The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Creator bypassed AfC nomination process after numerous failed attempts to prove notability. This article is also to circumvent the salting of
Blake Alma, a 2013 attempt at creation. Wyliepedia23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - Too many blogs cited in the article, which are not reliable secondary sources. The hunting magazine article is encouraging, but doesn't quite push it over the line of notability for me. Seems
WP:TOOSOON. Avoiding the normal Wikipedia processes is also disconcerting. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
00:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 merged to
OkCupid, until such time as substantial content develops. Although a reasonable number of sources exist to show that the word exists and has a consistent definition, no showing has been made that the article can be increased beyond the current dicdef. It has been pointed out that this word has been used in contexts outside of OkCupid, but it remains clear that the primary association of the word is with OkCupid, and other uses can be discussed in the context of its origination with that website.
bd2412T02:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - It may not be recognised by the scientific community, but it is a term that's been thrown around plenty in popular culture and there are many reliable sources that discuss it. And if the article is a dictionary entry atm that should be cause for change, not deletion. Passes
WP:GNG easily, especially with coverage in the Toronto Star (
[1]) and The New York Times (
[2]) newspapers with the largest weekly circulation in Canada and largest combined print and digital circulation in the United States, respectively. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Indy beetle, what is there to state about the term beside the fact that it is a category used on some dating websites?
WP:Stubs are not ideal. Per WP:Neo, neither are articles on neologisms. And per
WP:No page, not every article needs its own Wikipedia page. This one certainly does not.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
00:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not actually exist, it's just a made-up thing by a dating website. The source coverage that is present discusses it only within the context of it's creator, a line or two at
Okcupid is enough.
TheValeyard (
talk)
02:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is too esoteric and lacks widespread and in-depth coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this is just a passing fad in terms of it being a term. It is a case of
Wikipedia:Too soon at the very least.
Knox490 (
talk)
06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete and Soft-Redirect to Wiktionary. Clearly a neologism (from 5-ish years ago), but used well beyond OKCupid, so a redirect there would be inappropriate. (the "Further reading" shows examples, though that section has obvious issues). A soft-redirect to Wiktionary seems to be the best option here, as I see no content other than a
WP:DICTDEF here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:GNG - all
WP:NEO says is that there must be secondary sources on it - which do exist. It does not put a especially higher standard for neologisms, just that merely being used is not enough. I think there's also enough on cultural perception etc for
WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Stuff like With increased visibility has come a backlash: Some say declaring a sexual preference based on intelligence is pretentious, elitist or insulting to people with disabilities. etc. As powerenwiki pointed out, there's a journal artice on it published in
Intelligence (journal)[4] that uses the term. Could add some information from that. Won't be a huge article but that shouldn't matter. I think there's enough for a criticism section from articles, history section on its first use and emergence as a term, and psychology section using that study. There's easily enough coverage unrelated to okcupid, not sure where that's from. Not sure if I'll have the time now to expand on it - I'd request userfication if it's deleted and I'll see about expanding it if i can. Like this daily dot article says - Sapiosexual: It’s the latest sexual identity causing a lot of controversies. You may have heard of it from OkCupid, which has included it as a sexual orientation on its dating platform, or from the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, who criticized the term’s very existence. Or maybe you stumbled across the New York Times‘ sapiosexual exposé from June 2017, exploring what it means to be more attracted to someone’s brain over their looks. Not just okcupid.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
08:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The topic clearly is "worthy of notice" given the discussion in the New York Times, etc—this means it passes our
general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently the article is a stub and dictionary definition; however, the article can and should be expanded rather than deleted. Malinaccier (
talk)00:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete--a few recent write-ups (well, old ones, and no new ones--so it hasn't really caught on) do not make for a subject that meets the GNG; we're falling victim to a recentist addiction to fairly trivial mentions. If this weren't trivial, we'd have more and more serious hits in books etc. than
this footnote--which isn't better than our article (and makes me question Wiley). I have, however, ordered a copy of
this book--mreow.
Drmies (
talk)
00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - despite the Delete and Salt SNOW vote on the last (3rd) AfD, the term appears to now be a notable thing. This just popped up today in the Daily Mail. [
[5]] From the article: The term 'sapiosexual' has recently received widespread media attention and speculation as it grows in popularity. And this yesterday: [
[6]]
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Can't see the claim to notability here, and no significant coverage in independent sources. She played minor roles in a number of stage works and performed with live shows for Disney. I can't find independent corroboration of playing the role Marianne in Shout!, she certainly didn't originate the role. She does not appear to be credited on the Sardi single.
Boneymau (
talk)
21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Othersourcesexist as well, which together push him over towards notability.
Indian editors can help to find sources but even the sources that I have posted are in my opinion enough. I was considering erring on the side of caution as this is a
biography of a living person and he may meet
TOOSOON but there are probably sources out there that are hard to access and often need custom searches or perhaps there is more stuff in print only (unlikely in my opinion). I'm unsure why all the sources I have found are post-September; maybe it's a problem with my search. I don't think the sources are quite passing mention in response to
NA1000's statement.
'Weak Keep per J947. The coverage is weak and directing a single film doesn't meet any SNG, but I believe GNG is met. I have no ability to tell if there are Malayalam articles. My biggest concern is the title; is it "G Prajesh Sen" or "Prajesh Sen" or "Prajeshsen"?
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I think it should be G Prajesh Sen from my searches, and it definitely confused me but I think they are the same. Also, his role as a journalist seems to be the main source of coverage. J947(
contribs ·
mail)22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge and redirect to
Outer Hebrides#Transport, where it can be covered in appropriate context and (brief) detail. Fails
WP:GNG for an individual article, but is entirely proper to be mentioned there (where it technically is, but a bit of detail on 'which islands' would not be amiss), and redirects are cheap. -
The BushrangerOne ping only04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge and Redirect as suggested. I do not think there is enough notability for a separate article, but the transport section of the
Outer Hebrides article would seem an obvious place to have this kind of information.
Dunarc (
talk)
19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still no reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, largely promotional and supported only by self-published fringe sources.
Famousdog (c)19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Deletewithout prejudice to re-creation, preferably as a redirect The article itself uses future tense, and after reading
[8], suggests that the article's future tense is advancing a split from the founding ideas of
NLP. For reference, one of the two primary sources is a biography with extensive detail,
[9], and the second is
written by the topic.As for the topic itself, reading the article on NLP shows analysis that reaches into concepts of religion, just as the second primary source lists "Spiritual" as an additional layer of the "NeuroLogical levels". The NLP article's mention of New Age quasi-religion fits in with the topic's association with University of California at Santa Cruz. The NLP article has 11 cites to the topic at hand. I see that the topic at hand has been translated into Russian, German, French, and Italian. I find in Google searches that the topic has a patent regarding biofeedback, and the primary-source biography couples his work with the biofeedback game "Wild Divine", a topic with Ghits in Google Scholar. Certainly Wikipedia notable as per the lede and nutshell; although if we are having trouble getting a standalone article on the topic, space could be created at NLP to identify him in a section called History.
Unscintillating (
talk)
22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam - His story has been inspirational to many (for instance, here is a long article about Kemper from the Galveston Daily News in 1998
[10]), but most newspapers.com and google books results are about his letter. The letter is famous because it was collected in that anthology. The anthology receives a good deal of coverage and that article could be expanded (or an article on the book of the same title created), and discussion of why the letters were important added which could mention Kempner, particularly his characterization of America as a "a country of thorns and cuts", etc. So while the article doesn't currently mention Kempner, most people searching for Kempner will be doing so because of the anthology, and a redirect there seems appropriate.
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. If redirected, then to an article about the book, which contains three of his letters. The Kempner article currently links to the movie; that should be fixed if a book article is created.--Georgia Army VetContribsTalk20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentThe Illinois legislature is filled with notable people who gave the topic attention, but I'm having trouble finding sources on Google. [
This page provides something he did as mayor. WGN is a 50,000 watt radio station, which at night can be heard over most of the populated US and I assume Canada.
WGN-TV went on the air in 1948, so was one of the earliest broadcasters. His father was associated with the Tribune newspaper. It seems likely that someone with access to Chicago newspaper archives would have a chance of finding more on this topic.
Unscintillating (
talk)
04:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor being a single-market local TV or radio personality is an automatic notability pass that entitles a person to keep an article that's this weakly sourced. And saying that improved sourcing might be possible is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept, either — somebody needs to show the evidence that enough sourcing to get him over GNG does exist, preferably by actually improving the article but at least by showing some hard results from an actual search of Chicago newspaper archives in this discussion, and it is not enough to just theorize that maybe better sources might exist.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep - Easilly meets V, NPOV, NOR, N, NSPORTS. I don't like to editorialize at AfD, but Overton is one of the greatest college middle-distance runners of all time and I'm unhappy to see this nomination and the current state of the discussion. I'll work on adding sources, but in the meantime, here is a short article about Overton in the Yale Alumni Magazine:
[11]. Here is an article about his recent induction in the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame
[12].
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep I added sources from the track and field side and have more to add. He clearly meets
WP:NSPORTS by being a multiple world record holder. He was also multiple national champion and collegiate champion. All that before we get to the war hero stuff.
Trackinfo (
talk)
19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - Seems he passes GNG and
WP:NSPORT - holding world records. Voters should be mindful that SOLDIER creates a presumption of notability yet doesn't exclude notability for soldiers not meeting it (either a soldier or via non-soldier activities).
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Passes
WP:NSPORTS as a world record holding athlete. I have noticed a very concerning pattern, as well, where the world has been turned upside down and supplementary notability standards, intended to...supplement...GNG in cases where notable topics might have difficulty demonstrating GNG compliance, are being considered a higher bar than GNG, i.e. "it passes GNG, but fails [SUPNG], delete as not notable". This really needs to be something that is, for want of a better term, stamped out, as it actually is a genuine threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.. -
The BushrangerOne ping only22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Chicago, IL article is little more than a list of radio stations. The Lincoln, IL is one of the better written articles, but I still believe it fails
WP:ORG.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Articles seem to be well sourced, though to non-independent (government) sources. Also, as with most mass-noms, there are issues with some likely having better sources out there than others and there are not links to previous AfDs.
Hobit (
talk)
20:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep By far a
WP:SOFIXIT proposition rather than full deletion for any of these (especially major city offices and Norman, Oklahoma, which the nom seems to have failed to do the most basic of
WP:BEFORE and most know as the major research center/forecast authority for tornadoes in the United States; same with Miami and the
National Hurricane Center). Nate•(
chatter)22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Whatever their connection is, you have 20+ sources in the Norman NWS article and they definitely don't have a stone wall between them. Nate•(
chatter)23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The Norman article is not quite as good as it appears on the surface. It starts off with a mostly unsourced history section, then it goes into a discussion about a notable weather event which already has its own article, next comes a description of its website (this section should just be deleted regardless), and then a list of radio stations. That's it, almost all of the sources are the NWS website.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Would be throwing away an enormous amount of valuable and perfectly notable work. Unnecessary spin-out really. What is the purpose of any encyclopedia if not for spin out articles.
scope_creep (
talk)
18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Apart from most of the articles have many valid sources this AfD bundling is in the territory of
WP:TRAINWRECK which hinders meaningful assessment of individual article and further worsen the AfD process. I will support examining each on its merit or at most 3 in AfD. Saying they contain OR is hasty generalization (which is caused by the bundling) and did not match what I see in many of the articles –
Ammarpad (
talk)
01:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Chronic deletionism at its worst from one of our most strident deletionists. Sadly, Rusf10 has made admonished after having made previous bulk nominations and has too often failed to make the most basic analysis required by
WP:BEFORE. Above and beyond failing to look for sources for each of the articles bundled into this nomination, it's unclear if there was even an effort to read articles such as
National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois,
National Weather Service Miami, Florida and
National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma, which are indisputably notable. An out-and-out ban on AfD for Rusf10 should be seriously considered to end the further abuse of process.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Mr. Sohn (I know you don't like me calling you by your first name), do you have an actual policy reason to keep these? Because that is an outright personal attack and nothing else.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Read
WP:OUTING and start using my full username; this is not the first time that you have violated
WP:HARASS and this is an explicit final warning. The policy argument is that this bulk nomination is an abuse of process from an editor who has been warned previously about bulk nominations.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Sherlock, the user name is eight characters and makes no indication of how it is to be parsed; that's based solely on you;re attempts to disclose information about me in violation of
WP:OUTING. Read
WP:HARASS and follow it; else dig your own grave. As you seem to be following me around, you'll see that I have participated in AfDs above and beyond those included in your initial threats aimed at me, both now and for the past dozen years. When a bulk AfD popped up, I was astounded to see that an editor like you who had already been warned against making abusive bulk deletions was at it again. I thus participated.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
So you just admitted you decided to participate after you saw I nominated it. Youre clearing following me around (not the other way around), but that's okay.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Bulshit, dude. I said I saw a bulk nomination on AfD and was surprised to see your name on it after I had edited the nom. Remember Sherlock that you're the one who promised to delete articles because you believed they were connected to me (see
this threat, as a reminder). Take a look at how participation is tracking here and tell me where consensus is? Are you going to withdraw the nomination or will you just keep battling away in the true spirit of disruptive deletionism?
Alansohn (
talk)
04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly a
WP:SOFIXIT. Given the size of the city and the various other similar articles for similar sized cities, I don't see why the article was ever nominated for deletion. The National Wealther Service does important work. Deletionism at its worst is at play here.
Knox490 (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The phrase "frontier strip" appears to have been invented solely for this Wikipedia namespace. I can not find any historical or scholarly examples of the phrase "frontier strip" being used in relation to the United States, and as far as I can tell the phrase "frontier strip" does not appear in any of the article's listed references . The small number of Google search hits (regular search, books and scholar) for "frontier strip" appear to be traceable back to this article, with the exception of some references that are clearly about other countries.
Rename to something, I'm not sure what, or Merge into
American Frontier. Leave no redirect from "Frontier Strip". Looking at newspapers.com, frontier strip seems to be a term occasionally used to describe regions near frontlines of battles, but I agree it doesn't work here. Also, the "Last American Frontier", which is used to in this article, generally refers to Alaska and not this region.
Smmurphy(
Talk)16:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteRename / Merge - this is a difficult one - as this article dates back to 2005 making Wikipedia->source contamination quite an issue. I have found some sources referring to these as "Frontier Strip". Post 2005:
[13][14][15][16]. But I am unable to find older sources using this name for Texas to Dakota.
Icewhiz (
talk) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Modified to delete as it seems most the contents are copy pssted from other wiki articles.
Icewhiz (
talk)
20:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename- Unfortunately this article has been around for a long time and people have put a lot of work into it. However, it seems to be a made-up name for geographic region. I think the easier thing to do would be to move the page to
American Great Plains. Alternately candidates for merges would be American Frontier (as above) or
Great Plains (although this article includes Canada too, which is why I prefer the rename).--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
How about renaming to History of the Great Plains or History of the American Great Plains (I think the former is better right now, since
American Great Plains redirects to
Great Plains). This would be a minor repurposing, with frontier strip replaced with great plains in the text and the image perhaps replaced with
File:Map of the Great Plains.png. The description section doesn't really have anything not in
Great Plains, and this page would, I think, be better kept separate but referred to in the history section of that article.
Smmurphy(
Talk)
While most of the article deals with history, some things would not fit into an article titled "History of". That's why I'd prefer renaming to "American Great Plains" with a hatnote at the top going to the existing "Great Plains" article.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
15:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I agree, but American Great Plains already exists (is a redirect to Great Plains). As I meant to say, the non-history stuff from this article could be merged into that article, except it is already there, so it can just be trimmed in this article.
Smmurphy(
Talk)16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge each section into the history section of a relevant state or region article such as
American West or
Great Plains.See Below The edit history of this article is eye-opening: The
original is nothing more than a list of states accompanied by an unsourced and speculative explanation. A
later revision attempts to attribute it to the US Census, but this is also fails to support the grouping of the states. Everything else seems to be a mishmash of events that occurred within or around this group of states, but there is still nothing that ties it together as a cohesive region. –
dlthewave☎21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet on a possible renaming or merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ansh66603:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Most of the historical information appears to have been copy-and-pasted from other Wiki articles by
User:Reddi in June and July 2009 without any references or attribution. I copied the article into my userspace at
User:Dlthewave/Frontier Strip Draft and removed everything that I could verify as copied, just to see what's left. If deleted, I don't think we would lose very much that isn't covered elsewhere. –
dlthewave☎21:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Is a historical concept; Glad i caught this so get the wikimarkup before any deletion; Maybe move it somewhere else; Sad, not the WP of yesterday ... just another reason not to contribute much anymore; Enjoy --
J. D. Redding15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss whether merging or deletion is preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
TonyBallioni (
talk)
16:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Over half of this article was copy-and-pasted from other Wikipedia articles, so there would be no point in merging. Most of the remainder is either not suitable for merging (climate and political data) or already covered elsewhere. –
dlthewave☎18:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete After someone pointing out that this is just a copy and paste job, I have to change to delete. There's nothing worth saving here.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I ma nominate in a year or two when opinion about promotionalism becomes more rational DGG (
talk )
23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
essentially promotional , so it violates NOT ADVERTISING, one of our fundamental policies. I do not know whether or not it's really notable, but it doesn't matter. notability is secondary to basic policy WP:NOT. The previous discussion argued on the grounds of notability, but I do not see why. DGG (
talk )
16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – Passes WP:GNG. The article is written based upon what reliable sources state about it. Positive press coverage does not automatically equate to advertising. If the company received significant coverage in the form of negative press for some matter, I would have included that as well. The article does not have a promotional tone and does not encourage readers to do business with the company. North America100019:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable regional chain with over 80 restaurants. Plenty of decent press coverage. REAL certification section could use cleaning up but that is hardly a reason to delete the article.--
Bernie44 (
talk)
19:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I see the reaction to the sockpuppettry has caused an unfortunate-- but I hope temporary -- change in our views on promotionalism. I'll probably renominate once we return to rationality. DGG (
talk )
00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists . The previous discussion was closed because of sockpuppettry, but that shouldn't prevent an immediate renomination. DGG (
talk )
16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Not only is this a renowned local eatery but it has been covered very subatantially by national media such as USA Today and National Geographic. Very notable.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - per my !vote on the previous nomination. Non-notable as a chain, but main location notable as a significant tourist attraction in Nashville. I've never been there, I don't like "hot chicken", but I recognized the topic from reading somewhere. In my estimation it is a topic likely to be looked up by readers looking for encyclopedic information. Meets GNG comfortably.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)17:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Plenty of substantial national and local coverage from established sources, and it is regularly noted as one of the main culinary attractions in Nashville. And in reading through the previous deletion discussion it was very heavily influenced by misleading arguments and analysis from sockpuppets.--
Bernie44 (
talk)
19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There's substantial coverage to establish notability as already shown above. And I believe any article that's not G11'ble, that's means it is promotional tone is fixable if there's any. And existence of more sources already shown both in the previous AfD and here. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
19:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - fails
WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG.
Fenix down (
talk)
11:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Pure listcruft. I checked the first couple names in most of the sections and none are notable. Page is unsourced, and save for one bluelink is a dead end. I see nowhere to go with this.
Primefac (
talk)
16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Deleteper
WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 (employees) (I guess there's some context there) per Nate. That is outrageously over the top, listing just about anybody who had anything to do with the show. (However, I'm shocked, shocked not to see Hilton Queton named. After all, she or he was a dance consultant for one whole episode.)
Clarityfiend (
talk)
23:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Does not seem to be notable. The current article is bad enough that, if he ever does become notable, it would be better to start fresh with a completely new article.
Cardamon (
talk)
04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, possibly
WP:TOOSOON. A lot of the references aren't about him at all, and the references to him being CEO of
Telligent aren't enough for
WP:GNG. There is a Bloomberg bio
[26] but that's about it. Regarding a redirect to Telligent; he is at a new company which may become notable, so a redirect may be inappropriate.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
17:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is sourced entirely to 2 primary sources, and the google hits aren't very promising. In addition, an editor claiming to be the subject insists that the information is largely incorrect; an assertion that is difficult to dismiss without quality sources to check. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete LOL, When I first saw this I thought not only does he deserve an article, but he was pretty damn funny too. Then I realized the spelling was different (not
Richard Pryor). Unlike Richard Pryor, this has no sources and doesn't clear GNG.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Rusf10: Don't feel bad. My first interaction with this article was when a person claiming to be the BLP in question asked for information to be changed. I had literally started to comment "RUN!! It's a zombie!!" before I noticed the spelling and checked the article. Luckily, I hadn't hit "Publish changes" yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I've found some local news articles such as
[27] and there are mentions in news articles outside of the region such as Washington Post
[28] and The News-Gazette / Champaign-Urbana
[29] The stuff the editor wrote saying things were incorrect were mainly concerning his degrees at educational institutions. He still was a conductor for Atlanta, Emory, and LaGrange
[30]AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
02:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 has plenty of reliable sources coverage in the article such as CBS, USA Today, CNN, PC Magazine, NYT blog (blogs are allowed from NYT). I don't see any mention of bitcoin in the article.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources present are enough to show passing
WP:GNG. It is worth noting,
this article from The Wall Street Journal and
this from TechCrunch are substantial enough above any threshold to call them passing mention. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Surpasses
WP:GNG due the the amount of reliable sources that have mentioned it in detail. As nominator said there are hundreds of Bitcoin wallets out there, but how many of them actually have been mentioned as much as this one has by news sources and such. --
Clarkcj12 (
talk)
06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be a non-notable lawyer who unsuccessfully represented a client in an action against a celebrity, and failed to win a nomination to the Senate. I don't believe he meets
WP:GNG.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
12:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The rule of law is important and he does appear to be politically/civically engaged, but given the overabundance of lawyers now, he really has to separate himself from the pack. He fails to do this. I don't see adequate in-depth coverage from reliable sources.
Knox490 (
talk)
03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Where I live I see his commercials (and just recently I hired a lawyer like Steinger to represent me after I was struck by a car while out for my morning walk) for his law firm all the time. That said, not notable lawyer and failed politician.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment An article on this person was previously deleted after an AFD. The discussion can be found here. I nominated this article for speedy deletion and suggest both articles be SALTED if this edition is deleted again.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?19:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completely
WP:INUNIVERSE (except for the first sentence), unreferenced, some
WP:OR, no indication of real-world notability. At the very least, could be redirected to
Condorito along with the other two town names mentioned in the article; that’s why I didn’t PROD it.
LaundryPizza03 (
talk)
12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Non-notable voice actor whose filmography consists of minor roles. No reliable third-party sources cited to support any claims. Does not pass
WP:NACTOR or
WP:NOTE. Disputed prod —Farix (
t |
c)
01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep or draftify - Considering his lack of major roles, he arguably does not pass
WP:ENT. He does however, been covered in at least two Japanese-language sources:
this and
this. Both are interviews, and consensus is mixed on whether or not interviews are enough to establish notability, but these do exist. Non-interview sources were harder to find, but some do exist, like
this one. With the sourcing available and the fact that Japanese voice acting coverage can be limited to begin with, the coverage out there might just be enough to pass at the very least
WP:GNG. If consensus is not to keep, I would suggest draftifying the article instead of complete deletion in case he gets more roles and/or gets more coverate in the future.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Existing references are completely insufficient for a
WP:BLP. The "wait-and-see" approach advocated by BabbaQ is not appropriate for a BLP.
ATraintalk13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No evidence of any notability. He does appear to have written some songs performed by others, but there is no evidence that any reliable and independent sources have written about him. Appears to be competent jobbing song writer. Has been templated since September 2017 as needing sources. Searches only reveal the same sort of material - track listings etc. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 00:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per references. It is obvious that he has done the work in music that the article states. I think that Keep for now is the best. For a new evaluation in a year.
BabbaQ (
talk)
11:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- no indications of notability. Sources included are online directoris, passing mentions, and / or
WP:SPIP. If there are indeed reliable sources on the subject, they should be presented at the AfD.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There is a difference between wanting sources and non notability. A article could nedd more sources and still be notable like in this case. This article passes WP:GNG. AfD is not a clean-up service.
BabbaQ (
talk)
19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 do not believe this article meets the
general notability guidelines. I have been keeping track of this subject for a while hoping to be able to create an article on it someday, but only one reliable source has ever covered it (that being Bloody Disgusting, twice:
[34][35]). Nearly all of the citations currently used in the article are primary sources linking to the webcomic itself, Tapastic, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. There is also
this blog post, which is not a reliable source and
this top list, which is not reliable or notable either. Seeing as Erma does not meet the general notability guidelines, this article should be deleted. It is unfortunate, seeing as how much work seems to have gone into it. ~
Mable (
chat)
09:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
weak keep two good articles on the topic in what seems to be a reliable source. The name makes it hard to search, but I too am not turning much up. Very popular comic on imgur and reddit, I'd expect to see more.
Hobit (
talk)
16:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Yep. It's borderline, but both articles are pretty detailed. Technically qualifies as "multiple" and there is enough there to build an article around. But it isn't an obvious case. A !vote to delete is certainly justifiable.
Hobit (
talk)
19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Hobit: I think the stronger case is that multiple articles from the same publication does not qualify as multiple sources. This is suggested by the note for the 'sources' part of GNG, which states that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." The GNG also specifically states that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I feel like these parts of GNG were specifically directed at clarifying what I would assume to be the common sense interpretation of 'multiple sources': what is required is different sources, independent of each other.
Cjhard (
talk)
12:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N. Also, probably
WP:TOOSOON. Sources are supposed to be intellectually independent of the others. This means sources are supposed to be from various publishers. Not multiple sources from the same publisher. Create this article later, when more sources emerge. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
07:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - only coverage in one RS, meaning it does not meet the GNG, and there do not seem to be any suitable redirect targets. Would be a viable article once/if more RSs discussing the comic in detail emerge.--
IDVtalk16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for insufficient coverage. I agree with Maple that The Prose isn't reliable. If additional sources become available, I don't oppose re-creation.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
14:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Per
WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The host city, date, and venue has been announced, and there is no reason to think the event will not be notable, as all past annual
NBA All-Star Games have been. At this point,
WP:IAR, as there is nothing to be gained by creating a bureaucracy to delete only to inevitably recreate again.—
Bagumba (
talk)
09:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
It is inconsistent to advocate "redirect" and state that it fails
WP:DEL8, so I struck that. I am adding that it fails
WP:DEL14 and
WP:Notability (events).
WP:DEL14 is for WP:NOT, and
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER #2 states, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, [or] sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Perhaps
WP:Notability (events) gets to the core issue when it states, "In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, [and] diversity...of the coverage." 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [Note: DEL12 changed to DEl14.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It is typical to keep a planned major sporting event once the date and venue has been decided, or when the process of selection is advanced to the point that the process is noteworthy. This achieves that.
Trackinfo (
talk)
07:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the designation "key bus route" is not being set by an independent source, but one could make the same argument for
List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, for example. This is not me trotting out an other-stuff-exists defense; what I am saying is that perhaps there should be an SNG discussion to decide the issue more broadly.
Per
WP:NOR. Bus routes are almost always non-notable and an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability
Ajf773 (
talk)
06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
For large, bureaucratic and institutional values of "self", I suppose. The point I wanted to clarify was where this particular choice of route numbers came from, not whether those same routes are considered "key" by anyone other than the MBTA.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: this is a group of routes officially designated by the public transit agency as having high importance - not original research whatsoever - and given significantly higher profile and priority than local routes. (Compare
List of Metro Express (Los Angeles County) bus routes and
List of express bus routes in New York City, which are also based on the agencies separating out the routes.) They were chosen by the agency as their highest-ridership routes (not arbitrary selection criteria); most are also historically significant routes (and the article focuses on the historical significance of those routes rather than functioning as a travel guide) for which detailed reliable sources are available. The routes were the focus of
a major construction project with BRT-light features, with the explicit intention of differentiating them from conventional local routes. They are given
a high profile on the MBTA website,
included on the MBTA rapid transit map, separately defined in the
agency's current service delivery policy, and were the routes used for late-night service three years ago.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
23:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Basically everything you've added to this debate is direct from the MBTA website. Primary sources, no notability established whatsoever.
Ajf773 (
talk)
02:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The MBTA's selection of certain bus routes as "key" has been discussed by news media in the context of new transit maps being designed, debates over late-night service, etc.
[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] It's a niche topic, I suppose, but it can be written about in a way that does not make the page a travel guide.
XOR'easter (
talk)
17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Also, looking over the other "list of bus routes in X" articles currently being AfD'ed, I'd say that out of all of them, this looks the least like a travel guide and the most like a "history of public transit in X" article.
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Having a look at those sources I can conclude that most of them fail to mention any specific bus routes, most of them only give out trivial mentions, all the sources are local (therefore the depth of coverage is not sufficient enough to grant notability) and a few of the sources appear to be self published.
Ajf773 (
talk)
08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
As a side comment: Since when it is a rule that non-local source geography required to establish encyclopedic notability? If we used that as a hard rule it would wipe out a large swath of transit-related articles, where the subject matter is regional and therefore the bulk of available sources eminate from that region. I usually see national coverage raised as an issue when establishing the notability of short-duration events, not enduring establishments like transit systems or their core components. The MBTA has maintained a "Key Bus Routes" designation for over a decade now, with real effects on a regional transit system and its users, which supports notability.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Partial Merge to
MBTA Bus. There are several other articles on Boston bus routes; I can't find any rule-based reason to keep those pages or the per-route descriptions (in the "Route list" section). However, the designation of these as "key routes" isn't
WP:OR and there's enough information that it should be mentioned somewhere.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Still looking for a good independent source (other than a primary source by the MBTA operator) that establishes these are key routes and worthy of an article.
Ajf773 (
talk)
08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (and rename) - The nominator appears to misunderstand the subject matter here, which I can understand given the title. This is not a subjective and original list of key bus routes in a city, it's a page describing a category of bus routes in Boston formally designated as "Key Bus Routes", a unique status with distinct features (both operationally and legally/funding-related) that differentiate them from other MBTA bus routes. Multiple reliable secondary sources confirm this usage, as indicated above. While the MBTA is a primary source, many transportation articles rely partially on primary sources for the simple reason that secondary sources just don't repeat material found in primary sources. However, since this page is more than a mere list and ask explains the history and characteristics of Key Bus Routes, I would propose removing the confusing "List of" and renaming to MBTA Key Bus Routes. I would be willing to do post-move cleanup work to better serve the new title.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
14:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Renaming sounds like a good idea. The fact of the existence of a separate category of bus routes is more significant than the particular numbering of routes within it.
XOR'easter (
talk)
15:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I understand the subject matter perfectly. The AfD questions both the criteria of key bus routes being original research and whether any of the bus routes are notable in their own right (or as a collective). It appears from all the sources presented, that the key bus routes criteria is a self published by the bus brand themselves and that notability is yet to be established as the sources are mostly trivial mentions.
Ajf773 (
talk)
17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but the fact that you keep referring to this as a "self-published list" (and to a regional multimodal transit agency as a "bus brand") shows you don't know the subject matter at all.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (or rename to MBTA Key Bus Routes program) - The article needs to be expanded to include more about the history of the program and the current improvements they're working on for these routes, but it has gotten a lot of press over the years for the reasons others have stated, including late night service and key-route-specific bus stop improvements and treatments. I don't understand the "original research" claim by the nominator as that is for editors on Wikipedia, not government agencies providing the service in question. As for "self published", where else would this information come from if not the MBTA? Other editors have provided link after link of sources from reliable news outlets outside of the MBTA's control to show the notoriety and depth of press coverage in the region. While someone in another country might not care much about a list of bus routes in a random medium-sized city in the US, can't that be said about a vast majority of articles on Wikipedia about local and regional matters?
Grk1011 (
talk)
22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Again. Routine coverage about night services and bus stop improvements is trivial at best. Where is some actual resources showing the history of these "key routes" from valid third party and independent (non MBTA published) sources. Wikipedia is not a bus fansite catered to a small audience.
Ajf773 (
talk)
23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I haven't been involved in AfDs much very recently, but you're being a bit inflammatory here. Editors can state their reasons and provide whatever backup they feel is necessary. An admin will then read over the responses and make a decision based on the apparent consensus (not votes) of the community. There is no requirement that you, as the nominator, are satisfied with the responses.
Grk1011 (
talk)
19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Your objections have been clearly noted by now. You are coming across as berating each and every editor who votes, not adding anything new in the process, just repeating what you'd already said before they voted. Clearly not everyone agrees with your interpretation of
WP:ROUTINE or
WP:NOR or
WP:N regarding this topic, and they should be free to express votes or ideas contrary to yours without fear of beratement.
Assuming in good faith that this is not your intent, your tone and repetition still come across as hostile and may discourage editors who would disagree with you from commenting, undermining the integrity of the AfD process. Please consider the consequences of your continued aggressive responses. Newly participating editors can already consider the quality of sources provided (for example) and your objections to them, since your objections are already recorded further above in full.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Given you understand this is a debate and I am allowed agree or disagree with everything that is added this this discussion, from where I see it. I don't see the need for you to post this, it adds nothing of value to the discussion.
Ajf773 (
talk)
21:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I agree with that. Those who want to keep this article need to actually produce secondary sources that specifically discuss this set of routes, instead of attacking an editor who points out the lack of significant wider secondary coverage.
Charles (
talk)
22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The issue was that over a dozen secondary sources were linked in the various responses above, but this editor does not appear to like them, claiming they are either regional press (and somehow bad) or the source of their articles is the primary source (MBTA). I simply pointed out that asking the same question to every single commenter when it's has already been answered is disruptive. It's bizarre that we're expected by this one editor to find some outside source to prove that the MBTA has designated its own routes as key. Only the MBTA can decide that and the criteria for being "key" are listed and sourced. As a government body, its procedures are transparent.
Grk1011 (
talk)
23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I have mentioned why I don't think they are up to the standard of sources required for notability. Bus routes are not notable unless there is significant and independent coverage in secondary sources. MBTA itself is a primary source. Other sources which mention things like service changes are trivial (and most of them don't even mention any of the route numbers or any mention of "key routes". As there is a lot of historical content in the article space but a lack of sources validating them, I'm still unconvinced.
Ajf773 (
talk)
23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's fine, as long as you actually understand the requirement here is not to convince you personally. Your personal approval is not necessary. Other editors clearly do accept the sources already provided, even if you don't. They're not required to convince you if you insist on remaining unconvinced. You do understand that, right?
Shelbystripes (
talk)
06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Merge was discussed and rejected back in 2008 on the talk page. The point is not to say that this topic should or should not be merged, but that it is a violation of
WP:Deletion policy to use
WP:DEL8 to delete topics with merge targets, and there is no argument made here for IAR.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails
WP:NOTDIR,
WP:NOTTRAVEL,
WP:BUSCRUFT and
WP:GNG - Back in 2014 the UK bus routes were all deleted due to a lack of notability and there's nothing different with these, Also if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website - not an encyclopedia!, and last but not least a lot of these all become outdated anyway (One article a few years back was 5 years out of date!), In short this whole article fails GNG as well as the bus-related guidelines. –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year13:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
As noted above, this page is more than a mere list and is not intended to just provide route information; it's a description of a specific subset of bus routes that are treated differently than other bus routes for MBTA operational and funding purposes. To prevent confusion on this point, I proposed above that the article be moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes (and volunteered to do cleanup work to this effect). Several other editors commented in favor of this approach.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
22:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Indeed it is however like the other deleted articles this too fails GNG, I have to disagree this does provide route information (the articles contains numbers, tos, froms, maps and times so as such this fails NOTGUIDE). –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Please read the article (and perhaps a few sources) rather than rashly claiming this is a travel guide. Detailing the frequency and span-of-service standards that the agency uses is not a schedule. Giving the official names of the routes (the MBTA and its predecessors have always used number + terminal/route as the official name) is no more a travel guide than saying that Amtrak trains 1/2 is the Sunset Limited. And the map - notably not the current map - is used to illustrate that the agency considers the routes important enough to include on the rapid transit map, not as a map to actually navigate the system.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
All in a nutshell it's a travel guide, As you spend your time with everything MBTA it's blatantly obvious you're going to debunk everyones !votes and harp on repeating the same hymn about how it's not a travel guide and how we're all wrong- I'll save you the bother - It's a travel guide, No matter what way or which way you look at it ... it's a travel guide, As I said it includes prices, destinations, bus company names, maps ..... Telling me the map is for this and the prices are for that doesn't prove a thing - I'm judging the article on an outside perspective and how I personally percieve it. –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This is inappropriate. I offered to improve the article if moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes to ensure the article aligns with the new title. That work isn't necessary if the article isn't moved. Either way, it's already a developed article with multiple reliable sources and should not be userfied.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Simply linking to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-response and adds no value to the discussion. It's an essay (not a policy) and notes that there can be "valid or invalid" reasons for raising "other stuff exists" as an argument, and that when the point is fairly argued, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." It seems to me that a valid question was raised (what distinguishes this article from an array of other articles that have been established on Wikipedia), and it is fair to expect a valid answer from you on that, not just a link to an essay that can cut both ways.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not be a policy but a simply concept meaning we don't assume keep because articles of similar nature exist. Many of them are candidates for AfD as well. We don't bulk AfD articles as each article should be assessed on its own merits.
Ajf773 (
talk)
22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You are using circular logic and mischaracterizing the content of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It specifically says that precedent and concistency are valid reasons to consider, and the question posed to you was what about this article makes it worthy of deletions when other similar articles exist. You completely ignored that question, and posted a link to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead of an actual answer. You're now taking that one step further, using the potential for some other articles to be deleted in the future, to argue that this one should be deleted now also. The fate of those AfDs is far from assured, since they haven't even begun yet. Now, can you give a valid explanation for what makes this article less notable than other articles in the same category, as you were asked?
Shelbystripes (
talk)
22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears to be the obvious answer from the original question. We simply do not use the existence of other articles as a basis for keeping or deleting articles. We are discussing this article on its own merits, not the merits of other articles. There are plenty of reasons already given in this discussion why I believe this article does not comply with the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's not the point.
Ajf773 was the one who invoked
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify deleting an article. As a mere essay, it alone is not a valid reason to delete any article, when (as actually observed on
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability". Someone identified an entire category of similar articles, and so far no valid reason has been given for disregarding that whole category of articles when considering this particular AfD.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
My point in bring up the category is that there are 64 lists of bus routes in that US based category (and more globally). Other than this one, I haven't found one that has been taken to AfD.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key MBTA bus routes dating back to 2006, meaning this has been around for, actually 12 and a half years. Poor wikipedia has been in disrepute for all this time because of its existence (that's sarcasm). It also means this one has been taken to AfD twice now. Again, what makes this one special? At the time it was saved as no consensus, even though there were 5 Keeps to 3 Deletes. One of the Delete votes commented astutely; "Delete its a bag of crap.", another was just "per nom", so the argument of that third delete vote had to be a doozey to outweigh all those Keeps. One Keep respondent noted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 which was a Speedy Keep-Withdrawn. If you are prepared to take all of those 64+ lists to AfD, then that is a different wholesale discussion. Otherwise the long term existence of all of this stuff proves a de facto validity to keeping these lists.
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. Whether this subject is
notable for an article depends not on the existence of similar articles, but on whether there is a definite and finite set of routes that have recieved significant secondary source coverage outside of the immediate locality. Without that it is just
original research.
Charles (
talk)
10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient, not arguing that the general concept of such a list should be deleted.
Trackinfo (
talk)
15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
If the content comes from external sources, it's not original research, even if those sources were published in Boston (which not all of them were).
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient" .... we have ... a good 2-3 times, If you want to ignore policy based reasons then that's up to you but asking everyone to repeat their reasons again and again and again is disruptive, You have your answers above and you have also have solid policy-based !Delete arguments bove .... unlike the !Keeps which are all essentially "Keep because
WP:ITSNOTABLE". –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You are failing to understand that the set of routes taken together need secondary sources. Urban planning studies are primary sources.
Charles (
talk)
19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
We already have two references not from the MBTA that discuss the grouping of these routes into a common category. In fact, that's what the list is sourced to at the moment. The point of citing references that discuss specific routes within that category is to make historical information available about those specific routes — information that is independent of the MBTA and not characteristic of a travel guide.
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Per WP:NOR 45 sources, many of them from government agencies but multiple government agencies reporting this information. Clearly refuted.
Bus routes are almost always non-notable proved false by the existence of the 64 other lists I identified.
an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability. the sources I found in a simple Google search shows these are specifically identified routes based on federal, state, associated cities and the agency itself. The identification of these routes are sourced in the article dating back to 2006, clearly a dozen years before the NOM. Did you really read that? So the basis of the entire NOM is disingenuous to begin with.
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and above all WP:N an astute echo of the NOM.
Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG Another echo. And there is no
WP:BUSCRUFT, you made that up. Following that, yes, finally there is a true statement
Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom has been decimated by noms by you Davey2010. And with a discussion by a microscopic number of commenters. What a terrible disservice to people outside of London. The perceived salt of that action is probably what is preventing the other content from reappearing. As to the statement if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website. We, wikipedia, are the primary source of information on the internet. People come here to learn. Even locally, I am astounded how few people know the name of their local bus operator. I happen to have done a documentary that broached this subject so I have done actual research. Ok that statement was
WP:OR but its also not in the article. At least here in the US, people don't know how to find the local operator. We, as the place people come for information, should have the information. Then at best they are three clicks away from finding the company, its website and the generic schedule page in varying forms of presentation (some of which absolutely suck). If editors have gone through the trouble to present this information, someone explain in actual words (rather than ambiguous essays or non-existent policy statements), what is the problem with wikipedia having this information publicly available?
I've never been to Massachusetts, I have no dog in this fight. Nor do I have a dog in UK, though I have visited decades ago. What I learn is from what is in the article, its attached sources and Google. Unlike a lot of AfDs, there is a lot of there there. I extremely dislike aggressive stupidity trying to push legitimate content off of wikipedia.
Trackinfo (
talk)
22:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - This AfD has been relisted multiple times and there is clearly, at a minimum, no consensus to delete. I propose closing the AfD without deletion.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Shelbystripes has !voted Keep above so ofcourse they're going to say this, Consensus in my eyes is towards delete due to the GNG-failing at best however I !voted delete so shan't say what I believe. –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year00:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm eager for an outside observer to weigh in now. With the number of editors who have !voted Keep (and given consistent reasoning for doing so) and the utter failure of the Delete commenters to explain why this post warrants deletion when many similar articles are considered notable, I can't see anything remotely close to a Delete consensus. Perhaps someone who hasn't weighed in yet will be able to resolve this mystery.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
02:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Wow, that's almost the exact opposite of the actual discussion. One Delete commenter literally just linked to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and when pressed on the fact that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually says a general body of articles may be considered when evaluating notability in an AfD, basically said "Well I want to nominate those other articles for deletion too". You cannot use your hypothetical future AfDs of other similar articles to justify deleting this article. That is not how Wikipedia works. And reading the rest of the discussion, the consistency of editors weighing in against Delete, and the fact that two relistings were required and still couldn't generate consensus, I can't see how any rational person would interpret this discussion as a consensus for Delete.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
02:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 an English term (at elast not in the sense of the article), of dubious notability, and barely supported (no pun intended) by the reference.
Derek Andrews (
talk)
23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep Wikipedia has massive amounts of unsourced content on Filipino basketball, but I do believe a lot of this material is salvageable. In the case of Salamat, I found
this,
this, and
this, for starters, and there's probably more material out there somewhere. I suspect that there's a massive amount of print material on Filipino basketball that most Western editors will never see. (Some tantalizing evidence
here.) There's probably a lot of additional material that was once available online, but has been lost to the ages (unless you know exactly where to look in the Internet Archive). It's clear that all of this data in the Wikipedia articles isn't being passed down by oral tradition!
Zagalejo^^^18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
These sources seem like routine sports reporting and are all about his hopes to get back up to the PBA, which isn't even considered a top level league.
Sandals1 (
talk)
19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
People keep citing WP:NBASKETBALL like it's holy scripture, but I think a case could be made for including the PBA. There is a fairly recent discussion about that
here. In terms of talent, the PBA may not rank very high, but in terms of fan interest and media coverage, it's a reasonably significant league. The definition of "routine sports coverage" is a tricky one, but these articles at least go beyond the basic reporting of game scores and league transactions.
Zagalejo^^^20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page was a suggestion a while ago but I didn't create it as I found it non-notable. The mention in Kotaku is not a "significant" one but only mentions it off hand as an example of one of the crappiest games promoted by Sony. That leaves Eurogamer and Jimquisition as the only significant mentions and according to
WP:VG/S "[The Jimquisiton] cannot be used to demonstrate notability. It fails
WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)20:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Well, it's certainly an established term - plenty of articles on Scholar use it
[53], and there's extended definitions in textbooks
[54]. Whether that's enough for an article, I don't know. If not, merge to
electrical conductance? At least some sort of definition (maybe in that article) would be good. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
09:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I've address both long-standing flags for no sources and no links (orphan). I've also managed to find and insert quite a range of independent
WP:RS to show this term is in use across a number of scientific research fields. I'd never heard of it before, but that's no reason for deletion. Nor would
WP:NOTDICT apply any more, as this article has now been expanded sufficiently to being more than a mere definition. Note to nom: do remember to sign your AfDs in future, please. Regards,
Nick Moyes (
talk)
02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry I do normally sign my comments, must have just slipped my mind. Thank you for expanding on it I couldn't find any good secondary sources when I tried.
EvilxFish (
talk)
13:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO and
WP:MUSICBIO. This singer is notable primarily for his work as a member of the musical duo UZi. The sources cited in the article consist of primary source interviews, articles which make trivial mention of this person, or sources that support his notability through his work in the duo UZi. A online search revealed few secondary sources to support notability, independent of UZi.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. I reviewed the footnotes and the musical artist lacks in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Perhaps it is merely a case of
Wikipedia:Too soon. I have my doubts given the nearly decade long career of the artist, but things can change given persistence, refinement of skills, etc.
Knox490 (
talk)
02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
At first glance, the number of sources create the illusion of extensive coverage. However, many of these sources are either unreliable or do not describe this musician in-depth. I'm afraid Beckner does not pass
WP:GNG; his bands are not notable, his albums were released independently, and I can't find any major chart listings/awards.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
09:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentKpopBoy, if you disagree with a page being turned it a redirect, challenge it, don't create another article the same at a different title, that's disruptive and confusing.
Boleyn (
talk)
16:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the article is certainly promotional. However the sources are enough. When Vogue and other RS write about your work like they seem to have done many times for this guy, GNG is met. Lots of mentions in other sources too,
if you search. His school
wrote him up, Marie Claire
interviewed him about Pajamas, the Guardian had
this short piece, the Telegraph
reviewed his collection and Fashionista
profiled him. Those aren't perfect sources, but they are enough for GNG. The article being promotional and/or created by an SPA are not reasons for deletion. The three reasons fro deletion advanced in the nomination are therefore all false.
104.163.155.42 (
talk)
07:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Looks like I was distracted by the promotional stuff, and did not look into this as well as I should have done. Am now editing the article to make it more
neutral.
Edwardx (
talk)
16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. The refs in the article don't support notability so I can see why this is at AFD. The refs provided above are better but still look on the weak side so i'm leaning to delete but will reserve judgement as better refs might be forthcoming.
Szzuk (
talk)
21:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 would like to note that the "sources" given by Arsh 18 consists mainly of trivial interveiw with the subject in question. Also the mention at Bharya (TV series) is unsourced .Most of the coverage the actress has received seems to be from fan mags and a few interviews from newspapers — comment added by Force Radical 🎆
talk 🎄
contribs🎆09:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 coverage isn't stellar, but I don't see a benefit from deletion, and the article could be expanded a little using the available sources. --
Michig (
talk)
11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There's clearly no consensus to delete, so the question is whether to merge this content to
Donald Trump on social media or keep it separate. But we don't have consensus about this either. The merger discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 12:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge - if other presidents have a page for their nicknames, then Trump needs his (regardless if bullying or not, based on if it's noteworthy). However, merging would also be reasonable
Wikizenx (
talk)
20:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Selective Merge ordelete. Honestly, some editors believe whatever is
currently in the news must be notable. Every single aspect of the President is covered but
Wikipedia isn't the database of Donald Trump nor is it news, especially of this low degree. The fact that
other stuff exists doesn't concern me. And by "selective" I mean one or two sentences describing the fact Trump likes using nicknames on his opponents. The article on Trump's social media activity already covers this well.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per WP:BLP, as it contains several accusations of mental illness made by someone who is clearly not qualified to diagnose mental illnesses. While that might be fine in a prose article that explains the context, this does not. It just asserts (Living person)=mentally ill. It likewise asserts of several living people that they engage in unethical activity, again without context. It would also be pretty strange to keep a page full of DT's nicknames mocking the physical appearances of other people, considering
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. This is an example of what we can do for our readers (documentation of slang proffered by the President of the United States). P.S. Donald Trump is a piece of shit that should be impeached. Still, this seems WP-worthy.
Carrite (
talk)
03:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Under
WP:GNG given frequent coverage; unlikely to be temporary; analogous article exists for Bush; and not all on social media, so I wouldn't combine with that. Understand the concern above about his comments on mental health (and the abusive, insulting, childish nature of these nicknames) - would be all for making it clearer that these are just verbatim quotes not endorsements, if that isn't sufficiently clear, but I don't think that negates the usefulness of having an article compiling them. Perhaps more balance could be instilled, and useful context provided, by [[[editing]]] to add a prose section on commentary around/response to the insults.`
Wikiminaj123 (
talk)
04:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - The use of nicknames will be a noted historical aspect of Donald Trump and his presidency. It will be considered a major staple of his brand. It is essential that this article be kept. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Flying Soda (
talk •
contribs)
05:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, original PROD rationale was incorrect, there are a number of mainstream sources on the page, not all film credits are from animations, either. I would say it passes point 1 of
WP:NACTOR in part, the multiple films however is an issue, which I am looking to resolve. Dana has recently been on stage but I'm struggling to find any sources. Nightfury09:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Hmmm. I guess one could make the argument that she has "only one significant role, and that is as a voice actress", but it's both blatantly not true and it's a featured role in the
Despicable Me (franchise), described as "the highest-grossing animated film franchise in box office history, and the 12th highest-grossing film franchise of all time." Again, the rush to deletionism leads editors to arrogate the role of deciding that notability is based on what they think is unimportatnt. Just because I'm uninterested in country music and have decided that being a country music performer "does not bring the same level of attention to the performer" of other forms of music (the ones I like, of course) would be a piss-poor argument for deletion of an article about a country music performer and it's equally invalid here as an excuse for deletion. The claim for notability is strong and the sources here and those available elsewhere establish that claim.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sources in article are passing mentions. BEFORE doesn't bring much better (a few more passing mentions, in particular regarding his brother/sons). Heading a beth-din by self-appointment does not seem sufficient for
WP:JUDGE.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep His role in his community for 40 years and certainly his role as a judge for 20 years are strong claims of notability. The source from
ABC (Australian TV channel) is entirely about him and his role at the bet din. In the absence of a hierarchical structure in Judaism, most judges will be self appointed and what's relevant here is not that he appointed himself but that he was accepted by the community at large for two decades combined with the issues of how he conducted himself, all of which were covered in depth by a reliable and verifiable source. Other, similarly strong sources are also available to be added, and I'm sure that if I knew Australia better that there would be further references available.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The ABC source is a radio show from 2002 upon the dissolution of the beit din. Most beit din heads are actually not self appointed - this only happens in small or new communities. Current sources do not support GNG for this individual.
Icewhiz (
talk)
20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'll call bullshit here. The ABC source is the transcript of a radio show (I'm unsure how bolding impacts the quality of the source) that covers him in-depth in the context of his beit din. How it was formed is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you're passing the source of as non-print justifies blowing off the source.
Alansohn (
talk)
20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The other 2 sources in the article are crap (Not only is their RSness questionable - they barely mention the guy). The ABC radio interview/roundtable is primarily about the dissolution of the beit din and prospect forward - and not about Gutnick. It is possibly usable (not sure if ABC stands behind what interviewees say - you may have to attribute) - but claiming SIGCOV off of one radio show (that is primarily about a different subject, some coverage of him)? That is a stretch.
Icewhiz (
talk)
21:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep- He is a notable person in the community, especially since his removal was not retirement but due to allegations of corruption and extortion from a print article that I could not find online. I am looking for it. An alternative because the online sources are a bit thin would be delete and I could move the information into a new article about the Melbourne Beth Din.--
smellytap22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You do have BLPCRIME (or is he dead? You do not have a date of death issues) for the bio. I do agree that the dissolution of the beth din in 2002 would be relevant information on an article on the beth din.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a nn individual; does not meet
WP:ANYBIO /
WP:GNG, for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A "notable person in the community" means just that: the subject is only of local interest and is not suitable for inclusion. Allegations of nepotism and running a one-man show are exactly the things we should not be putting in an article on a recently deceased person.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- On reflection there is not much about this individual, and most of the publicly relevant information can be inserted into other pages. to answer the other question, he is dead.
smellytap16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete not enough sources that discuss this indivdual in detail. Of course after seeing som many articles sourced only to the non-reliable IMDb, I begin to wonder if using reliable sources is still a thing on Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Melbourne Beth Din per
WP:BIO1E. Really only notable for the allegations surrounding his role at the Beth Din, and two reliable sources (an Age article and ABC radio story) does not exactly meet the bar of significant coverage. The article is nothing more than a stub anyway.
Kb.au (
talk)
06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Sources about him already in the article plus references available elsewhere combined with his published work meets the notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep sources in the article are about the person.
[60] is an interview.
[61] is a short biography. There are a few others that count as reasonable reliable sources that are fairly in-depth and independent. Seems above the bar.
Hobit (
talk)
03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Before he knew it. Tilton had perfected an impressive (!) blackjack strategy that was working quite well for him.
“Necessity is the mother of invention, and the result was the creation of a virtually undetectable system, something never before documented,” he said. This discovery prompted him to write the book, “The Blackjack Life.”
The coverage is clearly PR-driven and
WP:SPIP, not independent of the subject. Sources in the article is of the same quality: "Blackjack ace from Newburyport turns to financial planning". Newburyportnews.com. Etc. Basically, promotional 'cruft on a nn individual.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources about him in reliable and verifiable sources establish his notability as a blackjack player / author. There are some crappy, irrelevant and promotional sourcing, but that's an issue for cleanup not an excuse for deletion.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, of the "sources" presented here as being the best, one is a primary source, and the other is pretty obvious marketing fluff. Neither are useful in demonstrating that this individual meets the
WP:GNG. I don't see much better in the sources used in the article, which are either not independent of the subject, or in niche publications that look to have somewhat dubious reliability.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC).reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
speedy declined because 'they are signed to a notable label', in this case an only possibly notable offshoot of a conglomerate. A horrible bunch of promotional fluff about a band tat barely exist, which is why I don't think they are notable.
TheLongTone (
talk)
15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment What is the "notable label" that are signed to? Without a reference how can such a claim be verified? All I can find is they've posted stuff on spotify and other self-download sites. I'm abstaining from voting because researching this AfD will require--I suspect--reading French (which I can't do). However I am immediately suspicious that any musical act that was formed little over than a year ago and whose first release, as of this writing, is three weeks old, can be considered encylopedic worthy.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
18:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
San Marcos has made national headlines numerous times this year and is one of two small cities in Texas whose mayor has signed the climate mayors. Now more than ever our politicians need to be accessible. I believe through edits this page can pass the guidelines through non promotion and notability. -kmo26 — Preceding
unsigned
comment added by
Kmo26 (
talk •
contribs)
07:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete San Marcos is not a large enough town that its mayors are generally notable. I see no reason to merge the mayor's biography to the article on
San Marcos, Texas, but it's possible a sub-page could be created that is a viable merge target.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
18:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Yes, you can check it too. It just lists a list of rulers of Bundi, without ever citing a historical book or any scholarly work. You can find the source on the article's page. Besides, websites can provide as secondary sources for an article, but when it relies entirely on one source, a website, then it can be deleted.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment A relatively minor ruler in 16th century India is going to be hard to source. That he is mentioned at all speaks volumes. We need to examine the website in particular. IT may or may not be written by someone knowledgeable. It feels like it was taken from an old printed source. If so, that would suffice for me. We need to search for more sources. It might wind up that we need to merge this into a List of rulers of Bundi. --
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The article is indeed notable, but it relies on only one, unreliable source and we cannot just assume that it is from an old printed source, either delete or redirect to
History of Bundi. See
WP:HSC for more information on citing historical articles.
After conducting research on Rao Surtan, I found some websites in which he is mentioned(
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaRajputanaBundi.htm) but none of them ever give a source to where did they get this information. Most of the sites where he is mentioned are mirror sites of Wikipedia.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That being the case, the thing to do is to add a "refimprove"" tag and contact Wikiproject India to see if they can help with sourcing. Perhaps speedy keep as nominator says subject is notable. --
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete - I expected that software built-in to Windows would clearly be notable, but can't find significant coverage, and
[65] suggests it is being removed.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Biography of a politician whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes
WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold a notable office to get a Wikipedia article because of politics per se, and otherwise he has to have preexisting notability for some other reason. But the only other potential notability claim here is that he was the chairman of the horticultural committee for a smalltown Rotary Club, which is in no sense whatsoever a reason why somebody would qualify for an encyclopedia article either -- and the only sources here are a census transcript on a genealogy site, and a glancing namecheck of his existence as chairman of the horticultural committee in a 75th anniversary overview of the entire Rotary chapter. None of this, neither the substance nor the sourcing, offers an actual reason why he would warrant an encyclopedia article.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Poorly sourced article about a musician, whose only substantive claim of notability is having been a non-winning contestant on a reality show. As always, this is not a claim of notability in and of itself -- a non-winning contestant can still get a Wikipedia article by actually passing
WP:NMUSIC, but is not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just for being on a reality show per se. But there's no claim to passing NMUSIC here, and no strong
reliable source coverage to carry it: the referencing is entirely to
primary sources, social media, podcasts and unreliable
blogs, except for a single reliable source which contains no information about the subject at all, but rather is here to support the tangential fact that Nashville is called the country music capital of the world -- which is entirely irrelevant to Wakefield's notability. As always, no prejudice against recreation if and when his notability claim and sourceability actually clear the bar, but nothing here is enough as of right now -- we are not a promotional platform for aspiring future stars, but an encyclopedia about those who've already made it.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and potentially merge some of the material. Will move it to the creators user page. Let me know if you wish the preexisting text. Have added a redirect.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Fails notability criterion. This organization has not received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. The few sources that speak on this organization are local, with one regional example. Additionally this entire article seems to be written and maintained by a member of this organizations board of directors that has cited their own documents.
Criticality Incident (
talk)
04:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP - I am the author of this article. There are five independent sources for six of the ten references for this article. Those sources include the major radio and print outlets in the region in which Camp Rising Sun operates (two newspapers and one radio station), and the independent Charity Navigator which reflects the organization's valid 501c3 status. Most importantly the New York Times, a globally recognized news source, covered the situation in depth and fairly, and recognized the existence and role of SaveCRS. Documents from Camp Rising Sun's own website have been included to provide a complete and balanced portrayal of the facts and history.
This wiki article has far more information and independent sourcing than many nonprofit wiki pages.
Delete (possibly with selective merge into
Camp Rising Sun (New York)) - There isn't evidence of encyclopedic notability for this organization, other than material that relates to the camp and thus can be covered on the camp page. I make no opinion on whether the camp page is notable (since it's not up for AfD) but if this camp-related non-profit has any notability at all, it's in relation to the camp and can be covered on the camp's page.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
05:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete (Perhaps merge some of the article with the section on financial difficulties in
Camp Rising Sun (New York).) The newspapers are local, not regional, and I agree with Cullen328 that the NYT coverage is in the context of their coverage of the camp itself. Yes, I came out of lurking to work on the camp rising sun page, but almost exclusively to delete sections without npov (there were times when the article looked like it came straight out of a brochure) and to delete attacks on the board members. The fact that other articles on non-profits have even less attention from independent secondary sources is a sign that those articles should also be put up for deletion, not a sign that we should add to the pile.
Criticality Incident (
talk)
23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP - SaveCRS is a legitimate spin out from the CRS LAJF community and should enjoy notability no different than that of the Protestants or splintered off political groups. Attempting to silence hundreds of dissenting voices has not, and will never work to resolves any differences. Here is an example of a group that was born out of similar circumstances, albeit on a larger scale:
/info/en/?search=National_Woman_Suffrage_Association. An even more recent and relevant example of groups splintering off as a result of an organization's financial missteps can be found on this page
/info/en/?search=Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests#Free_Cooper_Union, which is separate from the main Cooper Union page
/info/en/?search=Cooper_Union. Are we going to start deleting and/or merging pages of every organization in history that has branched, spun, or otherwise splintered off from an established or larger group?
TigerJackson (
talk)
14:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not satisfy
biographical notability or
general notability. Most of the references are not independent. Google search turns up nothing that has been independently written about him, but the usual vanity hits of what he and GreenRope have written. (Google search also finds another Lars Helgeson, but they are clearly different people.)
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete the section on his career is too fully of buzz words and promotionalism. Even if we could find a way to fix this flaw, there is just no sign that he is notable. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, and that is exactly what this article reads like.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Spam article changed to a redirect then reverted from redirect multiple times by COI editor (see tag). No evidence in reliable sources this is a notable company or notable person fails
WP:N and
WP:CORP. The Wikipedia article claims the company name and person's name are interchageable but no sources presented support this claim
WP:OR. The references should be removed as spam, but then there would be no references.
Steve Quinn (
talk)
03:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I made a bad call here. Re-closing as delete. There was essentially only one user vying for a keep while three others argued for deletion. It is irregular at best to change the decision after this amount of time has passed. I apologize.
Killiondude (
talk)
22:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - His cycling results are just long enough ago to have mostly aged off the internet, but from the (substantial) coverage of his untimely death, it's clear he was notable in his discipline. "Top cyclist"
[66]; "a prolific competition record breaker"
[67]; "champion cyclist"
[68]; "rewrites record books"
[69], etc.
Υπογράφω (
talk)
04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete I don't think this article is timely anymore, and notability is not inherent. Regardless, he certainly does not meet
WP:NCYCLING. And, the only sources are two news articles covering his death. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and most of this article is just a news report. See
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. —
FormalDude(
talk)00:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. He was a multiple national champion and the BBC article confirms this. His premature death is tragic. His life reads a bit like a Greek tragedy. I would like to see the article kept if possible. But if not, I can understand the counter argument for delete.
Knox490 (
talk)
03:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You seem to be arguing that because he does not meet WP:NCYCLING (which strictly speaking and as far as I've been able to determine, is true, albeit by a margin of
literally seconds), he is automatically ineligible for inclusion. That's not how WP:NCYCLING or other subject-specific inclusion criteria work. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy
the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article -- in other words, if he had won the 2002 national ITT, then I could convincingly argue that sources were likely to exist without necessarily producing them. However, failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways. This is what the sources in the article achieve, showing that a) he received significant coverage for his cycling achievements in both sport-specific and general media even prior to his death, b) his death was covered not merely as a
routine traffic fatality but as the death of a notable athlete, and c) the available web sources indicate that there's likely additional coverage available in print archives. In short, it doesn't matter if he doesn't meet WP:NCYCLING because the sources show that he meets WP:GNG.
Υπογράφω (
talk)
02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I really don't think that this does meet GNG. Local newspaper items are not generally considered sufficient, the reports on his death are featured as a case of driver asleep at the wheel rather than victim-centered, and if even the very small circulation national special interest publication
only gives 3 lines to the national record, we are talking very niche. The lack of any real biographical info suggests that the press may have considered his results worth reporting, but not himself highly noteworthy. But Wikipedia is not a repository of specialist event results in national level events in minority sports.
Kevin McE (
talk)
11:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think it proves your points at all, the sources do not prove he was covered for his cycling achievements by general media. They are not from independent websites. The ones from independent websites all only cover his death. —
FormalDude(
talk)22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This could possibly have been adjudged a "keep", but the bottom line is that there is not sufficient consensus to delete this article. Discussion as to an appropriate move or merge can continue on the article's talk page.
ATraintalk07:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This article was nominated for deletion based on an assertion of
WP:NPOV issues. Those issues will be resolved with references. The article will eventually be MOVEd to
Trump nominees who withdrew. I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration.citation neededoriginal research? (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD. Secondary sources exist. CNN quoted this: "relative to the number of confirmed people, Trump's percentage of failed nominations is very high," with numbers that followed. More references will follow. In the mean time, we should not lose this article.
Rhadow (
talk)
11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with Rhadow. Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions. AFAICR no other administration has had the problems dishing out the spoils that the current one has.
L3X1(distænt write)15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I, on the other hand, disagree with both
@L3X1 and
@Rhadow. I find their proposals partisan and selective, and based on their own
personal points of view, which their own laughably self-righteous and POV rationales confirm:
"I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration.citation neededoriginal research? (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD.")
and
"Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions."
Ummm, can anyone say
CRYSTAL and
OR?? If you create such an article list for Trump, then one should be created for every POTUS (FDR, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton would appear particularly apropos, but ALL POTUSES should be covered in the interests of fairness and consistency).
Quis separabit?22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Upon further (though relatively shallow) digging, most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions. I'm sorry if I appear self-righteous, but I think calling OSE to be just as big a non-solution: This can't exist till everything else that probably should exist exists. As for NPOV, the facts are that Trump nominated people for a position, and they withdrew.
L3X1(distænt write)23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions." -- that does not sound either reliably sourced or genuinely investigative in nature. What's more, such a list is pointless, partisan, and divisive.
Quis separabit?01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - As pointed out above by
Rhadow, the unusually high number of withdrawn nominations is based on observations in secondary sources and is not OR. The fact that other pages don't exist is not a good reason to delete this page. Not every presidency is the same or has the same issues. It's not unprofessional or political to simply create pages for notable events supported by secondary sources.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This discussion has turned personal and partisan. There are plenty of other places to pursue it on the web, but not on an article talk page. Arguments based on
WP:OR,
WP:NPOV, or even
WP:CRYSTAL are fine. Please leave unprofessional, self-righteous, pointless, partisan, and divisive out of the conversation. If you wish to to add to the article that the current administration has been extraordinarily successful at placing appeals court nominees, that's fine. That's a fact.
Rhadow (
talk)
12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but improve - I agree to keep this article as mentioned by
Rhadow. The article looks a notable one and should be improved with adding references and the article hasn't been categorised yet.
Abishe (
talk)
17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Move. Honestly, this just doesn't need to be its own article. Moving to
Political appointments by Donald Trump#Announced positions from which candidates have withdrawn seems like a perfectly fine solution to me for all the reasons listed here. The fact are (1) this does not need to be its own article as they don't exist for other presidential administrations, (2) the Trump Administration for whatever reason (even if it's coincidental) has had an above average number of officials withdraw their nominations, and (3) this content could be better served to readers within the context of the article on political appointments of the administration in general. We have an article on
the spooky similarities between JFK and Lincoln, so I am confident that a simple move is all we need here. Thank you all for the discussion, and I hope to receive your feedback. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖21:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete- Does not comply with
WP:NPOV. Why does Trump get a special article about this? To say that Trump has "unusually high number of nominees" is not accurate. The CNN article that is referenced mentions that Obama had a similar number of withdrawn nominees. It even says "This number is not unprecedented". Also in the CNN article is the fact that Trump nominated less people overall. Trump is then quoted explaining that he doesn't intend to fill many of the positions because they're not necessary. The CNN article also doesn't detail how many withdrawn nominees presidents had in their first year before Obama. How many did either Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. have? We don't know.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
04:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Sufficiently notable and sourced. Trump's administration is unique in this regard, so the list is worth keeping. The merge, if any, can be discussed on the article's Talk page.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete lots of nominees withdraw, for lots of reasons. Considering how many people get nominated to office by the president, this is just a bad idea for an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I don't agree all sources are from the organization's site, where we have sources from respectable newspapers like
Taipei Times and
Taiwan Today. In addition to source from Historical Dictionary of Taiwan Cinema which is invaluable academic reference material. This is poor nomination as you've not done
WP:BEFORE properly with clear contradiction of your statement and the actual content of the article.
Ammarpad (
talk)
10:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's why
WP:BEFORE is recommend. If you had properly followed the process you are the one who would've found the sources and add. Nominating for AfD usually is the last resort after search fails to bring up any meaninful source or no evidence that sources can be found. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 very non notable and hardly possible search term. Also if redirect is later found to be useful it can be created with only 1 revision. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
17:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is basically a corporate training department not a "university". There's nothing to merge, as the article does not cite any sources and nor does it contain any meaningful encyclopedic prose. The entire article is pretty much this:
...founded in 2001 through the merger of all the training and education departments of the group. Eni Corporate University mainly shares the goals of the typical Corporate university, and in addition it is responsible for recruitment.
This could be said of any corporate training department. A redirect is pointless; since typing in Eni would bring the reader to the page of the company.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete unreferenced and no secondary references found. I don't believe it attempts to issue any academic credentials, merely being an internal training division with a fancy name.
[75] suggests one of its divisions might accept students and offer a degree, but without at least one secondary reference to that effect this can't be kept.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There is a consensus among registered editors that the subject's many quotes to do not constitute in-depth coverage of the subject.
ATraintalk07:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: Cameron Howe is a Melbourne-based journalist who regularly works with larger media outlets including, Fairfax and News Limited newspapers, in addition to writing for a number of independent publications. This site should not be deleted for the above reasons.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.214.26.130 (
talk) —
121.214.26.130 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Save- the above comments regarding the deletion of this webpage fail to support their claims with any meaningful information, and other Wikipedia users have not been given the opportunity to add further information to this webpage. The comments regarding the deletion of this webpage can only be described as cyber bulling — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.214.26.130 (
talk)
07:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - There is no cyberbulling here and your comment only shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Please see
WP:N for information about article inclusion requirements, also please read
WP:AGF before responding to anyone's comments.
reddogsix (
talk)
15:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Consistently quoted and mentioned in numerous news sites. I would recommend holding off. The page was just created and A7 was declined.
Subuey (
talk)
22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have not seen such uniformly poor !votes at an AfD in a long time. I encourage participants to read
WP:AADD and actually cite some policies, sources, and attempts to locate sources in their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk)
23:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment-Lets be accurate, the full quote is, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". The coverage fails to support
notability.
reddogsix (
talk)
03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as there are no actual sources discussing the subject himself, only a scant handful of unimportant local sources that either mention him in passing or are written by him.
TheValeyard (
talk)
00:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The coverage is of state significance on a host of political issues that could determine the result of the next state election in 2018, not to mention that the Mordialloc Chronicle which he writes for has received a capital injection. The Chronicle Newspaper Group is challenging News Corp's Leader newspaper group with the intention of having 55 newspaper by the end of 2018. He currently writes for 3 newspapers and again regularly commentates on issues of state political significance — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.144.108.231 (
talk)
06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC) —
1.144.108.231 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Just to add. He is a media source quoted in national newspapers owned by Fairfax Media - The Age, Bendigo Advertiser, etc and News Corp - The Herald Sun, Leader, The Daily Telegraph etc. Also referred to in a press release by a notable political in state government and had his views read out in Parliament — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.144.108.231 (
talk)
06:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Surely the largest newspapers in Australia are considered to be independent reliable sources? There seems to be 50+ articles of which the subject has been quoted in. Perhaps these could be added to the article on the subject to avoid deletion? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.144.107.112 (
talk)
23:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC) —
1.144.107.112 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - Quotes are neither in-depth nor non-trivial coverage.
reddogsix (
talk)}
Comment It should be noted that all keep novotes, except for the one made by Subuey, have been made by IP accounts with no other prior contributions to the project (except one with 3 edits to another article). --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete there's no claim that he meets any SNG (including
WP:NAUTHOR) or is particularly important in any way. The references (other than his personal website) are him acting as a spokesperson in local news, and are very much reference-bombing (SIX references for "is a frequent media commentator", all of which are simply places he has been quoted in news stories, and not about him or his media-commentating actions).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 coverage in reliable sources. Nothing indicates this game achieved any kind of notoriety. I tried several different searches, under varying search terms, and used the "newspapers" search. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2012. So, there has been plenty of time to gather reliable sources and there aren't any in the "references" section. Fails
WP:N and
WP:NWEB - this topic does not merit a standalone article. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
02:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 One insubstantial mention in The Toronto Star is all I find.
[76]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Creator bypassed AfC nomination process after numerous failed attempts to prove notability. This article is also to circumvent the salting of
Blake Alma, a 2013 attempt at creation. Wyliepedia23:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak delete - Too many blogs cited in the article, which are not reliable secondary sources. The hunting magazine article is encouraging, but doesn't quite push it over the line of notability for me. Seems
WP:TOOSOON. Avoiding the normal Wikipedia processes is also disconcerting. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
00:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 merged to
OkCupid, until such time as substantial content develops. Although a reasonable number of sources exist to show that the word exists and has a consistent definition, no showing has been made that the article can be increased beyond the current dicdef. It has been pointed out that this word has been used in contexts outside of OkCupid, but it remains clear that the primary association of the word is with OkCupid, and other uses can be discussed in the context of its origination with that website.
bd2412T02:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - It may not be recognised by the scientific community, but it is a term that's been thrown around plenty in popular culture and there are many reliable sources that discuss it. And if the article is a dictionary entry atm that should be cause for change, not deletion. Passes
WP:GNG easily, especially with coverage in the Toronto Star (
[1]) and The New York Times (
[2]) newspapers with the largest weekly circulation in Canada and largest combined print and digital circulation in the United States, respectively. -
Indy beetle (
talk)
00:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Indy beetle, what is there to state about the term beside the fact that it is a category used on some dating websites?
WP:Stubs are not ideal. Per WP:Neo, neither are articles on neologisms. And per
WP:No page, not every article needs its own Wikipedia page. This one certainly does not.
Flyer22 Reborn (
talk)
00:26, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not actually exist, it's just a made-up thing by a dating website. The source coverage that is present discusses it only within the context of it's creator, a line or two at
Okcupid is enough.
TheValeyard (
talk)
02:52, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is too esoteric and lacks widespread and in-depth coverage. It wouldn't surprise me if this is just a passing fad in terms of it being a term. It is a case of
Wikipedia:Too soon at the very least.
Knox490 (
talk)
06:29, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete and Soft-Redirect to Wiktionary. Clearly a neologism (from 5-ish years ago), but used well beyond OKCupid, so a redirect there would be inappropriate. (the "Further reading" shows examples, though that section has obvious issues). A soft-redirect to Wiktionary seems to be the best option here, as I see no content other than a
WP:DICTDEF here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
16:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:GNG - all
WP:NEO says is that there must be secondary sources on it - which do exist. It does not put a especially higher standard for neologisms, just that merely being used is not enough. I think there's also enough on cultural perception etc for
WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Stuff like With increased visibility has come a backlash: Some say declaring a sexual preference based on intelligence is pretentious, elitist or insulting to people with disabilities. etc. As powerenwiki pointed out, there's a journal artice on it published in
Intelligence (journal)[4] that uses the term. Could add some information from that. Won't be a huge article but that shouldn't matter. I think there's enough for a criticism section from articles, history section on its first use and emergence as a term, and psychology section using that study. There's easily enough coverage unrelated to okcupid, not sure where that's from. Not sure if I'll have the time now to expand on it - I'd request userfication if it's deleted and I'll see about expanding it if i can. Like this daily dot article says - Sapiosexual: It’s the latest sexual identity causing a lot of controversies. You may have heard of it from OkCupid, which has included it as a sexual orientation on its dating platform, or from the Daily Beast’s Samantha Allen, who criticized the term’s very existence. Or maybe you stumbled across the New York Times‘ sapiosexual exposé from June 2017, exploring what it means to be more attracted to someone’s brain over their looks. Not just okcupid.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
08:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The topic clearly is "worthy of notice" given the discussion in the New York Times, etc—this means it passes our
general notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Currently the article is a stub and dictionary definition; however, the article can and should be expanded rather than deleted. Malinaccier (
talk)00:44, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete--a few recent write-ups (well, old ones, and no new ones--so it hasn't really caught on) do not make for a subject that meets the GNG; we're falling victim to a recentist addiction to fairly trivial mentions. If this weren't trivial, we'd have more and more serious hits in books etc. than
this footnote--which isn't better than our article (and makes me question Wiley). I have, however, ordered a copy of
this book--mreow.
Drmies (
talk)
00:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - despite the Delete and Salt SNOW vote on the last (3rd) AfD, the term appears to now be a notable thing. This just popped up today in the Daily Mail. [
[5]] From the article: The term 'sapiosexual' has recently received widespread media attention and speculation as it grows in popularity. And this yesterday: [
[6]]
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)01:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Can't see the claim to notability here, and no significant coverage in independent sources. She played minor roles in a number of stage works and performed with live shows for Disney. I can't find independent corroboration of playing the role Marianne in Shout!, she certainly didn't originate the role. She does not appear to be credited on the Sardi single.
Boneymau (
talk)
21:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Othersourcesexist as well, which together push him over towards notability.
Indian editors can help to find sources but even the sources that I have posted are in my opinion enough. I was considering erring on the side of caution as this is a
biography of a living person and he may meet
TOOSOON but there are probably sources out there that are hard to access and often need custom searches or perhaps there is more stuff in print only (unlikely in my opinion). I'm unsure why all the sources I have found are post-September; maybe it's a problem with my search. I don't think the sources are quite passing mention in response to
NA1000's statement.
'Weak Keep per J947. The coverage is weak and directing a single film doesn't meet any SNG, but I believe GNG is met. I have no ability to tell if there are Malayalam articles. My biggest concern is the title; is it "G Prajesh Sen" or "Prajesh Sen" or "Prajeshsen"?
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
16:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I think it should be G Prajesh Sen from my searches, and it definitely confused me but I think they are the same. Also, his role as a journalist seems to be the main source of coverage. J947(
contribs ·
mail)22:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge and redirect to
Outer Hebrides#Transport, where it can be covered in appropriate context and (brief) detail. Fails
WP:GNG for an individual article, but is entirely proper to be mentioned there (where it technically is, but a bit of detail on 'which islands' would not be amiss), and redirects are cheap. -
The BushrangerOne ping only04:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge and Redirect as suggested. I do not think there is enough notability for a separate article, but the transport section of the
Outer Hebrides article would seem an obvious place to have this kind of information.
Dunarc (
talk)
19:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recreation of a previously deleted article. Still no reliable, third-party sources to establish notability, largely promotional and supported only by self-published fringe sources.
Famousdog (c)19:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Deletewithout prejudice to re-creation, preferably as a redirect The article itself uses future tense, and after reading
[8], suggests that the article's future tense is advancing a split from the founding ideas of
NLP. For reference, one of the two primary sources is a biography with extensive detail,
[9], and the second is
written by the topic.As for the topic itself, reading the article on NLP shows analysis that reaches into concepts of religion, just as the second primary source lists "Spiritual" as an additional layer of the "NeuroLogical levels". The NLP article's mention of New Age quasi-religion fits in with the topic's association with University of California at Santa Cruz. The NLP article has 11 cites to the topic at hand. I see that the topic at hand has been translated into Russian, German, French, and Italian. I find in Google searches that the topic has a patent regarding biofeedback, and the primary-source biography couples his work with the biofeedback game "Wild Divine", a topic with Ghits in Google Scholar. Certainly Wikipedia notable as per the lede and nutshell; although if we are having trouble getting a standalone article on the topic, space could be created at NLP to identify him in a section called History.
Unscintillating (
talk)
22:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to
Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam - His story has been inspirational to many (for instance, here is a long article about Kemper from the Galveston Daily News in 1998
[10]), but most newspapers.com and google books results are about his letter. The letter is famous because it was collected in that anthology. The anthology receives a good deal of coverage and that article could be expanded (or an article on the book of the same title created), and discussion of why the letters were important added which could mention Kempner, particularly his characterization of America as a "a country of thorns and cuts", etc. So while the article doesn't currently mention Kempner, most people searching for Kempner will be doing so because of the anthology, and a redirect there seems appropriate.
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. If redirected, then to an article about the book, which contains three of his letters. The Kempner article currently links to the movie; that should be fixed if a book article is created.--Georgia Army VetContribsTalk20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentThe Illinois legislature is filled with notable people who gave the topic attention, but I'm having trouble finding sources on Google. [
This page provides something he did as mayor. WGN is a 50,000 watt radio station, which at night can be heard over most of the populated US and I assume Canada.
WGN-TV went on the air in 1948, so was one of the earliest broadcasters. His father was associated with the Tribune newspaper. It seems likely that someone with access to Chicago newspaper archives would have a chance of finding more on this topic.
Unscintillating (
talk)
04:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete unless the article sees significant improvement. Neither being a smalltown mayor nor being a single-market local TV or radio personality is an automatic notability pass that entitles a person to keep an article that's this weakly sourced. And saying that improved sourcing might be possible is not enough in and of itself to get an article kept, either — somebody needs to show the evidence that enough sourcing to get him over GNG does exist, preferably by actually improving the article but at least by showing some hard results from an actual search of Chicago newspaper archives in this discussion, and it is not enough to just theorize that maybe better sources might exist.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep - Easilly meets V, NPOV, NOR, N, NSPORTS. I don't like to editorialize at AfD, but Overton is one of the greatest college middle-distance runners of all time and I'm unhappy to see this nomination and the current state of the discussion. I'll work on adding sources, but in the meantime, here is a short article about Overton in the Yale Alumni Magazine:
[11]. Here is an article about his recent induction in the Tennessee Sports Hall of Fame
[12].
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:30, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep I added sources from the track and field side and have more to add. He clearly meets
WP:NSPORTS by being a multiple world record holder. He was also multiple national champion and collegiate champion. All that before we get to the war hero stuff.
Trackinfo (
talk)
19:54, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - Seems he passes GNG and
WP:NSPORT - holding world records. Voters should be mindful that SOLDIER creates a presumption of notability yet doesn't exclude notability for soldiers not meeting it (either a soldier or via non-soldier activities).
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Passes
WP:NSPORTS as a world record holding athlete. I have noticed a very concerning pattern, as well, where the world has been turned upside down and supplementary notability standards, intended to...supplement...GNG in cases where notable topics might have difficulty demonstrating GNG compliance, are being considered a higher bar than GNG, i.e. "it passes GNG, but fails [SUPNG], delete as not notable". This really needs to be something that is, for want of a better term, stamped out, as it actually is a genuine threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.. -
The BushrangerOne ping only22:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Chicago, IL article is little more than a list of radio stations. The Lincoln, IL is one of the better written articles, but I still believe it fails
WP:ORG.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Articles seem to be well sourced, though to non-independent (government) sources. Also, as with most mass-noms, there are issues with some likely having better sources out there than others and there are not links to previous AfDs.
Hobit (
talk)
20:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep By far a
WP:SOFIXIT proposition rather than full deletion for any of these (especially major city offices and Norman, Oklahoma, which the nom seems to have failed to do the most basic of
WP:BEFORE and most know as the major research center/forecast authority for tornadoes in the United States; same with Miami and the
National Hurricane Center). Nate•(
chatter)22:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Whatever their connection is, you have 20+ sources in the Norman NWS article and they definitely don't have a stone wall between them. Nate•(
chatter)23:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The Norman article is not quite as good as it appears on the surface. It starts off with a mostly unsourced history section, then it goes into a discussion about a notable weather event which already has its own article, next comes a description of its website (this section should just be deleted regardless), and then a list of radio stations. That's it, almost all of the sources are the NWS website.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Would be throwing away an enormous amount of valuable and perfectly notable work. Unnecessary spin-out really. What is the purpose of any encyclopedia if not for spin out articles.
scope_creep (
talk)
18:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Apart from most of the articles have many valid sources this AfD bundling is in the territory of
WP:TRAINWRECK which hinders meaningful assessment of individual article and further worsen the AfD process. I will support examining each on its merit or at most 3 in AfD. Saying they contain OR is hasty generalization (which is caused by the bundling) and did not match what I see in many of the articles –
Ammarpad (
talk)
01:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Chronic deletionism at its worst from one of our most strident deletionists. Sadly, Rusf10 has made admonished after having made previous bulk nominations and has too often failed to make the most basic analysis required by
WP:BEFORE. Above and beyond failing to look for sources for each of the articles bundled into this nomination, it's unclear if there was even an effort to read articles such as
National Weather Service Lincoln, Illinois,
National Weather Service Miami, Florida and
National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma, which are indisputably notable. An out-and-out ban on AfD for Rusf10 should be seriously considered to end the further abuse of process.
Alansohn (
talk)
02:18, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Mr. Sohn (I know you don't like me calling you by your first name), do you have an actual policy reason to keep these? Because that is an outright personal attack and nothing else.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:59, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Read
WP:OUTING and start using my full username; this is not the first time that you have violated
WP:HARASS and this is an explicit final warning. The policy argument is that this bulk nomination is an abuse of process from an editor who has been warned previously about bulk nominations.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:09, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Sherlock, the user name is eight characters and makes no indication of how it is to be parsed; that's based solely on you;re attempts to disclose information about me in violation of
WP:OUTING. Read
WP:HARASS and follow it; else dig your own grave. As you seem to be following me around, you'll see that I have participated in AfDs above and beyond those included in your initial threats aimed at me, both now and for the past dozen years. When a bulk AfD popped up, I was astounded to see that an editor like you who had already been warned against making abusive bulk deletions was at it again. I thus participated.
Alansohn (
talk)
03:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
So you just admitted you decided to participate after you saw I nominated it. Youre clearing following me around (not the other way around), but that's okay.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Bulshit, dude. I said I saw a bulk nomination on AfD and was surprised to see your name on it after I had edited the nom. Remember Sherlock that you're the one who promised to delete articles because you believed they were connected to me (see
this threat, as a reminder). Take a look at how participation is tracking here and tell me where consensus is? Are you going to withdraw the nomination or will you just keep battling away in the true spirit of disruptive deletionism?
Alansohn (
talk)
04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Clearly a
WP:SOFIXIT. Given the size of the city and the various other similar articles for similar sized cities, I don't see why the article was ever nominated for deletion. The National Wealther Service does important work. Deletionism at its worst is at play here.
Knox490 (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The phrase "frontier strip" appears to have been invented solely for this Wikipedia namespace. I can not find any historical or scholarly examples of the phrase "frontier strip" being used in relation to the United States, and as far as I can tell the phrase "frontier strip" does not appear in any of the article's listed references . The small number of Google search hits (regular search, books and scholar) for "frontier strip" appear to be traceable back to this article, with the exception of some references that are clearly about other countries.
Rename to something, I'm not sure what, or Merge into
American Frontier. Leave no redirect from "Frontier Strip". Looking at newspapers.com, frontier strip seems to be a term occasionally used to describe regions near frontlines of battles, but I agree it doesn't work here. Also, the "Last American Frontier", which is used to in this article, generally refers to Alaska and not this region.
Smmurphy(
Talk)16:10, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
DeleteRename / Merge - this is a difficult one - as this article dates back to 2005 making Wikipedia->source contamination quite an issue. I have found some sources referring to these as "Frontier Strip". Post 2005:
[13][14][15][16]. But I am unable to find older sources using this name for Texas to Dakota.
Icewhiz (
talk) 17:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Modified to delete as it seems most the contents are copy pssted from other wiki articles.
Icewhiz (
talk)
20:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename- Unfortunately this article has been around for a long time and people have put a lot of work into it. However, it seems to be a made-up name for geographic region. I think the easier thing to do would be to move the page to
American Great Plains. Alternately candidates for merges would be American Frontier (as above) or
Great Plains (although this article includes Canada too, which is why I prefer the rename).--
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
How about renaming to History of the Great Plains or History of the American Great Plains (I think the former is better right now, since
American Great Plains redirects to
Great Plains). This would be a minor repurposing, with frontier strip replaced with great plains in the text and the image perhaps replaced with
File:Map of the Great Plains.png. The description section doesn't really have anything not in
Great Plains, and this page would, I think, be better kept separate but referred to in the history section of that article.
Smmurphy(
Talk)
While most of the article deals with history, some things would not fit into an article titled "History of". That's why I'd prefer renaming to "American Great Plains" with a hatnote at the top going to the existing "Great Plains" article.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
15:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I agree, but American Great Plains already exists (is a redirect to Great Plains). As I meant to say, the non-history stuff from this article could be merged into that article, except it is already there, so it can just be trimmed in this article.
Smmurphy(
Talk)16:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge each section into the history section of a relevant state or region article such as
American West or
Great Plains.See Below The edit history of this article is eye-opening: The
original is nothing more than a list of states accompanied by an unsourced and speculative explanation. A
later revision attempts to attribute it to the US Census, but this is also fails to support the grouping of the states. Everything else seems to be a mishmash of events that occurred within or around this group of states, but there is still nothing that ties it together as a cohesive region. –
dlthewave☎21:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: No consensus yet on a possible renaming or merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
ansh66603:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Most of the historical information appears to have been copy-and-pasted from other Wiki articles by
User:Reddi in June and July 2009 without any references or attribution. I copied the article into my userspace at
User:Dlthewave/Frontier Strip Draft and removed everything that I could verify as copied, just to see what's left. If deleted, I don't think we would lose very much that isn't covered elsewhere. –
dlthewave☎21:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Is a historical concept; Glad i caught this so get the wikimarkup before any deletion; Maybe move it somewhere else; Sad, not the WP of yesterday ... just another reason not to contribute much anymore; Enjoy --
J. D. Redding15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss whether merging or deletion is preferred.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
TonyBallioni (
talk)
16:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Over half of this article was copy-and-pasted from other Wikipedia articles, so there would be no point in merging. Most of the remainder is either not suitable for merging (climate and political data) or already covered elsewhere. –
dlthewave☎18:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete After someone pointing out that this is just a copy and paste job, I have to change to delete. There's nothing worth saving here.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
01:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I ma nominate in a year or two when opinion about promotionalism becomes more rational DGG (
talk )
23:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
essentially promotional , so it violates NOT ADVERTISING, one of our fundamental policies. I do not know whether or not it's really notable, but it doesn't matter. notability is secondary to basic policy WP:NOT. The previous discussion argued on the grounds of notability, but I do not see why. DGG (
talk )
16:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – Passes WP:GNG. The article is written based upon what reliable sources state about it. Positive press coverage does not automatically equate to advertising. If the company received significant coverage in the form of negative press for some matter, I would have included that as well. The article does not have a promotional tone and does not encourage readers to do business with the company. North America100019:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Notable regional chain with over 80 restaurants. Plenty of decent press coverage. REAL certification section could use cleaning up but that is hardly a reason to delete the article.--
Bernie44 (
talk)
19:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm withdrawing this; I see the reaction to the sockpuppettry has caused an unfortunate-- but I hope temporary -- change in our views on promotionalism. I'll probably renominate once we return to rationality. DGG (
talk )
00:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
very small chain, with only the expected local coverage except for inclusion on lists . The previous discussion was closed because of sockpuppettry, but that shouldn't prevent an immediate renomination. DGG (
talk )
16:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Not only is this a renowned local eatery but it has been covered very subatantially by national media such as USA Today and National Geographic. Very notable.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
17:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - per my !vote on the previous nomination. Non-notable as a chain, but main location notable as a significant tourist attraction in Nashville. I've never been there, I don't like "hot chicken", but I recognized the topic from reading somewhere. In my estimation it is a topic likely to be looked up by readers looking for encyclopedic information. Meets GNG comfortably.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)17:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Plenty of substantial national and local coverage from established sources, and it is regularly noted as one of the main culinary attractions in Nashville. And in reading through the previous deletion discussion it was very heavily influenced by misleading arguments and analysis from sockpuppets.--
Bernie44 (
talk)
19:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep There's substantial coverage to establish notability as already shown above. And I believe any article that's not G11'ble, that's means it is promotional tone is fixable if there's any. And existence of more sources already shown both in the previous AfD and here. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
19:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 - fails
WP:FOOTYN, no indication the club has played in a national competition, no indication of any other achievements garnering sufficient significant, independent coverage to satisfy GNG.
Fenix down (
talk)
11:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Pure listcruft. I checked the first couple names in most of the sections and none are notable. Page is unsourced, and save for one bluelink is a dead end. I see nowhere to go with this.
Primefac (
talk)
16:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Deleteper
WP:NOTDIRECTORY #7 (employees) (I guess there's some context there) per Nate. That is outrageously over the top, listing just about anybody who had anything to do with the show. (However, I'm shocked, shocked not to see Hilton Queton named. After all, she or he was a dance consultant for one whole episode.)
Clarityfiend (
talk)
23:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Does not seem to be notable. The current article is bad enough that, if he ever does become notable, it would be better to start fresh with a completely new article.
Cardamon (
talk)
04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, possibly
WP:TOOSOON. A lot of the references aren't about him at all, and the references to him being CEO of
Telligent aren't enough for
WP:GNG. There is a Bloomberg bio
[26] but that's about it. Regarding a redirect to Telligent; he is at a new company which may become notable, so a redirect may be inappropriate.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
17:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is sourced entirely to 2 primary sources, and the google hits aren't very promising. In addition, an editor claiming to be the subject insists that the information is largely incorrect; an assertion that is difficult to dismiss without quality sources to check. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.13:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete LOL, When I first saw this I thought not only does he deserve an article, but he was pretty damn funny too. Then I realized the spelling was different (not
Richard Pryor). Unlike Richard Pryor, this has no sources and doesn't clear GNG.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
05:18, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Rusf10: Don't feel bad. My first interaction with this article was when a person claiming to be the BLP in question asked for information to be changed. I had literally started to comment "RUN!! It's a zombie!!" before I noticed the spelling and checked the article. Luckily, I hadn't hit "Publish changes" yet. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPantsTell me all about it.14:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I've found some local news articles such as
[27] and there are mentions in news articles outside of the region such as Washington Post
[28] and The News-Gazette / Champaign-Urbana
[29] The stuff the editor wrote saying things were incorrect were mainly concerning his degrees at educational institutions. He still was a conductor for Atlanta, Emory, and LaGrange
[30]AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
02:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 has plenty of reliable sources coverage in the article such as CBS, USA Today, CNN, PC Magazine, NYT blog (blogs are allowed from NYT). I don't see any mention of bitcoin in the article.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
13:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources present are enough to show passing
WP:GNG. It is worth noting,
this article from The Wall Street Journal and
this from TechCrunch are substantial enough above any threshold to call them passing mention. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
05:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Surpasses
WP:GNG due the the amount of reliable sources that have mentioned it in detail. As nominator said there are hundreds of Bitcoin wallets out there, but how many of them actually have been mentioned as much as this one has by news sources and such. --
Clarkcj12 (
talk)
06:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be a non-notable lawyer who unsuccessfully represented a client in an action against a celebrity, and failed to win a nomination to the Senate. I don't believe he meets
WP:GNG.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
12:27, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The rule of law is important and he does appear to be politically/civically engaged, but given the overabundance of lawyers now, he really has to separate himself from the pack. He fails to do this. I don't see adequate in-depth coverage from reliable sources.
Knox490 (
talk)
03:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Where I live I see his commercials (and just recently I hired a lawyer like Steinger to represent me after I was struck by a car while out for my morning walk) for his law firm all the time. That said, not notable lawyer and failed politician.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?18:33, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment An article on this person was previously deleted after an AFD. The discussion can be found here. I nominated this article for speedy deletion and suggest both articles be SALTED if this edition is deleted again.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?19:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Completely
WP:INUNIVERSE (except for the first sentence), unreferenced, some
WP:OR, no indication of real-world notability. At the very least, could be redirected to
Condorito along with the other two town names mentioned in the article; that’s why I didn’t PROD it.
LaundryPizza03 (
talk)
12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Non-notable voice actor whose filmography consists of minor roles. No reliable third-party sources cited to support any claims. Does not pass
WP:NACTOR or
WP:NOTE. Disputed prod —Farix (
t |
c)
01:20, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak keep or draftify - Considering his lack of major roles, he arguably does not pass
WP:ENT. He does however, been covered in at least two Japanese-language sources:
this and
this. Both are interviews, and consensus is mixed on whether or not interviews are enough to establish notability, but these do exist. Non-interview sources were harder to find, but some do exist, like
this one. With the sourcing available and the fact that Japanese voice acting coverage can be limited to begin with, the coverage out there might just be enough to pass at the very least
WP:GNG. If consensus is not to keep, I would suggest draftifying the article instead of complete deletion in case he gets more roles and/or gets more coverate in the future.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew02:13, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Existing references are completely insufficient for a
WP:BLP. The "wait-and-see" approach advocated by BabbaQ is not appropriate for a BLP.
ATraintalk13:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No evidence of any notability. He does appear to have written some songs performed by others, but there is no evidence that any reliable and independent sources have written about him. Appears to be competent jobbing song writer. Has been templated since September 2017 as needing sources. Searches only reveal the same sort of material - track listings etc. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 00:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Per references. It is obvious that he has done the work in music that the article states. I think that Keep for now is the best. For a new evaluation in a year.
BabbaQ (
talk)
11:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- no indications of notability. Sources included are online directoris, passing mentions, and / or
WP:SPIP. If there are indeed reliable sources on the subject, they should be presented at the AfD.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There is a difference between wanting sources and non notability. A article could nedd more sources and still be notable like in this case. This article passes WP:GNG. AfD is not a clean-up service.
BabbaQ (
talk)
19:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 do not believe this article meets the
general notability guidelines. I have been keeping track of this subject for a while hoping to be able to create an article on it someday, but only one reliable source has ever covered it (that being Bloody Disgusting, twice:
[34][35]). Nearly all of the citations currently used in the article are primary sources linking to the webcomic itself, Tapastic, Tumblr, Youtube, etc. There is also
this blog post, which is not a reliable source and
this top list, which is not reliable or notable either. Seeing as Erma does not meet the general notability guidelines, this article should be deleted. It is unfortunate, seeing as how much work seems to have gone into it. ~
Mable (
chat)
09:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
weak keep two good articles on the topic in what seems to be a reliable source. The name makes it hard to search, but I too am not turning much up. Very popular comic on imgur and reddit, I'd expect to see more.
Hobit (
talk)
16:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Yep. It's borderline, but both articles are pretty detailed. Technically qualifies as "multiple" and there is enough there to build an article around. But it isn't an obvious case. A !vote to delete is certainly justifiable.
Hobit (
talk)
19:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Hobit: I think the stronger case is that multiple articles from the same publication does not qualify as multiple sources. This is suggested by the note for the 'sources' part of GNG, which states that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." The GNG also specifically states that "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." I feel like these parts of GNG were specifically directed at clarifying what I would assume to be the common sense interpretation of 'multiple sources': what is required is different sources, independent of each other.
Cjhard (
talk)
12:46, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources, fails WP:N. Also, probably
WP:TOOSOON. Sources are supposed to be intellectually independent of the others. This means sources are supposed to be from various publishers. Not multiple sources from the same publisher. Create this article later, when more sources emerge. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
07:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - only coverage in one RS, meaning it does not meet the GNG, and there do not seem to be any suitable redirect targets. Would be a viable article once/if more RSs discussing the comic in detail emerge.--
IDVtalk16:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for insufficient coverage. I agree with Maple that The Prose isn't reliable. If additional sources become available, I don't oppose re-creation.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
14:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Per
WP:CRYSTAL: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The host city, date, and venue has been announced, and there is no reason to think the event will not be notable, as all past annual
NBA All-Star Games have been. At this point,
WP:IAR, as there is nothing to be gained by creating a bureaucracy to delete only to inevitably recreate again.—
Bagumba (
talk)
09:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
It is inconsistent to advocate "redirect" and state that it fails
WP:DEL8, so I struck that. I am adding that it fails
WP:DEL14 and
WP:Notability (events).
WP:DEL14 is for WP:NOT, and
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER #2 states, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, [or] sports...is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Perhaps
WP:Notability (events) gets to the core issue when it states, "In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, [and] diversity...of the coverage." 18:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [Note: DEL12 changed to DEl14.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It is typical to keep a planned major sporting event once the date and venue has been decided, or when the process of selection is advanced to the point that the process is noteworthy. This achieves that.
Trackinfo (
talk)
07:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I'm sympathetic to the idea that the designation "key bus route" is not being set by an independent source, but one could make the same argument for
List of Michelin 3-star restaurants, for example. This is not me trotting out an other-stuff-exists defense; what I am saying is that perhaps there should be an SNG discussion to decide the issue more broadly.
Per
WP:NOR. Bus routes are almost always non-notable and an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability
Ajf773 (
talk)
06:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
For large, bureaucratic and institutional values of "self", I suppose. The point I wanted to clarify was where this particular choice of route numbers came from, not whether those same routes are considered "key" by anyone other than the MBTA.
XOR'easter (
talk)
20:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: this is a group of routes officially designated by the public transit agency as having high importance - not original research whatsoever - and given significantly higher profile and priority than local routes. (Compare
List of Metro Express (Los Angeles County) bus routes and
List of express bus routes in New York City, which are also based on the agencies separating out the routes.) They were chosen by the agency as their highest-ridership routes (not arbitrary selection criteria); most are also historically significant routes (and the article focuses on the historical significance of those routes rather than functioning as a travel guide) for which detailed reliable sources are available. The routes were the focus of
a major construction project with BRT-light features, with the explicit intention of differentiating them from conventional local routes. They are given
a high profile on the MBTA website,
included on the MBTA rapid transit map, separately defined in the
agency's current service delivery policy, and were the routes used for late-night service three years ago.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
23:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Basically everything you've added to this debate is direct from the MBTA website. Primary sources, no notability established whatsoever.
Ajf773 (
talk)
02:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The MBTA's selection of certain bus routes as "key" has been discussed by news media in the context of new transit maps being designed, debates over late-night service, etc.
[37][38][39][40][41][42][43] It's a niche topic, I suppose, but it can be written about in a way that does not make the page a travel guide.
XOR'easter (
talk)
17:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Also, looking over the other "list of bus routes in X" articles currently being AfD'ed, I'd say that out of all of them, this looks the least like a travel guide and the most like a "history of public transit in X" article.
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Having a look at those sources I can conclude that most of them fail to mention any specific bus routes, most of them only give out trivial mentions, all the sources are local (therefore the depth of coverage is not sufficient enough to grant notability) and a few of the sources appear to be self published.
Ajf773 (
talk)
08:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
As a side comment: Since when it is a rule that non-local source geography required to establish encyclopedic notability? If we used that as a hard rule it would wipe out a large swath of transit-related articles, where the subject matter is regional and therefore the bulk of available sources eminate from that region. I usually see national coverage raised as an issue when establishing the notability of short-duration events, not enduring establishments like transit systems or their core components. The MBTA has maintained a "Key Bus Routes" designation for over a decade now, with real effects on a regional transit system and its users, which supports notability.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Partial Merge to
MBTA Bus. There are several other articles on Boston bus routes; I can't find any rule-based reason to keep those pages or the per-route descriptions (in the "Route list" section). However, the designation of these as "key routes" isn't
WP:OR and there's enough information that it should be mentioned somewhere.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Still looking for a good independent source (other than a primary source by the MBTA operator) that establishes these are key routes and worthy of an article.
Ajf773 (
talk)
08:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (and rename) - The nominator appears to misunderstand the subject matter here, which I can understand given the title. This is not a subjective and original list of key bus routes in a city, it's a page describing a category of bus routes in Boston formally designated as "Key Bus Routes", a unique status with distinct features (both operationally and legally/funding-related) that differentiate them from other MBTA bus routes. Multiple reliable secondary sources confirm this usage, as indicated above. While the MBTA is a primary source, many transportation articles rely partially on primary sources for the simple reason that secondary sources just don't repeat material found in primary sources. However, since this page is more than a mere list and ask explains the history and characteristics of Key Bus Routes, I would propose removing the confusing "List of" and renaming to MBTA Key Bus Routes. I would be willing to do post-move cleanup work to better serve the new title.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
14:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Renaming sounds like a good idea. The fact of the existence of a separate category of bus routes is more significant than the particular numbering of routes within it.
XOR'easter (
talk)
15:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I understand the subject matter perfectly. The AfD questions both the criteria of key bus routes being original research and whether any of the bus routes are notable in their own right (or as a collective). It appears from all the sources presented, that the key bus routes criteria is a self published by the bus brand themselves and that notability is yet to be established as the sources are mostly trivial mentions.
Ajf773 (
talk)
17:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Sorry, but the fact that you keep referring to this as a "self-published list" (and to a regional multimodal transit agency as a "bus brand") shows you don't know the subject matter at all.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
05:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (or rename to MBTA Key Bus Routes program) - The article needs to be expanded to include more about the history of the program and the current improvements they're working on for these routes, but it has gotten a lot of press over the years for the reasons others have stated, including late night service and key-route-specific bus stop improvements and treatments. I don't understand the "original research" claim by the nominator as that is for editors on Wikipedia, not government agencies providing the service in question. As for "self published", where else would this information come from if not the MBTA? Other editors have provided link after link of sources from reliable news outlets outside of the MBTA's control to show the notoriety and depth of press coverage in the region. While someone in another country might not care much about a list of bus routes in a random medium-sized city in the US, can't that be said about a vast majority of articles on Wikipedia about local and regional matters?
Grk1011 (
talk)
22:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Again. Routine coverage about night services and bus stop improvements is trivial at best. Where is some actual resources showing the history of these "key routes" from valid third party and independent (non MBTA published) sources. Wikipedia is not a bus fansite catered to a small audience.
Ajf773 (
talk)
23:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I haven't been involved in AfDs much very recently, but you're being a bit inflammatory here. Editors can state their reasons and provide whatever backup they feel is necessary. An admin will then read over the responses and make a decision based on the apparent consensus (not votes) of the community. There is no requirement that you, as the nominator, are satisfied with the responses.
Grk1011 (
talk)
19:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Your objections have been clearly noted by now. You are coming across as berating each and every editor who votes, not adding anything new in the process, just repeating what you'd already said before they voted. Clearly not everyone agrees with your interpretation of
WP:ROUTINE or
WP:NOR or
WP:N regarding this topic, and they should be free to express votes or ideas contrary to yours without fear of beratement.
Assuming in good faith that this is not your intent, your tone and repetition still come across as hostile and may discourage editors who would disagree with you from commenting, undermining the integrity of the AfD process. Please consider the consequences of your continued aggressive responses. Newly participating editors can already consider the quality of sources provided (for example) and your objections to them, since your objections are already recorded further above in full.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
19:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Given you understand this is a debate and I am allowed agree or disagree with everything that is added this this discussion, from where I see it. I don't see the need for you to post this, it adds nothing of value to the discussion.
Ajf773 (
talk)
21:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I agree with that. Those who want to keep this article need to actually produce secondary sources that specifically discuss this set of routes, instead of attacking an editor who points out the lack of significant wider secondary coverage.
Charles (
talk)
22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The issue was that over a dozen secondary sources were linked in the various responses above, but this editor does not appear to like them, claiming they are either regional press (and somehow bad) or the source of their articles is the primary source (MBTA). I simply pointed out that asking the same question to every single commenter when it's has already been answered is disruptive. It's bizarre that we're expected by this one editor to find some outside source to prove that the MBTA has designated its own routes as key. Only the MBTA can decide that and the criteria for being "key" are listed and sourced. As a government body, its procedures are transparent.
Grk1011 (
talk)
23:04, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I have mentioned why I don't think they are up to the standard of sources required for notability. Bus routes are not notable unless there is significant and independent coverage in secondary sources. MBTA itself is a primary source. Other sources which mention things like service changes are trivial (and most of them don't even mention any of the route numbers or any mention of "key routes". As there is a lot of historical content in the article space but a lack of sources validating them, I'm still unconvinced.
Ajf773 (
talk)
23:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's fine, as long as you actually understand the requirement here is not to convince you personally. Your personal approval is not necessary. Other editors clearly do accept the sources already provided, even if you don't. They're not required to convince you if you insist on remaining unconvinced. You do understand that, right?
Shelbystripes (
talk)
06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Merge was discussed and rejected back in 2008 on the talk page. The point is not to say that this topic should or should not be merged, but that it is a violation of
WP:Deletion policy to use
WP:DEL8 to delete topics with merge targets, and there is no argument made here for IAR.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails
WP:NOTDIR,
WP:NOTTRAVEL,
WP:BUSCRUFT and
WP:GNG - Back in 2014 the UK bus routes were all deleted due to a lack of notability and there's nothing different with these, Also if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website - not an encyclopedia!, and last but not least a lot of these all become outdated anyway (One article a few years back was 5 years out of date!), In short this whole article fails GNG as well as the bus-related guidelines. –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year13:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
As noted above, this page is more than a mere list and is not intended to just provide route information; it's a description of a specific subset of bus routes that are treated differently than other bus routes for MBTA operational and funding purposes. To prevent confusion on this point, I proposed above that the article be moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes (and volunteered to do cleanup work to this effect). Several other editors commented in favor of this approach.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
22:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Indeed it is however like the other deleted articles this too fails GNG, I have to disagree this does provide route information (the articles contains numbers, tos, froms, maps and times so as such this fails NOTGUIDE). –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year22:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Please read the article (and perhaps a few sources) rather than rashly claiming this is a travel guide. Detailing the frequency and span-of-service standards that the agency uses is not a schedule. Giving the official names of the routes (the MBTA and its predecessors have always used number + terminal/route as the official name) is no more a travel guide than saying that Amtrak trains 1/2 is the Sunset Limited. And the map - notably not the current map - is used to illustrate that the agency considers the routes important enough to include on the rapid transit map, not as a map to actually navigate the system.
Pi.1415926535 (
talk)
03:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
All in a nutshell it's a travel guide, As you spend your time with everything MBTA it's blatantly obvious you're going to debunk everyones !votes and harp on repeating the same hymn about how it's not a travel guide and how we're all wrong- I'll save you the bother - It's a travel guide, No matter what way or which way you look at it ... it's a travel guide, As I said it includes prices, destinations, bus company names, maps ..... Telling me the map is for this and the prices are for that doesn't prove a thing - I'm judging the article on an outside perspective and how I personally percieve it. –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year04:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - This is inappropriate. I offered to improve the article if moved to MBTA Key Bus Routes to ensure the article aligns with the new title. That work isn't necessary if the article isn't moved. Either way, it's already a developed article with multiple reliable sources and should not be userfied.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
19:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Simply linking to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a non-response and adds no value to the discussion. It's an essay (not a policy) and notes that there can be "valid or invalid" reasons for raising "other stuff exists" as an argument, and that when the point is fairly argued, "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." It seems to me that a valid question was raised (what distinguishes this article from an array of other articles that have been established on Wikipedia), and it is fair to expect a valid answer from you on that, not just a link to an essay that can cut both ways.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
17:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS may not be a policy but a simply concept meaning we don't assume keep because articles of similar nature exist. Many of them are candidates for AfD as well. We don't bulk AfD articles as each article should be assessed on its own merits.
Ajf773 (
talk)
22:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You are using circular logic and mischaracterizing the content of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It specifically says that precedent and concistency are valid reasons to consider, and the question posed to you was what about this article makes it worthy of deletions when other similar articles exist. You completely ignored that question, and posted a link to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead of an actual answer. You're now taking that one step further, using the potential for some other articles to be deleted in the future, to argue that this one should be deleted now also. The fate of those AfDs is far from assured, since they haven't even begun yet. Now, can you give a valid explanation for what makes this article less notable than other articles in the same category, as you were asked?
Shelbystripes (
talk)
22:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS appears to be the obvious answer from the original question. We simply do not use the existence of other articles as a basis for keeping or deleting articles. We are discussing this article on its own merits, not the merits of other articles. There are plenty of reasons already given in this discussion why I believe this article does not comply with the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's not the point.
Ajf773 was the one who invoked
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to justify deleting an article. As a mere essay, it alone is not a valid reason to delete any article, when (as actually observed on
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), "identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability". Someone identified an entire category of similar articles, and so far no valid reason has been given for disregarding that whole category of articles when considering this particular AfD.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
22:21, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
My point in bring up the category is that there are 64 lists of bus routes in that US based category (and more globally). Other than this one, I haven't found one that has been taken to AfD.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Key MBTA bus routes dating back to 2006, meaning this has been around for, actually 12 and a half years. Poor wikipedia has been in disrepute for all this time because of its existence (that's sarcasm). It also means this one has been taken to AfD twice now. Again, what makes this one special? At the time it was saved as no consensus, even though there were 5 Keeps to 3 Deletes. One of the Delete votes commented astutely; "Delete its a bag of crap.", another was just "per nom", so the argument of that third delete vote had to be a doozey to outweigh all those Keeps. One Keep respondent noted
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 1 which was a Speedy Keep-Withdrawn. If you are prepared to take all of those 64+ lists to AfD, then that is a different wholesale discussion. Otherwise the long term existence of all of this stuff proves a de facto validity to keeping these lists.
Trackinfo (
talk)
05:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. Whether this subject is
notable for an article depends not on the existence of similar articles, but on whether there is a definite and finite set of routes that have recieved significant secondary source coverage outside of the immediate locality. Without that it is just
original research.
Charles (
talk)
10:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient, not arguing that the general concept of such a list should be deleted.
Trackinfo (
talk)
15:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
If the content comes from external sources, it's not original research, even if those sources were published in Boston (which not all of them were).
XOR'easter (
talk)
16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"Certainly, so someone in the delete camp needs to explain why this list is deficient" .... we have ... a good 2-3 times, If you want to ignore policy based reasons then that's up to you but asking everyone to repeat their reasons again and again and again is disruptive, You have your answers above and you have also have solid policy-based !Delete arguments bove .... unlike the !Keeps which are all essentially "Keep because
WP:ITSNOTABLE". –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year18:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You are failing to understand that the set of routes taken together need secondary sources. Urban planning studies are primary sources.
Charles (
talk)
19:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
We already have two references not from the MBTA that discuss the grouping of these routes into a common category. In fact, that's what the list is sourced to at the moment. The point of citing references that discuss specific routes within that category is to make historical information available about those specific routes — information that is independent of the MBTA and not characteristic of a travel guide.
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Per WP:NOR 45 sources, many of them from government agencies but multiple government agencies reporting this information. Clearly refuted.
Bus routes are almost always non-notable proved false by the existence of the 64 other lists I identified.
an article with an non-specific inclusion criteria and a selection of 15 artitrary routes. Most of the sources fail to provide an evidence of notability. the sources I found in a simple Google search shows these are specifically identified routes based on federal, state, associated cities and the agency itself. The identification of these routes are sourced in the article dating back to 2006, clearly a dozen years before the NOM. Did you really read that? So the basis of the entire NOM is disingenuous to begin with.
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTTRAVEL and above all WP:N an astute echo of the NOM.
Delete as per Charles and nom - Fails WP:NOTDIR, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:BUSCRUFT and WP:GNG Another echo. And there is no
WP:BUSCRUFT, you made that up. Following that, yes, finally there is a true statement
Category:Lists of bus routes in the United Kingdom has been decimated by noms by you Davey2010. And with a discussion by a microscopic number of commenters. What a terrible disservice to people outside of London. The perceived salt of that action is probably what is preventing the other content from reappearing. As to the statement if a passenger wants to know where a bus goes to and from then they should check the bus operators website. We, wikipedia, are the primary source of information on the internet. People come here to learn. Even locally, I am astounded how few people know the name of their local bus operator. I happen to have done a documentary that broached this subject so I have done actual research. Ok that statement was
WP:OR but its also not in the article. At least here in the US, people don't know how to find the local operator. We, as the place people come for information, should have the information. Then at best they are three clicks away from finding the company, its website and the generic schedule page in varying forms of presentation (some of which absolutely suck). If editors have gone through the trouble to present this information, someone explain in actual words (rather than ambiguous essays or non-existent policy statements), what is the problem with wikipedia having this information publicly available?
I've never been to Massachusetts, I have no dog in this fight. Nor do I have a dog in UK, though I have visited decades ago. What I learn is from what is in the article, its attached sources and Google. Unlike a lot of AfDs, there is a lot of there there. I extremely dislike aggressive stupidity trying to push legitimate content off of wikipedia.
Trackinfo (
talk)
22:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - This AfD has been relisted multiple times and there is clearly, at a minimum, no consensus to delete. I propose closing the AfD without deletion.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
00:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Shelbystripes has !voted Keep above so ofcourse they're going to say this, Consensus in my eyes is towards delete due to the GNG-failing at best however I !voted delete so shan't say what I believe. –
Davey2010Merry Xmas / Happy New Year00:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm eager for an outside observer to weigh in now. With the number of editors who have !voted Keep (and given consistent reasoning for doing so) and the utter failure of the Delete commenters to explain why this post warrants deletion when many similar articles are considered notable, I can't see anything remotely close to a Delete consensus. Perhaps someone who hasn't weighed in yet will be able to resolve this mystery.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
02:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Wow, that's almost the exact opposite of the actual discussion. One Delete commenter literally just linked to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and when pressed on the fact that
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS actually says a general body of articles may be considered when evaluating notability in an AfD, basically said "Well I want to nominate those other articles for deletion too". You cannot use your hypothetical future AfDs of other similar articles to justify deleting this article. That is not how Wikipedia works. And reading the rest of the discussion, the consistency of editors weighing in against Delete, and the fact that two relistings were required and still couldn't generate consensus, I can't see how any rational person would interpret this discussion as a consensus for Delete.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
02:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 an English term (at elast not in the sense of the article), of dubious notability, and barely supported (no pun intended) by the reference.
Derek Andrews (
talk)
23:46, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep Wikipedia has massive amounts of unsourced content on Filipino basketball, but I do believe a lot of this material is salvageable. In the case of Salamat, I found
this,
this, and
this, for starters, and there's probably more material out there somewhere. I suspect that there's a massive amount of print material on Filipino basketball that most Western editors will never see. (Some tantalizing evidence
here.) There's probably a lot of additional material that was once available online, but has been lost to the ages (unless you know exactly where to look in the Internet Archive). It's clear that all of this data in the Wikipedia articles isn't being passed down by oral tradition!
Zagalejo^^^18:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
These sources seem like routine sports reporting and are all about his hopes to get back up to the PBA, which isn't even considered a top level league.
Sandals1 (
talk)
19:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
People keep citing WP:NBASKETBALL like it's holy scripture, but I think a case could be made for including the PBA. There is a fairly recent discussion about that
here. In terms of talent, the PBA may not rank very high, but in terms of fan interest and media coverage, it's a reasonably significant league. The definition of "routine sports coverage" is a tricky one, but these articles at least go beyond the basic reporting of game scores and league transactions.
Zagalejo^^^20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page was a suggestion a while ago but I didn't create it as I found it non-notable. The mention in Kotaku is not a "significant" one but only mentions it off hand as an example of one of the crappiest games promoted by Sony. That leaves Eurogamer and Jimquisition as the only significant mentions and according to
WP:VG/S "[The Jimquisiton] cannot be used to demonstrate notability. It fails
WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)20:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Well, it's certainly an established term - plenty of articles on Scholar use it
[53], and there's extended definitions in textbooks
[54]. Whether that's enough for an article, I don't know. If not, merge to
electrical conductance? At least some sort of definition (maybe in that article) would be good. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
09:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I've address both long-standing flags for no sources and no links (orphan). I've also managed to find and insert quite a range of independent
WP:RS to show this term is in use across a number of scientific research fields. I'd never heard of it before, but that's no reason for deletion. Nor would
WP:NOTDICT apply any more, as this article has now been expanded sufficiently to being more than a mere definition. Note to nom: do remember to sign your AfDs in future, please. Regards,
Nick Moyes (
talk)
02:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sorry I do normally sign my comments, must have just slipped my mind. Thank you for expanding on it I couldn't find any good secondary sources when I tried.
EvilxFish (
talk)
13:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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:BASIC,
WP:ANYBIO and
WP:MUSICBIO. This singer is notable primarily for his work as a member of the musical duo UZi. The sources cited in the article consist of primary source interviews, articles which make trivial mention of this person, or sources that support his notability through his work in the duo UZi. A online search revealed few secondary sources to support notability, independent of UZi.
Magnolia677 (
talk)
14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. I reviewed the footnotes and the musical artist lacks in-depth coverage from multiple sources. Perhaps it is merely a case of
Wikipedia:Too soon. I have my doubts given the nearly decade long career of the artist, but things can change given persistence, refinement of skills, etc.
Knox490 (
talk)
02:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
At first glance, the number of sources create the illusion of extensive coverage. However, many of these sources are either unreliable or do not describe this musician in-depth. I'm afraid Beckner does not pass
WP:GNG; his bands are not notable, his albums were released independently, and I can't find any major chart listings/awards.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
09:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentKpopBoy, if you disagree with a page being turned it a redirect, challenge it, don't create another article the same at a different title, that's disruptive and confusing.
Boleyn (
talk)
16:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep the article is certainly promotional. However the sources are enough. When Vogue and other RS write about your work like they seem to have done many times for this guy, GNG is met. Lots of mentions in other sources too,
if you search. His school
wrote him up, Marie Claire
interviewed him about Pajamas, the Guardian had
this short piece, the Telegraph
reviewed his collection and Fashionista
profiled him. Those aren't perfect sources, but they are enough for GNG. The article being promotional and/or created by an SPA are not reasons for deletion. The three reasons fro deletion advanced in the nomination are therefore all false.
104.163.155.42 (
talk)
07:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you. Looks like I was distracted by the promotional stuff, and did not look into this as well as I should have done. Am now editing the article to make it more
neutral.
Edwardx (
talk)
16:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. The refs in the article don't support notability so I can see why this is at AFD. The refs provided above are better but still look on the weak side so i'm leaning to delete but will reserve judgement as better refs might be forthcoming.
Szzuk (
talk)
21:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 would like to note that the "sources" given by Arsh 18 consists mainly of trivial interveiw with the subject in question. Also the mention at Bharya (TV series) is unsourced .Most of the coverage the actress has received seems to be from fan mags and a few interviews from newspapers — comment added by Force Radical 🎆
talk 🎄
contribs🎆09:09, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 coverage isn't stellar, but I don't see a benefit from deletion, and the article could be expanded a little using the available sources. --
Michig (
talk)
11:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There's clearly no consensus to delete, so the question is whether to merge this content to
Donald Trump on social media or keep it separate. But we don't have consensus about this either. The merger discussion can continue on the article talk page. Sandstein 12:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep or Merge - if other presidents have a page for their nicknames, then Trump needs his (regardless if bullying or not, based on if it's noteworthy). However, merging would also be reasonable
Wikizenx (
talk)
20:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Selective Merge ordelete. Honestly, some editors believe whatever is
currently in the news must be notable. Every single aspect of the President is covered but
Wikipedia isn't the database of Donald Trump nor is it news, especially of this low degree. The fact that
other stuff exists doesn't concern me. And by "selective" I mean one or two sentences describing the fact Trump likes using nicknames on his opponents. The article on Trump's social media activity already covers this well.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
08:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per WP:BLP, as it contains several accusations of mental illness made by someone who is clearly not qualified to diagnose mental illnesses. While that might be fine in a prose article that explains the context, this does not. It just asserts (Living person)=mentally ill. It likewise asserts of several living people that they engage in unethical activity, again without context. It would also be pretty strange to keep a page full of DT's nicknames mocking the physical appearances of other people, considering
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short-Fingered Vulgarian.
Egsan Bacon (
talk)
18:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Wikipedia is not paper. This is an example of what we can do for our readers (documentation of slang proffered by the President of the United States). P.S. Donald Trump is a piece of shit that should be impeached. Still, this seems WP-worthy.
Carrite (
talk)
03:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Under
WP:GNG given frequent coverage; unlikely to be temporary; analogous article exists for Bush; and not all on social media, so I wouldn't combine with that. Understand the concern above about his comments on mental health (and the abusive, insulting, childish nature of these nicknames) - would be all for making it clearer that these are just verbatim quotes not endorsements, if that isn't sufficiently clear, but I don't think that negates the usefulness of having an article compiling them. Perhaps more balance could be instilled, and useful context provided, by [[[editing]]] to add a prose section on commentary around/response to the insults.`
Wikiminaj123 (
talk)
04:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - The use of nicknames will be a noted historical aspect of Donald Trump and his presidency. It will be considered a major staple of his brand. It is essential that this article be kept. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Flying Soda (
talk •
contribs)
05:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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, original PROD rationale was incorrect, there are a number of mainstream sources on the page, not all film credits are from animations, either. I would say it passes point 1 of
WP:NACTOR in part, the multiple films however is an issue, which I am looking to resolve. Dana has recently been on stage but I'm struggling to find any sources. Nightfury09:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Hmmm. I guess one could make the argument that she has "only one significant role, and that is as a voice actress", but it's both blatantly not true and it's a featured role in the
Despicable Me (franchise), described as "the highest-grossing animated film franchise in box office history, and the 12th highest-grossing film franchise of all time." Again, the rush to deletionism leads editors to arrogate the role of deciding that notability is based on what they think is unimportatnt. Just because I'm uninterested in country music and have decided that being a country music performer "does not bring the same level of attention to the performer" of other forms of music (the ones I like, of course) would be a piss-poor argument for deletion of an article about a country music performer and it's equally invalid here as an excuse for deletion. The claim for notability is strong and the sources here and those available elsewhere establish that claim.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Sources in article are passing mentions. BEFORE doesn't bring much better (a few more passing mentions, in particular regarding his brother/sons). Heading a beth-din by self-appointment does not seem sufficient for
WP:JUDGE.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep His role in his community for 40 years and certainly his role as a judge for 20 years are strong claims of notability. The source from
ABC (Australian TV channel) is entirely about him and his role at the bet din. In the absence of a hierarchical structure in Judaism, most judges will be self appointed and what's relevant here is not that he appointed himself but that he was accepted by the community at large for two decades combined with the issues of how he conducted himself, all of which were covered in depth by a reliable and verifiable source. Other, similarly strong sources are also available to be added, and I'm sure that if I knew Australia better that there would be further references available.
Alansohn (
talk)
16:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The ABC source is a radio show from 2002 upon the dissolution of the beit din. Most beit din heads are actually not self appointed - this only happens in small or new communities. Current sources do not support GNG for this individual.
Icewhiz (
talk)
20:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'll call bullshit here. The ABC source is the transcript of a radio show (I'm unsure how bolding impacts the quality of the source) that covers him in-depth in the context of his beit din. How it was formed is irrelevant and I'm not sure why you're passing the source of as non-print justifies blowing off the source.
Alansohn (
talk)
20:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The other 2 sources in the article are crap (Not only is their RSness questionable - they barely mention the guy). The ABC radio interview/roundtable is primarily about the dissolution of the beit din and prospect forward - and not about Gutnick. It is possibly usable (not sure if ABC stands behind what interviewees say - you may have to attribute) - but claiming SIGCOV off of one radio show (that is primarily about a different subject, some coverage of him)? That is a stretch.
Icewhiz (
talk)
21:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep- He is a notable person in the community, especially since his removal was not retirement but due to allegations of corruption and extortion from a print article that I could not find online. I am looking for it. An alternative because the online sources are a bit thin would be delete and I could move the information into a new article about the Melbourne Beth Din.--
smellytap22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You do have BLPCRIME (or is he dead? You do not have a date of death issues) for the bio. I do agree that the dissolution of the beth din in 2002 would be relevant information on an article on the beth din.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a nn individual; does not meet
WP:ANYBIO /
WP:GNG, for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. A "notable person in the community" means just that: the subject is only of local interest and is not suitable for inclusion. Allegations of nepotism and running a one-man show are exactly the things we should not be putting in an article on a recently deceased person.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
20:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- On reflection there is not much about this individual, and most of the publicly relevant information can be inserted into other pages. to answer the other question, he is dead.
smellytap16:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete not enough sources that discuss this indivdual in detail. Of course after seeing som many articles sourced only to the non-reliable IMDb, I begin to wonder if using reliable sources is still a thing on Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Melbourne Beth Din per
WP:BIO1E. Really only notable for the allegations surrounding his role at the Beth Din, and two reliable sources (an Age article and ABC radio story) does not exactly meet the bar of significant coverage. The article is nothing more than a stub anyway.
Kb.au (
talk)
06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Sources about him already in the article plus references available elsewhere combined with his published work meets the notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:45, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep sources in the article are about the person.
[60] is an interview.
[61] is a short biography. There are a few others that count as reasonable reliable sources that are fairly in-depth and independent. Seems above the bar.
Hobit (
talk)
03:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Before he knew it. Tilton had perfected an impressive (!) blackjack strategy that was working quite well for him.
“Necessity is the mother of invention, and the result was the creation of a virtually undetectable system, something never before documented,” he said. This discovery prompted him to write the book, “The Blackjack Life.”
The coverage is clearly PR-driven and
WP:SPIP, not independent of the subject. Sources in the article is of the same quality: "Blackjack ace from Newburyport turns to financial planning". Newburyportnews.com. Etc. Basically, promotional 'cruft on a nn individual.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
19:20, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The sources about him in reliable and verifiable sources establish his notability as a blackjack player / author. There are some crappy, irrelevant and promotional sourcing, but that's an issue for cleanup not an excuse for deletion.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, of the "sources" presented here as being the best, one is a primary source, and the other is pretty obvious marketing fluff. Neither are useful in demonstrating that this individual meets the
WP:GNG. I don't see much better in the sources used in the article, which are either not independent of the subject, or in niche publications that look to have somewhat dubious reliability.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC).reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
speedy declined because 'they are signed to a notable label', in this case an only possibly notable offshoot of a conglomerate. A horrible bunch of promotional fluff about a band tat barely exist, which is why I don't think they are notable.
TheLongTone (
talk)
15:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment What is the "notable label" that are signed to? Without a reference how can such a claim be verified? All I can find is they've posted stuff on spotify and other self-download sites. I'm abstaining from voting because researching this AfD will require--I suspect--reading French (which I can't do). However I am immediately suspicious that any musical act that was formed little over than a year ago and whose first release, as of this writing, is three weeks old, can be considered encylopedic worthy.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
18:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
San Marcos has made national headlines numerous times this year and is one of two small cities in Texas whose mayor has signed the climate mayors. Now more than ever our politicians need to be accessible. I believe through edits this page can pass the guidelines through non promotion and notability. -kmo26 — Preceding
unsigned
comment added by
Kmo26 (
talk •
contribs)
07:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete San Marcos is not a large enough town that its mayors are generally notable. I see no reason to merge the mayor's biography to the article on
San Marcos, Texas, but it's possible a sub-page could be created that is a viable merge target.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
18:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Yes, you can check it too. It just lists a list of rulers of Bundi, without ever citing a historical book or any scholarly work. You can find the source on the article's page. Besides, websites can provide as secondary sources for an article, but when it relies entirely on one source, a website, then it can be deleted.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
10:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment A relatively minor ruler in 16th century India is going to be hard to source. That he is mentioned at all speaks volumes. We need to examine the website in particular. IT may or may not be written by someone knowledgeable. It feels like it was taken from an old printed source. If so, that would suffice for me. We need to search for more sources. It might wind up that we need to merge this into a List of rulers of Bundi. --
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The article is indeed notable, but it relies on only one, unreliable source and we cannot just assume that it is from an old printed source, either delete or redirect to
History of Bundi. See
WP:HSC for more information on citing historical articles.
After conducting research on Rao Surtan, I found some websites in which he is mentioned(
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingListsFarEast/IndiaRajputanaBundi.htm) but none of them ever give a source to where did they get this information. Most of the sites where he is mentioned are mirror sites of Wikipedia.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
06:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That being the case, the thing to do is to add a "refimprove"" tag and contact Wikiproject India to see if they can help with sourcing. Perhaps speedy keep as nominator says subject is notable. --
Dlohcierekim (
talk)
04:03, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak Delete - I expected that software built-in to Windows would clearly be notable, but can't find significant coverage, and
[65] suggests it is being removed.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
18:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Biography of a politician whose only claim of notability is as a non-winning candidate for office. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes
WP:NPOL -- a person has to win the election and thereby hold a notable office to get a Wikipedia article because of politics per se, and otherwise he has to have preexisting notability for some other reason. But the only other potential notability claim here is that he was the chairman of the horticultural committee for a smalltown Rotary Club, which is in no sense whatsoever a reason why somebody would qualify for an encyclopedia article either -- and the only sources here are a census transcript on a genealogy site, and a glancing namecheck of his existence as chairman of the horticultural committee in a 75th anniversary overview of the entire Rotary chapter. None of this, neither the substance nor the sourcing, offers an actual reason why he would warrant an encyclopedia article.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Poorly sourced article about a musician, whose only substantive claim of notability is having been a non-winning contestant on a reality show. As always, this is not a claim of notability in and of itself -- a non-winning contestant can still get a Wikipedia article by actually passing
WP:NMUSIC, but is not handed an automatic inclusion freebie just for being on a reality show per se. But there's no claim to passing NMUSIC here, and no strong
reliable source coverage to carry it: the referencing is entirely to
primary sources, social media, podcasts and unreliable
blogs, except for a single reliable source which contains no information about the subject at all, but rather is here to support the tangential fact that Nashville is called the country music capital of the world -- which is entirely irrelevant to Wakefield's notability. As always, no prejudice against recreation if and when his notability claim and sourceability actually clear the bar, but nothing here is enough as of right now -- we are not a promotional platform for aspiring future stars, but an encyclopedia about those who've already made it.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:54, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and potentially merge some of the material. Will move it to the creators user page. Let me know if you wish the preexisting text. Have added a redirect.
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email)
11:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Fails notability criterion. This organization has not received significant coverage from independent secondary sources. The few sources that speak on this organization are local, with one regional example. Additionally this entire article seems to be written and maintained by a member of this organizations board of directors that has cited their own documents.
Criticality Incident (
talk)
04:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP - I am the author of this article. There are five independent sources for six of the ten references for this article. Those sources include the major radio and print outlets in the region in which Camp Rising Sun operates (two newspapers and one radio station), and the independent Charity Navigator which reflects the organization's valid 501c3 status. Most importantly the New York Times, a globally recognized news source, covered the situation in depth and fairly, and recognized the existence and role of SaveCRS. Documents from Camp Rising Sun's own website have been included to provide a complete and balanced portrayal of the facts and history.
This wiki article has far more information and independent sourcing than many nonprofit wiki pages.
Delete (possibly with selective merge into
Camp Rising Sun (New York)) - There isn't evidence of encyclopedic notability for this organization, other than material that relates to the camp and thus can be covered on the camp page. I make no opinion on whether the camp page is notable (since it's not up for AfD) but if this camp-related non-profit has any notability at all, it's in relation to the camp and can be covered on the camp's page.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
05:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete (Perhaps merge some of the article with the section on financial difficulties in
Camp Rising Sun (New York).) The newspapers are local, not regional, and I agree with Cullen328 that the NYT coverage is in the context of their coverage of the camp itself. Yes, I came out of lurking to work on the camp rising sun page, but almost exclusively to delete sections without npov (there were times when the article looked like it came straight out of a brochure) and to delete attacks on the board members. The fact that other articles on non-profits have even less attention from independent secondary sources is a sign that those articles should also be put up for deletion, not a sign that we should add to the pile.
Criticality Incident (
talk)
23:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP - SaveCRS is a legitimate spin out from the CRS LAJF community and should enjoy notability no different than that of the Protestants or splintered off political groups. Attempting to silence hundreds of dissenting voices has not, and will never work to resolves any differences. Here is an example of a group that was born out of similar circumstances, albeit on a larger scale:
/info/en/?search=National_Woman_Suffrage_Association. An even more recent and relevant example of groups splintering off as a result of an organization's financial missteps can be found on this page
/info/en/?search=Cooper_Union_financial_crisis_and_tuition_protests#Free_Cooper_Union, which is separate from the main Cooper Union page
/info/en/?search=Cooper_Union. Are we going to start deleting and/or merging pages of every organization in history that has branched, spun, or otherwise splintered off from an established or larger group?
TigerJackson (
talk)
14:40, 30 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not satisfy
biographical notability or
general notability. Most of the references are not independent. Google search turns up nothing that has been independently written about him, but the usual vanity hits of what he and GreenRope have written. (Google search also finds another Lars Helgeson, but they are clearly different people.)
Robert McClenon (
talk)
03:50, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete the section on his career is too fully of buzz words and promotionalism. Even if we could find a way to fix this flaw, there is just no sign that he is notable. Wikipedia is not Linkedin, and that is exactly what this article reads like.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Spam article changed to a redirect then reverted from redirect multiple times by COI editor (see tag). No evidence in reliable sources this is a notable company or notable person fails
WP:N and
WP:CORP. The Wikipedia article claims the company name and person's name are interchageable but no sources presented support this claim
WP:OR. The references should be removed as spam, but then there would be no references.
Steve Quinn (
talk)
03:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I made a bad call here. Re-closing as delete. There was essentially only one user vying for a keep while three others argued for deletion. It is irregular at best to change the decision after this amount of time has passed. I apologize.
Killiondude (
talk)
22:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - His cycling results are just long enough ago to have mostly aged off the internet, but from the (substantial) coverage of his untimely death, it's clear he was notable in his discipline. "Top cyclist"
[66]; "a prolific competition record breaker"
[67]; "champion cyclist"
[68]; "rewrites record books"
[69], etc.
Υπογράφω (
talk)
04:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete I don't think this article is timely anymore, and notability is not inherent. Regardless, he certainly does not meet
WP:NCYCLING. And, the only sources are two news articles covering his death. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and most of this article is just a news report. See
WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS. —
FormalDude(
talk)00:36, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. He was a multiple national champion and the BBC article confirms this. His premature death is tragic. His life reads a bit like a Greek tragedy. I would like to see the article kept if possible. But if not, I can understand the counter argument for delete.
Knox490 (
talk)
03:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
You seem to be arguing that because he does not meet WP:NCYCLING (which strictly speaking and as far as I've been able to determine, is true, albeit by a margin of
literally seconds), he is automatically ineligible for inclusion. That's not how WP:NCYCLING or other subject-specific inclusion criteria work. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy
the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article -- in other words, if he had won the 2002 national ITT, then I could convincingly argue that sources were likely to exist without necessarily producing them. However, failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways. This is what the sources in the article achieve, showing that a) he received significant coverage for his cycling achievements in both sport-specific and general media even prior to his death, b) his death was covered not merely as a
routine traffic fatality but as the death of a notable athlete, and c) the available web sources indicate that there's likely additional coverage available in print archives. In short, it doesn't matter if he doesn't meet WP:NCYCLING because the sources show that he meets WP:GNG.
Υπογράφω (
talk)
02:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I really don't think that this does meet GNG. Local newspaper items are not generally considered sufficient, the reports on his death are featured as a case of driver asleep at the wheel rather than victim-centered, and if even the very small circulation national special interest publication
only gives 3 lines to the national record, we are talking very niche. The lack of any real biographical info suggests that the press may have considered his results worth reporting, but not himself highly noteworthy. But Wikipedia is not a repository of specialist event results in national level events in minority sports.
Kevin McE (
talk)
11:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't think it proves your points at all, the sources do not prove he was covered for his cycling achievements by general media. They are not from independent websites. The ones from independent websites all only cover his death. —
FormalDude(
talk)22:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This could possibly have been adjudged a "keep", but the bottom line is that there is not sufficient consensus to delete this article. Discussion as to an appropriate move or merge can continue on the article's talk page.
ATraintalk07:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep -- This article was nominated for deletion based on an assertion of
WP:NPOV issues. Those issues will be resolved with references. The article will eventually be MOVEd to
Trump nominees who withdrew. I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration.citation neededoriginal research? (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD. Secondary sources exist. CNN quoted this: "relative to the number of confirmed people, Trump's percentage of failed nominations is very high," with numbers that followed. More references will follow. In the mean time, we should not lose this article.
Rhadow (
talk)
11:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree with Rhadow. Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions. AFAICR no other administration has had the problems dishing out the spoils that the current one has.
L3X1(distænt write)15:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I, on the other hand, disagree with both
@L3X1 and
@Rhadow. I find their proposals partisan and selective, and based on their own
personal points of view, which their own laughably self-righteous and POV rationales confirm:
"I suspect we will discover in retrospect that this administration suffered a higher attrition rate of appointees and nominees than any other administration.citation neededoriginal research? (See, I saved you the work). Creation of the article is BOLD.")
and
"Other administrations don't need a list because they don't have controversial descisions to put controversial people in government positions."
Ummm, can anyone say
CRYSTAL and
OR?? If you create such an article list for Trump, then one should be created for every POTUS (FDR, Reagan, Nixon, and Clinton would appear particularly apropos, but ALL POTUSES should be covered in the interests of fairness and consistency).
Quis separabit?22:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Upon further (though relatively shallow) digging, most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions. I'm sorry if I appear self-righteous, but I think calling OSE to be just as big a non-solution: This can't exist till everything else that probably should exist exists. As for NPOV, the facts are that Trump nominated people for a position, and they withdrew.
L3X1(distænt write)23:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
"most of the other POTUS's seem to only have these issues regarding Supreme Court appointees, not for the Cabinet and other positions." -- that does not sound either reliably sourced or genuinely investigative in nature. What's more, such a list is pointless, partisan, and divisive.
Quis separabit?01:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - As pointed out above by
Rhadow, the unusually high number of withdrawn nominations is based on observations in secondary sources and is not OR. The fact that other pages don't exist is not a good reason to delete this page. Not every presidency is the same or has the same issues. It's not unprofessional or political to simply create pages for notable events supported by secondary sources.
Shelbystripes (
talk)
06:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This discussion has turned personal and partisan. There are plenty of other places to pursue it on the web, but not on an article talk page. Arguments based on
WP:OR,
WP:NPOV, or even
WP:CRYSTAL are fine. Please leave unprofessional, self-righteous, pointless, partisan, and divisive out of the conversation. If you wish to to add to the article that the current administration has been extraordinarily successful at placing appeals court nominees, that's fine. That's a fact.
Rhadow (
talk)
12:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep but improve - I agree to keep this article as mentioned by
Rhadow. The article looks a notable one and should be improved with adding references and the article hasn't been categorised yet.
Abishe (
talk)
17:50, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Move. Honestly, this just doesn't need to be its own article. Moving to
Political appointments by Donald Trump#Announced positions from which candidates have withdrawn seems like a perfectly fine solution to me for all the reasons listed here. The fact are (1) this does not need to be its own article as they don't exist for other presidential administrations, (2) the Trump Administration for whatever reason (even if it's coincidental) has had an above average number of officials withdraw their nominations, and (3) this content could be better served to readers within the context of the article on political appointments of the administration in general. We have an article on
the spooky similarities between JFK and Lincoln, so I am confident that a simple move is all we need here. Thank you all for the discussion, and I hope to receive your feedback. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖21:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete- Does not comply with
WP:NPOV. Why does Trump get a special article about this? To say that Trump has "unusually high number of nominees" is not accurate. The CNN article that is referenced mentions that Obama had a similar number of withdrawn nominees. It even says "This number is not unprecedented". Also in the CNN article is the fact that Trump nominated less people overall. Trump is then quoted explaining that he doesn't intend to fill many of the positions because they're not necessary. The CNN article also doesn't detail how many withdrawn nominees presidents had in their first year before Obama. How many did either Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc. have? We don't know.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
04:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Sufficiently notable and sourced. Trump's administration is unique in this regard, so the list is worth keeping. The merge, if any, can be discussed on the article's Talk page.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:21, 1 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete lots of nominees withdraw, for lots of reasons. Considering how many people get nominated to office by the president, this is just a bad idea for an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep I don't agree all sources are from the organization's site, where we have sources from respectable newspapers like
Taipei Times and
Taiwan Today. In addition to source from Historical Dictionary of Taiwan Cinema which is invaluable academic reference material. This is poor nomination as you've not done
WP:BEFORE properly with clear contradiction of your statement and the actual content of the article.
Ammarpad (
talk)
10:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That's why
WP:BEFORE is recommend. If you had properly followed the process you are the one who would've found the sources and add. Nominating for AfD usually is the last resort after search fails to bring up any meaninful source or no evidence that sources can be found. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
00:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 very non notable and hardly possible search term. Also if redirect is later found to be useful it can be created with only 1 revision. –
Ammarpad (
talk)
17:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is basically a corporate training department not a "university". There's nothing to merge, as the article does not cite any sources and nor does it contain any meaningful encyclopedic prose. The entire article is pretty much this:
...founded in 2001 through the merger of all the training and education departments of the group. Eni Corporate University mainly shares the goals of the typical Corporate university, and in addition it is responsible for recruitment.
This could be said of any corporate training department. A redirect is pointless; since typing in Eni would bring the reader to the page of the company.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete unreferenced and no secondary references found. I don't believe it attempts to issue any academic credentials, merely being an internal training division with a fancy name.
[75] suggests one of its divisions might accept students and offer a degree, but without at least one secondary reference to that effect this can't be kept.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. There is a consensus among registered editors that the subject's many quotes to do not constitute in-depth coverage of the subject.
ATraintalk07:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: Cameron Howe is a Melbourne-based journalist who regularly works with larger media outlets including, Fairfax and News Limited newspapers, in addition to writing for a number of independent publications. This site should not be deleted for the above reasons.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.214.26.130 (
talk) —
121.214.26.130 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
Save- the above comments regarding the deletion of this webpage fail to support their claims with any meaningful information, and other Wikipedia users have not been given the opportunity to add further information to this webpage. The comments regarding the deletion of this webpage can only be described as cyber bulling — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
121.214.26.130 (
talk)
07:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - There is no cyberbulling here and your comment only shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines. Please see
WP:N for information about article inclusion requirements, also please read
WP:AGF before responding to anyone's comments.
reddogsix (
talk)
15:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Consistently quoted and mentioned in numerous news sites. I would recommend holding off. The page was just created and A7 was declined.
Subuey (
talk)
22:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I have not seen such uniformly poor !votes at an AfD in a long time. I encourage participants to read
WP:AADD and actually cite some policies, sources, and attempts to locate sources in their arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
Joe (
talk)
23:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment-Lets be accurate, the full quote is, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.". The coverage fails to support
notability.
reddogsix (
talk)
03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as there are no actual sources discussing the subject himself, only a scant handful of unimportant local sources that either mention him in passing or are written by him.
TheValeyard (
talk)
00:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The coverage is of state significance on a host of political issues that could determine the result of the next state election in 2018, not to mention that the Mordialloc Chronicle which he writes for has received a capital injection. The Chronicle Newspaper Group is challenging News Corp's Leader newspaper group with the intention of having 55 newspaper by the end of 2018. He currently writes for 3 newspapers and again regularly commentates on issues of state political significance — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.144.108.231 (
talk)
06:05, 28 December 2017 (UTC) —
1.144.108.231 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Just to add. He is a media source quoted in national newspapers owned by Fairfax Media - The Age, Bendigo Advertiser, etc and News Corp - The Herald Sun, Leader, The Daily Telegraph etc. Also referred to in a press release by a notable political in state government and had his views read out in Parliament — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.144.108.231 (
talk)
06:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Surely the largest newspapers in Australia are considered to be independent reliable sources? There seems to be 50+ articles of which the subject has been quoted in. Perhaps these could be added to the article on the subject to avoid deletion? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
1.144.107.112 (
talk)
23:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC) —
1.144.107.112 (
talk) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Comment - Quotes are neither in-depth nor non-trivial coverage.
reddogsix (
talk)}
Comment It should be noted that all keep novotes, except for the one made by Subuey, have been made by IP accounts with no other prior contributions to the project (except one with 3 edits to another article). --
Crystallizedcarbon (
talk)
17:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete there's no claim that he meets any SNG (including
WP:NAUTHOR) or is particularly important in any way. The references (other than his personal website) are him acting as a spokesperson in local news, and are very much reference-bombing (SIX references for "is a frequent media commentator", all of which are simply places he has been quoted in news stories, and not about him or his media-commentating actions).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
11:51, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 coverage in reliable sources. Nothing indicates this game achieved any kind of notoriety. I tried several different searches, under varying search terms, and used the "newspapers" search. The article has been on Wikipedia since 2012. So, there has been plenty of time to gather reliable sources and there aren't any in the "references" section. Fails
WP:N and
WP:NWEB - this topic does not merit a standalone article. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
02:03, 29 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 One insubstantial mention in The Toronto Star is all I find.
[76]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.