The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Upon first glance of a search of Metzler, it doesn't yield much outside of a few items. Sure he produced "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" for which he won an Emmy and PGA Award for, currently produces "Catfish: The TV Show," and won an Environmental Media Award for "The Lazy Environmentalist." But outside of that, he doesn't seem notable. Who ever created the article didn't bother adding any information or sources. Looking at the edit history, in nearly four years of the article page being around no progress has been made to get the article to a suitable point in which it shows notability of said person. Looking at Golfer1000x's talk page, they have recieved a couple of AfD notices, but nothing can be found in regards to that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
delete per nom the NYT source is good, but I'm not sure we can swing a BLP on a single source. I'm actually surprised I couldn't turn up more in a basic BEFORE, and that quite a lot of the GNews hits I get are for other people of the same name -
David Gerard (
talk)
09:58, 9 October 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.
Notability: sufficient in-depth RS coverage cannot be found. Previous AfD closes as keep; however, only one source was presented, which does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:GNG. The article has been extensively edited by apparent COI accounts (followed by reverts), so potential for further
WP:PROMO time sink exists.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect Personally I don't see that
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP are established by the references in the article itself. However, with consideration to the previous AfD discussion (which seemed to establish notability on the basis of sources not actually mentioned or linked in the article), one imagines the 2 sentences in the stub could be merged/redirected to the
Agora, Inc. article (erstwhile parent company?), or
Bill Bonner (author) article (founder?), or a similar article. Personally I'd add a "publications" section to the
Bill Bonner (author) article, merge the 2 sentences into that section, and make the source article a redirect. Per nominator, what little (non promo) content that might be added here wouldn't seem to warrant a standalone article.
Guliolopez (
talk)
10:04, 8 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested
WP:PROD. Concern was: sources talk only of feasibility studies; there are no firm proposals, no money has been allotted, nothing is certain. Most importantly, no contracts for construction have been signed. A Google search turns up very little that isn't about
Cambridge railway station plus the word "south" out of context.
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete (and articles on any other proposed stations) per
WP:CRYSTAL. The view has been taken in the past that it may be legitimate to have a single article on a proposed transport infrastructure scheme, but articles on individual stations are premature until the scheme is under construction, or (at worst) has been fully funded and has all requisite approvals, so that it is reasonably certain that it will actually be built.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:17, 27 September 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 Lack of reliable sources is especially problematic for BLPs, which essentially require an abundance of reliable, in-depth, third-party sources. Additionally, it seems that someone claiming to be the subject of the article has been requesting that we remove her date of birth from the article, apparently because of age discrimination in her industry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a professional casting database; the best solution, if this actress's biography cannot be reliably sourced, is not to selectively cut out encyclopedic information -- it's to delete the article.
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
10:19, 1 October 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 Paul Godfrey is a notable musician as he has had a single or album on any country's national music chart and has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. These are stated in criteria for musicians and ensembles on Wikipedia:Notability (music) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samfov (
talk •
contribs)
11:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails notability given the sources in the article. Searching located nothing helpful. Subject is mentioned in
Morcheeba so a redirect to that article would be acceptable too.
Gab4gab (
talk)
16:53, 26 September 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.
An unremarkable adult actress; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The subject does not meet PORNBIO as the awards are scene-related or fan-based.
The article was discussed at AfD in 2007 with the decision to keep, based on 200+ films and AVN award nominations. PORNBIO has been tightened since then and I believe this article can be revisited.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The defeat of the AFD back in 2007 is one of many decisions in 2007 that were unwise and that have given Wikipedia a very poor reputation as to how it treats women, generally as objects of male gaze valued for their ability to attack such as opposed to as human beings. It was called a "bad faith" nomination even though people supporting deletion rightly pointed out a lack of reliable sources. It is high time that pornographic actress bios be held to standard GNG rules, and this one comes no where near meeting such rules, and should be deleted with all deliberate speed.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:09, 27 September 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 removed the two entries without articles and the image. For something to be deleted on promotional grounds it should really be more than a matter of removing an entry or two and an image (or almost every list would have periods of time when it would qualify for deletion). — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - Very weak keep. Should be renamed
List of hosiery brands, though, and added to, but it seems like a meh navigational page (most "list of [product category] brands"). There are plenty of sources for lists of sock/hosiery brands to justify
WP:LISTN. Not redundant to the category per
WP:NOTDUP. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Leaning Delete -- the PROMO issues have been addressed, but it still seems redundant to
Category:Hosiery brands. Since the main contributor was most likely a COI editor,I'm not sure who would maintain or expand the list. The category seems sufficient.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
18:22, 1 October 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.
CEO of the subsidiary of a major company. Were he CEO of the conglomerate,there might be sufficient material for an article. But I don't see it here. Only contribution by its editor,
Wikiedit800, and it reads like PR. DGG (
talk )
20:44, 25 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. I can't find any evidence of notability.
Adam9007 (
talk)
19:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply It's a tight definition of notability if you don't consider a radio program that airs on multiple stations across the United States as notable. The only negative against the listing is that this is a new program. Other programs that are similar in nature have Wikipedia pages. --
David100b (
talk)
20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Syndication to multiple stations is technically a valid notability claim per
WP:NMEDIA, if it's properly sourced to
reliable source coverage about the program. It is not, however, a freebie that allows a program to keep an unsourced article just because syndication is asserted — as with all Wikipedia notability claims, it's not the mere assertion of passing a notability criterionthat passes the notability criterion, but the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim. So until real reliable source coverage in real media can actually be shown, notability is not satisfied. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when proper reliable source coverage can be shown.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:30, 27 September 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 product which has no reason to be on the Wiki. Not every book or product requires an article on the Wiki. Please delete with haste. Even if this article is sourced correctly or even rewritten I see no reason to keep it.
DeusImperator (
talk)
18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -
WP:GNG - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nominator does not clarify why the article should be deleted. -
Taketa (
talk)
07:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG, plenty of references covering reception, etc. already in the article. Nom appears to need to understand deletion/inclusion criteria better.
Jclemens (
talk)
14:29, 27 September 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Improve or Delete: The company may be notable but the article needs to show additional references from reputable and ideally international or national media. Current reference list is lacking of those from what I can see. If those can be added ASAP to demonstrate notability, I suggest we keep the article. If not, delete it. Coverage of notable software companies undoubtedly adds value to various wikipedia readers.
Newtonslaw40 (
talk)
16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:INSIGNIFICANCE and a Wikipedia search on the topic refutes your claim that the topic is insignificant.
Desktop Virtualization states, "Forrester Research identified in its report the Forrester Wave on Server-Hosted Virtual Desktops (VDI), Q3 2015 [3] the seven most significant software providers, being Citrix, Dell, LISTEQ, Microsoft, Nimboxx, Oracle, and VMware."
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Analyst firms, including Forrester, do not have a reputation for fact checking. These reports are based on briefings by the companies in questions; the firms do not independently do their analysis. I would not consider "named as one of 7 providers in a niche market by an industry analyst firm" to be sufficient for establishing encyclopedia notability. Forrester in this case is not RS, and it may be a primary source; I believe that's how reports and monographs are treated, being self-published by Forrester in this case.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Your proof by assertion was that there were "no indications of...significance" for LISTEQ. I've shown you two different definitions which were more than "indications" that the topic was significant. For the second you've switched to talking about notability.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:53, 3 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Hey there. I wrote the article nearly a decade ago because I was using the app. It seems to have
shifted significantly from its
original purpose and so the article is pretty irrelavant now. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia deletion policy, but I have no objection to removing it as it does indeed seem pretty non-notable these days.
Eplack (
talk)
17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as typical "corporate spam". I don't see a point of merging as the article under discussion does not list any sources. If desired, sources identified at the AfD could be added to parent company
GfK, but at present it does not mention the subject, so a redirect would be confusing.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete no notability and lack of sourcing makes it problematic. Don't see much material that if merged would lead to an improvement of the parent company article.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:51, 3 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
keep I appreciate that as I wrote the article my view may not be valid here, but I should point out that it is a significant company because of its role in developing what has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia
ISBN978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7. hence meets WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY.
Garyvines (
talk)
01:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:PROMO and
WP:TNT - " It has been described as "...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services."" in the intro, and the cite is to a reprinted press release. Given a start like that I flatly don't trust the offline sourcing to be any good. It would need a rewrite with each and every claimed good-looking source directly verified as actually backing the claim -
David Gerard (
talk)
10:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
How about we take out the promo quote and rely in the Hart and Hallett article and the numerous albeit brief references from organisations that use the software, to show notability? It may be a specialist proprietary software, but given its extensive role in museums and galleries, and in comparison to some of the more obscure relational databases listed
here, I would have thought it was an appropriate candidate to keep with a bit more editing of the article.
Garyvines (
talk)
13:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and I myself had commented Delete at the first AfD, this in fact is still in and of itself an advertisement because it only focuses with what the company wants to say about itself, and the sources equally show this in that they are not convincing either. No other actions have been made to attempt actually fixing this article, and it seems it's because it cannnot be improved, especially if only existing as an advertisement.
SwisterTwistertalk18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
but the Hart and Hallett article, and the others cited above by me, are not advertising, while the large number of museums and galleries using the software is demonstrated by the numerous references from those organisations - i.e. they don't come from the company.
Garyvines (
talk)
01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)reply
keep Agree with
Garyvines that this article meets WP:GNG and WP:Company because the company's software "has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia
ISBN978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7.
Mbridge3000 (
talk)
19:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. As I said earlier, on the basis of Gary Vines' material here. Clearly documented as a leader in its field. The documentation meets the GN, and arguments that it does not amount to quibbling. If you really try hard enough, its possible to attack almost any source whatever, Ref 40 in particular isa very helpful 3rd party published source. In any case, leader in its field is indeed a better standard of suitability for a WP article than the arbitrary standard of GNG--it sayssomething about thr RW. I've rarely !voted to delete and article that shows that if the status is worldwide, and rarely if even if it is a major country. It has a little content that is a bit the promotional side, which I'm in the process of adjusting. DGG (
talk )
17:27, 5 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as an advertorial article that exists, clearly, for nothing else but to advertise what there is to know about the company, and then there's not actually any acceptable sourcing, let alone convincing, as they are simply the company websites, that itself is PR and that alone.
SwisterTwistertalk18:59, 1 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is a barely 2-year-old company and it only lists company activities which suggest alone there's not the needed substance, let alone convincing, and the sources themselves simply state the expected unconvincing information about what there is to know about the company, none of it amounts to substance either.
SwisterTwistertalk18:57, 1 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - I highly doubt this company is "like over thousands in the world". They seem pretty unique in the niche they are targeting within the 3d marketplace. But they also do not yet have enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. --
1Wiki8........................... (
talk)
09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as this clearly only exists an advertorial business listing, from going to specifics about the company's business and information to then actually having PR and unconvincing sources, none of this amounts to actual substance.
SwisterTwistertalk19:02, 1 October 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 all. Not a single one of these is an actual rivalry, either past or present. Merely two teams that play in the same league.
Resolute18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Sabbatino: I nominated the other Ranger articles and added them to this AFD. The Toronto talk page I nominated for speedy deletion because it had no article. The Toronto Blue Jays opponents article I nominated for deletion but separately. It can be found here
[1].
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?10:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete some, keep some - Most of these "rivalries" are trivial, per the nom. But others are not. To say that the Rangers and Bruins never had a genuine rivalry shows ignorance of the teams' histories at least throughout the 70s and perhaps early 80s, when they met in the Stanley Cup finals once and in the late rounds of the playoffs other times, there were controversial trades between the teams, and the rivalry got so intense it spilled into a fight between players and fans in the stands. Beyond that, the statement that "the two teams played one another yearly but so do other teams" is nonsensical, since the Bruins and Rangers are both original 6 teams that for 40 years played each other more than a dozen times a year, plus potential playoff meetings, including another Stanley Cup final. I don't think the rivalry between the Canadiens and Rangers has been as intense over the years, but these are also teams that have played each other for 90 years, including 40 during the 6 team era, and have many playoff series and at least one Stanley Cup final. I am more on the fence with the Penguins; the Rangers and Penguins have been division rivals on and off and during the early 90s in particular the rivalry became quite intense. So I would say keep Bruins and Canadiens, possibly keep Penguins, and delete the rest. Of course my keep votes are contingent on these articles being improved - they are sketches now but they are brand new so they deserve an opportunty to be expanded.
Rlendog (
talk)
16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete all unless significant work is done that establishes the notability of any of these as "rivalries". The
WP:ONUS is on the author (or anyone wanting to keep these as articles) to find those sources. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Remember the rivalry existing isn't enough. It has to be written about in depth in multiple sources like any other subject. This is the case for very few rivalries. -
DJSasso (
talk)
17:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agreed, but Rangers-Bruins rivalry has been.
Here a whole book about the 1970s portion of the rivalry.
Here is article about the rivalry from the New York Times.
Here is a short article describing a portion of the history of this rivalry.
Here is another article that discusses the history of Rangers-Bruins with some depth, with quotes such as "There have been times, however, when this rivalry was red-hot" and "During the late ’60s and into the ’70s, the rivalry was renewed in full." And notability is not temporary.
Here is an article discussing Rangers-Bruins as one of the Rangers' best rivalries (Canadiens and Penguins are also here, not very surprisingly).
Here is another article with some information about the Rangers-Bruins rivalry in the context of the overall Boston/New York sports rivalry. There is a lot more in depth coverage of this rivalry than that between the vast majority of pairs of teams. Even if this isn't enough (and I think it is more than enough), there is no way this should be discussed in the same context of non-entities such as Rangere-Mighty Ducks or Rangers-Whalers. Obviously the article needs improvement but since it only was created a few days ago there should be time for that before deleting.
Rlendog (
talk)
21:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. About the only one that 'might' pass as a noteworthy rivalry, is the Rangers/Penguins. But even that doesn't compare to the write ups on Rangers/Islanders.
GoodDay (
talk)
18:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I realize it's a blog, but
this site regards the Bruins as the Rangers' 4th biggest rivalry, behind the obvious Islanders, Flyers and Devils and actually 1 ahead of the Penguins.
Rlendog (
talk)
21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Fine. But the multiple sources I listed in my reply to DJSasso are all RSes, and just the ones that were easily found on the first few Google pages. Since the most intense portions of the rivalry were prior to the internet, there are likely far more than that out there.
Rlendog (
talk)
12:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Searching a little further on the internet,
this book goes on for several pages on the Rangers-Bruins rivalry in the early 1970s. The end of
this article has several paragraphs on their rivalry in the late 1930s/early 1940s.
This article does add a tremendous amount but does breifly describe the teams "Old Rivalry" prior to that.
Rlendog (
talk)
12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
And
this book couches the
Brad Park-
Bobby Orr rivalry within the context of the 1970s Rangers-Bruins rivalry. I can't see into
this book but the Google search snippet says "To increase interest in the Park-Orr comparison, the Rangers and the Bruins established a bitter rivalry in the early 1970's. Their games were high-strung and frantic, often laced with fights and tough checking by both teams. When they met in ..." so there is clearly some information about that rivalry here, albeit hard to determine how much.
this book states that this rivalry "had reached a fever pitch and got even steamier after Park decideed to write his autobiography" and continues for a few paragraphs discussing the rivalry, including the trade of Park to Boston (and also indicates that Park's autobiography contains relevant information to this rivalry. Sure a blog is not a reliable source, but I only used that as a piece that explicitly compared the Rangers-Bruins rivalry to the Rangers-Penguins. Dismissing the blog does not address the actual evidence from reliable sources that the Bruins-Rangers rivalry is notable. 12:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm fine with removing the Bruins-Rangers article from the nomination, but some work needs to be done with it, clearly, or it should be deleted as empty.
Rlendog, the creator is clearly a newer user. Perhaps you could use this article to show them a good way to edit and make a rivalry article viable?
Resolute22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That makes a lot of sense. This would be a good oportunity to help teach a new user. And if the article continues to remain essentially empty, then I agree it would be appropriate to delete, albeit as an empty article, not because the topic is non-notable.
Rlendog (
talk)
23:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Given the links to coverage I provided, what is your basis for the claim that the Rangers-Bruins rivalry is "non-notable trivia"?
Rlendog (
talk)
16:12, 4 October 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. However, this can, and should, be renominated at any time should there be a consensus that the additional sources produced during this AfD are lacking.
Black Kite (talk)09:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Dinah Elizabeth Pearce. The present name implies that her father was an earl or above. Strictly she was Dinah Elizabeth, Lady Pearce. We do not normally include Sir in article titles, except baronets where the baronetcy is also part of her title. This should be applied to the wives of knight and baronets in the same way: they did not hold the title in their own right, only by marriage. However, inclusion in a one-volume biographical dictionary published by a university press ought to be sufficient evidence of her notability. I accept that we normally apply that rule to DNB and ODNB in UK, but we should not be too strict in that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. A very quick Google search shows she appears to be notable independently of her husband in several ways: as founder of the Pearce Institute -- now recognised as an important community centre for Glasgow eg
[2]; as a pioneer in women's representation on Scottish School Boards (preprint at blacklisted site) and in association with the "Fresh Air Fortnight" scheme
[3]. I note this article was created as part of an initiative to address gender imbalance in coverage of Scottish women, which has received press coverage in the Scottish press:
[4] -- this article states "Among other work was creating pages for others including Lady Dinah Elizabeth Pearce from Govan who founded the Pierce Institute and other organisations such as the Women's Peace Crusade and Glasgow Women's Housing Association." There are far too many Google hits under "Lady Pearce", "Dinah Pearce", "Dinah Elizabeth Pearce" &c to sort through them all properly, and doubtless offline sources also exist.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment We will increase the coverage of Scottish women by writing articles about he ones who are actually notable, not the one who engage in minor local events--as the article truthfully says-- merely because of their husbands social position. It's not exactly a case of inherited notability, because I doubt he would be notable either. Minor country gentlemen & women are not usually, though they customarily do engage in local charities and receive the routine press coverage. As for the initiative, you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. DGG (
talk )
20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
...you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. No, I am not; I am merely mentioning this embarrassing situation, in case anyone cares to contact the people involved, as well as quoting an article that suggests Pearce might have founded two other organisations, for which my back-of-the-envelope search found no better evidence. As to
her husband, if you had actually read any of the sources, he unimpeachably meets the notability requirements as an MP, if for no other reason.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Claim to notability is being the wife of a MP and founder of a un-notable institute. Most of her "bio" page on the Pearce website, which says "Although overshadowed historically by her husband, Lady Pearce was nevertheless held in extremely high regard by the people of Govan.", is taken up by a poem by a "local resident". If a similar article were made of a modern person with this kind of sources it would be quickly deleted.
BigGuy88 (
talk)
06:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is either trivial coverage more about the building than the woman or not independent. I'm also not entirely sure if the Wordpress site meets
WP:RS. I don't see enough in-depth treatment to merit an article under
WP:GNG.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:57, 3 October 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 first AfD decision was that this and related articles were to be merged, 3 1/2 years ago, this was never done(the mergers were only completed for 3 small articles out of a total of 6 articles on this same topic) and there continues to be pushback on completing the mergers. Standalone, it is not notable and Scouting WPMOS does not support articles of this nature.
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk)
15:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
merge this and
1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group to
Lake View Park International Scout Centre-It is highly unlikely that any "Old Scouts Association" will be notable. I do not think there are any. It is also unlikely that articles about Scout Groups or Scout Troops will be notable, although there are a few.
1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group is the article about the Scout Group that these old Scouts come from. It also is not notable. What has been considered notable is the running of several international camps that have been mentioned in the press. However, these events are help at
Lake View Park International Scout Centre which is owned by this Scout Group. So we actually have three articles all related to one Scout Group. The sources are essentially talking about this camp and the events held there. There should be only one. I suggest that we keep
Lake View Park International Scout Centre and merge the other two there. This was proposed in the earlier AfD. There have been several attempts to clarify this issue, but they have all been supported by editors with no relationship to this Group and opposed by the local editors. --
Bduke(Discussion)01:00, 26 September 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 sources are RS. Now I can't access all of them, but the ones I could, I added links to them. I also found a bio about Robinson online on Blackpast.org. She is written about in a number of books, and assuming good faith on the references we can't access, she passes GNG.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
23:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't see how that equals notability. Do we have an article about the first blonde person to fly across the Atlantic while wearing non-aviator sunglasses? Chris Troutman (
talk)16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Chris troutman, being the first out of a nationality, gender or ethnic group to accomplish something is often an indicator of notability. Being the first blonde person to fly across the Atlantic is not. However, the first Swedish person (who may or may not be blonde) to fly across the Atlantic would be. Hope that clears that up. Also... can you point to any guidelines that prohibit
WP:AGF for offline sources?
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
17:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Megalibrarygirl: As I've said: "I don't AGF on sources offhand when it comes to AfD. That's no one's policy but mine as I think SIGCOV is fine until we have to decide between keeping and deleting. I might on occasion let a single source I can't read slip by on a GA nom or even at AfC but I can't allow a pile of unverified-by-me content to change my !vote. You claim "being the first out of a nationality, gender or ethnic group to accomplish something is often an indicator of notability" but I see no evidence for this. Granted, the media will often make a big deal out this sort of thing since they're trying to publish and get eyeballs but
WP:N does not say that we use quotas to include people for whatever reason. You can, of course, have your own opinion about notability. I just don't think it appropriate. Chris Troutman (
talk)17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
OK,
Chris troutman, I thought you were going off your own interpretation of AGF and AfD conduct. Thanks for clearing that up. She passes GNG whether or not she's a "first." Furthermore, I'm not going off my opinion of notability, it's pretty well laid out here on Wiki. She is, however, a first, if others want to look to that. Please read the article which I edited and added some RS which can be accessed online: she's the first female graduate of Fisk. It's in the first paragraph. I'm asking around with my library contacts to see if we can't fill in the rest of the offline sources.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
CommentMagnolia677 and
Chris troutman both seem to be under the impression that the subjects of Wikipedia biographies are required to accomplish something notable. They're not. (Which is not to say that America W. Robinson, the subject of this biography, had no accomplishments.) A person merely needs to be the subject of significant independent reliable coverage. Nothing more. If you don't like the rule, try to build consensus to change it. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - reiterate that multiple independent reliable sources exits. Notability well-established. One of 2 first females to graduate from Fisk. A key member of the Fisk Jubilee Singers.
InfoDataMonger (
talk)
16:35, 1 October 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.
See
WP:LISTCRUFT and
WP:NOTSTATS. This article was tagged as not meeting the notability guideline 3 years ago and it doesn't look as if the situation has changed. For example, the association football section relies entirely on one source. There is no clear inclusion criteria; why some sports and not others? Why should this exist when we already have
List of sports attendance figures which is more concise?
Spiderone14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This is an encyclopaedia not a sports almanac. inclusion of this information on individual pages (for a football club or stadium for example) would be notable but this doesn't meet the criteria any more now than it did when I first nominated it. =>
Spudgfsh (
Text Me!)
16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Neutral comment: I looked at the page view stats out of curiosity, and found something interesting. From 7/1/2015 -to 5/22/2016 there were an average of four readers viewing the page per day.
[5] From 5/24/2016 to 9/24/2016 there were an average of thirty six readers viewing the page per day.
[6] Page views simply jumped by a factor of nine on 5/23/2016! So I investigated. On that day an IP updated all of the figures, added Australian football, and created five appropriate Also links from this article to other Sports_List articles, and added matching See Also links from those articles back to this article.
[7] On that day there was also a spike of 166 software-spider page views.
[8] The software-spider page views was probably one or more search engines investigating this page, based on the newly created inbound See Also links pointing to it. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong, I just thought it was interesting.
Alsee (
talk)
17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The idea that a list has to be "notable" is fairly silly, given what Wikipedia has become. Why force people to check 50 or a hundred pages when someone compiled the info. in one place? This list, in particular, is very interesting and helpful. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
23:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Because it's just silly lawyering from people who take the Wiki rules way too seriously. Are there media outlets constantly writing about the list of U.S. presidents or the list of countries ranked by GDP or the list of Madonna's records? No. Nobody ever writes stories about lists. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
For those that care, I think it's safe to say that the editor may be choosing to
ignore all rules that prevent Wikipedia from being better. I tend to agree, lists can have a good place. There is
WP:LISTN which we can use as a guideline, but even that measure states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists" and I think that we should pay attention there.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Please note -
WP:LISTCRUFT, point 11, rules against this type of list as it is almost always going to be out of date. Since the article is only referring to the 'latest season', it is actually already out of date as it is referring to 2015-16 when we have already started 2016-17 in a lot of sports. Also, it gives no reason for its discrimination. For example, why doesn't the list also give the top 10 attendances for handball, rugby union, rugby league, water polo, volleyball etc.? There is no clear reason why the current sports are chosen and why others aren't.
Spiderone09:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Please note This is silly to the point of being idiotic. The list is not "out of date" at all — the list is simply AS OF the last full season for the teams in question. No one in their right mind would expect a list like this to be updated daily, as games are played around the world. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
To elaborate on this point a little. if the list was of record attendences it would have more of a claim because it wouldn't be immediately out of date, it would only be incomplete. this list as it stands is both constantly out of date and incomplete. =>
Spudgfsh (
Text Me!)
10:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I wholeheartedly agree. If it were a list of record attendances of the equivalent, then I would not be putting the list up for AfD. Simple as that.
Spiderone10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Why would a list of record attendances be notable but not this list of actual attendance? Is there any evidence that such a list is "notable" under the Wiki rules you seem to believe are so sacred? It seems like you're just making things up as you go along. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Back to the previous point, firstly, it is going to be out of date next season in any case. Does this mean all the current data gets scrapped and replaced with new data next season? The article doesn't make it clear which season it's really even talking about. If this topic really is notable then it probably should be done on a season per season basis rather than just binned and then reincarnated every time the season changes. Lastly, this article does nothing more than mirror what StadiumDB and ESPN puts up. Is there enough evidence from other sources too?
Spiderone19:55, 3 October 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The issues listed (orphan, update) suggest a lack of notability; also Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; also secondary sources; also does this still even exist?
CapnZapp (
talk)
14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP. Highly Notable project in the development history of internet technology. Historic developments regarding distributed systems, cryptography, anonymity, tamper-proof content, free-speech, and related legal implications.
New York Times Divided Data Can Elude the Censor[9]
Scientific American Speech without accountability[10]
Scientific American How Publius Thwarts Censors[11]
Association for Computing Machinery Technical Report Fault-Tolerant Distributed Information Retrieval for Publius Servers and Mobile Peers[12]
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu search returns 1001 hits for papers mentioning "Publius", most of which are valid hits, and many of those papers themselves are cited by hundreds of papers.
[13]
Many books, such as 'Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies[15]
Google Book search for Publius+distributed+internet+peer returns 1810 hits.
[16]
The Publius home page
[17] has (mostly dead) links to articles in The Industry Standard(9/13/2000), The Industry Standard (8/21/2000), eWeek, Yahoo News, Washington Post, CNET News 8/7/2000,CNET News 6/30/2000, Associated Press. Those count for Notability, and can be retrieved either in paper form or probably on Internet Archive sites.
Alsee (
talk)
18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Article is unsourced, and the first sentence contains BLP violations. The search on Google books returns the first link as a book with Wikipedia articles. The next link, and only link with bold, references "AT&T's Publius publishing system", where "AT&T" does not appear in this article.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:01, 3 October 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 Since TTN has recently complained when I've listed bare links in AfDs, I'm not going to bother this time: The above 'find sources' news, newspapers, books, and scholar links each show dozens of presumably independent RS links, which even in their snippets call the subject skit (which I've never seen) 'Iconic'. I'll note the article already appears to have two independent RS'es, apparently already meeting the GNG when nominated. Merging a notable element into its parent media, but that's a subject for regular editing and talk-page consensus building, not AfD.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The grand majority of anything you're going to find is completely within the context of the single episode in which it appeared, including the two sources in the article. There is nothing showing that the single plot element is indpendtly notable outside of the episode. The episode itself is certainly notable and this is just one part of it. As this current article is simply a plot regurgitation, there is nothing that needs to be merged, so deletion and then a new redirect is the best option. Only if the main article becomes overly bloated on information on this topic should it be split out.
TTN (
talk)
17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, of COURSE it is. But it's apparently a memorable episode in a memorable show, as others have observed. You realize you argue contradictory things in different AfDs, TTN? It's only one episode, here, but when another fictional element is so well known from multiple places that no one feels compelled to explain it when they write about it, you criticize that as trivial coverage. Again, I'm not a Lucille Ball fan, never seen the episode in question, so I'm a terrible person to make an argument about how important it is or isn't; all I can do is judge by the number and scope of the coverage.
Jclemens (
talk)
19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This is one aspect about why the episode itself is notable. It is a one-time thing featured in that episode and is always mentioned within the context of the episode. It is not something like Monty Python where the skits were mainly self-contained and could be performed separately at different works. Anything that can reasonably be mentioned about the topic is within the context of the episode, so it currently belongs in the episode. Should the impossible happen and the article becomes too bloated, then and only then should the topic be split out.
TTN (
talk)
20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
All fictional elements are only notable within the framework in which they are mentioned. We spin them out when the coverage would unbalance the article on that particular framework.
Jclemens (
talk)
19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural speedy close In
this diff, the nominator attempts to redirect the article, which shows that this is a nomination intended to circumvent the proper forum for discussion on the talk page, and use AfD people instead of the content experts who should be making this decision. In the lieu of proper closing of the AfD, I recommend a "keep", as WP:BEFORE D1 shows that this topic has plenty of sources, and is clearly differentiated from the episode. IMO, some material from the episode article moved here would benefit both articles. I've seen the episode twice, so I may not be neutral as I've enjoyed the memories here.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:58, 3 October 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 list is highly confusing. It mixes up different seasons presumably because these are the record-breaking seasons for that particular league/team? It also mixes men's and women's football. Another issue is that it will need updating every season so at the moment it is almost completely out of date. Refer to
WP:LISTCRUFTSpiderone13:52, 25 September 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 certainly nothing applicably convincing, including WP:POLITICIAN, and then there's not even anything apart from this one position, to suggest anything else otherwise better.
SwisterTwistertalk00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Well-written article. I can't read many of the sources for various reasons, but they show sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't see any policy-based reasons for deletion.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:37, 3 October 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.
Thanks for writing, however, I'd like to point to the following article. This linked article is from UCLA, explicitly writing that Metapress is an established journal hosting their content under their resources section. All referenced and notable mentions on the original page have references, although I understand and agree that several additional references would be appropriate for addition. I would appreciate your review of this link, and many other comparable references to be considered prior to the repeated attempts at deletion. Thank you, and I am looking forward to your reply. Here is the link:
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/aascpress/aj.aspxMark54ems (
talk)
14:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep but rewrite. The article is somewhat unclear. The version of Metapress that was notable was the earlier system, which was not a journal or a reprinter, but a publication platform for publishing journals. It was used by a variety of publisjhers, many of them highly reputable. The best source for its nature is section 3 of
[18], a blog, but a blog by a well-known expert in scholarly publishing. I consider it a RS. All references before 2014 refer to this platform,which is currently called Literatum.
[19] Ditto for the UCLA reference cited above.
The present system has kept the name, but has essentially no content; as its home page says "We are currently in the process of redeveloping our entire site, so you unfortunately won’t find many published pages at this time." I cannot tell if it retains any connection with Ebsco, but I need to do some inquiries DGG (
talk )
05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You may be right about all this, but neither of the sources you provide have in depth coverage of a thing called 'Metapress'. Without in depth coverage of a thing called Metapress, there can be no article.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
10:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Request for removal of the "articles for deletion" tag: I have updated the
Metapress page with additional references, including in-depth coverage and additional clarification of the history. There are many more articles possible to reference, but I believe this is currently suitable to be removed from the "articles for deletion" category. Please review,
Stuartyeates,
DGG, and
Paperpro. Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mark54ems (
talk •
contribs)
21:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep current version. Agree with DGG's statements, echoed by
Dennis Brown. Rewritten version and updated references are more robust. Looking at the references, I don't see how this is even still a two-sided discussion of notability and in-depth coverage.
Paperpro (
talk)
12:08, 26 September 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 initially thought a merge all would have been fine, but spot-checking for RS'ing, I see things like
[20], which makes me think a per-element exam might be more appropriate.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Archomental. Furthermore I propose adding the other creatures listed at Archomental to this AFD. None of these articles appear to have any sourcing other than of in-universe game materials or effectively in-universe dedicated D&D magazines.
Can I recommend against these kind of mass-list AfDs? They create confusion and bad feeling; it's entirely possible that some of these are notable and others not. One by one may be slow, but it is effective and allows people a good-faith chance to identify possible sources/make changes to the article.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
02:26, 26 September 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 seems to rely on a single Goal.com source. There is an official website and so this company definitely exists but I can't seem to find any other reliable sources covering this that are independent of the subject. I, therefore, fear that this fails
WP:GNG.
Spiderone12:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as not only is it simply stating what there is to know about the company and its business, it goes to list its clients which is a notorious sign of advertising.
SwisterTwistertalk19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. A single self-published source falls well short of the requirements. C67913:08, 1 October 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article consists of little but summary of the international politics essay/paper. Almost entirely referenced to the work itself (with the exception of one reference which probably was cited by the work itself). No real third-party references covering the work itself.
Proposed deletion has been removed by creator. -
Mike Rosoft (
talk)
11:34, 25 September 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. Google search didn't turn up a single mention in a reliable sources, but many similarly worded pieces of (self?) promotion in non-RSes. Academic career does not come close to meeting
WP:PROF.
Joe Roe (
talk)
11:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep pending source search.
WP:BASIC is best applied to someone with multiple jobs, her work as an academic "stacks" with other coverage by neutral, reliable third-party sources. The question is if all together get us to adequately significant. I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt for now.
Montanabw(talk)23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete I can find nothing that shows she meets the notability criteria of any specialty. She definitely does not meet the notability criteria for martial artists (see
WP:MANOTE). Every reference I see appears to be remarkably similar in wording. I find myself just on the other side of the fence from Montanabw because I don't see quite enough to agree she meets
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk)
00:30, 2 October 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, fails
WP:Notability. I got zero hits on Google Newspapers, Google Scholar, HighBeam, and JSTOR. The only Google News hit was unrelated. Google Books gave a few hits, but none looked remotely relevant to a movie. I checked the top 100 general Google hits, none were relevant-RS. They were mostly download sites, the rest were blogs or Wikipedia mirrors or false hits for other things with "Atongo" in the name.
Alsee (
talk)
22:15, 25 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Non-notable fictional character. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The article is just a plot dump. No sources. No information on the development or design of the character. No information on how the character has been received by critics or their real world significance. As there is no worthwhile content to merge, suggest deleting then redirecting to
List of Danganronpa characters#Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc where the character is more appropriately covered.
The1337gamer (
talk)
09:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Never heard of this franchise, let alone this character, before, but she appears to be covered as a statuette
[21] and as a cosplay opportunity.
[22]. There's not a whole lot out there, but what I found with a trivial search there is far more opportunity to discuss this character in an encyclopedic way and the
WP:GNG is met, so merging vs. standalone article should be an editorial decision.
Jclemens (
talk)
15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The best you can do is a figurine announcement and photos of people dressed in costumes? Both of these don't even discuss the character. You haven't demonstrated the topic is notable or worth keeping at all. --
The1337gamer (
talk)
16:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but that's an awful attempt to meet the
WP:GNG. That's not even close to something that constitutes significant coverage in third party sources. That's not even good anecdotal evidence. I know you don't like how these fictional character article are being merged/redirected/deleted, but come on, you've got to come up with something more convincing than that.
Sergecross73msg me12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not even close to meeting the
WP:GNG. Entirely unsourced plot rehashing that only vaguely focuses on her. Nothing worth merging to the character article. I wouldn't object to a redirect, but I wouldn't particularly recommend it either.
Sergecross73msg me12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - A character article needs out of universe information in the form of reviews, and conception. Can anyone provide some reviews of the character? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
13:59, 26 September 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 no statement of notability such as age, and no reliable sources. If an article is created for the place it is situated a description of this temple could be added there with appropriate refs
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete without prejudice to recreation. I wasn't able to find anything when I searched for it, but there may well be foreign language sources I can't utilize.
agtx14:51, 3 October 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 interested as some people may be in the leather subculture, holding a Mr. Leather title is not in and of itself a reason why a person gets permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. There are thousands of such pageants around the world, because almost every city that's large enough to have an organized LGBT community at all will have its own Mr. Leather pageant — and most winners don't get enough coverage to actually satisfy
WP:GNG. And the sourcing here isn't showing that he's the exception to that rule, either — I'm seeing a lot of blogs and wikis and video streaming sites and
primary sources, with literally just one reference in the entire bunch (Siegessäule, #3) that actually passes the
reliable sourcing test. But one valid reference isn't enough to get a person into Wikipedia, if they don't have an automatic pass of any specific notability criterion and are depending solely on "media coverage exists, ergo GNG" as their includability argument.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:26, 26 September 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 believe this chain is currently defunct in its entirety, though I am not certain. It is possible one or two stores may still be operating. Chain went through bankruptcy in 2010/2011 and for the most part folded around 2013/2014. The website is still active and lists menu items, but does not list any store locations. One article indicates somebody may have been considering trying to revive the brand, but no indication that has been attempted. Even in its heyday, it was nothing more than a Washington, D.C. area chain, no presence outside the Washington Metropolitan area. Nothing other than local coverage. No indication that this chain ever satisfied
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG. Kept at AfD in 2005, but notability standards were not well developed at that time.
Safiel (
talk)
05:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I checked Google News and a pile of top general Google hits. Fails
WP:NCORP when the only almost-helpful sourcing is the bankruptcy announcement. I note that there was a previous AFD on this article which closed as KEEP,
[23] however it was in 2005. Wikipedia had no policy on Notability at the time.
Alsee (
talk)
22:50, 25 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 (weak)Keep current sources are primary, so fails
WP:GNG. I haven't searched for more, but articles ideally should be created based on
WP:RS and I've not heard of this. If any are uncovered change to Keep. Widefox;
talk16:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are secondary sources. A 2013 book on Monte Carlo Methods calls it a "very good" generator and presents it as the only example of a pseudo-random number generator, with references as to where to find others. There is a complete discussion of KISS. I've added the reference to Further reading in the article.
StarryGrandma (
talk)
18:30, 1 October 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 or, at most, move to userspace. Maybe the gaps described by Clarityfiend could make an article, but this isn't it. I think I would vote delete or redirect on the Portuguese article on which this one is meant to be based.
Smmurphy(
Talk)19:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
pt:Apoio dos Estados Unidos ao nazismo is, I think, the article to which Dr. Loo (whose userpage suggests is Brazillian) is referring. Sorry, I should have included the link in my previous message, but I didn't look up how to do interlanguage links. Also, sorry for the slow response, you misspelled my user name, so I didn't get the ping.
Smmurphy(
Talk)13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to
Nazism in the United States. No reason to make the title any more specific than that, since that will cover both the history of Nazism in the U.S. and modern Nazi supporters in the U.S. In response to
E.M.Gregory's remark, those other two articles don't quite cover the same topic.
German American Bund is a historical organization that supported the Nazis in the late 30s, but that doesn't mean that it was the sole group supporting the Nazis. For example,
Charles Lindburgh was, at least at one time, a Nazi supporter, but he had little to do with the German American Bund.
Neo-Nazism is not a U.S. specific article and thus should maintain a global focus.
agtx14:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if "Support for..." is the right approach; that would make the article somewhat one-sided. I.e.: I'm sure there was opposition too.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
18:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, as AfD hinges on notability and potential to expand, not current state of articles. Subsequent discussions can determine the appropriate title and redirects.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to
Nazism in the United States The subject is notable and the renamed title would be a much better description. It has a good potential to be an umbrella article which talks not only about the support but also about the domestic reactions to it. As for
Support for Nazis in the USA, the article is a mess (translation issues) and it should be deleted or redirect to this article. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
05:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be a valid reason for deletion. The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is any good.
agtx14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The subject is notable enough that it is already covered, as mentioned above more than once. This is a recent article that duplicates, essentially, existing work; that's grounds for speedy deletion, never mind this. It's also a near a near literal copy of another xlation of the same article, one or the other definitely needs to go.
Anmccaff (
talk)
20:18, 10 October 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. No indication of
WP:Notability. Completely unsourced article, for a game that hasn't been released yet, and Google returns exactly zero hits.
Comment to article creator
Danbilkey: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means we summarized what independent
Reliable Sources have already written on a subject. Please see
GOLDENRULE for a brief summary. We only have article about things after the world already considers it noteworthy enough for multiple sources to have written about it.
Alsee (
talk)
00:10, 26 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep -
WP:GNG,
WP:NFF - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It meets
WP:NFF since the principle shooting of the film has begun.
WP:BALL does not apply since the subject is an "expected future event" and not "speculation or rumor". -- Sincerely,
Taketa (
talk)
07:19, 27 September 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 not finding significant coverage at this time. Could achieve notability in the future (and probably will--maybe this season, heck maybe even this week) but I would call the article premature at best.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
13:33, 26 September 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.
Single author is principle developer of technique, search of Google scholar doesn't find coverage in secondary sources, otherwise no indication that the individual method is notable. Its a bit out of my understanding of chemuistry, but very skeptical that its more than his lab's project.
Sadads (
talk)
02:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
To some extent, I agree with you. It would be best to ask other chemists to comment on this issue, and ask them to compare this article with other Wikipedia articles on new concepts in analytical chemistry. I believe the key issue is "secondary sources". The other part of your comment "his lab's project" is tricky, as there are several references. So, you need to answer the question is it still "a project", or is it already "a technique". In science, we often match a project with a publication (the final outcome of the project). Here there are four references - the newer ones cite the older ones. Can the newer ones act as "secondary sources"? My answer is - yes. But others may have a different opinion. As long as the same standards are applied to all such Wikipedia articles, then it is fine for me, and I support your request to delete the article "Hydrogel micropatch sampling". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Natriumchloratum (
talk •
contribs)
03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish
Notability. All sources appear to be written by Urban and colleagues. P.S. to
Natriumchloratum, I almost complimented you as an excellent newbie because your username is redlinked, chuckle. Regarding chemists to comment on the issue, part of the key to Wikipedia is that editors (usually) don't need topic expertise. It's the job of scientists and Reliable Sources to evaluate subject matter and establish notability. Here we just need to evaluate sources and other policy issues.
Alsee (
talk) 01:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) (Clarification: I meant I almost missed that you've been around a few years and that you have significant experience.)
Alsee (
talk)
01:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Of the four references in the article, all are journal articles published by the team that developed the technique. The fourth is just a link to a list of upcoming publications, but searching for the article title "Quantitative mass spectrometry of unconventional human biological matrices" (
abstract) shows that it appears to be mainly about testing the specimens once you have them. Hydrogel micropatch sampling is not mentioned in the abstract so the use of this technique may be just a passing mention; I'm not prepared to pay for the full article to prove that though. I can't find any secondary sources mentioning it and would agree with Sadads that it is the non-notable project of one lab.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
21:09, 29 September 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. I found no indication this meets
WP:NBOOK. Article has no independent RS. Created by SPA who has only edited this article and added promotional links to the books website in various other articles.
MB17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete no assertion of notability independent of the book itself or independent of online stores, with no assertion for future improvement. —
Mythdon10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I must note that the two opinions above are factually incorrect, because the article links to a review of this book in The Gardening Times, which appears to be an independent reliable source, and some other reviews in more debatable sources. And the review that I linked above is certainly in an independent reliable source, being in an academic journal published by
Taylor & Francis.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
21:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per the user at IP 86.17.222.157 (that's a first for me!). This is a book (actually two volumes) published by a
learned society that has been reviewed by at least four reliable periodicals. Even if there were a COI, or editing is needed, those are not
fatal flaws.
Bearian (
talk)
15:42, 23 September 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.
Now that there is a separate
Murder of Samia Shahid article, I would like to bring the
WP:BIO1E argument again. Most of the "keep" arguments in the
prior deletion discussion seemed to support the notability of her murder, but there does not seem to be enough coverage available to write a balanced, standalone article that is about Shahid as a whole (e.g. her history and impact as a beautician), not just the circumstances of her death. I recommend a redirect to
Murder of Samia Shahid outcome.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The Samia Shahid article is created almost a month earlier than Murder of Samia Shahid. I don't know Wiki Policy about such an issue. it is a second nomination. I think the article created afterwards should be merged with this article.
Sneha Hurrain (
talk)
09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Snehahurrain: The issue is that the two articles are, in fact, different subjects. One is about the event of her murder—combining information about the perpetrators, the crime itself, and the aftermath—and the other is a biography about Shahid as a person. The murder might be notable as a result of significant coverage in reliable sources (the
general notability guideline), but the overwhelming majority of the coverage about Shahid is about her death. The event of her murder has received significant coverage, but not Shahid's life as a whole. I could accept merging this article to
Murder of Samia Shahid as well.
Mz7 (
talk)
13:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I will say that "
murder" is a tricky word. It has a specific legal meaning, and considering that we have listed an accused perpetrator on that page, we could face a BLP issue should that person be convicted of a homicide crime that is not murder. I also understand that we use common language here, and not technical legal terms. I just wanted to bring that to folks' attention before we decided on a name for the page.
agtx15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Agtx: This is an excellent point. I would support moving the article something like
Death of Samia Shahidafter this AfD concludes. I used "murder" here since it is the current article title.
Mz7 (
talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC) On second thought, since BLP is involved, I would support the move right now.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I should add that if this turns out to be all true, then it is a heinous crime. If the perpetrator is eventually convicted of murder, then the page should absolutely be titled as such.
agtx16:23, 29 September 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.
DeleteComment Modifications to the article since the AfD indicate subject has won a Gold at the Pan American games which may cross the notability threshold. I am having trouble tracking down exactly when that was (given references are not helpful or reliable) so I change my vote to a comment for the moment. I suspect there is an error since I don't think there were women's Judo events in the time period where she peaked. Perhaps it was Pan American Judo championships which in not as notable but I am guessing. Note Judoinside does not list anything.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete My search found no evidence of her winning a medal at the Pan-Am Games or even at the Pan-Am championships. The first Pan-Am Games women's judo competition wasn't until 1983, which was 8 years after her only medal at the U.S. championships. The article gives no significant independent coverage, there's nothing that shows either
WP:GNG or
WP:MANOTE is met, and being in a local club's hall of fame certainly is insufficient to show notability. In addition, her sister is irrelevant to her notability.
Papaursa (
talk)
22:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment according to
this source she held five national titles. How does that stack up against the GNG? Also, the statements on the drug scandal are referenced to a book on swimming so I'm going to delete them. Possibly the wrong "Becky Scott".
MurielMary (
talk)
01:36, 26 September 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.
Really confused as to why this wasn't speedily deleted. Subject never was at the Olympics as a participant. Bruno has only one mention in a 1971 magazine so there hardly is any coverage. Being the "father" of Air Force judo is not an accomplish in itself either as I've seen many claims of martial artists to be the "father" of military arts.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
01:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although the article wasn't much to look at when this nomination was made, an IP address (not me) made significant additions earlier today. The article still needs work, a lot of it in the form of converting in-article external links into properly formatted references. But notability is well established by these additional links. According to the subject's obituary in
Black Belt (magazine), the subject is credited with popularizing judo in the United States (and not just with the military). He was also the subject (while living) of a five-page article in that same magazine. And I've only yet scratched the surface of the approximately two dozen new links in the article. What is needed here is clean-up, not deletion.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Follow-up I've started the first round of clean-up for the article. In the process, I learned that many of the new links were duplicates of each other, so that the actual number of additional links added by the IP address is much lower than the two dozen that I had reported. However, these new links still do document the subject's notability.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree there is one good Black Belt article on him ("The Grand Old Man of Judo" article isn't about him). However, there is nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists at
WP:MANOTE since rank is not an indicator of notability. In addition,
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in multiple independent sources and that I can't find and don't see.
Papaursa (
talk)
00:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you for commenting. Before I respond, I'll note for the closing administrator that Papaursa and I are the only two discussants who have commented on the article since it was expanded on September 26. I also note that Google searching might have been hampered by the incorrect spelling of the subject's name in the article title -- it should be "Emilio", not "Emelio". And during his career, the subject was largely known as "Mel Bruno".
Papursa, it might well be true that "rank is not an indicator of notability" under the essay that you cited. But that essay also says that the existence of an independent article on the subject is such an indicator, and the essay does not insist on there being more than one such article. But that's a moot point, because the subject passes the general notability guidelines without recourse to the martial-arts essay. One of the criteria for being notable under the general guidelines is that the person's contributions have become part of the enduring historical record of his field. And that's precisely true for the subject here. That five-page article in Black Belt is evidence of this, as it was published in the 1970s, well after Bruno's peak years of accomplishments. And the obituary that the magazine ran in 2004 described him as a "pioneer" of American judo. The website for the United States Judo Federation uses that same word to describe Bruno in its article on the development of Judo in the United States (and that article includes an extended biography of him). In 2007, Bruno was inducted (posthumously) into the Hall of Fame at the
Martial Arts History Museum (a fact that I added to the article earlier today). Add to all this the subject's role in developing the US military's judo team, and we have more than enough material with which to build a decent, well-sourced article.
NewYorkActuary (
talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC) slight revisions by
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG uses the plural in describing "reliable sources" and saying "multiple sources are generally expected." Martial arts halls of fame have never been considered to show notability due to the large number of them. When I searched the USJF website, I didn't find the source you mention--just passing mentions. In addition, I'm not sure how they could describe him as a "pioneer" and yet not put him in their hall of fame. That seems like a disconnect to me. I'm also not convinced that an obituary is sufficient to show notability, unless it's in a major general publication (e.g., NY Times).
Papaursa (
talk)
03:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I've fallen victim to my own poor note-taking. The website that described Bruno as a pioneer was the one for the Judo Encyclopedia, not the USJF. Because I don't believe that the encyclopedia is a top-quality source, I've stricken my comment from above. But one good thing came out of my mishap -- the additional searching caused me to stumble across the web site for the
United States Judo Association, which discusses Bruno's role in the creation of that organization. That site has been added as a general reference to the subject article (though it can be brought into the article itself as part of the general clean-up that is still needed). So that brings the number of independent reliable sources up to at least six, more than enough to create a well-sourced article.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:26, 5 October 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 arguments for Keep have established that the treaty exists but there is no successful argument to show that it is notable. If anyone wants to merge any of the information elsewhere I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(
talk page)18:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)reply
After having digged about this whole matter for a pretty long time I found out and can conclude, pretty safely, that this entire matter is a complete hoax. There was no such thing in history, as a "Treaty of Kurakchay" or "Kurakchay Treaty". I brought the matter up at
Doug Weller's talk page as well, not that long ago, asking about the main source that was cited here (Johannes Rau), who turned out to be non-
WP:RS as well, see;
[26]. Not a single reputable historian or scholar who specifies in the region has ever coined such a treaty. When you type "Kurakchay Treaty" (or any of the two other names) in google, or google books you get either 1) non-
WP:RS books/links 2) websites from the Azerbaijan Republic. 3) Wikipedia mirrors. The image added here as well, is not even the Kurakchay Treaty, but a file dating from 1868 authorized by the Caucasian Archeological Commission (in Russian), which thus dates from some ~ 60 years after the so-called "Treaty" was signed. Furthermore, I have all the pages of the other authors put in the article literally laying in front of me as well, by Mostashari (2006), Bournoutian (1994), Atkin (1979), and not a single one of these mention anything even remotely close to the matter presented here, aka a treaty with such a name/such names.
Its pretty amazing how such a hoax managed to linger forth for such a rather long time, just because the whole matter is a low-profile subject. -
LouisAragon (
talk)
00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This is certainly not a hoax, per reliable sources found by
this search and the same search in Google Books, which I can't link because for some inexplicable reason I can't save this page with that link included.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
10:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Which of them does that? I certainly can't see any such copying and pasting. One example where that would be impossible (and it's not the only one, just the first that caught my eye) is
this book published by
Aarhus University Press in 1998, eight years before our article was created and several years before Wikipedia even existed.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
18:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Since LouisAragon has had a longstanding awareness of the article he is probably more able than most to spot if current or previous versions of the Wikipedia article's text has made it into any of those sources. But each Google Scholar source is going to have to be individually looked at (though there are not many so it is do-able). Also, a number of then seem on the surface to be non RS, being black propaganda texts produced by Azerbaijan. There is a past edit that placed into the article the actual text of the supposed treaty
[27] but its source, a book titled "Sources on Azerbaijani history" published in Baku in 1989, so will be very doubtful as a RS. If this treaty did exist it surely must be mentioned in sources written before the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh began.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Bournoutian is cited as a source in the article, and in the talk page is mentioned as the source for the "Russo-Karabakhi treaty" alternative name. LouisAragon, what does Bournoutian actually say?
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
So are you saying that text from the Wikipedia article, on a site that was created in 2001, might have made its way into a book published by a Danish university in 1998? Let's keep the discussion in the realm of the possible.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Without substance? Do you dispute that Wikipedia was created in 2001? Or maybe you want a reliable source that says that 1998 came before 2001? What substance is missing from my observation that not all of the potential sources are copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article, as stated by KATMAKROFAN? And you don't get to choose who takes part in deletion discussions. Those of us without a dog in this fight are better able to judge notability than editors with a preconceived point of view.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
86.17.222.157(
talk·contribs·WHOIS), IDK why you're constantly bringing up a book that's not even
WP:RS. I agree that the content of that book doesn't seem to have been copied from Wikipedia, but nevertheless, its authors are not historians, thus the whole thing plays no role here.
@
Tiptoethrutheminefield:, the Bournoutian source cited here, without a page, is a translation of an early 19th century work ("A history of Qarabagh: an annotated translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh"). Bournoutian adds to the relevant passages himself (page 11) that; "His [the writer related to the Khanate] work covers the history of the khanate of Qarabagh from the death of Nader Shah and the appointment of Panah Khan as the khan of Qarabagh in 1747/48 to the signing of the Russo-Qarabakhi treaty in 1805", while on page 3; "Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim Khan and Prince Tsitsianov.[footnote]" In later passages of the journal, Bournoutian always refers back to the same thing as "an agreement" or the "treaty signed with Russia", but never the words "Kurakchay Treaty" or "Treaty of Kurakchay". Mind you, Bournoutian is the sole
WP:RS author that even mentions such a word (Russo-Qarabaghi), and even then, throughout his entire euvre, as far as I can see/know, he does so on one mere occassion; only in this translation. -
LouisAragon (
talk)
22:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You seem to be hung up on the name of this treaty, rather than its existence. Are you doubting that a treaty was made between these parties on the date given?
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
If it was not actually called "Treaty of Kurakchay" then there are problems calling the article "Treaty of Kurakchay". Yes, something existed. An agreement was made between the Russian commander on the ground and a local ruler who was dependent on Persia, in which that ruler agrees to switch allegiance if his and his family, and his descendants position is guaranteed within the Russian Empire. The modern back story here is that Azerbaijan tries to inflate this agreement concerning a ruling family into a treaty entered into between two states - the Russian Empire and an independent state called the Karabakh Khanate. If an independent Azeri-ruled state can be made out to have existed in 1805, with its continued existence treaty-guaranteed by Russia, then this can be used to question the legitimacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic. My feeling is that, given the vagueness of its status and its name, the content of this article should be merged into related existing articles. There we can refer to it as an agreement, described in later sources as the "Treaty of Kurakchay" or the "Russo-Qarabaghi treaty". (Providing of course that there are at least some RS sources that do refer to it as "Treaty of Kurakchay")
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you for confirming that this discussion is a puerile nationalist dispute rather than an attempt to improve this encyclopedia. As I said before I have no dog in this fight, but I have no trouble identifying who does. The legitamacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic is not recognised by any UN member state, so anything other than questioning of that legitamacy is very much a
fringe view.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You are actually confirming to us your fringe pov. The Nagorno Karabakh republic bases its legitimacy on the self-evident fact of its existence, on the right of its population to have self determination, and of it being historically an integral part of Armenia, ethnically and culturally. However, Azeri historiography, which is not supported by RS, claims that, historically, NK was actually "Caucasian Albania", that its "Caucasian Albanians" over time either became assimilated into Muslim Azeris or assimilated into Christian Armenians, and that any real Armenians in NK are actually post-Russian conquest newcomers. This is why Azerbaijan talks up the status and importance of this treaty.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
02:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
So the position held by 193 UN member states is fringe, but that held by none is not. That's a weird topsy-turvy interpretation of the word "fringe". I have no doubt that many Azerbaijani nationalists distort history to support their aims, just as other nationalists, including many Armenians, do, but to any neutral observer the existence or otherwise of a minor treaty signed over 200 years ago is utterly irrelevant to the issue of how Nagorno Karabakh should be governed today. I'm not here to further any nationalist point of view, and haven't given an opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but I'm challenging errors of fact, such as that this is a hoax and that all sources found are copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
17:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- the treaty is mentioned in a book by
Kaveh Farrokh, Iran at War: 1500-1988, which appears to be RS. So it's not a hoax. It's significance is unclear, so I'm not sure it warrants an article or not; the book devotes several paragraphs to it noting: "The exact nature of the Kurakchay treaty has been disputed".
The Svante Cornell source is non RS propaganda that peddles Turkish and Azeri historiography - I can spot numerous lies and distortions in just that single page. "Russia's stirrings in the South Caucasus soon led to a Russo-Persian war". This is a lie - it was Persia's stirrings, seeking to re-impose its traditional supremacy over the Southern Caucasus, who invaded, causing the local Christian rulers in Georgia to ask Russia for help. And similarly, the "former Persian Lands" were not, they were still officially part of Persia though in the hands of mostly autonomous local rulers. The claim that Russia tried to extend its control over Armenia because Armenians were Christian is ludicrous, and it is a fantasy I have seen expressed in no other source. Russia had no intention during WW1 to "annex large parts of eastern Turkey". W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, in "Caucasian Battlefields", the definitive account of the military events, makes clear that for the Russian Empire the Caucasus front was always considered a sideline, was always under sourced, and was to be fought defensively. And of course Cornell is an Armenian Genocide denier, even using the stock denialist wording "tragic events" to dismiss it, placing "genocide" in inverted commas, and accusing Ottoman Armenians of being allied with Russia and being a fifth column.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the Kaveh Farrokh source that I found is not sufficient RS for a stand alone article. PS -- I do not quite understand the above comment. Anyway, delete.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge There is content in the Farrokh source found by K.e.coffman that could be added to the
Shusha article - currently there is nothing on the Russian occupation of it, the Persian advance, Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir ignoring his earlier treaty and switching back allegiance to Persia, his subsequent death, etc. I think there, and on the
Ibrahim Khalil Khan article, and with a mention on the
Karabakh Khanate article, is the most appropriate place for the subject detailed in this article. It was not a treaty between nations, but was an agreement with an individual (Ibrahim Khalil Khan) who had been appointed by Persia to govern territory that the Persian empire considered an integral part of Persia. Even though sources describe it as a treaty, giving it various names, I think it does not have the status that justifies an article - unlike an actual named treaty between nations.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Tiptoethrutheminefield: could you please clarify? If the source that I presented is good, it can be used at the
Shusha article. This article under discussion does not need to be merged there, as this source is not being used in the article at this time.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
00:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep (possibly merge). A book published by a University Press is certainly RS; hence this is not a hoax. It may well be that the treaty had little effect, due to the vagaries of war, but that does not mean we should not have an article. I am not clear what merge target is proposed: an article on the war, in which it was a diplomatic event might be a feasible target.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It being published by an "University Press" means nothing. "Ole Høiris" and "Sefa Martin Yürükel" are both anthropologists. This being a purely history-related matter, the source is therefore absolutely non-
WP:RS.-
LouisAragon (
talk)
23:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. A book that apparently does not mention the subject is not a good source for the subject, no matter who wrote it or who published it. DGG (
talk )
23:49, 10 October 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.
Upon first glance of a search of Metzler, it doesn't yield much outside of a few items. Sure he produced "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" for which he won an Emmy and PGA Award for, currently produces "Catfish: The TV Show," and won an Environmental Media Award for "The Lazy Environmentalist." But outside of that, he doesn't seem notable. Who ever created the article didn't bother adding any information or sources. Looking at the edit history, in nearly four years of the article page being around no progress has been made to get the article to a suitable point in which it shows notability of said person. Looking at Golfer1000x's talk page, they have recieved a couple of AfD notices, but nothing can be found in regards to that. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it!20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
delete per nom the NYT source is good, but I'm not sure we can swing a BLP on a single source. I'm actually surprised I couldn't turn up more in a basic BEFORE, and that quite a lot of the GNews hits I get are for other people of the same name -
David Gerard (
talk)
09:58, 9 October 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.
Notability: sufficient in-depth RS coverage cannot be found. Previous AfD closes as keep; however, only one source was presented, which does not meet
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:GNG. The article has been extensively edited by apparent COI accounts (followed by reverts), so potential for further
WP:PROMO time sink exists.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect Personally I don't see that
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP are established by the references in the article itself. However, with consideration to the previous AfD discussion (which seemed to establish notability on the basis of sources not actually mentioned or linked in the article), one imagines the 2 sentences in the stub could be merged/redirected to the
Agora, Inc. article (erstwhile parent company?), or
Bill Bonner (author) article (founder?), or a similar article. Personally I'd add a "publications" section to the
Bill Bonner (author) article, merge the 2 sentences into that section, and make the source article a redirect. Per nominator, what little (non promo) content that might be added here wouldn't seem to warrant a standalone article.
Guliolopez (
talk)
10:04, 8 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested
WP:PROD. Concern was: sources talk only of feasibility studies; there are no firm proposals, no money has been allotted, nothing is certain. Most importantly, no contracts for construction have been signed. A Google search turns up very little that isn't about
Cambridge railway station plus the word "south" out of context.
Redrose64 (
talk)
22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete (and articles on any other proposed stations) per
WP:CRYSTAL. The view has been taken in the past that it may be legitimate to have a single article on a proposed transport infrastructure scheme, but articles on individual stations are premature until the scheme is under construction, or (at worst) has been fully funded and has all requisite approvals, so that it is reasonably certain that it will actually be built.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:17, 27 September 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 Lack of reliable sources is especially problematic for BLPs, which essentially require an abundance of reliable, in-depth, third-party sources. Additionally, it seems that someone claiming to be the subject of the article has been requesting that we remove her date of birth from the article, apparently because of age discrimination in her industry, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a professional casting database; the best solution, if this actress's biography cannot be reliably sourced, is not to selectively cut out encyclopedic information -- it's to delete the article.
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
10:19, 1 October 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 Paul Godfrey is a notable musician as he has had a single or album on any country's national music chart and has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country. These are stated in criteria for musicians and ensembles on Wikipedia:Notability (music) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Samfov (
talk •
contribs)
11:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails notability given the sources in the article. Searching located nothing helpful. Subject is mentioned in
Morcheeba so a redirect to that article would be acceptable too.
Gab4gab (
talk)
16:53, 26 September 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.
An unremarkable adult actress; significant RS coverage cannot be found. The subject does not meet PORNBIO as the awards are scene-related or fan-based.
The article was discussed at AfD in 2007 with the decision to keep, based on 200+ films and AVN award nominations. PORNBIO has been tightened since then and I believe this article can be revisited.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
21:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The defeat of the AFD back in 2007 is one of many decisions in 2007 that were unwise and that have given Wikipedia a very poor reputation as to how it treats women, generally as objects of male gaze valued for their ability to attack such as opposed to as human beings. It was called a "bad faith" nomination even though people supporting deletion rightly pointed out a lack of reliable sources. It is high time that pornographic actress bios be held to standard GNG rules, and this one comes no where near meeting such rules, and should be deleted with all deliberate speed.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:09, 27 September 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 removed the two entries without articles and the image. For something to be deleted on promotional grounds it should really be more than a matter of removing an entry or two and an image (or almost every list would have periods of time when it would qualify for deletion). — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - Very weak keep. Should be renamed
List of hosiery brands, though, and added to, but it seems like a meh navigational page (most "list of [product category] brands"). There are plenty of sources for lists of sock/hosiery brands to justify
WP:LISTN. Not redundant to the category per
WP:NOTDUP. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:49, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Leaning Delete -- the PROMO issues have been addressed, but it still seems redundant to
Category:Hosiery brands. Since the main contributor was most likely a COI editor,I'm not sure who would maintain or expand the list. The category seems sufficient.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
18:22, 1 October 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.
CEO of the subsidiary of a major company. Were he CEO of the conglomerate,there might be sufficient material for an article. But I don't see it here. Only contribution by its editor,
Wikiedit800, and it reads like PR. DGG (
talk )
20:44, 25 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested PROD. I can't find any evidence of notability.
Adam9007 (
talk)
19:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply It's a tight definition of notability if you don't consider a radio program that airs on multiple stations across the United States as notable. The only negative against the listing is that this is a new program. Other programs that are similar in nature have Wikipedia pages. --
David100b (
talk)
20:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Syndication to multiple stations is technically a valid notability claim per
WP:NMEDIA, if it's properly sourced to
reliable source coverage about the program. It is not, however, a freebie that allows a program to keep an unsourced article just because syndication is asserted — as with all Wikipedia notability claims, it's not the mere assertion of passing a notability criterionthat passes the notability criterion, but the depth and quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the notability claim. So until real reliable source coverage in real media can actually be shown, notability is not satisfied. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when proper reliable source coverage can be shown.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:30, 27 September 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 product which has no reason to be on the Wiki. Not every book or product requires an article on the Wiki. Please delete with haste. Even if this article is sourced correctly or even rewritten I see no reason to keep it.
DeusImperator (
talk)
18:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep -
WP:GNG - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Nominator does not clarify why the article should be deleted. -
Taketa (
talk)
07:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG, plenty of references covering reception, etc. already in the article. Nom appears to need to understand deletion/inclusion criteria better.
Jclemens (
talk)
14:29, 27 September 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Improve or Delete: The company may be notable but the article needs to show additional references from reputable and ideally international or national media. Current reference list is lacking of those from what I can see. If those can be added ASAP to demonstrate notability, I suggest we keep the article. If not, delete it. Coverage of notable software companies undoubtedly adds value to various wikipedia readers.
Newtonslaw40 (
talk)
16:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:INSIGNIFICANCE and a Wikipedia search on the topic refutes your claim that the topic is insignificant.
Desktop Virtualization states, "Forrester Research identified in its report the Forrester Wave on Server-Hosted Virtual Desktops (VDI), Q3 2015 [3] the seven most significant software providers, being Citrix, Dell, LISTEQ, Microsoft, Nimboxx, Oracle, and VMware."
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Analyst firms, including Forrester, do not have a reputation for fact checking. These reports are based on briefings by the companies in questions; the firms do not independently do their analysis. I would not consider "named as one of 7 providers in a niche market by an industry analyst firm" to be sufficient for establishing encyclopedia notability. Forrester in this case is not RS, and it may be a primary source; I believe that's how reports and monographs are treated, being self-published by Forrester in this case.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Your proof by assertion was that there were "no indications of...significance" for LISTEQ. I've shown you two different definitions which were more than "indications" that the topic was significant. For the second you've switched to talking about notability.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:53, 3 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Hey there. I wrote the article nearly a decade ago because I was using the app. It seems to have
shifted significantly from its
original purpose and so the article is pretty irrelavant now. I'm not familiar with the Wikipedia deletion policy, but I have no objection to removing it as it does indeed seem pretty non-notable these days.
Eplack (
talk)
17:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as typical "corporate spam". I don't see a point of merging as the article under discussion does not list any sources. If desired, sources identified at the AfD could be added to parent company
GfK, but at present it does not mention the subject, so a redirect would be confusing.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
19:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete no notability and lack of sourcing makes it problematic. Don't see much material that if merged would lead to an improvement of the parent company article.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:51, 3 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
keep I appreciate that as I wrote the article my view may not be valid here, but I should point out that it is a significant company because of its role in developing what has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia
ISBN978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7. hence meets WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY.
Garyvines (
talk)
01:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:PROMO and
WP:TNT - " It has been described as "...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services."" in the intro, and the cite is to a reprinted press release. Given a start like that I flatly don't trust the offline sourcing to be any good. It would need a rewrite with each and every claimed good-looking source directly verified as actually backing the claim -
David Gerard (
talk)
10:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
How about we take out the promo quote and rely in the Hart and Hallett article and the numerous albeit brief references from organisations that use the software, to show notability? It may be a specialist proprietary software, but given its extensive role in museums and galleries, and in comparison to some of the more obscure relational databases listed
here, I would have thought it was an appropriate candidate to keep with a bit more editing of the article.
Garyvines (
talk)
13:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and I myself had commented Delete at the first AfD, this in fact is still in and of itself an advertisement because it only focuses with what the company wants to say about itself, and the sources equally show this in that they are not convincing either. No other actions have been made to attempt actually fixing this article, and it seems it's because it cannnot be improved, especially if only existing as an advertisement.
SwisterTwistertalk18:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
but the Hart and Hallett article, and the others cited above by me, are not advertising, while the large number of museums and galleries using the software is demonstrated by the numerous references from those organisations - i.e. they don't come from the company.
Garyvines (
talk)
01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)reply
keep Agree with
Garyvines that this article meets WP:GNG and WP:Company because the company's software "has become the main electronic database for large museums and galleries around the world, and has been written up as such in a number of reliable independent secondary sources - in particular these = Tim Hart and Martin Hallett, 2011, 'Australian museums and the technology revolution', in Understanding Museums: Australian Museums and Museology, Des Griffin and Leon Paroissien (eds), National Museum of Australia
ISBN978-1-876944-92-6; Lord, B & Lord, G.D., 1997, The Manual of Museum Management, Rowman, Altamira Press, pp.72-73; The Museums Journal, Volume 106, Issues 7-12 Museums Association, 2006; and Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals, Volume 5, AltaMira Press, 2009, pp.152-7.
Mbridge3000 (
talk)
19:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. As I said earlier, on the basis of Gary Vines' material here. Clearly documented as a leader in its field. The documentation meets the GN, and arguments that it does not amount to quibbling. If you really try hard enough, its possible to attack almost any source whatever, Ref 40 in particular isa very helpful 3rd party published source. In any case, leader in its field is indeed a better standard of suitability for a WP article than the arbitrary standard of GNG--it sayssomething about thr RW. I've rarely !voted to delete and article that shows that if the status is worldwide, and rarely if even if it is a major country. It has a little content that is a bit the promotional side, which I'm in the process of adjusting. DGG (
talk )
17:27, 5 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in Wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as an advertorial article that exists, clearly, for nothing else but to advertise what there is to know about the company, and then there's not actually any acceptable sourcing, let alone convincing, as they are simply the company websites, that itself is PR and that alone.
SwisterTwistertalk18:59, 1 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:33, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is a barely 2-year-old company and it only lists company activities which suggest alone there's not the needed substance, let alone convincing, and the sources themselves simply state the expected unconvincing information about what there is to know about the company, none of it amounts to substance either.
SwisterTwistertalk18:57, 1 October 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.
Non-notable organization. Nothing significant than some company like over thousands in the world. For being in wikipedia need to be much more significant than this. Else Wikipedia will become a directory for companies like this.
Light2021 (
talk)
17:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - I highly doubt this company is "like over thousands in the world". They seem pretty unique in the niche they are targeting within the 3d marketplace. But they also do not yet have enough significant coverage in independent reliable sources to warrant a stand-alone article. --
1Wiki8........................... (
talk)
09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as this clearly only exists an advertorial business listing, from going to specifics about the company's business and information to then actually having PR and unconvincing sources, none of this amounts to actual substance.
SwisterTwistertalk19:02, 1 October 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 all. Not a single one of these is an actual rivalry, either past or present. Merely two teams that play in the same league.
Resolute18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Sabbatino: I nominated the other Ranger articles and added them to this AFD. The Toronto talk page I nominated for speedy deletion because it had no article. The Toronto Blue Jays opponents article I nominated for deletion but separately. It can be found here
[1].
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?10:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete some, keep some - Most of these "rivalries" are trivial, per the nom. But others are not. To say that the Rangers and Bruins never had a genuine rivalry shows ignorance of the teams' histories at least throughout the 70s and perhaps early 80s, when they met in the Stanley Cup finals once and in the late rounds of the playoffs other times, there were controversial trades between the teams, and the rivalry got so intense it spilled into a fight between players and fans in the stands. Beyond that, the statement that "the two teams played one another yearly but so do other teams" is nonsensical, since the Bruins and Rangers are both original 6 teams that for 40 years played each other more than a dozen times a year, plus potential playoff meetings, including another Stanley Cup final. I don't think the rivalry between the Canadiens and Rangers has been as intense over the years, but these are also teams that have played each other for 90 years, including 40 during the 6 team era, and have many playoff series and at least one Stanley Cup final. I am more on the fence with the Penguins; the Rangers and Penguins have been division rivals on and off and during the early 90s in particular the rivalry became quite intense. So I would say keep Bruins and Canadiens, possibly keep Penguins, and delete the rest. Of course my keep votes are contingent on these articles being improved - they are sketches now but they are brand new so they deserve an opportunty to be expanded.
Rlendog (
talk)
16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete all unless significant work is done that establishes the notability of any of these as "rivalries". The
WP:ONUS is on the author (or anyone wanting to keep these as articles) to find those sources. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
16:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Remember the rivalry existing isn't enough. It has to be written about in depth in multiple sources like any other subject. This is the case for very few rivalries. -
DJSasso (
talk)
17:14, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agreed, but Rangers-Bruins rivalry has been.
Here a whole book about the 1970s portion of the rivalry.
Here is article about the rivalry from the New York Times.
Here is a short article describing a portion of the history of this rivalry.
Here is another article that discusses the history of Rangers-Bruins with some depth, with quotes such as "There have been times, however, when this rivalry was red-hot" and "During the late ’60s and into the ’70s, the rivalry was renewed in full." And notability is not temporary.
Here is an article discussing Rangers-Bruins as one of the Rangers' best rivalries (Canadiens and Penguins are also here, not very surprisingly).
Here is another article with some information about the Rangers-Bruins rivalry in the context of the overall Boston/New York sports rivalry. There is a lot more in depth coverage of this rivalry than that between the vast majority of pairs of teams. Even if this isn't enough (and I think it is more than enough), there is no way this should be discussed in the same context of non-entities such as Rangere-Mighty Ducks or Rangers-Whalers. Obviously the article needs improvement but since it only was created a few days ago there should be time for that before deleting.
Rlendog (
talk)
21:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. About the only one that 'might' pass as a noteworthy rivalry, is the Rangers/Penguins. But even that doesn't compare to the write ups on Rangers/Islanders.
GoodDay (
talk)
18:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I realize it's a blog, but
this site regards the Bruins as the Rangers' 4th biggest rivalry, behind the obvious Islanders, Flyers and Devils and actually 1 ahead of the Penguins.
Rlendog (
talk)
21:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Fine. But the multiple sources I listed in my reply to DJSasso are all RSes, and just the ones that were easily found on the first few Google pages. Since the most intense portions of the rivalry were prior to the internet, there are likely far more than that out there.
Rlendog (
talk)
12:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Searching a little further on the internet,
this book goes on for several pages on the Rangers-Bruins rivalry in the early 1970s. The end of
this article has several paragraphs on their rivalry in the late 1930s/early 1940s.
This article does add a tremendous amount but does breifly describe the teams "Old Rivalry" prior to that.
Rlendog (
talk)
12:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
And
this book couches the
Brad Park-
Bobby Orr rivalry within the context of the 1970s Rangers-Bruins rivalry. I can't see into
this book but the Google search snippet says "To increase interest in the Park-Orr comparison, the Rangers and the Bruins established a bitter rivalry in the early 1970's. Their games were high-strung and frantic, often laced with fights and tough checking by both teams. When they met in ..." so there is clearly some information about that rivalry here, albeit hard to determine how much.
this book states that this rivalry "had reached a fever pitch and got even steamier after Park decideed to write his autobiography" and continues for a few paragraphs discussing the rivalry, including the trade of Park to Boston (and also indicates that Park's autobiography contains relevant information to this rivalry. Sure a blog is not a reliable source, but I only used that as a piece that explicitly compared the Rangers-Bruins rivalry to the Rangers-Penguins. Dismissing the blog does not address the actual evidence from reliable sources that the Bruins-Rangers rivalry is notable. 12:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I'm fine with removing the Bruins-Rangers article from the nomination, but some work needs to be done with it, clearly, or it should be deleted as empty.
Rlendog, the creator is clearly a newer user. Perhaps you could use this article to show them a good way to edit and make a rivalry article viable?
Resolute22:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That makes a lot of sense. This would be a good oportunity to help teach a new user. And if the article continues to remain essentially empty, then I agree it would be appropriate to delete, albeit as an empty article, not because the topic is non-notable.
Rlendog (
talk)
23:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Given the links to coverage I provided, what is your basis for the claim that the Rangers-Bruins rivalry is "non-notable trivia"?
Rlendog (
talk)
16:12, 4 October 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. However, this can, and should, be renominated at any time should there be a consensus that the additional sources produced during this AfD are lacking.
Black Kite (talk)09:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Dinah Elizabeth Pearce. The present name implies that her father was an earl or above. Strictly she was Dinah Elizabeth, Lady Pearce. We do not normally include Sir in article titles, except baronets where the baronetcy is also part of her title. This should be applied to the wives of knight and baronets in the same way: they did not hold the title in their own right, only by marriage. However, inclusion in a one-volume biographical dictionary published by a university press ought to be sufficient evidence of her notability. I accept that we normally apply that rule to DNB and ODNB in UK, but we should not be too strict in that.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. A very quick Google search shows she appears to be notable independently of her husband in several ways: as founder of the Pearce Institute -- now recognised as an important community centre for Glasgow eg
[2]; as a pioneer in women's representation on Scottish School Boards (preprint at blacklisted site) and in association with the "Fresh Air Fortnight" scheme
[3]. I note this article was created as part of an initiative to address gender imbalance in coverage of Scottish women, which has received press coverage in the Scottish press:
[4] -- this article states "Among other work was creating pages for others including Lady Dinah Elizabeth Pearce from Govan who founded the Pierce Institute and other organisations such as the Women's Peace Crusade and Glasgow Women's Housing Association." There are far too many Google hits under "Lady Pearce", "Dinah Pearce", "Dinah Elizabeth Pearce" &c to sort through them all properly, and doubtless offline sources also exist.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
15:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment We will increase the coverage of Scottish women by writing articles about he ones who are actually notable, not the one who engage in minor local events--as the article truthfully says-- merely because of their husbands social position. It's not exactly a case of inherited notability, because I doubt he would be notable either. Minor country gentlemen & women are not usually, though they customarily do engage in local charities and receive the routine press coverage. As for the initiative, you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. DGG (
talk )
20:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
...you are now claiming notability for the subject of a WP article because a newspaper wrote an article about the editathon where the article was written, and mentioned this article as one of those created there. No, I am not; I am merely mentioning this embarrassing situation, in case anyone cares to contact the people involved, as well as quoting an article that suggests Pearce might have founded two other organisations, for which my back-of-the-envelope search found no better evidence. As to
her husband, if you had actually read any of the sources, he unimpeachably meets the notability requirements as an MP, if for no other reason.
Espresso Addict (
talk)
22:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Claim to notability is being the wife of a MP and founder of a un-notable institute. Most of her "bio" page on the Pearce website, which says "Although overshadowed historically by her husband, Lady Pearce was nevertheless held in extremely high regard by the people of Govan.", is taken up by a poem by a "local resident". If a similar article were made of a modern person with this kind of sources it would be quickly deleted.
BigGuy88 (
talk)
06:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is either trivial coverage more about the building than the woman or not independent. I'm also not entirely sure if the Wordpress site meets
WP:RS. I don't see enough in-depth treatment to merit an article under
WP:GNG.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
18:57, 3 October 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 first AfD decision was that this and related articles were to be merged, 3 1/2 years ago, this was never done(the mergers were only completed for 3 small articles out of a total of 6 articles on this same topic) and there continues to be pushback on completing the mergers. Standalone, it is not notable and Scouting WPMOS does not support articles of this nature.
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk)
15:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
merge this and
1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group to
Lake View Park International Scout Centre-It is highly unlikely that any "Old Scouts Association" will be notable. I do not think there are any. It is also unlikely that articles about Scout Groups or Scout Troops will be notable, although there are a few.
1st Kandy Dharmaraja Scout Group is the article about the Scout Group that these old Scouts come from. It also is not notable. What has been considered notable is the running of several international camps that have been mentioned in the press. However, these events are help at
Lake View Park International Scout Centre which is owned by this Scout Group. So we actually have three articles all related to one Scout Group. The sources are essentially talking about this camp and the events held there. There should be only one. I suggest that we keep
Lake View Park International Scout Centre and merge the other two there. This was proposed in the earlier AfD. There have been several attempts to clarify this issue, but they have all been supported by editors with no relationship to this Group and opposed by the local editors. --
Bduke(Discussion)01:00, 26 September 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 sources are RS. Now I can't access all of them, but the ones I could, I added links to them. I also found a bio about Robinson online on Blackpast.org. She is written about in a number of books, and assuming good faith on the references we can't access, she passes GNG.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
23:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I don't see how that equals notability. Do we have an article about the first blonde person to fly across the Atlantic while wearing non-aviator sunglasses? Chris Troutman (
talk)16:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Chris troutman, being the first out of a nationality, gender or ethnic group to accomplish something is often an indicator of notability. Being the first blonde person to fly across the Atlantic is not. However, the first Swedish person (who may or may not be blonde) to fly across the Atlantic would be. Hope that clears that up. Also... can you point to any guidelines that prohibit
WP:AGF for offline sources?
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
17:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Megalibrarygirl: As I've said: "I don't AGF on sources offhand when it comes to AfD. That's no one's policy but mine as I think SIGCOV is fine until we have to decide between keeping and deleting. I might on occasion let a single source I can't read slip by on a GA nom or even at AfC but I can't allow a pile of unverified-by-me content to change my !vote. You claim "being the first out of a nationality, gender or ethnic group to accomplish something is often an indicator of notability" but I see no evidence for this. Granted, the media will often make a big deal out this sort of thing since they're trying to publish and get eyeballs but
WP:N does not say that we use quotas to include people for whatever reason. You can, of course, have your own opinion about notability. I just don't think it appropriate. Chris Troutman (
talk)17:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
OK,
Chris troutman, I thought you were going off your own interpretation of AGF and AfD conduct. Thanks for clearing that up. She passes GNG whether or not she's a "first." Furthermore, I'm not going off my opinion of notability, it's pretty well laid out here on Wiki. She is, however, a first, if others want to look to that. Please read the article which I edited and added some RS which can be accessed online: she's the first female graduate of Fisk. It's in the first paragraph. I'm asking around with my library contacts to see if we can't fill in the rest of the offline sources.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
18:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
CommentMagnolia677 and
Chris troutman both seem to be under the impression that the subjects of Wikipedia biographies are required to accomplish something notable. They're not. (Which is not to say that America W. Robinson, the subject of this biography, had no accomplishments.) A person merely needs to be the subject of significant independent reliable coverage. Nothing more. If you don't like the rule, try to build consensus to change it. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk01:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - reiterate that multiple independent reliable sources exits. Notability well-established. One of 2 first females to graduate from Fisk. A key member of the Fisk Jubilee Singers.
InfoDataMonger (
talk)
16:35, 1 October 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.
See
WP:LISTCRUFT and
WP:NOTSTATS. This article was tagged as not meeting the notability guideline 3 years ago and it doesn't look as if the situation has changed. For example, the association football section relies entirely on one source. There is no clear inclusion criteria; why some sports and not others? Why should this exist when we already have
List of sports attendance figures which is more concise?
Spiderone14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This is an encyclopaedia not a sports almanac. inclusion of this information on individual pages (for a football club or stadium for example) would be notable but this doesn't meet the criteria any more now than it did when I first nominated it. =>
Spudgfsh (
Text Me!)
16:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Neutral comment: I looked at the page view stats out of curiosity, and found something interesting. From 7/1/2015 -to 5/22/2016 there were an average of four readers viewing the page per day.
[5] From 5/24/2016 to 9/24/2016 there were an average of thirty six readers viewing the page per day.
[6] Page views simply jumped by a factor of nine on 5/23/2016! So I investigated. On that day an IP updated all of the figures, added Australian football, and created five appropriate Also links from this article to other Sports_List articles, and added matching See Also links from those articles back to this article.
[7] On that day there was also a spike of 166 software-spider page views.
[8] The software-spider page views was probably one or more search engines investigating this page, based on the newly created inbound See Also links pointing to it. I'm not saying anyone did anything wrong, I just thought it was interesting.
Alsee (
talk)
17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The idea that a list has to be "notable" is fairly silly, given what Wikipedia has become. Why force people to check 50 or a hundred pages when someone compiled the info. in one place? This list, in particular, is very interesting and helpful. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
23:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Because it's just silly lawyering from people who take the Wiki rules way too seriously. Are there media outlets constantly writing about the list of U.S. presidents or the list of countries ranked by GDP or the list of Madonna's records? No. Nobody ever writes stories about lists. But that doesn't mean they aren't useful. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
For those that care, I think it's safe to say that the editor may be choosing to
ignore all rules that prevent Wikipedia from being better. I tend to agree, lists can have a good place. There is
WP:LISTN which we can use as a guideline, but even that measure states "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists" and I think that we should pay attention there.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
02:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Please note -
WP:LISTCRUFT, point 11, rules against this type of list as it is almost always going to be out of date. Since the article is only referring to the 'latest season', it is actually already out of date as it is referring to 2015-16 when we have already started 2016-17 in a lot of sports. Also, it gives no reason for its discrimination. For example, why doesn't the list also give the top 10 attendances for handball, rugby union, rugby league, water polo, volleyball etc.? There is no clear reason why the current sports are chosen and why others aren't.
Spiderone09:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Please note This is silly to the point of being idiotic. The list is not "out of date" at all — the list is simply AS OF the last full season for the teams in question. No one in their right mind would expect a list like this to be updated daily, as games are played around the world. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
To elaborate on this point a little. if the list was of record attendences it would have more of a claim because it wouldn't be immediately out of date, it would only be incomplete. this list as it stands is both constantly out of date and incomplete. =>
Spudgfsh (
Text Me!)
10:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I wholeheartedly agree. If it were a list of record attendances of the equivalent, then I would not be putting the list up for AfD. Simple as that.
Spiderone10:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Why would a list of record attendances be notable but not this list of actual attendance? Is there any evidence that such a list is "notable" under the Wiki rules you seem to believe are so sacred? It seems like you're just making things up as you go along. -
Bbny-wiki-editor (
talk)
18:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Back to the previous point, firstly, it is going to be out of date next season in any case. Does this mean all the current data gets scrapped and replaced with new data next season? The article doesn't make it clear which season it's really even talking about. If this topic really is notable then it probably should be done on a season per season basis rather than just binned and then reincarnated every time the season changes. Lastly, this article does nothing more than mirror what StadiumDB and ESPN puts up. Is there enough evidence from other sources too?
Spiderone19:55, 3 October 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The issues listed (orphan, update) suggest a lack of notability; also Wikipedia is not an instruction manual; also secondary sources; also does this still even exist?
CapnZapp (
talk)
14:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
KEEP. Highly Notable project in the development history of internet technology. Historic developments regarding distributed systems, cryptography, anonymity, tamper-proof content, free-speech, and related legal implications.
New York Times Divided Data Can Elude the Censor[9]
Scientific American Speech without accountability[10]
Scientific American How Publius Thwarts Censors[11]
Association for Computing Machinery Technical Report Fault-Tolerant Distributed Information Retrieval for Publius Servers and Mobile Peers[12]
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu search returns 1001 hits for papers mentioning "Publius", most of which are valid hits, and many of those papers themselves are cited by hundreds of papers.
[13]
Many books, such as 'Peer-to-Peer: Harnessing the Power of Disruptive Technologies[15]
Google Book search for Publius+distributed+internet+peer returns 1810 hits.
[16]
The Publius home page
[17] has (mostly dead) links to articles in The Industry Standard(9/13/2000), The Industry Standard (8/21/2000), eWeek, Yahoo News, Washington Post, CNET News 8/7/2000,CNET News 6/30/2000, Associated Press. Those count for Notability, and can be retrieved either in paper form or probably on Internet Archive sites.
Alsee (
talk)
18:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Article is unsourced, and the first sentence contains BLP violations. The search on Google books returns the first link as a book with Wikipedia articles. The next link, and only link with bold, references "AT&T's Publius publishing system", where "AT&T" does not appear in this article.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:01, 3 October 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 Since TTN has recently complained when I've listed bare links in AfDs, I'm not going to bother this time: The above 'find sources' news, newspapers, books, and scholar links each show dozens of presumably independent RS links, which even in their snippets call the subject skit (which I've never seen) 'Iconic'. I'll note the article already appears to have two independent RS'es, apparently already meeting the GNG when nominated. Merging a notable element into its parent media, but that's a subject for regular editing and talk-page consensus building, not AfD.
Jclemens (
talk)
16:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The grand majority of anything you're going to find is completely within the context of the single episode in which it appeared, including the two sources in the article. There is nothing showing that the single plot element is indpendtly notable outside of the episode. The episode itself is certainly notable and this is just one part of it. As this current article is simply a plot regurgitation, there is nothing that needs to be merged, so deletion and then a new redirect is the best option. Only if the main article becomes overly bloated on information on this topic should it be split out.
TTN (
talk)
17:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, of COURSE it is. But it's apparently a memorable episode in a memorable show, as others have observed. You realize you argue contradictory things in different AfDs, TTN? It's only one episode, here, but when another fictional element is so well known from multiple places that no one feels compelled to explain it when they write about it, you criticize that as trivial coverage. Again, I'm not a Lucille Ball fan, never seen the episode in question, so I'm a terrible person to make an argument about how important it is or isn't; all I can do is judge by the number and scope of the coverage.
Jclemens (
talk)
19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This is one aspect about why the episode itself is notable. It is a one-time thing featured in that episode and is always mentioned within the context of the episode. It is not something like Monty Python where the skits were mainly self-contained and could be performed separately at different works. Anything that can reasonably be mentioned about the topic is within the context of the episode, so it currently belongs in the episode. Should the impossible happen and the article becomes too bloated, then and only then should the topic be split out.
TTN (
talk)
20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
All fictional elements are only notable within the framework in which they are mentioned. We spin them out when the coverage would unbalance the article on that particular framework.
Jclemens (
talk)
19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Procedural speedy close In
this diff, the nominator attempts to redirect the article, which shows that this is a nomination intended to circumvent the proper forum for discussion on the talk page, and use AfD people instead of the content experts who should be making this decision. In the lieu of proper closing of the AfD, I recommend a "keep", as WP:BEFORE D1 shows that this topic has plenty of sources, and is clearly differentiated from the episode. IMO, some material from the episode article moved here would benefit both articles. I've seen the episode twice, so I may not be neutral as I've enjoyed the memories here.
Unscintillating (
talk)
00:58, 3 October 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 list is highly confusing. It mixes up different seasons presumably because these are the record-breaking seasons for that particular league/team? It also mixes men's and women's football. Another issue is that it will need updating every season so at the moment it is almost completely out of date. Refer to
WP:LISTCRUFTSpiderone13:52, 25 September 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 certainly nothing applicably convincing, including WP:POLITICIAN, and then there's not even anything apart from this one position, to suggest anything else otherwise better.
SwisterTwistertalk00:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Well-written article. I can't read many of the sources for various reasons, but they show sufficient sources to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't see any policy-based reasons for deletion.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:37, 3 October 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.
Thanks for writing, however, I'd like to point to the following article. This linked article is from UCLA, explicitly writing that Metapress is an established journal hosting their content under their resources section. All referenced and notable mentions on the original page have references, although I understand and agree that several additional references would be appropriate for addition. I would appreciate your review of this link, and many other comparable references to be considered prior to the repeated attempts at deletion. Thank you, and I am looking forward to your reply. Here is the link:
http://www.aasc.ucla.edu/aascpress/aj.aspxMark54ems (
talk)
14:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep but rewrite. The article is somewhat unclear. The version of Metapress that was notable was the earlier system, which was not a journal or a reprinter, but a publication platform for publishing journals. It was used by a variety of publisjhers, many of them highly reputable. The best source for its nature is section 3 of
[18], a blog, but a blog by a well-known expert in scholarly publishing. I consider it a RS. All references before 2014 refer to this platform,which is currently called Literatum.
[19] Ditto for the UCLA reference cited above.
The present system has kept the name, but has essentially no content; as its home page says "We are currently in the process of redeveloping our entire site, so you unfortunately won’t find many published pages at this time." I cannot tell if it retains any connection with Ebsco, but I need to do some inquiries DGG (
talk )
05:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You may be right about all this, but neither of the sources you provide have in depth coverage of a thing called 'Metapress'. Without in depth coverage of a thing called Metapress, there can be no article.
Stuartyeates (
talk)
10:25, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Request for removal of the "articles for deletion" tag: I have updated the
Metapress page with additional references, including in-depth coverage and additional clarification of the history. There are many more articles possible to reference, but I believe this is currently suitable to be removed from the "articles for deletion" category. Please review,
Stuartyeates,
DGG, and
Paperpro. Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mark54ems (
talk •
contribs)
21:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep current version. Agree with DGG's statements, echoed by
Dennis Brown. Rewritten version and updated references are more robust. Looking at the references, I don't see how this is even still a two-sided discussion of notability and in-depth coverage.
Paperpro (
talk)
12:08, 26 September 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 initially thought a merge all would have been fine, but spot-checking for RS'ing, I see things like
[20], which makes me think a per-element exam might be more appropriate.
Jclemens (
talk)
22:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Archomental. Furthermore I propose adding the other creatures listed at Archomental to this AFD. None of these articles appear to have any sourcing other than of in-universe game materials or effectively in-universe dedicated D&D magazines.
Can I recommend against these kind of mass-list AfDs? They create confusion and bad feeling; it's entirely possible that some of these are notable and others not. One by one may be slow, but it is effective and allows people a good-faith chance to identify possible sources/make changes to the article.
Josh Milburn (
talk)
02:26, 26 September 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 seems to rely on a single Goal.com source. There is an official website and so this company definitely exists but I can't seem to find any other reliable sources covering this that are independent of the subject. I, therefore, fear that this fails
WP:GNG.
Spiderone12:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as not only is it simply stating what there is to know about the company and its business, it goes to list its clients which is a notorious sign of advertising.
SwisterTwistertalk19:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete – no evidence of sufficient notability. A single self-published source falls well short of the requirements. C67913:08, 1 October 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article consists of little but summary of the international politics essay/paper. Almost entirely referenced to the work itself (with the exception of one reference which probably was cited by the work itself). No real third-party references covering the work itself.
Proposed deletion has been removed by creator. -
Mike Rosoft (
talk)
11:34, 25 September 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. Google search didn't turn up a single mention in a reliable sources, but many similarly worded pieces of (self?) promotion in non-RSes. Academic career does not come close to meeting
WP:PROF.
Joe Roe (
talk)
11:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep pending source search.
WP:BASIC is best applied to someone with multiple jobs, her work as an academic "stacks" with other coverage by neutral, reliable third-party sources. The question is if all together get us to adequately significant. I'm giving this one the benefit of the doubt for now.
Montanabw(talk)23:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete I can find nothing that shows she meets the notability criteria of any specialty. She definitely does not meet the notability criteria for martial artists (see
WP:MANOTE). Every reference I see appears to be remarkably similar in wording. I find myself just on the other side of the fence from Montanabw because I don't see quite enough to agree she meets
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk)
00:30, 2 October 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, fails
WP:Notability. I got zero hits on Google Newspapers, Google Scholar, HighBeam, and JSTOR. The only Google News hit was unrelated. Google Books gave a few hits, but none looked remotely relevant to a movie. I checked the top 100 general Google hits, none were relevant-RS. They were mostly download sites, the rest were blogs or Wikipedia mirrors or false hits for other things with "Atongo" in the name.
Alsee (
talk)
22:15, 25 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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. Non-notable fictional character. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. The article is just a plot dump. No sources. No information on the development or design of the character. No information on how the character has been received by critics or their real world significance. As there is no worthwhile content to merge, suggest deleting then redirecting to
List of Danganronpa characters#Danganronpa: Trigger Happy Havoc where the character is more appropriately covered.
The1337gamer (
talk)
09:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Never heard of this franchise, let alone this character, before, but she appears to be covered as a statuette
[21] and as a cosplay opportunity.
[22]. There's not a whole lot out there, but what I found with a trivial search there is far more opportunity to discuss this character in an encyclopedic way and the
WP:GNG is met, so merging vs. standalone article should be an editorial decision.
Jclemens (
talk)
15:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The best you can do is a figurine announcement and photos of people dressed in costumes? Both of these don't even discuss the character. You haven't demonstrated the topic is notable or worth keeping at all. --
The1337gamer (
talk)
16:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but that's an awful attempt to meet the
WP:GNG. That's not even close to something that constitutes significant coverage in third party sources. That's not even good anecdotal evidence. I know you don't like how these fictional character article are being merged/redirected/deleted, but come on, you've got to come up with something more convincing than that.
Sergecross73msg me12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not even close to meeting the
WP:GNG. Entirely unsourced plot rehashing that only vaguely focuses on her. Nothing worth merging to the character article. I wouldn't object to a redirect, but I wouldn't particularly recommend it either.
Sergecross73msg me12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - A character article needs out of universe information in the form of reviews, and conception. Can anyone provide some reviews of the character? -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
13:59, 26 September 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 no statement of notability such as age, and no reliable sources. If an article is created for the place it is situated a description of this temple could be added there with appropriate refs
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete without prejudice to recreation. I wasn't able to find anything when I searched for it, but there may well be foreign language sources I can't utilize.
agtx14:51, 3 October 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 interested as some people may be in the leather subculture, holding a Mr. Leather title is not in and of itself a reason why a person gets permanent coverage in an encyclopedia. There are thousands of such pageants around the world, because almost every city that's large enough to have an organized LGBT community at all will have its own Mr. Leather pageant — and most winners don't get enough coverage to actually satisfy
WP:GNG. And the sourcing here isn't showing that he's the exception to that rule, either — I'm seeing a lot of blogs and wikis and video streaming sites and
primary sources, with literally just one reference in the entire bunch (Siegessäule, #3) that actually passes the
reliable sourcing test. But one valid reference isn't enough to get a person into Wikipedia, if they don't have an automatic pass of any specific notability criterion and are depending solely on "media coverage exists, ergo GNG" as their includability argument.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:26, 26 September 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 believe this chain is currently defunct in its entirety, though I am not certain. It is possible one or two stores may still be operating. Chain went through bankruptcy in 2010/2011 and for the most part folded around 2013/2014. The website is still active and lists menu items, but does not list any store locations. One article indicates somebody may have been considering trying to revive the brand, but no indication that has been attempted. Even in its heyday, it was nothing more than a Washington, D.C. area chain, no presence outside the Washington Metropolitan area. Nothing other than local coverage. No indication that this chain ever satisfied
WP:NCORP or
WP:GNG. Kept at AfD in 2005, but notability standards were not well developed at that time.
Safiel (
talk)
05:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I checked Google News and a pile of top general Google hits. Fails
WP:NCORP when the only almost-helpful sourcing is the bankruptcy announcement. I note that there was a previous AFD on this article which closed as KEEP,
[23] however it was in 2005. Wikipedia had no policy on Notability at the time.
Alsee (
talk)
22:50, 25 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 (weak)Keep current sources are primary, so fails
WP:GNG. I haven't searched for more, but articles ideally should be created based on
WP:RS and I've not heard of this. If any are uncovered change to Keep. Widefox;
talk16:25, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. There are secondary sources. A 2013 book on Monte Carlo Methods calls it a "very good" generator and presents it as the only example of a pseudo-random number generator, with references as to where to find others. There is a complete discussion of KISS. I've added the reference to Further reading in the article.
StarryGrandma (
talk)
18:30, 1 October 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 or, at most, move to userspace. Maybe the gaps described by Clarityfiend could make an article, but this isn't it. I think I would vote delete or redirect on the Portuguese article on which this one is meant to be based.
Smmurphy(
Talk)19:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)reply
pt:Apoio dos Estados Unidos ao nazismo is, I think, the article to which Dr. Loo (whose userpage suggests is Brazillian) is referring. Sorry, I should have included the link in my previous message, but I didn't look up how to do interlanguage links. Also, sorry for the slow response, you misspelled my user name, so I didn't get the ping.
Smmurphy(
Talk)13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to
Nazism in the United States. No reason to make the title any more specific than that, since that will cover both the history of Nazism in the U.S. and modern Nazi supporters in the U.S. In response to
E.M.Gregory's remark, those other two articles don't quite cover the same topic.
German American Bund is a historical organization that supported the Nazis in the late 30s, but that doesn't mean that it was the sole group supporting the Nazis. For example,
Charles Lindburgh was, at least at one time, a Nazi supporter, but he had little to do with the German American Bund.
Neo-Nazism is not a U.S. specific article and thus should maintain a global focus.
agtx14:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure if "Support for..." is the right approach; that would make the article somewhat one-sided. I.e.: I'm sure there was opposition too.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
18:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, as AfD hinges on notability and potential to expand, not current state of articles. Subsequent discussions can determine the appropriate title and redirects.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to
Nazism in the United States The subject is notable and the renamed title would be a much better description. It has a good potential to be an umbrella article which talks not only about the support but also about the domestic reactions to it. As for
Support for Nazis in the USA, the article is a mess (translation issues) and it should be deleted or redirect to this article. --
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
05:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be a valid reason for deletion. The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is any good.
agtx14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The subject is notable enough that it is already covered, as mentioned above more than once. This is a recent article that duplicates, essentially, existing work; that's grounds for speedy deletion, never mind this. It's also a near a near literal copy of another xlation of the same article, one or the other definitely needs to go.
Anmccaff (
talk)
20:18, 10 October 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. No indication of
WP:Notability. Completely unsourced article, for a game that hasn't been released yet, and Google returns exactly zero hits.
Comment to article creator
Danbilkey: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means we summarized what independent
Reliable Sources have already written on a subject. Please see
GOLDENRULE for a brief summary. We only have article about things after the world already considers it noteworthy enough for multiple sources to have written about it.
Alsee (
talk)
00:10, 26 September 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep -
WP:GNG,
WP:NFF - Subject has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It meets
WP:NFF since the principle shooting of the film has begun.
WP:BALL does not apply since the subject is an "expected future event" and not "speculation or rumor". -- Sincerely,
Taketa (
talk)
07:19, 27 September 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 not finding significant coverage at this time. Could achieve notability in the future (and probably will--maybe this season, heck maybe even this week) but I would call the article premature at best.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
13:33, 26 September 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.
Single author is principle developer of technique, search of Google scholar doesn't find coverage in secondary sources, otherwise no indication that the individual method is notable. Its a bit out of my understanding of chemuistry, but very skeptical that its more than his lab's project.
Sadads (
talk)
02:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
To some extent, I agree with you. It would be best to ask other chemists to comment on this issue, and ask them to compare this article with other Wikipedia articles on new concepts in analytical chemistry. I believe the key issue is "secondary sources". The other part of your comment "his lab's project" is tricky, as there are several references. So, you need to answer the question is it still "a project", or is it already "a technique". In science, we often match a project with a publication (the final outcome of the project). Here there are four references - the newer ones cite the older ones. Can the newer ones act as "secondary sources"? My answer is - yes. But others may have a different opinion. As long as the same standards are applied to all such Wikipedia articles, then it is fine for me, and I support your request to delete the article "Hydrogel micropatch sampling". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Natriumchloratum (
talk •
contribs)
03:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Multiple independent reliable sources are required to establish
Notability. All sources appear to be written by Urban and colleagues. P.S. to
Natriumchloratum, I almost complimented you as an excellent newbie because your username is redlinked, chuckle. Regarding chemists to comment on the issue, part of the key to Wikipedia is that editors (usually) don't need topic expertise. It's the job of scientists and Reliable Sources to evaluate subject matter and establish notability. Here we just need to evaluate sources and other policy issues.
Alsee (
talk) 01:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC) (Clarification: I meant I almost missed that you've been around a few years and that you have significant experience.)
Alsee (
talk)
01:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Of the four references in the article, all are journal articles published by the team that developed the technique. The fourth is just a link to a list of upcoming publications, but searching for the article title "Quantitative mass spectrometry of unconventional human biological matrices" (
abstract) shows that it appears to be mainly about testing the specimens once you have them. Hydrogel micropatch sampling is not mentioned in the abstract so the use of this technique may be just a passing mention; I'm not prepared to pay for the full article to prove that though. I can't find any secondary sources mentioning it and would agree with Sadads that it is the non-notable project of one lab.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
21:09, 29 September 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. I found no indication this meets
WP:NBOOK. Article has no independent RS. Created by SPA who has only edited this article and added promotional links to the books website in various other articles.
MB17:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete no assertion of notability independent of the book itself or independent of online stores, with no assertion for future improvement. —
Mythdon10:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I must note that the two opinions above are factually incorrect, because the article links to a review of this book in The Gardening Times, which appears to be an independent reliable source, and some other reviews in more debatable sources. And the review that I linked above is certainly in an independent reliable source, being in an academic journal published by
Taylor & Francis.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
21:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per the user at IP 86.17.222.157 (that's a first for me!). This is a book (actually two volumes) published by a
learned society that has been reviewed by at least four reliable periodicals. Even if there were a COI, or editing is needed, those are not
fatal flaws.
Bearian (
talk)
15:42, 23 September 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.
Now that there is a separate
Murder of Samia Shahid article, I would like to bring the
WP:BIO1E argument again. Most of the "keep" arguments in the
prior deletion discussion seemed to support the notability of her murder, but there does not seem to be enough coverage available to write a balanced, standalone article that is about Shahid as a whole (e.g. her history and impact as a beautician), not just the circumstances of her death. I recommend a redirect to
Murder of Samia Shahid outcome.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The Samia Shahid article is created almost a month earlier than Murder of Samia Shahid. I don't know Wiki Policy about such an issue. it is a second nomination. I think the article created afterwards should be merged with this article.
Sneha Hurrain (
talk)
09:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Snehahurrain: The issue is that the two articles are, in fact, different subjects. One is about the event of her murder—combining information about the perpetrators, the crime itself, and the aftermath—and the other is a biography about Shahid as a person. The murder might be notable as a result of significant coverage in reliable sources (the
general notability guideline), but the overwhelming majority of the coverage about Shahid is about her death. The event of her murder has received significant coverage, but not Shahid's life as a whole. I could accept merging this article to
Murder of Samia Shahid as well.
Mz7 (
talk)
13:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. I don't have a strong opinion here, but I will say that "
murder" is a tricky word. It has a specific legal meaning, and considering that we have listed an accused perpetrator on that page, we could face a BLP issue should that person be convicted of a homicide crime that is not murder. I also understand that we use common language here, and not technical legal terms. I just wanted to bring that to folks' attention before we decided on a name for the page.
agtx15:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Agtx: This is an excellent point. I would support moving the article something like
Death of Samia Shahidafter this AfD concludes. I used "murder" here since it is the current article title.
Mz7 (
talk) 02:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC) On second thought, since BLP is involved, I would support the move right now.
Mz7 (
talk)
02:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I should add that if this turns out to be all true, then it is a heinous crime. If the perpetrator is eventually convicted of murder, then the page should absolutely be titled as such.
agtx16:23, 29 September 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.
DeleteComment Modifications to the article since the AfD indicate subject has won a Gold at the Pan American games which may cross the notability threshold. I am having trouble tracking down exactly when that was (given references are not helpful or reliable) so I change my vote to a comment for the moment. I suspect there is an error since I don't think there were women's Judo events in the time period where she peaked. Perhaps it was Pan American Judo championships which in not as notable but I am guessing. Note Judoinside does not list anything.
Peter Rehse (
talk)
12:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete My search found no evidence of her winning a medal at the Pan-Am Games or even at the Pan-Am championships. The first Pan-Am Games women's judo competition wasn't until 1983, which was 8 years after her only medal at the U.S. championships. The article gives no significant independent coverage, there's nothing that shows either
WP:GNG or
WP:MANOTE is met, and being in a local club's hall of fame certainly is insufficient to show notability. In addition, her sister is irrelevant to her notability.
Papaursa (
talk)
22:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment according to
this source she held five national titles. How does that stack up against the GNG? Also, the statements on the drug scandal are referenced to a book on swimming so I'm going to delete them. Possibly the wrong "Becky Scott".
MurielMary (
talk)
01:36, 26 September 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.
Really confused as to why this wasn't speedily deleted. Subject never was at the Olympics as a participant. Bruno has only one mention in a 1971 magazine so there hardly is any coverage. Being the "father" of Air Force judo is not an accomplish in itself either as I've seen many claims of martial artists to be the "father" of military arts.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
01:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Although the article wasn't much to look at when this nomination was made, an IP address (not me) made significant additions earlier today. The article still needs work, a lot of it in the form of converting in-article external links into properly formatted references. But notability is well established by these additional links. According to the subject's obituary in
Black Belt (magazine), the subject is credited with popularizing judo in the United States (and not just with the military). He was also the subject (while living) of a five-page article in that same magazine. And I've only yet scratched the surface of the approximately two dozen new links in the article. What is needed here is clean-up, not deletion.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
22:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Follow-up I've started the first round of clean-up for the article. In the process, I learned that many of the new links were duplicates of each other, so that the actual number of additional links added by the IP address is much lower than the two dozen that I had reported. However, these new links still do document the subject's notability.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree there is one good Black Belt article on him ("The Grand Old Man of Judo" article isn't about him). However, there is nothing to show he meets the notability criteria for martial artists at
WP:MANOTE since rank is not an indicator of notability. In addition,
WP:GNG asks for significant coverage in multiple independent sources and that I can't find and don't see.
Papaursa (
talk)
00:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you for commenting. Before I respond, I'll note for the closing administrator that Papaursa and I are the only two discussants who have commented on the article since it was expanded on September 26. I also note that Google searching might have been hampered by the incorrect spelling of the subject's name in the article title -- it should be "Emilio", not "Emelio". And during his career, the subject was largely known as "Mel Bruno".
Papursa, it might well be true that "rank is not an indicator of notability" under the essay that you cited. But that essay also says that the existence of an independent article on the subject is such an indicator, and the essay does not insist on there being more than one such article. But that's a moot point, because the subject passes the general notability guidelines without recourse to the martial-arts essay. One of the criteria for being notable under the general guidelines is that the person's contributions have become part of the enduring historical record of his field. And that's precisely true for the subject here. That five-page article in Black Belt is evidence of this, as it was published in the 1970s, well after Bruno's peak years of accomplishments. And the obituary that the magazine ran in 2004 described him as a "pioneer" of American judo. The website for the United States Judo Federation uses that same word to describe Bruno in its article on the development of Judo in the United States (and that article includes an extended biography of him). In 2007, Bruno was inducted (posthumously) into the Hall of Fame at the
Martial Arts History Museum (a fact that I added to the article earlier today). Add to all this the subject's role in developing the US military's judo team, and we have more than enough material with which to build a decent, well-sourced article.
NewYorkActuary (
talk) 05:41, 2 October 2016 (UTC) slight revisions by
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
05:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG uses the plural in describing "reliable sources" and saying "multiple sources are generally expected." Martial arts halls of fame have never been considered to show notability due to the large number of them. When I searched the USJF website, I didn't find the source you mention--just passing mentions. In addition, I'm not sure how they could describe him as a "pioneer" and yet not put him in their hall of fame. That seems like a disconnect to me. I'm also not convinced that an obituary is sufficient to show notability, unless it's in a major general publication (e.g., NY Times).
Papaursa (
talk)
03:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)reply
I've fallen victim to my own poor note-taking. The website that described Bruno as a pioneer was the one for the Judo Encyclopedia, not the USJF. Because I don't believe that the encyclopedia is a top-quality source, I've stricken my comment from above. But one good thing came out of my mishap -- the additional searching caused me to stumble across the web site for the
United States Judo Association, which discusses Bruno's role in the creation of that organization. That site has been added as a general reference to the subject article (though it can be brought into the article itself as part of the general clean-up that is still needed). So that brings the number of independent reliable sources up to at least six, more than enough to create a well-sourced article.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:26, 5 October 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 arguments for Keep have established that the treaty exists but there is no successful argument to show that it is notable. If anyone wants to merge any of the information elsewhere I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(
talk page)18:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)reply
After having digged about this whole matter for a pretty long time I found out and can conclude, pretty safely, that this entire matter is a complete hoax. There was no such thing in history, as a "Treaty of Kurakchay" or "Kurakchay Treaty". I brought the matter up at
Doug Weller's talk page as well, not that long ago, asking about the main source that was cited here (Johannes Rau), who turned out to be non-
WP:RS as well, see;
[26]. Not a single reputable historian or scholar who specifies in the region has ever coined such a treaty. When you type "Kurakchay Treaty" (or any of the two other names) in google, or google books you get either 1) non-
WP:RS books/links 2) websites from the Azerbaijan Republic. 3) Wikipedia mirrors. The image added here as well, is not even the Kurakchay Treaty, but a file dating from 1868 authorized by the Caucasian Archeological Commission (in Russian), which thus dates from some ~ 60 years after the so-called "Treaty" was signed. Furthermore, I have all the pages of the other authors put in the article literally laying in front of me as well, by Mostashari (2006), Bournoutian (1994), Atkin (1979), and not a single one of these mention anything even remotely close to the matter presented here, aka a treaty with such a name/such names.
Its pretty amazing how such a hoax managed to linger forth for such a rather long time, just because the whole matter is a low-profile subject. -
LouisAragon (
talk)
00:45, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This is certainly not a hoax, per reliable sources found by
this search and the same search in Google Books, which I can't link because for some inexplicable reason I can't save this page with that link included.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
10:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Which of them does that? I certainly can't see any such copying and pasting. One example where that would be impossible (and it's not the only one, just the first that caught my eye) is
this book published by
Aarhus University Press in 1998, eight years before our article was created and several years before Wikipedia even existed.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
18:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Since LouisAragon has had a longstanding awareness of the article he is probably more able than most to spot if current or previous versions of the Wikipedia article's text has made it into any of those sources. But each Google Scholar source is going to have to be individually looked at (though there are not many so it is do-able). Also, a number of then seem on the surface to be non RS, being black propaganda texts produced by Azerbaijan. There is a past edit that placed into the article the actual text of the supposed treaty
[27] but its source, a book titled "Sources on Azerbaijani history" published in Baku in 1989, so will be very doubtful as a RS. If this treaty did exist it surely must be mentioned in sources written before the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh began.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
20:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Bournoutian is cited as a source in the article, and in the talk page is mentioned as the source for the "Russo-Karabakhi treaty" alternative name. LouisAragon, what does Bournoutian actually say?
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
20:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
So are you saying that text from the Wikipedia article, on a site that was created in 2001, might have made its way into a book published by a Danish university in 1998? Let's keep the discussion in the realm of the possible.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
22:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Without substance? Do you dispute that Wikipedia was created in 2001? Or maybe you want a reliable source that says that 1998 came before 2001? What substance is missing from my observation that not all of the potential sources are copy-pasted from the Wikipedia article, as stated by KATMAKROFAN? And you don't get to choose who takes part in deletion discussions. Those of us without a dog in this fight are better able to judge notability than editors with a preconceived point of view.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
86.17.222.157(
talk·contribs·WHOIS), IDK why you're constantly bringing up a book that's not even
WP:RS. I agree that the content of that book doesn't seem to have been copied from Wikipedia, but nevertheless, its authors are not historians, thus the whole thing plays no role here.
@
Tiptoethrutheminefield:, the Bournoutian source cited here, without a page, is a translation of an early 19th century work ("A history of Qarabagh: an annotated translation of Mirza Jamal Javanshir Qarabaghi's Tarikh-e Qarabagh"). Bournoutian adds to the relevant passages himself (page 11) that; "His [the writer related to the Khanate] work covers the history of the khanate of Qarabagh from the death of Nader Shah and the appointment of Panah Khan as the khan of Qarabagh in 1747/48 to the signing of the Russo-Qarabakhi treaty in 1805", while on page 3; "Mirza Jamal was thus present during the signing of the Russo-Qarabaghi treaty between Ebrahim Khan and Prince Tsitsianov.[footnote]" In later passages of the journal, Bournoutian always refers back to the same thing as "an agreement" or the "treaty signed with Russia", but never the words "Kurakchay Treaty" or "Treaty of Kurakchay". Mind you, Bournoutian is the sole
WP:RS author that even mentions such a word (Russo-Qarabaghi), and even then, throughout his entire euvre, as far as I can see/know, he does so on one mere occassion; only in this translation. -
LouisAragon (
talk)
22:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You seem to be hung up on the name of this treaty, rather than its existence. Are you doubting that a treaty was made between these parties on the date given?
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
19:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)reply
If it was not actually called "Treaty of Kurakchay" then there are problems calling the article "Treaty of Kurakchay". Yes, something existed. An agreement was made between the Russian commander on the ground and a local ruler who was dependent on Persia, in which that ruler agrees to switch allegiance if his and his family, and his descendants position is guaranteed within the Russian Empire. The modern back story here is that Azerbaijan tries to inflate this agreement concerning a ruling family into a treaty entered into between two states - the Russian Empire and an independent state called the Karabakh Khanate. If an independent Azeri-ruled state can be made out to have existed in 1805, with its continued existence treaty-guaranteed by Russia, then this can be used to question the legitimacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic. My feeling is that, given the vagueness of its status and its name, the content of this article should be merged into related existing articles. There we can refer to it as an agreement, described in later sources as the "Treaty of Kurakchay" or the "Russo-Qarabaghi treaty". (Providing of course that there are at least some RS sources that do refer to it as "Treaty of Kurakchay")
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
20:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you for confirming that this discussion is a puerile nationalist dispute rather than an attempt to improve this encyclopedia. As I said before I have no dog in this fight, but I have no trouble identifying who does. The legitamacy of the Nagorno Karabakh republic is not recognised by any UN member state, so anything other than questioning of that legitamacy is very much a
fringe view.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
21:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
You are actually confirming to us your fringe pov. The Nagorno Karabakh republic bases its legitimacy on the self-evident fact of its existence, on the right of its population to have self determination, and of it being historically an integral part of Armenia, ethnically and culturally. However, Azeri historiography, which is not supported by RS, claims that, historically, NK was actually "Caucasian Albania", that its "Caucasian Albanians" over time either became assimilated into Muslim Azeris or assimilated into Christian Armenians, and that any real Armenians in NK are actually post-Russian conquest newcomers. This is why Azerbaijan talks up the status and importance of this treaty.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
02:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
So the position held by 193 UN member states is fringe, but that held by none is not. That's a weird topsy-turvy interpretation of the word "fringe". I have no doubt that many Azerbaijani nationalists distort history to support their aims, just as other nationalists, including many Armenians, do, but to any neutral observer the existence or otherwise of a minor treaty signed over 200 years ago is utterly irrelevant to the issue of how Nagorno Karabakh should be governed today. I'm not here to further any nationalist point of view, and haven't given an opinion about whether this should be kept or deleted, but I'm challenging errors of fact, such as that this is a hoax and that all sources found are copied and pasted from Wikipedia.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
17:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment -- the treaty is mentioned in a book by
Kaveh Farrokh, Iran at War: 1500-1988, which appears to be RS. So it's not a hoax. It's significance is unclear, so I'm not sure it warrants an article or not; the book devotes several paragraphs to it noting: "The exact nature of the Kurakchay treaty has been disputed".
The Svante Cornell source is non RS propaganda that peddles Turkish and Azeri historiography - I can spot numerous lies and distortions in just that single page. "Russia's stirrings in the South Caucasus soon led to a Russo-Persian war". This is a lie - it was Persia's stirrings, seeking to re-impose its traditional supremacy over the Southern Caucasus, who invaded, causing the local Christian rulers in Georgia to ask Russia for help. And similarly, the "former Persian Lands" were not, they were still officially part of Persia though in the hands of mostly autonomous local rulers. The claim that Russia tried to extend its control over Armenia because Armenians were Christian is ludicrous, and it is a fantasy I have seen expressed in no other source. Russia had no intention during WW1 to "annex large parts of eastern Turkey". W.E.D. Allen and Paul Muratoff, in "Caucasian Battlefields", the definitive account of the military events, makes clear that for the Russian Empire the Caucasus front was always considered a sideline, was always under sourced, and was to be fought defensively. And of course Cornell is an Armenian Genocide denier, even using the stock denialist wording "tragic events" to dismiss it, placing "genocide" in inverted commas, and accusing Ottoman Armenians of being allied with Russia and being a fifth column.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the Kaveh Farrokh source that I found is not sufficient RS for a stand alone article. PS -- I do not quite understand the above comment. Anyway, delete.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge There is content in the Farrokh source found by K.e.coffman that could be added to the
Shusha article - currently there is nothing on the Russian occupation of it, the Persian advance, Ibrahim Khalil Khan Javanshir ignoring his earlier treaty and switching back allegiance to Persia, his subsequent death, etc. I think there, and on the
Ibrahim Khalil Khan article, and with a mention on the
Karabakh Khanate article, is the most appropriate place for the subject detailed in this article. It was not a treaty between nations, but was an agreement with an individual (Ibrahim Khalil Khan) who had been appointed by Persia to govern territory that the Persian empire considered an integral part of Persia. Even though sources describe it as a treaty, giving it various names, I think it does not have the status that justifies an article - unlike an actual named treaty between nations.
Tiptoethrutheminefield (
talk)
02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Tiptoethrutheminefield: could you please clarify? If the source that I presented is good, it can be used at the
Shusha article. This article under discussion does not need to be merged there, as this source is not being used in the article at this time.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
00:51, 6 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep (possibly merge). A book published by a University Press is certainly RS; hence this is not a hoax. It may well be that the treaty had little effect, due to the vagaries of war, but that does not mean we should not have an article. I am not clear what merge target is proposed: an article on the war, in which it was a diplomatic event might be a feasible target.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
It being published by an "University Press" means nothing. "Ole Høiris" and "Sefa Martin Yürükel" are both anthropologists. This being a purely history-related matter, the source is therefore absolutely non-
WP:RS.-
LouisAragon (
talk)
23:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. A book that apparently does not mention the subject is not a good source for the subject, no matter who wrote it or who published it. DGG (
talk )
23:49, 10 October 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.