nd nomination), where you nominated an article two days after the last one failed.
Opencooper (
talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It did not fail. No consensus is an unacceptable outcome, especially if there's barely any participation to begin with. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 00:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete DragonZero is correct when they say that eyes outside WP:A&M are needed. Offshoot articles might be a precedent, but like here they quickly devolve into dumping grounds for
original research. One thing that used to happen in the past was that we had
"X in popular culture" articles because the authors of the main articles would rather not deal with such content. However, that is what is needed and here DragonZero has merged any usable information on the main characters into the parent article. While main characters of series are often notable, side characters usually lack any coverage to write about them without devoting to original research or synthesis. This is the case here. Lastly we should remember why articles are split off in the first place: because of size; the content of this article would have been deleted in the main article because it is OR, or else the article would have never gotten to GA.
Opencooper (
talk) 00:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete I think it's something our project (A&M) should debate further and thoroughly (some time ago I had a brief debate with
TheFarix for the sake of record
[1],
[2]). Most of
these lists are just "let's get rid of content we don't want in the main page". Our policy on
stand-alone lists says "being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." I think most lists are written in a completely
WP:IN-U perspective and don't comply with
WP:WAF#Accuracy and appropriate weight as it can be said they are "disproportionately long plot summaries" about characters. To justify a stand-alone list I think there should be significant content to create a "conception" and a "reception" section so it will be balanced between in-universe and out-universe content (ex.
here and
here). And to justify the inclusion of a character in the list it should be considered the screen time the character has within the series or if the part it plays within the series is important.
Gabriel Yuji (
talk) 04:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The nominator put some character information into the main article early last year.
[3] Then on the day he reverted someone's attempt to remove it three times, he decides to nominate this article for deletion, since the argument made in the edit summaries by the other guy was that all the information should just be linked to here. That is what is normally done.
DreamFocus 04:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Incorrect. Characters were there since Rozen Maiden existed in my Sandbox (2013).
[4] Nothing was taken from the list because it was all OR.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 05:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
This list article was created on March 2007
[5] Characters were added to the main article in one of the first edits there on May 2005.
[6] As the article got larger, people just shifted the character list to a separate article is as common. A character section seems to have been added and removed from the main article at various times by different people over the years.
DreamFocus 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
So let's settle this dispute once and for all and decide whether or not it's ultimately the best to keep this article and fix it, or merge it with the main article. Reverting edits like this is extremely tiresome, and honestly, I just want to get it over with already. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 16:12, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - The article does not establish notability, so it has no reason to exist at this time.
TTN (
talk) 19:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Reasonable
WP:SS breakout of characters from a notable fictional franchise.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per Gabriel Yuji's comments.
Aoba47 (
talk) 18:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete; fancruft, no third-party sources, in-universe content only (
WP:NOTPLOT). Sandstein 22:56, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I just want to remind editors that every "list of characters in x series" is a different case. These articles should be handled on a singular basis. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 13:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Easy keep, and the fact that "no third-party sources" is being used as a legitimate deletion rationale here leads me to suspect that somehow everyone was too lazy to
WP:BEFORE when !voting. Found in just a 5-minute Google search:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8. There's definitely more out there,
including Japanese sources, and the vast majority of anime reviews also include analysis on the characters. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 02:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Summarizing sources: Most of those links are merchandise such as dolls. This is a classic for anime/manga characters. Even though the characters of
Tales of Graces also have merchandise, it's not notable enough to establish their creation. Those two character polls you listed were from ANN readers, and the second is from the streets of Akihabara. These polls were not from significant sources, and is something I've left our of various articles such as
No Game No Life (It's been a while but I believe there were also street polls with the characters). Instead, it's better to focus on big polls in Japan, such as those hosted by TV networks or those yearly polls by Animage??? (What is it called again?) and
Kono Light Novel ga Sugoi!.
DragonZero (
Talk·Contribs) 06:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Merchandise helps establish notability as it demonstrates that the character has achieved real-world popularity and recognition, as opposed to just in-universe mentions. While the polls may not be from a "significant" source, it was reported upon by
Anime News Network, a
WP:RS. All RS coverage counts towards notability (some a bit more than others), you can't just pick-and-choose what is usable and what isn't. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 02:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Would you like to userfy the article to work on it? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 15:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I would be interested in fixing up the article. --
Sk8erPrince (
talk) 07:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Slightly Weak Keep I almost always vote to keep lists of characters from notable fiction franchises as I think the benefits are clear both for readers and the encyclopedia. This one is a little less clear as the main characters are adequately summarised on the main article. Still, I think deleting this would not benefit the encyclopedia.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 20:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
DeleteRedirect to the main article's Characters section. Firstly, I've been through numerous character list AfDs like this. I first noticed how the main article already has a very large section for the characters:
Rozen Maiden#Characters. That alone would probably be reason enough to delete. Then add to that the classic character list crux: the list has almost no sourcing. That too is usually enough for deletion. Thirdly, like mentioned, the depictions written are heavily plot and best fit for a fan wikia like always. Adding to the insult is the fact that there actually exists a comprehensive fan wikia with very detailed character bios. I've never seen a character list begging to be deleted more than this one.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I mean from an archivist's point of view, the information is all there at the fan wikia. If someone wants to find out about the characters or just googles them randomly, they'll find the comphrehensive fan wikia articles. In fact, our descriptions are substandard in comparison. We are doing a disservice to the people with our descriptions and list. --
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 23:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC
Changed vote to redirect, as there of course was the section listing the characters at the main article that the term should redirect to.
Mr. Magoo (
talk) 15:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to main article characters section. All the character lists publicized by the anime focus on the 9 or so main characters already mentioned, not the 20-30 possible ones like some series publicize.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff) 07:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect Looking at the entries for individual characters, most of the ones not already covered on the parent article seem to be struggling to show their importance. Generally I'm in favour of separate character lists but in this case there doesn't seem to be any compelling content reasons for a separate article based on the text of the article. There is always the scope for improvement of course, but let's be honest character lists have never been a priority and by and large never attract any serious attention from experienced editors. I'm not against recreation if an editor can prove it's merits, but experience suggests that it won't happen.
SephyTheThird (
talk) 11:05, 13 November 2016 (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.
Redirect as above - there is no attempt at a prose summary really. If there were then I might consider it worth keeping
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:08, 9 November 2016 (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 We don't even have an article for the league itself, so individual seasons certainly aren't notable. If there were a league article, this should be redirected there per
WP:NSEASONS but there isn't.
Smartyllama (
talk) 17:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)Redirect To
Kanga Cricket League per
WP:NSEASONS which says that is preferable to deletion. I didn't realize the league had an article, but it's still not significant enough for individual seasons to be notable.
Smartyllama (
talk) 17:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect as above. No attempt at a prose summary to make it keepable.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:09, 9 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
As with the other similar lists, if you want to find a result from any ODI India have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is
refactoring their content.
Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Then by given logic page
List of Indian Test matches should also be deleted. Why this page is still exist then?
Sdm2211 (
talk) 8 November 2016 (IST)
Espncricinfo isn't Wikipedia. And Wikipedia isn't Espncricinfo.
Ajf773 (
talk) 06:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Sdm2211 You're only allowed to vote once, and please stop repeating the same thing. The India test page is also up for deletion. Also, do not remove valid votes from other people.
Joseph2302 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and by all means provide an external link as part of a section on ODIs on the Indian team page
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:10, 9 November 2016 (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 absolutely nothing here for substance and this is in fact speedy delete G11 material considering how advert-formatted it is, overall nothing convincing.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I was unable to find any potential references. Anarchyte(
work |
talk) 07:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable, no sources, written like a promotional piece. I'm from the SFBA and bands like this are a dime a dozen.
sixtynine• speak up • 01:13, 9 November 2016 (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.
Everything is promotional and nothing else. No-notability of this organization. If we have to make a Wikipedia page for being an encyclopedia in this manner. wikipedia is not a portfolio or directory of such company
Light2021 (
talk) 14:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - I was able to find a lot of sources for the company, including at least four in-depth sources that are very reliable
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10]. I could possibly be convinced to !vote merge into
VocaLink but I don't see anything in the nomination other than a recommendation to delete based on promotion at the moment. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
CNMall41 (
talk •
contribs) 23:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete & redirect to
VocaLink#Zapp where the subject is already being discussed in sufficient detail suitable for this otherwise unremarkable subject.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:06, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect this service to the existing subsection on the provider page at
VocaLink#Zapp.
AllyD (
talk) 21:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG. Article tagged for more than 8 years regarding notabilty and sources. Apparently dead too, but nothing to source that either. LugnutsPrecious bodily fluids 13:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. He sounds fairly notable from
this extensive obituary in the Fulton County Daily Report and
this one issued by the Georgia State University College of Law (which helps with
WP:V, if not
WP:N). Even though the article as written focuses mostly on the Dow Corning case, it seems like his civil rights work and his prisoner advocacy are at least equally important, if not more so. There is extensive coverage of his college time at Alabama, including his opposition to George Wallace as student body president, in
this book,
this piece and
this book discuss his civil rights work, and there are articles describing his work on behalf of prisoners, including his time as director of the National Prison Project,
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here and
here (in the "Judge Orders Reforms at New Mexico Pen" article on p. 3). And that's just with a fairly cursory search of five or ten minutes. The sourcing in the current article is inadequate, but this does seem to me like a legitimately notable subject whose article needs improvement, not deletion. -
208.81.148.195 (
talk) 17:05, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:37, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with the logic of the other voter above. The article needs work, yes, but it definitely seems to me this person is notable. --
Krelnik (
talk) 18:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 7 November 2016 (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 virtually just a list and seems poorly titled after seeing what the content on the page is. I may be jumping ahead with this but I feel like this type of article may not fit with Wikipedia's notability policy. The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk) 08:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:32, 7 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Please don't repeat your plea over and over again, once is more than enough. It won't help in any case, we don't have articles to be able to host copyrighted images, it's probably the worst argument you could possibly use.
Fram (
talk) 14:02, 17 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
"Is an important character": why? He appears in one episode, and is mentioned in a book that exhaustively lists all episodes and characters; we get this by now. All this proves is that he is a character, not that he is an important one.
Fram (
talk) 07:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
If you see three episodes you will understand --
ColeB34 (
talk) 11:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
You are making less sense with every reply. So, let's say I watch the first three episodes of UpDown, I will then understand why Dyson is an important character who is
notable enough to have an article here? Really?
Fram (
talk) 12:34, 18 November 2016 (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 does not establish notability. The sources in the article appear to be pure fluff that do not provide significant coverage on the topic.
TTN (
talk) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect. Merge any content if needed. Avoid redlink bait to recreate the article again, preserves history if ever needed.
Montanabw(talk) 20:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone 09:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Question@
Montanabw: what is your suggested redirect target? I'm in agreement with you in principle. I'm just not as familiar with the Transformers universe to know if there is an article other than the main article that would be a good target?
Delete and then Redirect as these have been established, as it is, as not convincing for their own articles because we're simply not a series-focused encyclopedia, and there wouldn't be anything to suggest an otherwise better article.
SwisterTwistertalk 03:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply: Redirect to
Transformers. My take on these types of articles about toys and cartoon-type characters is that deletion just leaves a redlink that is bait for the article to be recreated (and AfD'd) again, and again... it is actually wise to keep the bluelink and do a redirect. There also appears to be a fair bit of content here, and some of it can probably be added to the main article.
Montanabw(talk) 05:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Transformers per Montanabw. I agree with the reasoning. Redlinks on relatively popular subjects such as this invite recreation.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 15:00, 15 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
In December 2015 the inter-ministerial working group on free software of the French government (Socle Interministériel de logiciel libre) included Bareos on their recommendation list among 130 other open source programs.[11]
Numerous (video-)blog posts about Bareos, here just some examples[12][13][14][15]
Google search for 'bareos' lists > 60k results
Independent open source platform
Open Hub affirms "High Activity" of the project.[16]
International conferences (excerpt) with presentations about Bareos:
Niels de Vos from
Red Hat and
Gluster co-maintainer at Open Source Backup Conference about Bareos and Gluster [17]
Comment Notability for inclusion in Wikipedia can be based only on reliable sources, not number of Google hits. Admin Magazine, Linux Magazin and OpenNet news may be reliable sources - I will review these later and try to find more, if there are any...
Pavlor (
talk) 10:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Source mini-review:
Linux Magazin - seems to be reliable source, several short news about article subject = useable source
iX/heise.de - behind pay-wall, if most of the article is about Bareos = good source; if passing mention only = weak source
pro-linux.de - few news about article subject, seems to be one-man news page = somewhat weak source
Admin magazine - written of authors of Bareos = weak source
habrahabr.ru - seems to be blog = weak source
Conclusion: No good reliable sources - or only one (iX, hard to say, how broad coverage is there) and several short news (Linux Magazin). There is some coverage in reliable sources, but still too few, I fear.
Pavlor (
talk) 15:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The number Google gives at the top is meaningless. If you page through the search results, you find out how many distinct sources Google will actually show you. In this case, at this moment, it's 169. As for the presentations, notability doesn't come from people presenting their projects at conferences, but from evidence in independent reliable sources (not, generally, blog posts) that others have taken note of them, possibly as a result of those presentations.
Largoplazo (
talk) 11:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Added another magazine and online-site(s). The wide range of international conferences with Bareos presentations (not only by Bareos project members) but also by recognized speakers from companies like Red Hat, Universities[22] or
Max Planck Society[23], shows that the experts at the conferences' program committees see Bareos at least at 'notable'.
Gul.maikat (
talk) 11:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - the admin-magazine piece is a detailed one, but look at the authors: two guys from Bareos, not an
WP:INDY source. The fr wiki points to
[11] which (although a passing mention) is a list of free software that the French administration is encouraged to use (by opposition to proprietary software); but Bareos' status in there is "O, in observation" which probably means the "administration modernization guys" are considering to use it in the future, not even recommending it right now. And
the Linux-Magazin hits seem to all be very passing mentions.
TigraanClick here to contact me 15:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Ah, I see. Shame on me, I missed authors of the Admin Magazine article.
Pavlor (
talk) 16:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No problem
Pavlor, that's the kind of thing AfD is supposed to dig up. Also, may I respectfully suggest you take a look at
WP:REDACT, which you do not seem to be aware of?
TigraanClick here to contact me 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Tigraan: Thanks, I know
WP:REDACT, I only forget to use it... I think I will leave it as it is now. With my weak skills, I could add even more mess. I will be more careful next time.
Pavlor (
talk) 18:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I, too, didn't think to check the authors on that article, which is the one I did cite in my deletion proposal. Thanks for catching it.
Largoplazo (
talk) 18:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment added 3 more references, all German. An Admin Magazin article by an author not from Bareos, and two books, both with chapter about Bareos (80 pages and 16 pages)
joerg.steffens
Keep Looking at the references above, I see among others:
iX as IT professionals journal has a small but dedicated article about Bareos version 16.2.
2 articles in Admin-Magazine (1 from project members but accepted by the editors, which shows that editors find the subject 'notable', plus another dedicated and multi-pages article by an independent author)
small, but dedicated and continuous (2013-2016) news-articles in Linux Magazine (online)
broad coverage in 2 printed books (both referenced above, written by recognized open source authors / journalists)
continuous news-items and articles in the two leading Russian open source portals
OpenNet (website) and
Linux.org.ru.
Program committees of several international recognized open source conferences accepted Bareos presentations from project members and others (IT Professionals, Universities, Max-Planck-Institutes, Red Hat)
Delete as still all only advertising this software, and none of it amounting to actual notable substance hence nothing to suggest acceptance.
SwisterTwistertalk 04:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a book review of what appears to be a non-notable book of reminiscences. No claim of notability, no notable content.
KDS4444 (
talk) 07:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I would suggest that the reminiscences of a notable person carry notability by association.
Valetude (
talk) 12:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone 09:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a sefl-cited essay with no indications of notability or significance. Optionally redirect to the author's page
J. B. Priestley.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not seem to fulfill
WP:GNG when you look at his "notable design" it seems anything but notable.
Domdeparis (
talk) 18:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Part of the problem may be the first name. When I searched for him as Myron, I did find
this long obit in the Globe and Mail. (I see the G&M lead called him "Mac" Kalman, but didn't find much more.) The Globe and Mail is Canada's leading national daily, and it's an impressively long article. Taken with the fact that he was given
a centennial retrospective by McGill University prior to his death -- a feat more of longevity one might argue -- and his prolific work as listed in the Biographical Dictionary of Architects in Canada 1800-1950 ref, I'm inclined to say keep, if barely. He did a lot of mid-century residential and commercial buildings, schools, synagogues, etc.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 16:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
to be clear, the only source I actually found was
this one. But it's a biggie.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Based on the reliable, verifiable and encyclpedic sources in the article, the subject meets the notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk) 17:50, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: I expanded the article with reliable sources. After the deletion is closed, the page should be moved to
Maxwell M. Kalman.
Yoninah (
talk) 23:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The sources cited in this article substantiate Mr. Kalman's notability. --
Notecardforfree (
talk) 19:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Based on the sources cited in the page.
WikiEK (
talk) 20:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Important Quebec architect presented in a well-sourced article.--
Ipigott (
talk) 19:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Eventual merge could be discussed in the article's talk page, obviously.
Cavarrone 12:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The topic is a valid one though, this unit does exist and does get news coverage, and presumably even more coverage in Chinese. I've pinged the originator asking them if they want it moved to Draft so they can take their time adding sources.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 18:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No, wait, the
Special Duties Unit is much older, sorry. Anyway, this seems to be a case where an editor has made a content fork unnecessarily: there is no mention of the Special Tactical Squad that I can see in the PTU main article, and that's why it remains an unreferenced orphan. I'd suggest a merge and redirect to
Police Tactical Unit (Hong Kong), claimed to be the parent organization, based on the poor state of this stub -- unless someone wishes to roll up their sleeves and really expand it.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 23:17, 8 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Cavarrone 10:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: A recruitment agency taking inspiration from Heidegger is unusual but I am not seeing evidence of notability. Reviewing the references provided: the O Tempo item is a routine announcement (see later comment on IMD), the Exame item is a brief Q&A with one of the company's principals, the Infomoney and both Hoje em dia items involve brief quotation from company officials in articles also quoting others in their trade, the Época item is a brief routine announcement and the IMD reference is a deadlink press release (IMD's website now lists another firm and not Dasein for Brazil:
[15]). These aside, I can also see that a piece of their survey research was namechecked in
The Economist – via
HighBeam(subscription required) in 2011. These are all examples of typical business-media coverage for a firm going about its business, but are not the in-depth coverage of the firm itself needed for
WP:CORPDEPTH.
AllyD (
talk) 19:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is
just another recruiting firm. I can't see what's so special, and the sources don't prove anything. It seems to be little more than
spam.
Bearian (
talk) 01:45, 19 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI PNG have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content.
Joseph2302 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete no attempt at prose and the list can be better served by being an external link on the team page to a specialist directory website which is going be far more reliable and up to date.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:05, 9 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI Australia have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content.
Joseph2302 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per all the above.
WP:NOTSTATS has become a problem in the cricket portfolio. What has happened to narrative? Jack | talk page 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is what sites such as espncricinfo is for, not Wikipedia.
WP:NOTMIRROR.
Ajf773 (
talk) 19:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
CommentUser:Sdm2211 Thanks for pointing that out. That page should not exist either under the same guidelines. I will nominate for deletion.
Domdeparis (
talk) 11:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as with the other similar pages all up for AfD just now.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:17, 9 November 2016 (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 provides no tourist information whatsoever, so reads nothing at all like a tourist webpage.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:00, 7 November 2016 (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 reads like a slightly poorly written encyclopedia article, not a poorly written tourist webpage.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per
WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be dealt by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page.
Anup[Talk] 10:42, 8 November 2016 (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 redirect to
Train Simulator (Dovetail Games). Don't usually close on one !vote however participation is low and far as I can tell all prev years so far redirect back to the above target so am closng as redirect (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010Talk 00:16, 15 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete If you want to find a result from any ODI USA have played in, then use Cricinfo. We're not a
directory unlike them, and all we're doing here is refactoring their content. Also, they've played 2 ODIs, and a list of 2 is not worthy of being on Wikipedia.
Joseph2302 19:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and by all means provide a link to an external reference site which keeps these things in a much better state than we will ever do.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 20:17, 9 November 2016 (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: Legally recognised populated village should be kept per
WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page.
Anup[Talk] 11:11, 8 November 2016 (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 have cited a source confirming that this passes
WP:GEOLAND. These deletion nominations with a total lack of
WP:BEFORE, and with the untrue statement that the articles are written like tourist webpages, are very tiresome and border on the disruptive.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 19:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
86.17.222.157: well you are certainly welcome to your opinion but as an annonymos IP that refuses to make an account your accusations don't matter much to me. These were 4 articles that were complete duplicates of one another. The only things changed were the names of the towns and the numbers of people. --
Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
First, I have the same concerns about the lack of BEFORE work, or understanding of all that
WP:GEOLAND requires for named populated places, and I am not "an annonymos" (sic) account. Second, the notion that IP accounts somehow have less rights here is bollocks.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 20:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Just as you lied when you said that this article was written like a tourist webpage you also just lied when you said that you didn't say that we unregistered editors have less rights. What else does "as an anonymous IP ... your accusations don't matter much to me" mean other than you consider me to have less rights? You have been advised on your talk page by an admin,
Ritchie333, to avoid passing judgement on other people's work until you you have familiarised yourself with the basics of how things work on Wikipedia, but have obviously chosen to ignore that advice.
86.17.222.157 (
talk) 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: Legally recognised populated villages should be kept per
WP:GEOLAND. Content issues can be fixed by editing the article or discussing it on article's talk page.
Anup[Talk] 11:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. The article is currently linked from the main page, so please re-nominate when this is no longer the case. If you believe the problem with the article is urgent, please make a post at
WP:ERRORS.(
non-admin closure)
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about this article. Water bottle flipping is a trivia at best if not only a fad. I cannot see how this article participates in human knowledge in the encyclopedic sense, I don't even understand how this reached DYK and the main page. This is making Wikipedia look like any random internet website on social trivia. If we let this kind of article stay on Wikipedia, we are effectively opening the floodgate to any and all fad with no discernible end to what should be included.
Iry-Hor (
talk) 16:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nov. 7 DYK – This inanity was extremely annoying as a Main Page DYK.
Sca (
talk) 16:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Sca I guess you support the deletion then?
Iry-Hor (
talk) 16:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, delete.
Sca (
talk) 00:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - More than 50 different unique authors of the article found it notable enough to edit. That should speak volumes, even if I do find the appearance in DYK a bit odd. --
Fuzheado |
Talk 16:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - We have articles for things like the Ice Bucket Challenge, that was just a one time viral "fad", and while that did raise money for charity, it is the same concept.
MBlairMartin (
talk) 16:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Notability established by reliable sources.
Gamaliel (
talk) 17:00, 7 November 2016 (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 page belongs to
Category:Jat clans, or one of its subcategories. All the pages of these categories lack the very basic notability guidelines. Failure
WP:GNG. Must be discussed and deleted per
WP:NOT. Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Jat people. Save what little editing history there is. Someone can always expand it later.
Montanabw(talk) 08:14, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:35, 7 November 2016 (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.
Recently deleted via AfD. Non-notable artist/composer/writer etc etc with only one notable source in article, being "Rolling Stone" magazine. Google search comes up with nothing, other than website of said artist. NordicNightfury 16:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for exactly the same reasons as before – I said "Fails WP:COMPOSER as it all appears to be inherited notability: the song being notable and charting doesn't make him automatically notable. And even most of the songs listed in the article fail WP:NSONG notability themselves, despite their blue links (often to an unrelated article): "Mood Ring" is just an extra track on the Japan-only version of the Britney Spears album, "I" is one of five tracks on an EP, the Aaron Carter song didn't chart, etc." I don't see anything to make me change my opinion, there is no major coverage of Mr Asher himself apart from the occasional passing mention (the Rolling Stone article and second Billboard reference make no mention of Mr Asher at all). The author is an SPA who just works on getting Jon Asher-related articles onto Wikipedia and is quite possibly Mr Asher himself. Purely
WP:PROMO.
Richard3120 (
talk) 17:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: Is another AfD for this really needed? I did not see the previously deleted version, but from the comment given by
Richard3120 it looks as if this is just a recreation of a previously deleted article which probably could have just been tagged for speedy deletion per
WP:G4. --
Marchjuly (
talk) 05:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete for reasons of recreation; I requested a speedy deletion.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 17:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete, per G4 and also does not meet GNG.
Kierzek (
talk) 18:12, 11 November 2016 (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 - Although Baywater Drive is mentioned in the article it's only mentioned once and it's not very informative, Usually I would go with Redirect but in this case it's just confusing & IMHO it won't serve any purpose so best off deleted. –
Davey2010Talk 21:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be
reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:32, 13 November 2016 (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 non-notable road.
MB 02:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be
reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Concur with nom. I verified it exists on the map, but why is it notable?
MB 02:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. As usual, every road that exists does not automatically get a Wikipedia article that just describes its route — to qualify for a Wikipedia article, a city arterial road has to be
reliably sourceable as notable for some genuinely substantive reason (political, social or cultural significance, etc.) But nothing here demonstrates that.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:33, 13 November 2016 (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. No consensus on a redirect, but definitively in favour of removing the page.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Momo (software). This page does look like a CV, so a redirect to his apparently notable company seems like the best option.--Mojo Hand(
talk) 13:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. I don't think a redirect is necessary at this time.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:31, 15 November 2016 (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. MBisanztalk 16:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein. North America1000 15:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete both. These may have been important episodes in the show's story line, but there's no coverage that I can see in reliable sources. Of course, it's a lot harder to find any kind of mention 30+ years later, but there's usually some kind of mention in Google Books or the Google News Archive. I did find
this retrospective on the series at Entertainment Weekly, which briefly mentions a few episodes. There's also
this brief critique of how the pilot tackled a tomboy character. These sources are certainly promising, but there isn't really enough to go on for an entire article. I think these sources can be used in the main article and the list of episodes to expand them without problem. If someone locates offline sources, I don't see any reason why we can't recreate these articles. Right now, though, I think they're best left to
Wikia and
TV.com, which aren't saddled with the requirement to find significant coverage.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 17:36, 10 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Lack of general notability, complete lack of sources, semi-translated, concerns for self-advertising - not to mention it is also Dimitar, not Dimiter. Either way, this is a reality TV participant and not a politician, and lacks any notability for a separate article. For comparison - among the other candidates running in this election are a clairvoyant and a former criminal.
Skycycle (
talk) 15:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete This article is poorly written article about a person who has no notable status as a politician.
Domdeparis (
talk) 15:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Unsourced article on a person who has been regularly defeated in his runs for political office.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:57, 9 November 2016 (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 know the election will only be a couple weeks away, and I know that there is probably a 99% change of Skillicorn winning the election. However, he has not yet been elected, and he has done nothing, as of the moment, that is noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article. Until he wins, the article should be deleted. --
1990'sguy (
talk) 01:40, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn by nominator: As others have already pointed out, Skillicorn has won his election. Now he is notable enough to have his own Wikipedia article. --
1990'sguy (
talk) 01:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
At the time I first saw this article a couple of weeks ago while nominating several of the creator's other new articles about unelected Illinois legislative candidates for deletion, this article contained the claim that Skillicorn is a former member of the legislature who left office but is now running to return for a second kick at the can. I'm not an expert on Illinois politics and had no substantive reason to doubt that the statement was true (I'm Canadian, so there's just one state legislator in the entire United States that I could name off the top of my head without consulting a list to do the "oh, wait, yeah, I think I have heard of that one before too" thing first), so on the basis of that claim I left it alone with some maintenance tags — but now that 1990sguy has disputed the claim, I googled Skillicorn and indeed can't find any confirmation that he ever served a prior term in the legislature, because even the legislature's own list of its own members in the 2005-07 term doesn't include him. As always, however, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates: if a person does not already have preexisting notability for other reasons, then they do not qualify for a Wikipedia article until they win the seat and thereby become a holder of a notable office. And even if he does win the seat and become notable on that basis, the article will still have to be significantly rewritten from the quasi-campaign brochure format it's following right now. So no prejudice against recreation on or after November 8 if he wins, but nothing here gets him an article today. (Prior discussion, for the record, is about a different person of the same name, so has no bearing on this at all.)
Bearcat (
talk) 02:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Oops! Didn't notice that. Is there a way we can change the article to make clear that the two Allen Skillicorns' are different people? --
1990'sguy (
talk) 02:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
In this context it's not necessary. The first one got deleted, so as long as the fact that they're two different people is clarified in this discussion so that people know that "
Speedy G4" won't work as a deletion argument, we don't need to do anything special to the article.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Update: Due to low participation, this discussion was still open as of election day, and Skillicorn did indeed win his seat. Accordingly, this does now need to be kept, and merely flagged for content and referencing repair.
Bearcat (
talk) 13:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 17:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:18, 7 November 2016 (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.
May not be notable; no reliable secondary sources. Reads like an advertisement and is not possible to fix.
Okamialvis (
talk) 20:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as corporate spam; an overly detailed product brochure in the guise of a Wikipedia article.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 07:35, 9 November 2016 (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.
Joyous! |
Talk 02:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This is an article about a phrase used once by then Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The phrase has not been used by ethnologists.
Ground Zero |
t 14:45, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - it's a phrase that was used once and is not used to describe an ethnic group in published sources.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 15:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, or merge a redacted version to
Canadian federal election, 2015 or elsewhere. Although presented as an article about ethnicity, this is clearly not an ethnicity article. If a suitable target is found, use of the term and its relevance should be merged into that target (perhaps
Canadian federal election, 2015), but the
original research and
synthesis present in this article should be excised.
Mindmatrix 17:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not notable. It's a specific example of a generic expression, defined
here at the Oxford online dictionary:
old-stock: adjective, Designating a person or people whose ancestors have lived in a certain country or area for several generations.
Origin - Late 19th century ; earliest use found in The New York Times.
We don't have articles about Red-headed Canadians, or Guitar-playing Canadians, why Old stock? The only reason this article exists is because it garnered a few days of media notice when used by the then Prime Minister; see (
WP:NOTNEWS) and (
WP:PERSISTENCE). I have added a single line for (September 17 under "Conservatives") to the appropriate section of the appropriate article:
Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies, which I propose is proportional to its significance. If the decision here is keep I will go back and link it.
nerdgoonrant (
talk) 18:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Yes, others have said it well. Unlike the long-established and notable concept of
Pure laine in my home province, this was a momentary, short-lived controversy. And I'd be surprised if Harper really had in mind to appeal only to those whose parents emigrated here prior to 1900 -- but then much of what he did puzzled me. Anyway,
European Canadian isn't the same. Pure laine is too distinct. I agree a redirect to
Canadian_federal_election,_2015#Controversies is best.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 19:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
strike redirect pending current rewrite by
User:E.M.Gregory per discussion below Meters (
talk) 00:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Change to keep after nice rewrite. Now more than sufficient sources to show the notability and prior use of the term, and the article no longer attempts to define this as an ethic group.
Meters (
talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP cant believe no one here is actually looking for sources. I see age makes a differences here...very common term when I was young (1960-70s)......very old term ....not a new Stephen Harper term at all. Its used by our historians/ Not sure how deletion over correction will help our readers.Very bad idea to redirect this to 2015 elections. Best to get real sources to educated people here and our readers. --
Moxy (
talk) 23:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
most but not all of those book references do indeed make mention of the term as a way to describe Canadians of English and French descent, descended from those original settler groups. (The Vijay Agnew book, for one, does not, it refers only to "old stock" French, i.e.
Pure laine). At the very least, it's an argument for redirecting somewhere else.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply@
Moxy: I, for one, wasn't trying to suggest that Harper had coined the term. I was suggesting that no one would have thought of creating the article if it weren't for the brief furor that erupted after his use of it during the leaders debate in 2015. And while it wasn't in common usage in Manitoba in the 70's and 80's when I grew up (here - preceded by Extra - it referred to a brand of beer, if anything), I don't doubt that it was in use elsewhere. I would observe, however, that most of those who use it in the references you cite above (many of which are cited in the Old Stock Canadians article) still feel the need to put it in quotes, indicating that it isn't all that common.
My main reason for supporting deletion is that I don't see what insightful or nuanced analysis an encyclopedia article could provide. Or why Old Stock Americans and Old Stock Canadians would merit separate articles. With the increase in immigration throughout Europe, there could conceivably be an Old Stock article for any country with a significant number of New Stock citizens. It's a straightforward concept easily understood in any nationalist context from a generalized
dictionary definition, and (
WP:WINAD). I agree with you that redirecting to the 2015 elections is a bad idea, because it does then give the impression that Harper had something to do with coining the phrase, but I respectfully disagree that it deserves inclusion in an encyclopedia.
nerdgoonrant (
talk) 16:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This pretty much sums up my feelings, too. Note that we do have a
Old Stock Americans article, created by the same editor, too.
Cordless Larry (
talk) 17:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
As for a better redirect target, I was looking at
Immigration_to_Canada#First_wave and
Immigration_to_Canada#Second_wave? The difficulty is that an "old wool" Quebecois has little or nothing in common with an "old stock" English Canadian, with immigrations often separated by century or more, and a vast cultural divide. Again, Quebecois/French Canadians are descended from a group that would have basically stopped arriving by the
Conquest of 1760, whereas we're told old stock English parentage continues until the dawn of the 20th century.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is not a unified ethnic group, but simply refers to anybody of British Isles or French descent whose ancestors arrived in Canada before a certain specific arbitrary cutoff — while strangely ignoring the aboriginal peoples who were already here before the Europeans started arriving. Basically, it's a dog-whistle for "white Canadians of European descent", not a unified ethnocultural group with anything in common beyond census statistics.
Bearcat (
talk) 23:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Merge into 2015 election article. You could mention it in the Racism in Canada article. But, by itself, I don't see the merit of the stand-alone article.
Alaney2k (
talk) 16:11, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Due to strong sources on page and above. Although the term appears to have gone out of fashion (Bernie Sanders got caught in a similar way, using a term that was mainstream when he was young), the category: people whose ancestors have been in Canada for generations, is a valid one. i would be willing ot consider a redirect if someone can source a contemporary term for this concept (something parallel to "first nations") but the deletion arguments appear to me to be a form of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT indicating repugnance for the term, but leaving us with a a well-sourced term for a significant category of Canadians. We can't just delete them. Or this reliably-sourced but archaic term.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 21:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)reply
And which of those sources define "old stock Canadians" as an ethnic group? If you wish to rewrite the article so that it makes sense then go right ahead, but right now it defines the term, in one sentence, in a way that appears not to be supported by the sources used, and then the rest of the article is a discussion of the recent political controversy over the term. If this is about hte controversy then either the article should be redirected somewhere, or the title should be change to reflect the actual topic. If this is to be an article about the concept of "old stock Canadians" then it should be completely rewritten. Amusingly, approximately one-quarter of the article's content is actually an argument against the definition of the term as used in the lede.
Meters (
talk) 00:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Will do. Give me 24 hours.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:26, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I agree that the material shown in this thread seems to justify some type of article. I'll try to help out.
Meters (
talk) 00:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you. The article and can certainly use all the help we can get.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 00:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I made a start; only a start. Sources certainly exist, "old stock" as a term for Canadians of long-standing Canadian descent has been discussed in Academic sources for decades, although perhaps not until after the middle of the 20th century. I have no doubt that this is a valid topic.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 01:33, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:HEYMANN I have revised lede and written/sourced a section on the definition and use of this term, that I beleive to be objectively worded and to satisfy NOTABILITY. I have not touched the existing section on the 2015 political brouhaha. I leave others to deal with that. @
Meters:@
Moxy:E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Nice job. I suggest every editor who !voted to delete or redirect should take another look at the new version.
Meters (
talk) 04:24, 19 November 2016 (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 99% of dentists are not notable. Smigel is one of the exceptions. The New York Times published a 20 paragraph article about him signed by a staff writer when he died this month. Back in 1981, New York magazine published a
"Irwin+Smigel"&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvwNnYw4HQAhULs1QKHWxpAyIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=%22Irwin%20Smigel%22&f=false several page article about Smigel and his innovations. A Google Books search shows that he is discussed in many books. So, he is notable. How can the article be personally promotional? He is dead. Yes, the article has problems, such as uncited quotations, excessive red links, and overenthusiastic language. As for being "irreformable", I disagree. We have editors here on Wikipedia for a reason, and there is no reason why this article cannot be improved dramatically through a logical series of edits.
Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:10, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
delete per TNT. There may be a Wikipedia article in here somewhere but this is not it; this cannot remain in WP. If somebody actually does the work to find the WP article that might be here I will change my !vote but this is an embarassment to WP and cannot remain.
Jytdog (
talk) 17:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article isn't great at the moment, but the sources above provided by Cullen328 (the NYT obit in particular) prove he passes
WP:GNG easily.
Nohomersryan (
talk) 16:50, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Needs to be updated, and the references need to be fixed, but it meets
WP:GNG; I don't see any compelling reason(s) to delete it.
keep and improve. Article is poorly sourced, Smiggel is notable as sources borught to AFD by editors above establishes.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:33, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - and improve after closing. This article passes WP:GNG. However needs to be improved. But that in itself is not a reason for deletion.
BabbaQ (
talk) 16:49, 14 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Any notability she has is inherited from her father, and notability is not inherited. 1 series on a childrens tv channel that is basically 3rd or 4th choice for this genre in the UK is
WP:ONEEVENT. No third party sources to satisfy
WP:GNG.
AlessandroTiandelli333 (
talk) 16:01, 7 November 2016 (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. It seems like the sources provided by E.M.Gregory and Unscintillating have not been contested beyond perfunctory "not notable" arguments. There does not seem to be enough support for a
WP:TNT based deletion, either, and the article is already tagged for cleanup.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 10:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The standard her is not what sources are currently on the page, but, rather, Do good sources exist?
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 05:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, seems to just need someone to source the page to the many articles that cover him in substantive detail in articles about his companies. And ther are profiles of him Here's
[16] a juicy profile in the
New York Observer. Another in a 2006 book Makers: All Kinds of People Making Amazing Things in Garages, Basements, and Backyards'.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 05:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The vague arguments of the delete !votes clearly ignore the
alternatives to deletion. Why try to get this edit history deleted? And as for the redirect that could have been done without a deletion discussion, Payoneer barely mentions this CEO, and the article here is the only coverage we have for BorderFree. Another article involved here is
Assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, where readers would have good reason to want to know what reliable sources have to say about this topic, just as the Wall Street Journal saw fit to write a related article, as referenced by E.M.Gregory. Also as E.M.Gregory has noted, this topic is sufficiently established to be referenced in a book.
Unscintillating (
talk) 21:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as clear advertising and I concur with the nomination as it fluidly and noticeably shows the concerns, I see no compromises of which would not affect both substance and its considerable advertising-formatted, hence delete.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
comment fails to address either notability of topic or the substantive sources that have been found by editors here.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 12:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a vanity page on a businessman not notable outside of the companies he was affiliated with.
Payoneer itself is only marginally notable, so delete.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 02:50, 18 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:35, 7 November 2016 (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 redirect to
Metasploit Project. Seems to have a notable product, which it can be redirected to. If there are issues with article creation, this can be addressed in the future. (
non-admin closure)
Natg 19 (
talk) 19:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)reply
this pages adds no encyclopedia value. It is claimed as public company. still only 1 paragraph to write about like its a Bloomberg business profile.
Light2021 (
talk) 08:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Salt as especially for advertising, note this has literally been deleted 3 times in the past few years, including the 2013 AfD itself, since 2013 was still a troublesome where advertisements were still noticeably accepted and not deleted as they should've; therefore, it's not surprising that not only the 1 involved account was an advertising-only account tied to another, now both kicked, this article's contents are all still PR advertising, none of it coming close to actual substance, and we shouldn't expect any since the actual author was an advertising-only account.
When we start accepting such blatancy and question whether company-initiated advertising is compromisable, we're damned as an encyclopedia.
SwisterTwistertalk 20:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- it looks like the company could be notable, given that it's public, but I was unable to find any sources to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps too soon (as shown by the relatively low revenue of $100M).
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: inexplicably the article doesn't mention their best known product,
Metasploit which is one of the most widely-used tools of its type. Of course just because Metasploit is notable, it doesn't infer notability on Rapid7 but IMO it makes it worth keeping.. just.
Shritwod (
talk) 09:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Metasploit then; this would preserve the article history and could be reverted to a stand-alone article should the company become more notable.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and SALT. Between 2010 and now, this page has been deleted three times and keeps on coming back. Article is purely promotional, company is just not notable and fails
WP:ORG. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 14:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NALBUM. Did not chart.
Magnolia677 (
talk) 11:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
To say the song isn't notable because the article isn't extensive is unfair. I personally remember a lot of buzz about this song, though the article needs SEVERE expansion. I still feel there's reason to keep the article, but it needs major expansion.
Aleccat (
talk) 21:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 14:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per coverage identified above, passes GNG.
Cavarrone 12:36, 15 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 13:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't find any references to this program outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. Of the two external links provided, one is a broken link and the other doesn't mention this program. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 14:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:V, no reliable secondary sources listed nor available.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 19:43, 13 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 22:04, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This article has no sources cited. It is fancruft and listcruft of the worse kind. Take it to a Dr Who wiki if wanted, but it's not encyclopaedic.
Bondegezou (
talk) 13:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Like stated, this article is just completely unsourced fancruft. I'm not finding any sources that back up why the idea of "historical characters" appearing on one specific show about time travel is particularly notable as a group. Additionally, the article itself is not especially great, as its title claims its about historical figures, and then goes on to include a huge amount of completely fictional characters.
64.183.45.226 (
talk) 19:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment (warning extremely tongue-in-cheek), above editors obviously
Star Trek fans.
Coolabahapple (
talk) 23:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The list cites the episodes in which these historical figures were dramatized, and those episodes are reliable for their own content. So while it would be correct to note there are no secondary sources, it is not correct to say there are "no" sources. This is a persistent point of confusion among editors when dealing with articles about cultural works. postdlf (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, you are right that
MOS:FICT does allow the use of the work itself to act as a source for basic information about the work. I was using a shorthand to refer to reliable, independent, secondary sources, which is what is needed to satisfy
notability criteria. I also note that this article fails
MOS:FICT in almost every other way. 18:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bondegezou (
talk •
contribs)
"No sources" is not a clear or appropriate shorthand to use for "no sources supporting notability", because it instead suggests you're claiming unverifiability. Keep also in mind
WP:BEFORE; the present lack of sources in an article is not relevant to deletion, rather what matters is if no sources can be found. postdlf (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The use of historical characters in Doctor Who was one of the original points of the show, and has received substantial attention in reliable sources, including books about the show (e.g.
[18][19] )and other media (e.g.
[20][21]). Even if there is some debate about the extent of RS coverage of this subject, I'd view this article as a valid spinoff in the overall structure of Doctor Who coverage. --
Arxiloxos (
talk) 05:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment The use of historical characters in Doctor Who is certainly an important part of the show and its own history. That Doctor Who did this is something that should be and is described in the Doctor Who article, with some pertinent examples. That's where your first two references come in. However, that's not a reason for an unreferenced,
WP:INUNIVERSE-style list here that makes no distinction between the very different uses, from an
WP:OUTUNIVERSE perspective, of historical characters in the William Hartnell era with Barack Obama appearing in The End of Time or Nefertiti in "Dinosaurs on a Spaceship". Your third reference fails RS (not independent), so only your fourth reference directly speaks to an article like this, and it's not the job of an encyclopaedia to replicate a lazy listicle clickbait article.
Bondegezou (
talk) 10:30, 14 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 15:47, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The content of this article, including its context appears unsuitable for Wikipedia, for not being encyclopedic.
♥ShriSanamKumar♥ 13:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Article reads more like a promotional piece. If the necessary changes where made, I'd change my vote to keep.
Keep and Revise, as suggested by the article's original author. Though, why he didn't do that earlier, is beyond me. (Not an attack, but genuine puzzlement.) N. GASIETA|talk 21:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and Revise. The article refers to a popular website entity with a large world-wide following, covers relevant topics which include publications of said entity. It goes without saying that the article must be revised to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone but to go from that to a full-on deletion would be unwise. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 14:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Revised History section to adhere to a more encyclopedic tone. Any other revisions would be more than welcomed. --
Omer Toledano (
talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I'm not convinced with the sources. We require significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. All I see are passing mentions or articles written by the author of the site. I do not see any secondary coverage and we specifically require that. I would be glad to change by !vote, but after extensive searching I was unable to find any. Please not that the Forbes and HuffingtonPost sources are contributor articles (not staff article) and hence count was
WP:SPS - not good enough for notability. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk) 18:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a vanity page on an unremarkable web site; sources are not there for GNG or CORP.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 06:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I concur with the comments above, nothing actually convincing and there's nothing to suggest the current sources aren't PR or republished PR and triviality, because they in fact are. A keep vote acknowledging the concerns is enough to suggest this is in fact deleted, regardless of any notability, and that's clear enough.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:06, 20 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Fails
WP:ORG.
WP:CSD#A7 wrongly declined even though the lead sentence clearly states "JTVNews Is The News Division Of JTV". -
MrX 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete There are NO signs of notability, based on what's in this article. If there are any reliable sources, subject needs to add. Otherwise, this article needs to be deleted.
Scorpion293 (
talk) 03:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Non-notable, almost unintelligible - I assume it refers to
JTV (Indonesia) not
JTV (New Zealand) - If we were sure, it could possibly be made a redirect -
Arjayay (
talk) 14:01, 14 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 15:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. A list like this will not be maintained long-term. I notice the "current" stats have not recently been updated. Fails
WP:NOTSTATS,
WP:NOTMIRROR and
WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anyone wanting to see a list of these averages is better referred to one of the two main specialist sites that publish cricket statistics or, better still, to the latest Wisden or Playfair. Jack | talk page 13:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same problems arise:
No maintenance or update. Fails same criteria. Jack | talk page 14:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - just seems like a massive and overly vague topic to be considered notable.
JMWt (
talk) 16:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep to
List of List A cricket records - Which section here isn't up to date? As you will see looking at the page history, I update this article regularly, as do others. If a section has a date last updated of over a year it is likely because no one has entered the top 10 or the top 10 hasn't changed.
Jevansen (
talk) 00:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Also, given that the deletion rationale doesn't apply to the above list and it has no connection to
List of cricket batting averages other than being another cricket related list, can you please make this a separate nomination like you have with the others?
Jevansen (
talk) 00:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTSTATS. As Jack noted, these sorts of lists are never updated to the standard they should be. Wikipedia doesn't need to be a (poor-quality) duplicate of other websites. IgnorantArmies(talk) 07:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the list of batting averages one. Impossible to keep up to date reasonably for starters, but more pertinently it's just stats. A summary of key examples could be used on the page about batting averages.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. If, as
Jevansen says, there are people out there maintaining this, then it seems a reasonably important list to have, although its title really ought to include the words "Test", "LOI" and "T20I", and perhaps the word "highest" would be useful. With all these lists, my view is that if it doesn't do any harm, is well-maintained and answers a question about cricket that someone might reasonably ask, then I see no need to delete. Not every user of WP can wander into their local bookstore to locate a copy of Wisden or Playfair.
Johnlp (
talk) 09:42, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The editors responsible cant't even be bothered to find out who has the 10th best T20I average among retired players. It is just a copy of 3 pages on ESPNcricinfo
WP:NOTMIRRORSpike 'em (
talk) 15:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
And looking into who was 10th, I realise all has been done is the move of 1 column in the cricinfo list. I can see no rationale about who appears on the retired list other than they haven't played for a year or 2. Have Cameron White and Misbah-ul-Haq really retired from this form of cricket, or just aren't being picked anymore. I've also gone and added Ravi Bopara, though I don't think he has retired either.
Spike 'em (
talk) 16:03, 7 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 16:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Ten years later, the reasons offered for deletion in 2006 are now easier to establish because the use of the terminology remains insignificant. This article appears to represent an abuse of Wikipedia's crowd sourcing practices to promote a term activists only recently coined as "agnostic theism".
Though the general concepts have been discussed on rare occasions in philosophical publications, such as two cited in the article, the citations establish the discussion of concepts, but they do not establish a historical or significant use of the term "agnostic theism", which was only recently coined. Outside of the discussion on a blog or two, the term does not appear to have caught on in popular use and the the term has no significant philosophical history. This may be because the terminology is contradictory to most readers understanding of "agnostic" and "atheist" where the term is seen as a contradiction.
There are, multiple criteria supporting this article's deletion.
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including *neologisms:...
My detailed investigation show that this article promotes a neologism.
7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
I cannot find reliable sources showing this terminology is used or accepts with ssignificant frequency or context.
I have been unsuccessful in establishing legitimate sources in academic philosophy to support the idea that the terminology "agnostic theism" is widely used, or even known.
The term "agnostic theism" (and "theistic agnosticism") is found in a couple atheist blogs and an activist author Austin Cline writing for about.com. Cline cites no history or sources to establish the use of the terminology, or that it is in significant use.
The article citations refer to sources discussing an idea that there may be an overlap between theism and one form of agnosticism, but they do not establish nor propose to establish "agnostic theism" or 'theistic agnosticism" as terminology their philosophical peers should adopt to describe the overlap they discuss. That is, the sources don't support the use of the term.
8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines WP:N and WP:GNG
The terms the article calls a philosophical concept appear neither as subject titles nor in the content of the three accessible internet philosophy encyclopedias: Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy or Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
The meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism. This contradicts the articles lead statement saying that "agnostic theism" encompasses both theism and agnosticism.
One of the citations is a broken link. The title referred to cannot be found.
Credible and meaningful citations to the term "agnostic theism" with as described in the article do not appear to exist.
The objections to deletion in 2006 included claims that 'agnostic theism" is a "widely used term." Its use appears to be negligible on the whole, and may only appear to be "widely used" by those who search out and read the blogs and about.com.
Keep - The sources currently in the article, though they are few, are strong enough for the concept to meet the
general notability guideline. Part of the argument in the nomination would apply to
agnostic atheism as well (i.e. "the meaning of the term agnosticism entails the rejection of both theism and atheism"). Furthermore, I disagree; agnosticism isn't an alternative to theism and atheism, nor is it mutually exclusive with atheism, one can be an
agnostic theist or an
agnostic atheist. In regard to "One of the citations is a broken link": per
WP:LR, "
Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online", but rather merely that it exists.—
Godsy (
TALKCONT) 00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Nothing in the article suggests that "agnostic theism" is a discussed concept, let alone notable. Wikipedia is
not an essay.--
Rpclod (
talk) 02:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
@MRD2014 and @Godsy, thank you for providing your comments. Here are the applicable rules.
The WP:RULES case for deletion: I came to edit this article to add citations and detail, but I couldn't reliable sources for "agnostic theism" or "theistic agnosticism" being a notable philosophical term. Yet the first line of the lead:"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism." I believe this article from line one is in need of support and violates the following WP policies. unless reliable sources can be found for all of the content, which appears to be original research. Our article needs reliable sources showing that "agnostic theism" is a noteworthy topic of discussion. Here are the relevant Wikipedia "nutshell" descriptions with links to the relevant section.
This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.
Another concern I have is with the existing sources. The sources support the idea, but they do not show that the concept has ever been noteworthy or that the idea of "agnostic theism" is actually in noteworthy use.
This page in a nutshell: This guideline discusses how to identify reliable sources. The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability. This requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.
This page in a nutshell: Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations.
It may be that those calling to "keep" will be more successful at finding reliable verifiable sources for "agnostic theism" as a noteworthy and support for the article's content.
My research on this term found no authoritative sources showing that there is notable philosophical use of the therm "agnostic theism" in philosophical resources. I also found no noteworthy sources stating that they or someone else is regarded by philosophers to be an "agnostic theist". The article only speculated that some people were "agnostic atheism' by relying on original research. With so little support and no verification that there are reliable sources discussing the topic of 'agnostic theism' the term is a neologism.
Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term.
Taking a look at the first citation, for example, where the lead defines the term "agnostic atheism" of the article. The following is not supported by the citations:
"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
The single referenced source, George Hamilton Smith, is not a reliable source. He was a lay "political philosopher" without the academic credentials required to be seen as authoritative on this topic. Even if he were reliable, the citation doesn't verify because he does not tell us anything about the meaning of the term "agnostic theism," the term the citation is saying he defined.
At best, the way it is now, the article builds the definition using original research from a single lay source and no sources on 'agnostic theism". A valid citation must be someone with credentials in philosophy telling us the meaning of agnostic theism'.
If you think I'm wrong on the above please straighten me out. I'm very open to the possibility that I'm mistaken. If reliable verifiable sources can establish that this is a term with notable use rather than a neologism, I'll withdraw the deletion request.
Delete I see only three references, one of which is dead. The two that work reference agnosticism... just agnosticism, not "agnostic theism." The fact that there does not seem to be enough notability for the specific term is sufficient grounds for deletion.
TechBear |
Talk |
Contributions 05:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP. There are plenty of scholarly papers that talk about Kierkegaard's agnosticism - and he was certainly a theist. Also see section on religious agnosticism in
https://www.britannica.com/topic/agnosticism . Also, wikipedia articles are about concepts, not terms.
JimWae (
talk) 07:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
In response to the forgoing 'Keep' opinion, there are no third party sources that tell us about the meaning of the term 'agnostic theism'. The term and its definition appear to be a synthesis of ideas to produce a neologism. Nothing in the article is supported by reliable sources making describing a topic with this name.
From: WP:3PARTY
Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter.
I thank you all for your replies. I think we still need to address the question concerning compliance with Wikipedia policies about original research, reliable sources, and verifiability. It would be sincerely appreciated if someone requesting 'keep' either add the missing citations, or tell me how you think this article complies with our WP policies.
@JimWae We think we need a source saying Kierkegaard was an 'agnostic theist', we cannot draw that conclusion ourselves. I think it is original research if we coin the terms "agnostic theism' or 'theistic agnosticism' and make up our own definition for the terminology. We need reliable verifiable third party sources establishing the existance of the philosophical terminology and stating what the term means. If we make up the term and its meaning, I think we'll be creating a neologism. Please let me know why you disagree. or even better, add the citations.
@Godsy @MRD2014 I don't think the existance of
agnostic atheism addresses the problem that this article cannot be supportaed by reliable, verifiable, third party sources that can bring the article into compliance with Wikipedia policies. I would greatly appreciate your views on this topic. Adding citations that address the problem would be even better and put the discussion to rest. How does this article meet notability guidelines if we can't find the requisite sources.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Summary of the delete rationale: The article creates two neologisms, 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' using original research; there are no reliable verifiable sources using these terms or stating their meaning. These neologisms can be found only on a couple cause-related blogs and a cause-related interest writing for about.com. No independent reliable third party sources can be found using or defining these supposedly 'philosophical' terms. The article body describes the original research needed for a step by step synthesis citing controversial philosophies implied to be mainstream. No opposition views can be found representing the opposing view because the terms are too new and unknown outside of the cause. Wikipedia is the only available encyclopedia source with an article on these terms, including philosophy encyclopedias.
From "WP:Original Research"WP:OR - "all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves."
From "RWP:Reliable sources"
WP:RS - "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception..."
From "WP:Verifiability"
WP:V - "Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations."
From: "WP:Independent"
WP:IS - "Identifying and using independent sources (also called third-party sources) helps editors build non-promotional articles that fairly portray the subject, without undue attention to the subject's own views. Using independent sources helps protect the project from people using Wikipedia for self-promotion, personal financial benefit, and other abuses." "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter."
The following quote from the article text defining the topic is contrary to the above policies, a condition that cannot be corrected:
"Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. It can also mean that there is one high ruler, but it is unknowable or unknown who or what it is."
At this time, none of the editors responding 'keep' has argued that these deficiencies can be addressed:
@Patar knight, if I understand your point correctly, you are saying that there are a notable number of people using this term or it would not have 600 hits on Google's hit counters. The problem is that this doesn't address the problem I think we must address. That problem is that we cannot use Wikipedia voice to open up an article telling readers "Agnostic theism, also called theistic agnosticism is the philosophical view that encompasses both theism and agnosticism," without reliable, verifiable, sources, including third-party independent sources that define "agnostic theism" and "theistic agnosticism" and specifically define these terms to attribute the meaning the article claims. The one citation cited doesn't use either of thes terms, nor does it define them. Without the requisite sources we are not in compliance with the important Wikipedia policies and guidelines I listed above. We can't use our own reasoning to arrive at conclusions, we can only say things when they are properly sourced. KSci(talk) 19:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC) KSci(talk) 04:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Unsourced original essay about a non-notable neologism, as nearly as I can tell.Carrite (
talk) 17:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Hmmmm... Although Patar knight's "but it gets 600 hits" argument isn't as effective as actually putting up three or four book links for us to examine here, a quick glance at the Google Books hits for the term quickly verifies that what they say is true: this is a readily used, scholarly term appearing in multiple published sources and seems a concept about which an article can readily be moved past a simple dictionary definition. Passes GNG.
Carrite (
talk) 17:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: It is a thing on
social media; I've seen people labeled themselves as such. Our core readership might be looking for this article. If it is not kept, the closing sysop should take serious consideration to redirect it or merge instead.
Bearian (
talk) 17:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The problem is with the sources: Thanks for your comments, and I apologize for this repetition. I'd like to redirect our discussion back to addressing the actual problem. This article's subject terms 'agnostic theism' and 'theistic agnosticism' and their meanings must be attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. What I found is that these terms and their meaning cannot be so attributed, but instead appear to be neologism. Neologisms are often in use by their promoters, so showing that the terms are in use doesn't address the concern that matters. Wikipedia's policies require that the terms the article is about and everything in the article must be directly attributed to reliable, verifiable, independent (third party) sources. I think there aren't any such sources for these terms. In this discussion nobody has yet to address this particular concern. Also, combining this article with another article would not address the sourcing problem either. Thanks again for your patience. KSci(talk) 20:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
agnosticism - There are enough sources to mention it somewhere on Wikipedia, but I fail to see a compelling argument for why we need a stand-alone article for a neologism that seems to so clearly be a flavor of
agnosticism. Indeed, that article touches on atheism and theism, quoting e.g. Kierkegaard. I'm surprised not to see anyone else suggesting a merge. If, in the future, this concept begins to take up an undue portion of the space in the agnosticism article, and/or if the body of literature on the concept sufficiently distinguishes it for a stand-alone article, then I wouldn't be opposed to spinning it off again. At this point, however, merge. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 00:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@Rhododendrites in addition to the points you raised, a merge into
agnosticism would give the content visibility to more editors so it would no longer be neglected as it appears to have been as a separate subject. What you suggest appears to be a workable alternative. KSci(talk) 03:06, 16 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
references provided give no indication of notability-mostly trade paper mentions. this appears to be a nonnotable travel business.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk) 13:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.
Spam created in violation of Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. Non
notable business.
duffbeerforme (
talk) 08:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article by a blocked user whose contributions were almost entirely on this article. The given references are routine announcements and a company conference report. My own searches are finding nothing better. A company going about its business but not
notable.
AllyD (
talk) 13:31, 7 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 09:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
O'Kelley is not only notable for winning Miss North Carolina USA, but so much so only notable for that that the article is stuck in time. The article still says O'Kelley is a junior at North Carolina State University, which she was in 2006-2007 when the article was created, but clearly is not 10 years later. Yet she is of so little note that not only do no editors bother to change this statement, but there are no sources to update it either other than a linkedin profile, that I am only mostly sure is for the same person. Her previous win in the teen competition is so minor, we do not even have contemporary sources on it, and it appears to me that the Charlotte Observer article used as a source is probably more on O'Kelley's successor than on her.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Subject won Miss North Carolina USA 2007 that is not enough to confer
notability. One reference (Charlotte Observer) lists "Eyes on the crown, with eyes on her", a dead link (Asheville Citizen-Times) listed twice "Roberson grad savoring thrills of Miss North Carolina crown", and a
way back machine reference that names a "Sarah Chakales" and "Jenelle Vannoy" receiving scholarships. A search brought up a listing at the Donna Baldwin Agency and this Wikipedia article. The bottom line is that this article will never advance pass a
stubpseudo-biography. She does not meet the
basic criteria for an article.
Otr500 (
talk) 10:35, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Despite her photo I sadly have to agree with
Otr500Domdeparis (
talk) 18:13, 7 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Promotional article on a non-notable artist. Speedy tag removed by a technically "independent" user, but both accounts have few edits and have edited the same articles. --
Finngalltalk 00:51, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
delete possible sock or meat puppet removed the delete tag. The single reference is not independent. gsearch only finds social networking or database sites.
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 01:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - by the admission of the author of the article, this photographer is a latecomer to serious photography and has only come to the attention of her local newspaper. Fails
WP:GNG at the moment.
Sionk (
talk) 18:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. What
Sionk says. --
Hoary (
talk) 11:26, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the subject has not received any serious critical attention.
Mduvekot (
talk) 23:43, 19 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:59, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Is this writer sufficiently notable? I don't think there is sufficient indication of it. (And as an aside, the article was created by an editor whose only edits are to this article.) Delete unless notability established. --
Nlu (
talk) 22:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: The two offered references are to books on French cuisine published more than 20 years ago; it is extremely improbable that they predicted the subject's 2016 book, so they cannot be considered as references for this
WP:BLP which is otherwise unsourced. Nor are my searches (albeit of non-Chinese sources only) finding better: fails
WP:AUTHOR,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk) 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete For a blogger, his blogs
[22] and
[23] are completely nonnotable.
Timmyshin (
talk) 14:55, 13 November 2016 (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.
Nothing to show notability
WP:BIO, just appears to be promotional for individual and work (
previous version for TimelineBlogs, now changes to promote GhOccasions)
KylieTastic (
talk) 13:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Promotional article for a subject who does not meet GNG.
JSFarman (
talk) 21:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I have G11 tagged as this is quite clearly advertising and we should've all saved ourselves serious time-efforts by simply starting with speedy.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable sub genre, the article appears
original research and no significant sources to indicate its notability. Redirect to
house music.
Karst (
talk) 10:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect per nom: article is full of
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH, and some contradictory statements. For example, it states that the music appeared in the 1990s as an amalgamation of house music and bass music, but the article for bass music states that it didn't emerge until the mid-2000s. The article also states (unsourced) that the first record of the genre was Double 99's "Rip Groove" in 2012, but that song was originally released in 1997.
Richard3120 (
talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (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. MBisanztalk 16:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The only references given are a blog and an advertisement placed by a person with
conflict of interest. It should also be noted that notability is not inherited (from his father, who was a notable magician).
Robert McClenon (
talk) 19:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
(
talk) @Robert McClenon| Hello, I have corrected the reference issues, and orphan link issues. Could you please remove the speedy deletion and close this discussion. Thank you.
Ibrahim skillz (
talk) 06:18, 24 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete promotional article with COI paragraphs. The subject does not beat the GNG benchmark since notability isn't inherited. —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 21:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep The article is indeed promotionaly written, but a reference search turns up numerous mentions, some of which are medium-quality sources, such as
this. There's enough there to keep. He seems to be very widely mentioned in the Nigerian press. This makes me wonder if
Systemic bias should be taken into account.
104.163.140.57 (
talk) 20:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete instead as what's been shown in his career is enough, and suggesting "there's potential" is not what improves an article by itself and convinces us it's in fact acceptable, therefore there's currently enough to suggest it's simply unacceptable at this time. The listed award is not convincing and the other information is simply not convincing of a substantial article, hence delete. I also concur with the earlier comment of there being no inherited notability from simply another person, which seems to be the case here perhaps since it begins with said other person.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:53, 23 November 2016 (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.
Insufficient independent reliable sources with significant discussion. Most used source is a Forbes blog (see
here on sorting out the kinds of things you find at Forbes) - other refs cited are also laudatory in-bubble in the online marketing hype world. I did a google search ten pages out and it is just more of the same. There aren't sufficient independent, non-Woo! sources with which we can actually write a decent, neutral, encyclopedia article on this person; we just have a
WP:PROMO piece now.
Jytdog (
talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sam Walton (
talk) 10:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. author or even coauthor of a NYT bestseller is 1notability . Authors are notable for the books they write, and references or lack of references on their persona life is irrelevant. DGG (
talk ) 08:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
User:DGG surprising. There is a whole world of hypers like this. See
The Syndicate (business group) - we succeeded by the skin our teeth to get the articles on the individuals in that hype-circle condensed to that. This guy is just more of the same. Online hype. But what matters are good refs with substantial discussion; we don't have them on this person.
Jytdog (
talk) 08:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, I am generally very skeptical about people in this field. But when they write best-selling books, they become notable authors, and we have to cover them. The principle is NPOV. DGG (
talk ) 15:46, 14 November 2016 (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 soundtrack article was created as the main article had grown too large. Oh god, what a crime.
Kailash29792 (
talk) 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Avoid vague arguments. Please provide sizes in your arguments to enable others value it. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits} 10:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect/merge into
1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack - From quick glance, there seems to be enough reliable sources to warrant the existence of the topic. However, I do believe that it can be merged into
1: Nenokkadine#Soundtrack. As an example, merging the track listing and release section into the main article would not be harmful. The readable prose size of
1: Nenokkadine is 22 kB, while the readable prose size of the soundtrack article is only 1094 B.
WP:SIZERULE says that length alone does not justify division. Therefore, a merge would be appropriate. —
SomeoneNamedDerek (
talk) 04:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect/merge to
1: Nenokkadine: Can be adjusted in parent article. Above size-analysis gives more insight into issue (however I don't agree with "enough" rs thing. Most of cited sources are of questionable-reliability).
Anup[Talk] 11:03, 8 November 2016 (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. MBisanztalk 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:45, 7 November 2016 (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.
Joyous! |
Talk 03:08, 24 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. I used an earlier version of this article as a screenshot to illustrate the
WP:CORPSPAM Signpost Op-Ed I wrote last year. It was deleted, but it has been recreated since by
User:Ferma with the edit summary "clearly notable". Well, I don't see it - please explain how this small company doing business as usual passes our notability criteria. Pinging
User:Randykitty who added notability tag, and
User:Stesmo who was also involved in editing this and noted that most of the content here is trivial (well, of course there is, because there is no in-depth coverage to speak of - company exists, and this is all we can say...
WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Coverage is all trivial, no notability apparent. --
Randykitty (
talk) 09:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Major law firms are significant, and this firm has clearly long been one of the leading law firms in Colorado. A long string of distinguished attorney, including Senator
Gary Hart and Supreme Court Justice
Byron R. White are alumni of the firm; the pages of these notable people link to this page and it is useful to have this information available, even though the page needs to be improved.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 17:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Notability is inherited, so it doesn't matter who worked or works there. And which part of NCORP states that "major law firms are significant"? Heck, do you even have a source that states it is a major law firm? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete instead as this only has the expected sources and information that comes with this article, none of it substantiating to actual substance and significance and the history and past deletion suggest enough; there's nothing beyond the trivial information listed to suggest better.
SwisterTwistertalk 22:36, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Seek and ye shall find. (corollary: those who do not look, do not find.)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Sources Here
[24] is a 1979 New York Times article about hos the energy boom was causing Davis Graham to grow very fast, and to compete for the first time for the nation's top law school grads. Here
[25] Davis Graham is described as " a major Denver law firm". Here a Nevada newspaper describes Davis Graham as "known for its corporate finance, energy and mining, natural resources and..." Here
[26] the
Washington Post describes the firm as one of Colorado's largest, one of a number of articles about the firm in the Post; several of which cover the firm's Washington office - which ws opened in 1982
[27]. Having a D.C. office is a sure sign that a law firm is of more than local importance. I remind editors that the quesiton at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The NYT article describes law firms in Denver (not just this one), and mentions it as one of the Denver law firms, but it is not an in-depth coverage, and it opens with "NOT one of Denver's law firms ranks among the top 100 in the country." which suggests this is not a firm of national importance. Nor is there any source that suggests it is a major regional (Colorado) firm. It is just a local company, and according to
The Durango Herald (a local Colorado newspaper with a very small circulation) it is a "a major Denver law firm", and yes, the same is said by a much bigger
Washington Post (
[28]), but it is not an in-depth coverage, but a mention in passing.
[29] is pretty much business as usual irrelevant trivia mention. Nothing shown suggests the company passes GNG or NCORP - the coverage is passing, and arguing that "it is notable because it has offices in Washington" is grasping at straws, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: "the question at AFD is not whether sources presently in article confirm notability, but, rather, do sources exist that confirm notability". Absolutely. However, this should not be interpreted that those sources do not need to be shown here to exist. Just arguing that it's likely those sources exist doesn't do it. --
Randykitty (
talk) 07:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
In fact, the NYTimes article you dismiss contains solid information on this firm, "When Mr. Hoagland, a graduate of Yale University and the Columbia law school, arrived at Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Byron White (now a United States Supreme Court Justice) was practicing there, but was still definitely small‐townish. No Denver firm had more than 10 lawyers then. Now Davis, Graham & Stubbs and three other firms — Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard; Holland & Hart, and Holme, Roberts & Owen — have 80 to 100 lawyers each." Brief discussions in RS can be assembled into good articles.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 13:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
More sources [[U.S. News & World Report]
[30].
Lex MundiFirst ‘Best Law Firms’ Analysis Slots Davis Graham & Stubbs as a National Leader[31].
Martindale-Hubbell "For the last 90 years, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP has ranked among the region's most prominent law firms..."
[32]. Comment I hope editors who specialize in law firms will look at this. To me, it appears that we risk losing verified, useful information (about a firm linked from the bio pages of a series of major national figures) if we delete this page on a firm that can be expanded by brief references to it in RS, including the national media that I linked to above, and from information found in a number of biographies. I do not think it is a stretch to assume that an aritcle on a law firm that has been a leading regional firm for almost a century, and that has had a D.C. office since before Al Gore invented the internet, is likely to have sources that can lead to a better article. I do think that the sources already in the article and those that I have provided suffice to establish notability. And also that when a firm's alumni are such a distinguished bunch, lack of notability is unlikely.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
No, this is not a passing mention in a single paragraph; it is
signifcantly more than that. And it's nothing like the Yellow Pages as there are zero "phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses".
Andrew D. (
talk) 14:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that I have added some sources to the article. This AFD appears to have been brought and is now being defended in an instance of
WP:POINTy. To me, an editor who works frequently at AFD, this AFD appears to be becoming a
WP:BOOMERANG, demonstrating that major regional law firms almost always pass
WP:GNG if editors make good-faith efforts to source them. I suggest that Nom might want to demonstrate good faith by flagging editors who disagree with his position, in addition to known allies on the point he wants to make.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 14:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I am sorry, I don't think we interact often so I can't remember who might, in the past, have had disagreed or support some points in discussions. I pinged some users in the OP as they were part of the article's history. But in the gesture of good faith, I'll invite you to look at my prod at
Vicente Sederberg, LLC - can you find better refs? Do you believe we should deprod it and take it to AfD? I certainly am no fan of stealthy deletions. Discussions are good, as long as we are all trying to fix this project. I do however encourage you to read my OP-ED at
WP:CORPSPAM, so you can see where I am coming from. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I certainly agree that CORPSPAM is a problem, but I do not agree that deleting articles on notable corporations is the solution - even in the case where a firm monitors it's page and repeatedly whitewashes it/turns it into an advert. in re:
Vicente Sederberg, LLC, the firm has certainly found a market niche (promoting legalized marijuana) that garners it a great deal of media coverage. Far too much coverage to make deletion by PROD appropriate, in my opinion. (My google news search here:
[33] I suggest that you withdraw the PROD. You might then decide to turn it into a reasonably good article, to leave it tagged for improvement, or to take it to AFD.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -- notability is generally not inherited, but in this case sufficient number of notable people worked there. Per recent article improvements, sources seem OK for GNG.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 16:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. the material in the article is so trivial that it makes it likely that nothing better could be found. The awards is for "Top 150 Under 150" list of leading midsized US law firms. Real evidence it was the leading law firm in the country would be notability , and I'd even consider the top 10 or so as presumptive. But top 150, and not just top 150, but top 150 of a subsidiary category? Other ranks are best in a niche in one particular small state, and references for a few of its attorneys who turned out to be notable for their later careers. DGG (
talk ) 08:51, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - large, 101-year-old law firm, with notable lawyers, thus passing
my standards. FWIW, I have tended to be more inclusionist than
DGG as far as law firms are concerned.
Bearian (
talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
"deleted ... recreated since"? Let us be very clear about the chronology. The article on this law firm was deleted as an expired PROD on 9 April 2015. I would have removed the PROD notice if I had seen it, but no matter, the old article was pretty rudimentary anyway, so I wrote a new article, based on the cited sources, less than 24 hours later. The new article has been sitting there happily for the last 18 months. This law firm is clearly notable. As I wrote
elsewhere about the same time: "there seems to have been a spate of summary deletions of obviously notable law firms recently, such as
Bae, Kim & Lee,
Gleiss Lutz [ed: since recreated], and
Cuatrecasas [ed: now a disambiguation page]. These are among the largest law firms in South Korea, Germany and Spain, respectively ... I think these deletions are just plain wrong. ... No doubt there may be unduly promotional material in this sort of article, like any other article about a commercial organisation or product, but that is a reason to improve them and make them more neutral, not a reason to delete them.."
Ferma (
talk) 00:18, 18 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep a clear consensus has developed that the article should be kept. (non-admin closure).
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Only one source, which looks like it was prepared by the subject, or a friend or associate of the subject
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk) 08:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as per page two of the source dismissed by the nom, there were two obits in national newspapers and a retirement biography of her in the major national magazine of her profession.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 08:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Also: Dedicated to lifting nursing standards in the
Gisborne herald, 5 Sep 2001; p.10 24cm.
Stuartyeates (
talk) 08:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. While the stub doesn't show notability, she was included in government-published encyclopedia, and that means she is notable by that virtue. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep There is community consensus that people with a DNZB entry are inherently notable. Schwede66 15:58, 7 November 2016 (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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 00:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. The list has no context to indicate what Veginati and Gotrams are, and even if that context were added, there are no sources provided. --
Metropolitan90(talk) 14:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: I'm not quite sure what encyclopedic purpose this article is supposed to serve. it lacks sourcing and context to understand the topic. As of now, it looks like an unwanted page for Wikipedia.
Anup[Talk] 14:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - uninformative and no evidence of passing
WP:GNGSpiderone 21:30, 11 November 2016 (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 The only thing notable about this guy (so far) is his relatives.
18abruce (
talk) 12:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep He was named to the Hockey East All-Rookie team last year and has a high probability of meeting
WP:NHOCKEY requirement #4 or #6 this season or next. There is also a significant amount of news coverage for him from NCAA hockey sources, for
WP:GNG requirements.
Mushh94 (
talk) 15:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect Per Rlendog. That seems to be the norm in cases like this. He's clearly not notable, but it's a plausible search term.
Smartyllama (
talk) 20:10, 17 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:00, 7 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Way way too early for this guy, nothing notable about him yet.
18abruce (
talk) 12:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Umm... Delete Move to draft space Funny because I created this article, but I believe it is a bit early for Lockwood, as he has not enter the minors yet. WikiPancake 14:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails NHOCKEY and as far as I can find he fails GNG so not notable. -
DJSasso (
talk) 16:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as the one major team listed, he was not even an actual player, and then the other is a college team, hence there's nothing convincing here.
SwisterTwistertalk 02:37, 13 November 2016 (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.
Brian training programmes are a scam, the evidence shows that they have no actual effect. Amazingly, this distinctly promotional article instead notes that the brain is more plastic than previously imagined - which may or may not be true but is of course irrelevant to the fact that these training programmes don't work.
So I tried to make the article more neutral, but as I investigated the sources I found that those cited are
churnalism - press releases printed in the newspapers without investigation or commentary - and I found no evidence of anything else that could be used instead. Guy (
Help!) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent
reliable sources.
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree.
But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere—an important asset for children or adults struggling with issues of attention and focus. ... Moreover, many of the tasks that Learning Rx uses are the same kinds used by other cognitive trainers, except that they have been translated from a computer format to tabletop exercises performed with playing cards and other materials.
On this Wednesday evening at the Upper Montclair, N.J., outlet of LearningRx, a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter.
“We measure every student pre- and post-training with a version of the Woodcock-Johnson general intelligence test,” said Ken Gibson, who began franchising LearningRx centers in 2003, and has data on more than 30,000 of the nearly 50,000 students who have been trained. “The average gain on I.Q. is 15 points after 24 weeks of training, and 20 points in less than 32 weeks.”
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year.
Clients don't typically arrive by doctor referral. What's being sold is cognitive improvement by coaching. All clients are tested, then assigned to a trainer. Most are children and teens who face challenges with such skills as reading, concentrating and problem solving and who often have low grades, said Linda Conlee, owner of the Lake Oswego franchise.
She decided to enroll her children in LearningRx, a Colorado-based program that works to strengthen the brain's cognitive skills so students can learn more quickly and easily.
The program first came to Minnesota two years ago. Since then, four more LearningRx franchises have opened in the state, including the newest center in Eagan.
Although the program bills itself as beneficial for anybody, students with cognitive and learning disabilities, such as attention deficit disorder and dyslexia, are flocking to it. Some parents say the benefits are so great that their children can go off their medications.
But experts remain skeptical that a program could produce such dramatic results.
Canan Karatekin, associate professor of child development at the University of Minnesota's Institute of Child Development, said research shows it's possible to improve cognitive functions. But she says programs, like LearningRx, should be independently researched.
LearningRx is used for a variety of learners, including students with learning disabilities, K-12 and college students who want to improve their academic skills, adults wanting to improve their job performance and senior citizens who want to stay mentally sharp, as stated in a LearningRx Inc. flier.
...
Ken Gibson, founder of LearningRx, discovered through his research that 80 percent of learning problems are cognitive weaknesses, Winchell said.
...
The program is designed to strengthen weak underlying processing skills, including attention, working memory, processing speed, logic and reasoning, visual processing, auditory processing and long-term memory. These skills are the foundation of a student's ability to learn and are the basic mental abilities used for thinking, studying and learning, according to LearningRx.
LearningRx, a Colorado Springs company that operates a franchised network of 80 tutoring centers in 25 states, is just beginning to recover after a 1½-year battle with the Federal Trade Commission over whether it could back up its advertising claims with scientific studies and other research.
The company settled in May a lawsuit filed in federal court last year by the agency that alleged it "deceptively claimed their programs were clinically proven to permanently improve serious health conditions like ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), autism, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, strokes, and concussions." The suit said LearningRx also claimed the "training substantially improved school grades and college admission test scores, career earnings, and job and athletic performance" and that its "brain training is 10 times more cost-effective than tutoring."
The settlement included a $4 million judgment against Learning Rx, though all but $200,000 was suspended, and bars the company from claiming its programs improve performance on the job or in athletics or increase cognitive function of people with age-related memory loss, dementia, Alzheimer's disease, ADHD, autism, traumatic brain injury or stroke.
...
LearningRx, formally known as LearningRx Franchise Corp., traces its roots back more than 30 years in Florida to Gibson's work as an pediatric optometrist to help his patients more easily learn to read. Gibson, who had difficulty reading as a child as a result of dyslexia, found that reading skills could be improved through "interval training" similar to what professional athletes use to raise the level of their athletic performance. He began to sell licenses for his research and reading program to other optometrists and later psychologists, numbering 500 by 2000.
The company behind the LearningRX “brain training” program has agreed to pay a $200,000 settlement and to stop making claims that its system is clinically proven to treat serious health conditions, or that it can dramatically improves a user’s IQ or income.
According to the complaint [PDF] filed with a federal court in LearningRx’s home state of Colorado, the company made numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program.
Included among the allegedly unsubstantiated statements made by LearningRx are boasts about the program’s ability to boost IQs, and therefore income.
...
In settling the complaint, LearningRx denies any wrongdoing, but agrees to pay $200,000 (of a $4 million judgment against the company) and to cease making unsubstantiated claims about the performance, benefits, or efficacy of their programs. LearningRx is also barred from misrepresenting the existence or results of any tests or studies, and from providing others with the means to make the prohibited claims.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has announced the developers and marketers of the LearningRx “brain training” programs have settled to pay $200,000 and agreed to stop making allegedly false and unsubstantiated claims.
The FTC had said LearningRx Franchise Corp and its CEO, Dr. Ken Gibson, made allegations that their programs were clinically proven to help with conditions like ADHD, autism, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, strokes and concussions. The company marketed these allegations through its website and blog, as well as Facebook, Twitter, print and radio ads and direct mail pieces. The FTC believes these claims were inaccurate and therefore deceptive.
Comment and analysis - This is all literally from the apparent sources above:
LearningRx turns out to be the most expensive, least supported by published research, and most aggressively marketed of the four leading cognitive training programs. It bears the curious distinction of being the only one set up as a franchise, like McDonald's with independent owners running each of the eighty-three LearningRx centers in twenty countries. And neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree....But hang on. LearningRx also has some unique assets, in particular that its training is offered in person, rather than on a computer, with a trainer encouraging each student to persevere
is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information, but it cares to go to actual specifics about "What the company will make you feel if you use it!" Nobody would care about that but only their own clients and investors (and it is a fact because it advertises its own words), and that's why it was supplied, and there was no actual journalism efforts; the fact it came from a book, that is not guaranteeing safety from company-initiated advertising, because if it's simply a guide, that's exactly what the company involves itself with. See the next one:
a chain of 83 “brain training” franchises across the United States, the goal is to improve cognitive skills. LearningRx is one of a growing number of such commercial services — some online, others offered by psychologists. Unlike traditional tutoring services that seek to help students master a subject, brain training purports to enhance comprehension and the ability to analyze and mentally manipulate concepts, images, sounds and instructions. In a word, it seeks to make students smarter. (information is followed by an extensive paragraph quote by the businesswoman giving number specifics about the company itself and what she thinks about it)
The next one is followed by:
Based in Colorado Springs, Colo., the LearningRx Franchise Corp. opened its first office in 2002. Today it has 40 centers across the country, including one that opened in Lake Oswego in early October, and expects to open 50 more within the next year. (following information is literally about business & clients overall, not the actual company)
The next article is literally about how and why people are using the company, followed by the specifics about where you can find the company, how to use it and the specific numbers so far....that's all company advertising because it's simply made by the company's own hands, not actual journalism efforts, hence it's company PR. The next one although about a law case, still cares to go to specifics about the localities and specifics about the company, which of course bear nothing for notability or substance, let alone significance, and the same can be said for the next article. When an "article" cares to mention "the company's goals and plans are...." you know that's not a journalism source talking, it's the own company.
Delete - Finally the last link listed here is, once again, about the company's business negotiations because of said law case, and what happened so none of that establishes notability, because not only was it still such a trivial law case, it would be shoehorning PR along with trivial pieces about a law case, something no one would honestly care about, especially if it's not showing any actual substance. When the best all can be offered is (beginning) advertising about how, where and why the company should be used by its clients and literal quotes from its own businesspeople, followed by law case situations, it honestly shows how bare genuine sources are.
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance, it's because there isn't any....especially not if there are still in fact articles about its own republished advertising. Another thing I'll note is that the current article is literally advertising "company history, "functions ["Company's clients are....") and "reception" where it lists quotes (not from media itself, but simply from named mentions).
SwisterTwistertalk 04:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)reply
is an entire sales pitch in that not only is it obviously listed and supplied by the information – the author called LearningRx the "most expensive, least supported by published research" and said "neither the franchise owners nor the trainers who work for them are required to have anything more than a four-year college degree". This is negative information. If the book were publishing advertising for LearningRx, it would omit this negative information.
I'll note that even the last 2 AfDs contained these same exact sources, so that's also saying something that, if after all these years, no one could get better substance – sources 6–8 were published in 2016, which is after
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx (2nd nomination) was closed 30 May 2015. The sources discuss the federal lawsuit against LearningRx for making "numerous unsubstantiated claims in the marketing of its program". The Consumerist, which focuses on "consumerism and consumers' experiences and issues with companies and corporations" (according to the Wikipedia article), does not "shoehor[n] PR along with trivial pieces about a law case".
Delete -- an unremarkable franchise company with some dubious claims. Tone of the article is promotional (despite one "negative" paragraph"). Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion by non-notable entities.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 05:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Whatever one's personal opinion about about the company or its product, the company clearly has signficant coverage in reliable sources and passed GNG and CORP. Sources posted above and in the article. The notion that it's promotional makes no sense in light of how many neutral editors have worked on it. Furthermore, simply being on Wikipedia is not promotional, it's the opposite.
Studies have shown that corporations with Wikipedia articles has a negative impact on stock price for a number of reasons but mainly due to open access to information. The crusaders trying to delete this article are helping LearningRx - the very thing they claim to be concerned about - by keeping information buried from public view. Regardless of that larger debate, for this article it passes notability as I noted in the first couple sentences. --
GreenC 14:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cunard and Green Cardamom.--
Taeyebar 23:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - Advertising is something we should take seriously and the comments of "Why should it matter?" are not applicable because this is exactly what it is as shown by my listed quotes where literally advertised company services are shown; the claims that Wikipedia in fact causes damages for companies because of these articles are not quite so because of the sheer fact they continue using said articles for advertising and any AfD about a blatant advertisement involving a company will show this. Once we start making any excuses about accepting advertising, we're damned.
Because of the blatancy of advertising, these are not "significant, notable and acceptable" because that's not acknowledging the advertising and the advertisement of this currently existing article. Also, simply saying "per users above saying Keep" is also not acknowledging the concerns or attempting to counteract them even though the concerns still apply.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. The article may suffer from low quality and PR-activities, but the company is notable. Covered by NYT, by other reasonably reliable media (
[34]) - through usually in a negative fashion (as a likely scam), but this is nonetheless in-depth coverage by a number of sources. There are also academic sources discussing the company's product:
[35],
[36]. The latter estabilish notability for the product, which can be discussed in the parent article about company. It's a shame that we are bickering here instead of improving the article. PR people should expand using sources that discuss their side of view, and critics have plenty of reliable criticism to cite. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
possibly Keep. but only if a responsible editor (such as
Piotrus ) is prepared to rewrite and maintain the article. The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. Some of the sources in the article or asserted above are useless PR, like the miranda and AP articles. Oneof the basic principles of WPis NPOV, and an article that cannot be maintained in an NPOV state should be deleted. DGG (
talk ) 03:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
DGG: With all due respect, and also with all of my dislike of spammers, I do not think this is TNTable. Tag it with NPOV, PROMOTIONAL and such templates, cut problematic materials, even gut it to a single lead sentence, but delete - if it is notable - I don't see why we should. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Obviously, we have no clear rule on when to use
WP:TNT. 5years ago, I was very reluctant to risk losing significant content, but now I see a priority in removing the half million existing promotional articles. -- and not adding to them, if we are to remain an encyclopedia. I suggest as a possible compromise, that they only be retained if someone is willign to personally take responsibility,instead of leaving it for the indefinite future. DGG (
talk ) 06:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The material in the article in the past does not honestly describe the subject, and omits important negative material. – I
rewrote the article in October 2015. Your suggestion that my rewrite "does not honestly describe the subject" is unproven, offensive, and in very bad faith.
The negative material about the lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission surfaced one year after my rewrite in October 2016. I
have updated the article to include this information.
Keep: Even if it is a scam, it is a notable scam and eligible for inclusion on encyclopedia (sources are cited in the article and provided above in this discussion).
Anup[Talk] 17:40, 12 November 2016 (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. Sandstein 15:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment If you search for the singles mentioned in the article you will get results and it is definitely her. See:
Greater Love,
Enough is Enough.
Hold onto Me,
Forever Young (2nd last entry). She seems to be credited as "XYZ FT Elizabth Troy" or similar difficult to parse-able names. Regarding notability, she seems to pass WP:MUSICBIO in several points. She had a several singles on the UK music charts, which were very likly aired in national broadcasting stations due to their chart positions. Sources are probably partially offline, because some of her work was in the 90s. Article should therefore not be deleted.
Dead Mary (
talk) 12:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Likely keep per Dead Mary's research - being featured vocalist for multiple acts prima facie passes
WP:NMUSIC, though I'd like RSes that are more than a passing mention in articles about Clean Bandit if we're to keep this BLP. (Also, the article needs some cleanup, saying the full band names.) -
David Gerard (
talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 22:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Here are some RS:
Washington Post reviews her "assured, diva level vocals" on "Sincere" with MJ Cole,
Cape Times confirms she's a backing vocalist for Matt Bianco,
Daily Mail describes her vocals on "Sincere,"
Straits Times mentions her work on "Sincere,"
Scotland on Sunday says that Troys's vocals elevate "Sincere,"
The Scotsman calls her vocals "honey tonsilled" and
LA Times review of her performance in 2014 (along with others). These resources establish that she's a respected musician in her field.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk) 00:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - she is a regular part of
Clean Bandit performances (which certainly meets notability guidelines). The structure of Clean Bandit is unusual in that it doesn't have a resident lead singer (apart from occasionally Grace Chatto). But since none of the permanent members of the band currently have their own biography pages then it seems inconsistent to list this one, given that Elisabeth Troy's primarily notability is for her work with that band.
Shritwod (
talk) 09:20, 18 November 2016 (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 organisation is not a total failure – it has been around for 282 years, which is longer than the USA, say. See also
&c..
Andrew D. (
talk) 18:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This is not April Fools, so let's stick to arguments that are at least semi-grounded in policy. I have never seen as ridiculous agreement for keeping an entry for organization as "it is old". There are many trees older than that, not to mention rocks, not that we should entries for them, you know. This is
WP:ITEXISTS fallacy. Please try to use
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG to base your arguments in. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 02:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
None of the links that Piotrus provides are policies; not one of them. My position is based on three separate policies:
WP:PRESERVE,
WP:ATD and
WP:NOTPAPER. Three policies trump three non-policies.
Andrew D. (
talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Piotrus – just for information, "&c" is another way (not so common now in the 21st century) of writing "etc" or "et cetera".
Richard3120 (
talk) 00:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I was able to find a few brief sources on the society:
BBC,
a book on Oxford,
St. Giles bell history website, but nothing in depth. Notability, if this society has it, will be in offline sources. There is some verifiable material; are there any decent merge/redirect targets? --
Mark viking (
talk) 03:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The BBC source is good enough as it is quite respectable and confirms the age of the institution. As it's so old, I'd expect there to be offline sources which a Google search won't reveal easily – like back issues of The Ringing World. We have a
Wikimedian-in-residence at Oxford who has good access to the
Bodleian and may be able to help with such topics. I was invited to an
Oxford Wikimeet recently; I'll visit and see what can be done.
Andrew D. (
talk) 07:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
It would be good to ask them. Let's however keep in mind that
WP:NOTNEWS, and while BBC is reliable, not everything they write about is notable. And if all we have to go with is a passing mention that "Foo organization, which is one of the oldest Foo organizations in UK, had a party" or something like this - it is not the stuff that makes it encyclopedic. We write only about important, i.e. notable organizations, and they have to meet GNG. 2-3 short sentences in passing do not suffice for that. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Added some reliable sources. the Oxford University Press book has details form which the article can be expanded. This is yet another example of an old organization for which sources are readily available that has a brief and poorly sourced article.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 16:24, 8 November 2016 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:49, 7 November 2016 (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. The one "keep" does not establish more than passing mentions. Sandstein 20:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 23:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I can't seem to find this term used in reliable sources. Cited book is published by
Xlibris (self-publishing). Could be a hoax or just a bad piece of research, mispronouncing another term. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – In case the tribe fails notability, Magsi can be kept as a
surname list article, as there are notable people with surname Magsi - for details, see this revision of Magsi. There is no primary topic here. So, need to add the tag "(surname)", i.e.,
WP:APOTITLE is not applicable. -
NitinMlk (
talk) 17:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk) 19:51, 7 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
User:Piotrus, as a side note, why don't you try to improve/expand articles instead of deleting them? You may have a point with this one, seen as it's a stub, but this deletionist pattern has a chilling effect.
Zigzig20s (
talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
User:Zigzig20s: because having created several thousand of articles, those days I am distressed by the flood of spam we are dawning in. See
WP:CORPSPAM for an Op-Ed I wrote on this. If I can create a chilling effect for spam... that would be great. Sadly, I don't believe my efforts are putting much of a dent in the spammers campaign to dilute our content with their vanity/PR content. But I try my best - as much as I'd love to go back to content creation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 08:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't think a philosopher is "spam". The way I see it, we'd need to flesh out what her philosophical ideas/contributions are, and thus add to the "the sum of all human knowledge". I would highly encourage you to make yourself happy and refocus on content creation!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 08:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, it's a spam in the meaning of failing
WP:NBIO, through I certainly would see it as a much better "spam" than entry for some company. But the bottom line is - not all philosophers are notable. If you want to talk about her as a researcher, you have to show how she meets
WP:PROF. Just working at a university and publishing a few books or articles which have had negligible impact is not enough to make it to an encyclopedia. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 09:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
She publishes in Polish and you speak Polish apparently. Why don't you try to expand her article instead of deleting it? My fear is that you're not just creating a chilling effect on spam, but on content creation as a whole. Please stop, and try to expand/improve articles!
Zigzig20s (
talk) 09:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Expand with what? There are no sources about her, Polish or otherwise. What am I supposed to write about her? That she exists? That is already in the article, and this is not sufficient to be in an encyclopedia. Find me a better source and I'll reconsider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 09:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There are matches on JSTOR for example. In Polish, could you not find more articles in the press or academic reviews of her books?
Zigzig20s (
talk) 09:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Matches, well, two (good finds though). Her 2015 article is not cited by anyone (but it is just a years old, so I can't criticize her for that). But the only other thing I see here is a 3 page edited volume introduction. I can't find her in
Polish scientist database. I can't find her CV. I am sorry, but as a scholar she fails
WP:PROF by a long-shot, and I were to say anything good it is that she has published one article with potential (her 2015), and maybe if she keeps it up and publishes in better venues she will be notable in few years. At best it is
WP:TOOSOON. If the creator would like to, we could userfy the article, through sadly they don't seem to want to participate in this discussion so far. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as nothing here for WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, nothing else better otherwise.
SwisterTwistertalk
Delete for lack of evidence of passing
WP:PROF. Spam floods and chilling affects aside, this sort of academic stub that lists just positions and a few publications, without even any honors to validate the subject's accomplishments, adds too little value to the encyclopedia to make it worth fighting to keep it. The Polish version is better, with several specific claims (directs a department, specializes in some research topics, advocates for liberal Judaism) but still doesn't provide convincing evidence of notability. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 02:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that this television program is notable. North America1000 23:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep:A notable serial running in a prominant television channel in West bengal.Also see the sources provided by
User:Anupmehra in his comment.Aru@baska❯❯❯ Vanguard 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: notability now demonstrated.
Bondegezou (
talk) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (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. czar 19:30, 16 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Non-notable company lacking non-trivial support. "References" are mostly articles by founder. Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited.
reddogsix (
talk) 04:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, no credible claim to notability. I have the same concerns about the biography of the company's namesake
Anders Gronstedt, which was written by the same account and is similarly weighted with primary sources, articles by Mr. Gronstedt.
2601:188:1:AEA0:5DBF:C661:34B1:B7C8 (
talk) 05:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment "Should possibly have been an A7, but another author misread the purpose of inherited" - are you talking about me?
Adam9007 (
talk) 19:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as certainly advertising and there are no sensible signs this can actually be accepted, therefore there's nothing to suggest anything close to otherwise better.
SwisterTwistertalk 22:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I just added 19 more secondary sources (16 journals and three books) that reference work by the Gronstedt Group, which should address the concerns that the article relies too much on primary resources and doesn’t meet the notability guidelines. I’ve also done substantial rewrites to remove promotional content and added encyclopedic content.
ClarkeCaywood (
talk) 01:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: Non-notable entity.
Anup[Talk] 17:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I pruned the number of references and left the most reliable ones, including detailed client case studies reported in books by industry leading professors, published by Stanford Business Books, Pfiffer, and McGraw-Hill, and a case in the Harvard Business Review. This is perhaps the most notable professional service firm in its industry.
ClarkeCaywood (
talk) 18:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - only one !vote per person.
reddogsix (
talk) 18:30, 13 November 2016 (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 as I've been watching this AfD and we'll note we have always accepted secondary schools and with that basis alone.
SwisterTwistertalk 23:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 14:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep it's a secondary school that exists. It is notable.
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure) .
TonyBallioni (
talk) 01:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Not sure why he's described as a "youth striker". He made 60 appearances during three seasons in the Hungarian top division, so passes
WP:NFOOTY.
Number57 11:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Spiderone 19:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Passes
NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a
fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Needs expansion not deletion.
Fenix down (
talk) 09:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Having played in the Hungarian top flight, he meets
WP:NSPORT.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 16:22, 9 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
A7 Material. Removed by someone for their personal reason. Now here to waste community time on this one. No depth coverage. Only for promotional and nothing else. This is being used to build many Wikipedia Spam like
The Next Web ,
YourStory or many others.
Light2021 (
talk) 03:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm the one who removed the speedy tag for my personal reason, and wishes to waste community time — or whatever this strange nominator is getting at. It's obviously not a speedy candidate, as being "the largest Northern European media company reporting on the development of growth companies in the region" is an assertion of notability and, if duly sourced, would probably make the publication notable. Notability of small media companies is difficult, as they are known mostly by their works, not by people writing articles about them. It is clear from a google news search
[43] that the company exists, it is real, it publishes content, and other sources sometimes talk about what the company publishes. However, most of these are relatively minor, passing mentions in minor sources. In the context of an AfD, as opposed to an inapt speedy, I'll scour the sources if I have a chance to see if there are enough to support an article. Right now it's looking iffy. -
Wikidemon (
talk) 05:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I am afraid I have to agree with nom that by declining this deletion
User:Wikidemon is not doing us a good service. The largest claim is not sufficient for notability (do you see it at
WP:NCOMPANY or GNG or anywhere else?), it is not properly referenced, neither. I have to point to
WP:CORPSPAM - this kind of spam should not be here. It would be better if we could speedy more of it, rather then spend time here trying to save some spammer's creation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - This nomination appears somewhat
WP:POINTed, and declining the speedy was fully understandable in context. That said, the article really does have serious problems. (Comparisons to YourStory, which has been blacklisted, are apt and damning, and a
a closer look for spamming couldn't hurt.) Searching for reliable, independent coverage of the website, I'm finding nothing substantial. There are plenty of passing quotes taken from them, a couple of interviews and puff pieces, but non-superficial coverage in reliable sources is what's needed, and I don't see it.
Grayfell (
talk) 07:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Salt, as TechCrunch itself is not a good and convincing comparison because that website itself has become a powerhouse of publishing and republishing advertising and it seems this website is fitting it, therefore that summarizes it to something not at all convincing and nothing that can be based from non-advertising sources therefore delete. I suggest Salting with the sole basis of a 2009 deletion and the fact this was then literally restarted, therefore we should play it safe and have to go AfC before touching mainspace again.
SwisterTwistertalk 21:39, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep (user author): ArticStartup's Arctic15 is the most influential and popular startup conference in the Nordic region, and has attracted over 20 international speakers - including
Justin Waldron,
Trip Hawkins and
Paul Bragiel, and has been covered by reputable organizations such as The Wall Street Journal, MarketWatch, New Europe, and the Helsinki Times. I'll admit that the article does need cleanup, and I'm adding sources now.
JenniBee (
talk) 23:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
One, there is no inherited notability from anything or anyone else, and second, every single source listed is published and republished PR by what the company wants to advertise about itself, and I've noted it above and it shows in the article as it is. Even with Finnish sources, it would perhaps still be questionable, and given everything else, there's still enough to suggest deletion would be best. "significant information on the profit and growth of the company", that may be, but that's not automatically establishing notability, especially if its only methods of causing that are by advertising itself, including in these listed links. I'll then note nearly all of the listed links are websites we've pegged as being notoriously "republish PR", so the fact these may be the best there is, is self-explanatory.
SwisterTwistertalk 05:14, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The reason why many of the English websites rely on public relations materials is because of the language barrier - the website itself is in English, but the convention (which is what gives ArcticStartup notability) is in Finland, so much of the event is in Finnish. Arctic15 is known as the premier convention for startups in the Nordic region. That's the reason why notable publications like Wall Street Journal go to ArcticStartup for the CEO's opinion on Nordic startups (as noted above). Neither The Wall Street Journal article nor the articles on Talouselama are public relations articles (there is a wealth of information in the Finnish sources that aren't public relations pieces). Arctic15 has brought investors into Finland (
http://www.talouselama.fi/kasvuyritykset/arktisia-kasvajia-kovat-nimet-koolla-arctic15-startuptapahtumassa-3429149 ), has included entrepreneurs from English speaking countries as speakers (as noted in the article), and is used as a source in regards to Nordic startups by organizations deemed notable by English Wikipedia (WSJ, as I noted previously, and CNBC (
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/11/16/the-global-entrepreneurship-boom-is-about-jobs.html ) for example).
Talouselama itself is a reliable mainstream outlet - and there is a lot of articles that aren't "fluff" pieces in that magazine. It has significant independent coverage from reliable sources - especially the Finnish journals - and is sought out by English speaking sources for it's expertise in Nordic startups. Because of that, it meets the
Wikipedia Notability guidelines.
JenniBee (
talk) 07:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The WSJ and CNBC articles are poor for notability, as the mentions are very brief and provide little context about the site, merely calling it "a technology blog" as context for a quote from the CEO. The Talouselama linked is better (I think), but as a source it's limited in circulation and focused by both topic and region, which does diminish its weight somewhat (
WP:AUD). Even with that focus, it's still surprisingly brief. I am reluctant to use Google Translate, but if that's accurate, it's not particularly good for
WP:CORPDEPTH, either. It's usable, and better than nothing, but it's underwhelming. Yes, non-English sources absolutely can be used, but is that source actually providing any information that's not available anywhere else? Also, asking us to do a Google search is understandable, but not persuasive when we likely don't actually speak the language, so can you tell us if that is the best coverage in the magazine? If that's what's going on, it's not a good sign, but I'm hoping you can show otherwise.
Event listings are only slightly more useful than press releases, per
WP:ROUTINE and
Wikipedia:Run-of-the-mill, and sources which focus on the conference should be evaluated with that in mind. I am also curious why this website is only published in the English language, but is so extensively covered by Finnish-language sources. Who is the intended audience? I'm not sure if it even matters, but it would make evaluating sources easier.
Grayfell (
talk) 09:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
There is also an article on
Kauppalehti about the awards at Arctic 15:
http://www.kauppalehti.fi/uutiset/smarp-pitchasi-voittoon-startup-tapahtumassa/Cu6NHq62 There's likely more articles in Finnish sources, but it'll take a while for me to scour through them as it's harder than finding English sources (I have to search each publication on Google individually as Google News doesn't aggregate most Finnish language sources and there is no news aggregator on google.fi).
JenniBee (
talk) 11:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't see any legit claim to being "central" in either of those sources. Both are passing mentions which treat the blog as an indicator of Finland's startup activity, definitely not as a central part of it. "Paraphernalia" is not central. They are no better than the CNBC and WSJ mentions.
Grayfell (
talk) 16:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
That's exactly my point. Those two sources are highly regarded in the business field, and the fact that they cited ArcticStartup as an indicator of the startup boom in Finland (and note that they didn't mention any of ArcticStartup's competitors such as
Slush) certainly adds to the company's notability.
JenniBee (
talk) 21:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I think additional Finnish sources might be more useful, but these are weak. These add to the company's notability, but very little. Being an indicator of something else is not the same as being central. Notability is
not inherited. The notability of the scene doesn't translate to every product of that scene. Wired only gives one sentence to mentioning Arctic Startup, in passing, as an example product of the scene. It's definitely not describing it as central to that scene. The Economist is even worse for this: The country has also acquired the paraphernalia of a tech cluster, such as a celebratory blog (Arctic Startup) and a valley-related name (Arctic Valley). That's as passing as they get, and "celebratory blog" is harsh, if not downright condescending, to the company, and should be weighed accordingly.
Slush looks like it needs a ton of work, and
Finnish startup scene is even worse. There are too many bad articles out there, so precedent isn't very persuasive. See
WP:OTHERSTUFF for more on that.
Grayfell (
talk) 00:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I concur with the above, "being involved in a starting company boom in Finland" itself in fact it's not yet notable and especially if all that is available are said trivial mentions, therefore simply naming the fact the news publication is a major one, is not meaning anything, because the contents themselves are still trivial. In all this time and the amount of apparent searching, nothing has shown of actual significance, therefore it states enough there's simply no substantial improvements to be made.
SwisterTwistertalk 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as a promo page on an unremarkable event. Sources presented at this AfD have not been sufficient to warrant an encyclopedia entry, I am afraid.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (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. Hut 8.5 17:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Could not quite figure out what this guy does, but none of the sources cited seem to be actually about him. Ref no. 3, the webpage of AADCU, his main company/venture/organization/whatever, is a dead link. Googling does not produce much either.
Nsk92 (
talk) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. No Reliable, independent sources. The
Baidu site is, I believe, something like Wikipedia. In other words, it is not Reliable.
BeenAroundAWhile (
talk) 07:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Note:
Baidu Baike is an online, collaboratively built encyclopedia, just like Wikipedia. Baike is also censored by the government. I've removed all the Baike refs.
Bgwhite (
talk) 21:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
of course find sources of Bruce Q, Lan Just would be try best for impoving of the page of Brcuce Q.Lan, Bruce is a very important figuer make contrubution to the field of architecture design, acting like designer,curator and editor, not only in China, but also to United States and Europe. Over 40 architectural books he curated and edited and published, he used to work with someone like Eric Owen Moss, Neil Denari,Hernan Diaz Alonso ect. if you know these guys how important to Amrican's architecture design, then you know what Bruce is... he worked in Beijing, no wonder sources come from Baidu,yeah...since the chinese verison Wikipedia has been blocked by chinese government, like google and other USA's internet media, so today the Baidu is the only and leading source to Chinese society, in the article of Bruce Q. Lan, the source link of his published books, you can find half sources from library database of University of Illinois, The Ohio State University and Getty Institution,here looking forward to hear from you guys again... many thanks!
Susanzone77 (
talk) 14:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
edits:
Thanks Bgwhite for the edits, I got it to know for next article submitt.
Susanzone77 (
talk) 01:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - there appears to be not a single source about this person, rather than publications edited by him. The
walls of citations and excuses do not help. In the end, the page is little more than a
resume.
Bearian (
talk) 01:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see anything in the references that resembles and independent, reliable source saying something about the subject.
Mduvekot (
talk) 23:33, 19 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. clear consensus DGG (
talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
This article is not notable according to Wikipedia guidelines. It has little content and is unlikely to develop any further. It is also written very poorly and the sources are not credible.
NikolaiHo☎️ 01:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as not-yet-sufficiently-notable. The main purpose of this article is as a youtube/twitter-link magnet where WP editors cherry-pick examples of the topic. But instead, WP is an encyclopedia that requires notability of the topic itself via multiple independent references, and references to determine/highlight "notable examples" (to use the article's section-title). It's yet another hit'n'run job by
User:NotablePeopleFan and related SPAs that seems primarily written to highlight what he feels is interesting about his school. No.
DMacks (
talk) 03:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Made it to CNN this morning
[44] and Washington Post.
[45] It was featured/reproduced on FOX Sports NFL Sunday and a number of NFL teams contributed their videos too.
[46] Significant trend, even if one thinks it is odd/silly. --
Fuzheado |
Talk 10:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Addendum - the University of Kentucky got the entire home arena at a basketball game to do a video. It's a thing.
[47] --
Fuzheado |
Talk 10:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – Poor writing and lack of content are not criteria for article deletion, nor is lack of posted citations, and certainly other articles by an editor cannot be used as leverage to delete a discrete article. Our *policies* are that there are
WP:alternatives to deletionWP:BEFORE an article may even be nominated for deletion. Like the Pet Rock, the Mannequin Challenge may be a fad, but it is a fad with enough legs that future anthropologists will appreciate having an encyclopedia article on it. Cheers!, {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk} 19:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's all over the news and influencing professional sports teams, famous musicians and millions of young people across the country.
BlaccCrab (
talk) 20:22, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge The article states "It is considered a form of
freeze mob or
flash mob..." I suggest the article's content be merged with
flash mob, and that both
mannequin challenge and
freeze mob be redirects to
flash mob. Given that
freeze mob doesn't even exist yet, and (based on a search for "freeze" or "frozen")
flash mob only seems to include one instance which would be referred to as such (see reference: "Time Freezes in Central London"), it doesn't make sense to me for
mannequin challenge to exist as a separate article. Other thoughts before I decided to recommend "Merge"... For comparison with regard to notability, I looked at
ice bucket challenge and see that the initial revision only included 4 "Notable Participants", which is far less than the number of "Notable Instances" in
mannequin challenge. So that's an argument for "Keep". But perhaps supporting "Delete" is the fact that, according to the article, the trend was only started 2 weeks ago.
Gmporr (
talk) 16:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm on the fence about the notability of this, but given that the characteristics of the Mannequin Challenge and Flash Mob are entirely different, I would oppose a merge. By characteristics, I'm referring to the manner in which they begin. Flash mobs form suddenly, disperse suddenly. That's not what mannequin challenges do. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 16:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Your feedback makes sense. I wish the article had a reference as to why it's "considered a form of freeze mob or flash mob" 'cause I do agree that they seem to have very different characteristics. So my "Merge" recommendation is based on the assumption that a mannequin challenge really is considered (by whom?) to be a type of flash/freeze mob.
Gmporr (
talk) 17:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Gmporr and
Hammersoft: - I have removed the "flash mob" or "freeze mob" since it is not supported by any of the sources. The logic behind arguing that is should not be a separate article because it is a flash mob is odd. Now that it is removed, it should clear the path for the article to exist on its own. --
Fuzheado |
Talk 18:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Fuzheado: Thanks for the article update & the ping. My reasoning for the merge (prior to your removal of the flash mob reference) was that it would be a reasonable alternative to deletion if the consensus turns out to be that the topic isn't notable enough to merit its own article.
Gmporr (
talk) 21:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The nomination says this is "unlikely to develop any further" yet we have no clue what the future holds for this trend. The nomination also indicates that being poorly written is a reason for deletion. It's not (see
WP:RUBBISH). The nomination states the sources are not credible. At the time of the nomination, there were few sources. Now, there's 30. That brings us to the last point; is it notable per Wikipedia guidelines? Given there's now sources from literally dozens of reliable news outlets,
WP:GNG is clearly passed. More needs to be done to improve the article, but the state of the article is not a deletion reason. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 20:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - this passes
WP:GNG.. Even Hillary Clinton led her campaign team in doing one.
here,
here and
here. TushiTalk To Me 14:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Those of you who might wish to discredit Grossmisconduct's 'vote' because he's been here 8 years and has less than 50 edits; please keep in mind
AfD isn't a vote. This link provided by Grossmisconduct from usatoday.com clearly shows the prevalence and notability of the mannequin challenge. That's what matters here. This further substantiates my earlier post that we don't know the future, and the nominator's claim that this won't develop further has been proven false. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 14:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge -I looked it up to understand background to BBC content.
[49]JeremyCarroll (
talk) 05:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep per above, the subject of the article as had a lot of coverage and most definitely passes
WP:GNG.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 16:21, 13 November 2016 (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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk) 08:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)reply
I couldn't verify notability. With no reliable sources at all, best to delete this one-line stub rather than merge unverifiable info.
Boleyn (
talk) 01:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete – A line with no references, not a notable topic either. Clearly fails
WP:GNG. It is just something like a definition, can be deleted per
WP:NOT. Regards,
Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (
talk •
mail) 03:20, 7 November 2016 (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. sufficient consensus DGG (
talk ) 08:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as clear advertising, especially the fact the account was advertising-only but that the article literally says "The company services are....and the company now wants to say", there's nothing better beyond that hence delete.
SwisterTwistertalk 06:57, 13 November 2016 (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.