The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - per
No original research. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the right place for this page. It appears to be original research, not an encyclopedia topic.
Ajpolino (
talk) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think that Furies: Erinyes is a helpful content page. Its value is that it provides information about a particular subject based upon first-hand source material. I think that it could be a featured article. —
FUSTER1965 (
talk) 05:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC).— Note to closing admin:
FUSTER1965 (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD. —
FUSTER1965 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I didn't realize that this page was nominated for deletion. I speedily moved it to
Draft:Furies: Erinyes as clearly not ready for mainspace.
bd2412T 14:42, 22 May 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 23:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Non-notable tiny tech company, with no credible assertion of notability; only going to AfD process as act of courtesy to
User:SoWhy, who feels it does not quite meet A7 speedy deletion standards.
Orange Mike |
Talk 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article on a start-up firm, noting its fundraising and involvement in a couple of start-up competitions. The May 2017 TechCrunch article is the nearest to an independent source, but is doing little more than summarising a propositional presentation. I am not seeing sufficient for
WP:CORPDEPTH or
WP:GNG; at best, this is
WP:TOOSOON for encyclopaedic notability.
AllyD (
talk) 06:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject for this article is not notable and the article may appear to be for promotional use.
Bmbaker88 (
talk) 12:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete agree with the above. Insufficiently notable.
Pichpich (
talk) 17:30, 23 May 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 result was delete.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a
fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy
GNG.
Fenix down (
talk) 09:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment It isn't clear whether the Iraqi Premier League is professional or not, but it seems like it would be, particularly given the AFC Champions League berths. Plus, it isn't clear if the Olympic qualifier involved the "A" U23 team for Iraq, one would assume would satisfy criteria #1 of NFOOTY. Can these two things be clarified?
South Nashua (
talk) 01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
If the Iraqi league is fully pro, and I doubt that it is, it hasn't been verified in reliable sources. A fully pro status cannot be inferred from the Champions League berths for two reasons. First, the berths do not actually exist. According to the article on the
2017 AFC Champions League, "Iraq did not fulfill the AFC Club Licensing Criteria." As such, no Iraqi clubs participated in the competition. Second, there are leagues that have such berths but are confirmed not fully pro (e.g. Bahrain). As for point #1 of
WP:NFOOTY, to meet this point a footballer must have a played a tier 1 (i.e. senior level) international match or at the Olympic games. Olympic qualifiers are very deliberately not included. The guideline explicitly says that it does not cover youth level football, like the Olympic qualifiers.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 01:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Whoops, didn't notice the part about the senior level. However, it appears he took part in the
2006 AFC Champions League, not the 2017 edition. I think it's important to get some clarity on the status of professionalism in this league in that era before moving forward on this article. If it can be confirmed that the league was not fully professional, deletion seems appropriate.
South Nashua (
talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
On the contrary
WP:FPL works by assuming all leagues not listed there are not fully professional. Unless the player can be shown to meet GNG then the article should be deleted, though that does not preclude recreation at a later date if sources are presented at
WT:FPL indicating full professionalism of the Iraqi League.
Fenix down (
talk) 09:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
That's incredibly unfortunate, but understandable.
South Nashua (
talk) 19:28, 24 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
One article in The Washington Post and an article in an anyone-can-edit Wiki do not suggest notability. The Washington Post does human interest stories about some random person doing something unusual, and most of these persons and doings are not notable.
Anomalocaris (
talk) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
delete promotional and not-notable.
Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement.
Jytdog (
talk) 02:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement Uh, A7 doesn't apply to trebuchets...
Adam9007 (
talk) 02:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)~reply
Agreed; speedy deletions don't apply to things as a type of catapult.
Anomalocaris was 100% in the wrong, dude nominated it for deletion, and than 20 minutes later decided to nominate it for speedy deletion. This is just vandalism.
ElThomas (
talk) 04:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Any excuse in a storm to keep letting WP get filled with dreck.
Jytdog (
talk) 02:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:CB. More specifically, a
WP: BEFORE indicates a dearth of
persistent,
in-depth coverage:
[1],
[2]. As for the 'A7 does not apply to this type of subject'; I assumed this to be some kind of joke. Is there some kind of inherent notability in lobbing pumpkins around with medieval siege engines? On edit, I see what you are trying to say- that it doesn't apply to objects, only people, events, companies etc, which is true. But the point was expressed poorly enough to raise an eyebrow. I suggest greater precision in edit summaries, so the reasoning is in plain sight. Apologies for the confusion. Incidentally, a merge with / redirect to
trebuchet is within the bounds of possibility I suppose: but it would need a helluva lot of coverage in reliable sources into the future. —
O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article does not have a substantial amount of information, lacks credible sources, and is not notable.
Bmbaker88 (
talk) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
ElThomas: I nominated it for speedy deletion; another editor removed the deletion template, which that editor had a right to do; I nominated it for deletion using this process, which I had a right to do. Anyone is free to express their belief that the article should be kept and to present evidence in support the notability of the topic, and I encourage editors to do so. None of this is vandalism; it's how things are supposed to work.
Bmbaker88: I think the article does have at least one credible source, but I agree with you, of course, that it is not notable. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 05:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, and probably should have tried PROD first, which doesn't seem to have happened. Single thing built by a single individual, for a single competition, which got the "local firefighter rescues kitten from tree" coverage.
TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Query Lack experience with
WP:CSD#a11 (adopted while I was away). Would it apply here?
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Meh, I think not- it makes a sort-of credible claim of significance (if pumpkin chucking applies, of course!) and I think A11 is more for things imagined as important by the creator. Others' mileage may vary though- it's an interesting question. —
O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:57, 22 May 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.
Warren Muck was an enlisted man with E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He parachuted into Europe twice and fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and Belgium. He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under
WP:SOLDIER and he died in Belgium from artillery fire. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is not as a major character. Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - "...and he died in Belgium when a trophy firearm discharged accidentally." This actually refers to
Donald Hoobler, not Warren Muck. Muck was killed during an artillery strike. Commenting so there's no confusion.
Chiafriend12 (
talk) 13:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Thank you and pardon my confusion; I modified my nomination text.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 14:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I would vouch that this page should stay, and while Muck isn't as "famous" as some other soldiers, he is still notable enough to warrant an article. The writing quality, reliable sources, and authorized images of the article make it quite comprehensive as well. My second choice would be to make it a redirect.
☞ Rim<
Talk |
Edits > 23:15, 22 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No indication of
book notability. Google search does not find independent reliable sources on book. Promotional.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - appears to be self published and I assumed that the article was a simple advert and was assessing the CSD options. As this is now at AfD, deletion is the only option. It is wholly unreferenced, searches yield nothing of any worth - (Amazon sell it but that is the extent of the search results)VelellaVelella Talk 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - This article was already deleted, on my nomination, once as
advertising, and was promptly re-created. This version differs slightly from the deleted version in that it does not include the link to order the book.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as it is entirely unreferenced and fails
WP:GNG, also per Robert McClenon's comment. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article lacks credible sources and seems like it was created for promotional use.
Bmbaker88 (
talk) 12:57, 20 May 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. While there is support to redirect this to the band's article, that article has been deleted. All opinions, including that of "redirect" appear to be that this content doesn't belong in its current form. —
SpacemanSpiff 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Notability issue. —usernamekiran
(talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Usernamekiran: According to the
notability criteria, finishing 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a music competition grants notability, and the page states that this musician was 1st runner up on a TV music competition(which I take to mean 2nd place). The article is slim and could use some sourcing improvement, but this musician would seem to merit an article, unless you know information I do not.
331dot (
talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
331dot: hi. I apologise for the cnfusion. The subject, Rajan, didnt come up second or the runner up. It was the band that he is member of. I am still not sure if that reality show is over, and if the band won. Still searching on internet. PS: How to update "concer" for the deletion? —usernamekiran
(talk) 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Usernamekiran: Thanks for your reply. That is helpful, as if it was this person's band that merits an article, this article should just be turned into a redirect to the page about the band if one exists.
331dot (
talk) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
331dot: I updated the article a little. All the WP:RS make passing reference to band itself. A couple of websites mention him as the band member. Nothing much. —usernamekiran
(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Ah, the age-old cycle I ProD'd, an anon deProD'd.
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Dlohcierekim: lol. Isn't that how AfD now-a-days?
—usernamekiran
(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
SInce time immemorable. When I was a lad, we had to carry our ProD's on our backs through the snow, going uphill both ways.21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename and repurpose this page into an article about the band; this person's name can be a redirect.
331dot (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I didn't realize that existed, thanks; then (assuming that survivies) this should just be redirected.
331dot (
talk) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
331dot and
Dlohcierekim: I dont think either of them will survive. They were created with COI. An account with band's name, IP hopping, another a/c with name roshan.tony —usernamekiran
(talk) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
delete dearth of coverage, does not meet
WP:GNG. The contest was not sufficiently significant to meet
WP:Music. Subject does not meet
WP:Music.
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian: I disagree. Rajan's article should be deleted with no redirect. If anything, the band that he is member of, should be mentioned on the show's article. With another sentence mentioning Rajan as a band member. —usernamekiran
(talk) 19:31, 25 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I disagree. The history of championship belts is a standalone subject which is lacking on Wikipedia. This is an area which will be expanded upon. Given the vast information online it is certainly not "pointless" to many people. The history of this specific title and it's various belt designs goes back decades with too much information to include in the separate WWE championship page (including belt creators, design details, material, debut dates, background history etc.). Many professional wrestling articles of a much smaller interest have
WP:SPINOUT (TNA Hall of Fame etc.)
Bbx118 (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bbx118 (
talk •
contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Hall of Fame in pro wrestling is radically different, but this is about the history of a championship belt design. We never create a separate articles for them, since it's redundant. Nickag989talk 19:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
That is incorrect. 'The Big Gold Belt' for example has it's own page. If you believe it's redundant, then by definition of the word you believe it had meaning before. What changed this? Do you mean irrelevant? This seems to be leaning towards a POV. This article also covers all designs in the history of the championship, not just one design. No
valid grounds for deletion nor any proposed
alternatives to deletionBbx118 (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Neutral - I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I feel that the current
WWE Championship article covers the designs well enough, but that's not to say that it can't be expanded into its own article if there is enough coverage that could talk about each design (the early designs may be a bit harder to find, unless their print sources have been uploaded online). In the meantime, I would suggest to at least add the sources from this new pending article to the design section on the WWE Championship article, as it needs sources. --
JDC808♫ 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
That section covers the title design belt much better than this article as a whole, even if it has the half size of it. Nickag989talk 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The section does not go into nearly as much detail as the new article; hence it's creation and sourcing. There is simply too much information to cram into the WWE championship page without it looking bulky. Perhaps it would make sense to merge that section of the WWE championship page to this new page, since some information from there is now here (but expanded upon)?
Bbx118 (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Expanded with what? Unreliable, unsourced content and poorly written sentences. That's why this article is too big. Nickag989talk 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
WWE.com etc. is not "unreliable, unsourced content". Please refrain from insulting members and simply edit where you see appropriate if you believe there are "poorly written sentences" (POV). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bbx118 (
talk •
contribs) 17:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Most of the sources that I deleted yesterday were clearly unreliable (am I saying that WWE.com is unreliable? never), because that's what I've done for a long time. As a nominator, I'm no longer going to edit this page. "The Big Gold" has its own article, since it's a historic professional wrestling championship belt that has represented multiple world championships throughout its history contested in various promotions. As far as the WWE Title goes, it spun off from NWA in 1963, it has represented the symbol of WWE since then, and it has undergone many name changes, title design (unlike the Big Gold Belt), unifications etc. There's clearly not enough material nor independent notability for its own separate article, due to the fact that the belt designs are part of the championship (the history of title holders is different). Nickag989talk 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
There are not sources to merit keeping it. Some sections don't even have sources. If you really want to the article, put it in your sandbox and edit it as you can. Otherwise it needs to be deleted. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The section at the article is enough. The material doesn't have sufficient independent notability for its own article. The belt designs are part and parcel of the championship, and unlike the history of title holders, it's not large enough to need to be spun out.
oknazevad (
talk) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Not enough sources to merit keeping the article. It would take a long time to find enough sources to fufill the need for amount of sources it would require. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nomination. Original article not large enough for this to be a spin-off. Majority of sourcing is primary.
Nikki♥311 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - within-fictional-universe cruft. Yes, WWE is fiction.
Bearian (
talk) 14:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian: Everyone here knows that, no need to point it out.
★Trekker (
talk) 14:44, 24 May 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.
Fails
WP:NBIO. Relies too much on promotional or primary sources. No coverage found in reliable secondary sources.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk) 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject was only covered in-depth by (likely) self-published sources, written entirely in a promotional tone (e.g.
[3]), and mentioned in passing in independent sources (e.g.
[4]). Fails
WP:NBIO and
WP:GNG. --
Dps04 (
talk) 10:04, 21 May 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 result was delete.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No sourcing online to show a pass at
WP:GNG, article needs a total rewrite, written like an advertisement right now.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C) 16:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Vuno. Jali Beach exists within the Vuno territory and inarguably is a tourist attraction too. It is a plausible search term for that geography. A delete is not required.
Lourdes 18:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nom's comment Redirect: This seems like a more sensible target.
Vuno#Attractions covers the beach as an attraction specifically.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C) 20:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete for advertising. Since the capitalization is wrong it is not even good for a redirect. If this AFD had not been started, I would have deleted this by now!
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
Graeme Bartlett, I couldn't understand your comment about capitalization cancelling out the need for a redirect. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
Lourdes 01:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I understand what you're pointing to. I suspect that when people might try to find the beach on search engines and on Wikipedia, the capitalization rule might not hold necessarily true. You could probably consider that. Thanks for the quick reply.
Lourdes 01:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect as might be searched for and appears to make the most sense per the above. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:30, 20 May 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.
GP and so far unsuccessful Parliamentary Candidate. Not convinced there is enough to warrant inclusion here.
Uhooep (
talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Her prior role in the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign and her role now as figurehead for the
National Health Action Party have generated her enough coverage, I'd say, to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Bondegezou (
talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Current media interest in current and previous SW Surrey elections generated non-trivial coverage. Past campaigns also sufficient to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Seantellis (
talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per
WP:NPOL, political candidates are not notable purely for their current or previous campaigns for office. Irvine has no continuing notability outside her candidacy for a minor party.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The article needed a bit of a clean-up. She has been involved in significant campaigning activities on health and education issues for more than a decade. There is substantial coverage of this in multiple articles appearing in a range of newspapers over this time. She meets
WP:BASIC.
Drchriswilliams (
talk) 14:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks
Drchriswilliams for your substantial work on the article yesterday. I think that adds a lengthy history of pre-National Health Action Party campaigning that has been covered by reliable sources.
Bondegezou (
talk) 10:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The article is sufficiently long and well-sourced. This would be impossible if the person were non-notable.
Munci (
talk) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This satisfies the general notability guidelines. Her role in the National Health Action Party is significant.
LoudLizard (
📞 |
contribs |
✉) 15:05, 22 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete Fails WP:NBASE. This is one of those articles that I've love to save, but I just don't think the case exists to bring it up to current notability standards.
South Nashua (
talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete nothing notable about this subject.
Lepricavark (
talk) 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete does not appear to be anything notable about this and (at a glance) the reference URLs do not seem overly notable. Per nom, fails
WP:NBASE at this time. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:31, 20 May 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 23:59, 26 May 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. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was Speedied and saltedRickinBaltimore (
talk) 18:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Aside the non-notable awards, the organization has not been discussed on independent third-party sources thereby failing Wikipedia's
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG criteria. —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 15:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. It seems not much changed from the version of this article that was speedy deleted. As the nominator states, independent sources for this are lacking.
331dot (
talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete for the third time, and salt.
TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 19 May 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.
Mz7 (
talk) 05:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Promotional material for an organization with fails
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG.
This search only shows press releases and passing mentions on non-notable sources. —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 15:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep- It has independent sources. It shows notability. Maybe it could be reworded or copy edited.
Reb1981 (
talk) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Kindly point out the "independent sources" which do not look PR-like —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
+1 - Please point out the "independent sources" to which you refer. The only sources in the article fail
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND.
-- HighKing++ 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've also removed a lot of puffery from the article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform to use to parrot company "messaging".
-- HighKing++ 17:33, 21 May 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.
A search turned up the usual social websites, but zero independent coverage. Several of the citations in the article don't mention Exquisite Knives at all. Fails
WP:GNG,
WP:NORG and
WP:PROMONarky Blert (
talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I have removed most of the puffery in the article as it was referring to a Mr. Ellis and the article isn't about him.
-- HighKing++ 17:26, 21 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Apart from the fact that it is totally unreadable (which, given the topic, may be intentional) this is essaylike and mainlyrelies on two sources, not enough to establish that this is 'idea' is notable. Pity there isn't a speedy tag for obscurantist b*ll*cks.
TheLongTone (
talk) 15:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete this is a real theory - I've read about the ideas in my teaching textbook - but the page is totally
original research and
brand-labeled.
Bearian (
talk) 14:49, 24 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Prod removed for no discernible (or stated) reason. Nothing here to suggest notability.
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Was a notable figure in a period of change to the college admissions system at a notable university. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hyungjoo98 (
talk •
contribs) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Administrative position not high enough for automatic notability through
WP:PROF (he was not head of an entire university) so to be notable he needs to pass
WP:GNG, which requires multiple reliably-published sources, independent of him, that provide significant coverage of him. But that's not what we have; instead, we have stories that mention him only in passing or that quote him rather than covering him. And the claim that he was a leader in changes to college admissions, rather than merely being an administrator during those changes, are only very weakly supported by the sources. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:35, 19 May 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. Absent evidence of
verifiability through coverage in
reliable sources of the claims in the article, such as that Ware competed in the Winter Olympics (or at a similar competitive level), I see no other outcome besides "delete" here. While it is likely that Ben Ware exists, this article is being deleted because it consists almost entirely of unverifiable information, especially as it is a
biography of a living person.
Mz7 (
talk) 05:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I think this is a hoax article. I tried fact checking a few things but with no luck. I tried some fact checks, such as Googling "Team Green Kawasaki" and it is something that exists, but I can't find a connection with them and a Ben Ware. When I google "Ben Ware" and Motocross pretty much all that comes up is the reference already cited - in which a Ben Ware places 67th out of 150 in some event in Dorset. Nothing about Winter Olympics, nothing about Maxxis, nothing about Monster Energy. As it isn't a blatant hoax, Ben Ware seems to exist (there is a Twitter account for a Ben Ware who does do motocross, see @benwareuk, but he's only posted for a bit in 2015) and there is ONE reference, plus claims of notability in his being an Olympian (two years running, which is amazingly impressive for an four-yearly event) I see no option but to take to AFD.
Mabalu (
talk) 14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I've tagged it as having disputed factual accuracy, accordingly.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I race motocross professionally and have competed with Ben a few times throughout the years so I can assure you that he is no hoax and a respected rider amongst the youth riders in the UK. The only detail that I could find that is potentially wrong in this article is the year that he won the British nationals as I believe it was 2014. He uses various social media accounts, mainly instagram, that you could check for further information.
Kobush99 (
talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete not a hoax but a personal bio full of puffery. Performance in high-school sporting competitions almost never gives notability.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 06:03, 20 May 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 delete. If the arguments are to believed this sounds mostly like a
G3 or
G11 deletion. No opposition.
Primefac (
talk) 17:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unintelligable andprobably eye-wateringly trivial. I do not think that translation would alter my opinion.
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and there's probably a speedy criterion that fits.
Lepricavark (
talk) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as a native speaker of Tagalog/Filipino, the article basically centers around a "fact" that someone's a "Handsome Man" or Poging Lalake who supposedly had relations with certain local celebrities.. Nothing encyclopedic and all vanity.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk) 13:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:TNT - I can read a bit of Taglish, and it makes no sense to me. What is it? I could use a curse but won't.
Bearian (
talk) 14:51, 24 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Apparently non-notable band, unsigned, only releases are on SoundCloud. Generic name makes finding sources difficult, but I'm not really finding ... anything, not that I expected to.
TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as nom stated, does not appear to be notable at this time. SoundCloud as only references does not help either. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:34, 20 May 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.
fails WP:GNG. as per my previous nomination. There has never been a resident ambassador. The keep votes in the last AfD were far from convincing
LibStar (
talk) 13:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Move to
Iceland–Turkey relations. An article on the relations of the two nations would have more content than an article on an ambassador to Turkey.--
Snaevar (
talk) 23:47, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: A
WP:SPA article about a brokerage firm, barely sourced to routine listings. The article text makes no claim as to why this firm would feature in an encyclopaedia (indeed, the indication is that the prime concern is appearance on Google) and I am finding nothing better. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
'Delete as spam. No indications of notability or significance.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 15:08, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. Too soon. Also, did they make a spelling mistake? I think "
Jacqueline I am coming" is spelled with a U and two M. —usernamekiran
(talk) 19:14, 23 May 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. The article's sole source appears to be a dead link (at least, I couldn't find the article in the newspaper archive that the link sent me to). But the official website is interesting -- this tooth powder is also advertised to relieve or cure a variety of non-tooth ailments, including dysentery, cholera and swine flu. I think this article has serious problems under
WP:MEDRS.
NewYorkActuary (
talk) 02:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
delete essentially an advertisement. I searched for refs and found no independent refs with substantial discussion of the topic.
Jytdog (
talk) 02:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: as per comments above. —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:38, 23 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Non-notable musician lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has not produced any notable work. Fails
WP:NBIO,
WP:NMUSIC and
WP:GNG.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 10:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks reliable noteworthy sources and instead gets most of it's references from sites such as facebook and youtube. Fails
WP:NBIO.
Bakilas (
talk) 11:02, 19 May 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.
Article has only cited one source (iTunes) for 3–4 years. The source is only used for the release date of the album, and digital music stores
may not be reliable.
DBZFan30 (
talk) 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I have added 9 English language citations and text sections on the release, title song's success, controversy and reception. The "turning point" in his career of the successful title track "Champion" makes this album valuable (although a page on the song alone might be as valid). I'll leave it to consensus.--
Bonnielou2013 (
talk) 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The English-language citations all appear to be passing mentions, a sentence or half a sentence. It's not enough to establish notability.--
Colapeninsula (
talk) 14:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:36, 19 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This currently fails
WP:V and is a borderline
WP:HOAX. While the 90th Academy Awards will almost certainly take place, the submissions for the Best Foreign Language film don't start for some months yet. The two sources pertain to the last list, and the dates for this year's list have not been announced by the Academy. The one entry in the list is not sourced, and nothing supports that submission online either. Futhermore, the article's creator has past form for adding
unsourced information to similar lists in the past, which they have been taken to ANI about and blocked. They've just come off a block for creating non-notable articles, with a history of disruption which strongly suggests
WP:NOTHERE. Therefore, this should be deleted until any concrete information is available. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 09:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - for all the reasons clearly stated by the nom. Like Betty Logan, I have no issue with it being a redirect, as long as it's protected until it becomes not
WP:TOOSOON.
Onel5969TT me 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The two films mentioned (one now that I removed the IP added after this AFD started) are not sourced (nor is there one out there) so it is possible that it is an attempt to give them pub that they don't merit.
MarnetteD|
Talk 15:26, 23 May 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.
Contains claims of importance enough to fail A7 but I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources (minor mentions such as
[5] in local newspapers is all I could find).
Delete No in-depth coverage (really any coverage), just products listed for sale. Fails
WP:NCORP.
MB 00:29, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete unless improved -- This appears to be a some kind of museum collection, but it is not clear if it is a permanent exhibit or a temporary exhibition, not where it is. If this is clarified and it is a permanent exhibit somewhere, we might possibly keep it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - It looks like until March 25, 2005, this article stated the project was to be housed at
Forest_Lawn,_Hollywood_Hills_Cemetery,
diff. I don't find any information about the project on the Forest Lawn website, either today's version or versions from 2004/2005 using the wayback machine,
for instance. Perhaps this was a proposal. Perhaps it was a temporary exhibit. But currently it fails
WP:V.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 01:44, 22 May 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. Arguments roughly divided between both sides after three relists.
(non-admin closure)feminist 13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not your household Star Trek name - this is a comic book/novel character. Sources are primarily primary (novels, etc.). Influences section looks promising - until one realizes it is based on a mailing list/blog comments by the author who invented this character (primary/OR/self-published/etc.). There is nothing to suggest this character has significance outside niche fandom discussions, and certainly nothing that warrants him being in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The character indeed debuted in a novel (not a comic book), and Peter David's site is indeed a blog (not a "mailing list"). I created this article before I fully came to understand the mportance of
WP:PSTS. I'll try to find secondary sources for it.
Nightscream (
talk) 06:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep 1) No deletion rationale advanced: even if it's non-notable
WP:ATD expects that it be merged or redirected. There's no question it's verifiable. 2) Several RS'es exist, specifically in the 'news' and 'books' sections of the above {{Find sources AFD}} template, sufficient to meet GNG. 3) As a notable author, Peter David's own comments meet
WP:SPS.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No keep rationale advanced. If you want to merge, vote so or do it, there is no rule saying merge has to proposed before deletion. I don't see what could be merged - he deserves a one-sentence on some list of ST characters at most.
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - please cite them, and please don't cite in-universe plot summaries; those are not sufficient. And no, author's comments about his own character on a blog/discussion list/social media/etc. don't suffice to establish a character's notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Piotrus, there never needs to be a keep rationale: rebutting the delete rationale is sufficient. In this case, as nominator, you are positively asserting that nothing in
WP:ATD is relevant--not improvement, not merging, not redirection--and that therefore the existing article should be removed from Wikipedia and nothing left in its place. Your nominations consistently fail this, and I do find it quite frustrating that you seem immune to any education on your responsibilities as nominator. You think all it take is starting an AfD that says 'NN, delete' and then anyone arguing keep has the burden to provide sources. Sorry, but
WP:BEFORE makes it clear that the nominator is expected to do the work beforehand.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Jclemens I don't understand your point. Both deletion and keep arguments need a rationale. And I provided my rationale: failure at
WP:GNG. PS. I am quite fine with soft deletion, merging and redirecting, and you should know that by now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
How many times need I explain 1) that you need to do
WP:BEFORE, 2) how to do it effectively, and 3) how to communicate your findings to justify deletion as opposed to any other outcome preferred by
WP:ATD? Seriously, what part of that is unclear?
Jclemens (
talk) 02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
How many times will you try to change the topic? There are no good sources. The low quality sources you found don't help. I saw most of them BEFORE, and I dismissed them as garbage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The article relies too much on primary sources without showing significance of the subject.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The article says "Calhoun is the only Star Trek character that has not appeared in any of the Star Trek television series or movies to have an action figure." without a source. I'd be interested in learning more about that.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 23:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
As requested here are a couple of sources that mention an action figure:
[6],
[7],
eBay, and
this is likely the most interesting of the four, quite critical of the figure.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You cannot seriously think those are reliable, and on topic. That he has action figures doesn't make him notable, and the product description plus few blog fan comments on the figure are hardly helpful for anything except to reference a sentence saying he has an action figure - which, again, does not make him notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep thanks. I'm not convinced it's a useful article personally, but I'm convinced it meets notability guidelines.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 08:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
There's no argument provided for deleting the article. It's clearly not
WP:TNT and I'm convinced it passes
WP:GNG as well. Why do you want to delete the article?
Power~enwiki (
talk) 19:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't believe I said he fails
WP:GNG. Simply saying that all the references are "Star Trek related" doesn't mean they can be ignored.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
They can when they are all plot references: he is only discussed in 1) works of fiction where he is a plot element 2) summaries of plot element like Star Trek encyclopedias, omnibuses, etc. 3) social media fan discussions (blogs, forums) and 4) merchandise pages (reviews of action figurine). There is not a single reliable reference discussing his significance, etc. The burden of proof to show he is notable is on the article creator(s) and those voting keep and so far that burden has not been fulfilled. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Good sourcing, also per WP:GNG.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
BabbaQ: Which sourcing is 'good' here? Do you mean the novels? The blog review of the action figure? Or perhaps you refer to my favorite, 'Advertisement printed on the inside back cover of multiple Star Trek novels published in 1998 and 1999.'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters: I am not convinced about this particular character's notability as I do not necessarily see a significant amount of coverage on this subject in third-party, notable sources. It would be greatly beneficial if the keep votes could provide the links to the sources that support this character meets the notability standards, as I can see all of the information regarding this subject fitting rather comfortably in the list article. I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep if I could see more links (and I do not believe the links about the existence of an action figure are particularly useful in this context). While I think the Peter David links are good and permissible, I think this article needs a few more third-party sources on the development or reception of the character would greatly help to support this subject's notability. I apologize for the length of my response and I look forward to a longer discussion about this. As someone who greatly enjoys creating articles about fictional characters (and I have received some notes about their questionable notability as well), I would greatly appreciate hearing a little more from the "keep" votes. Thank you in advance.
Aoba47 (
talk) 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I believe the claim for notability is that he is the most notable character from New Frontier, and that there are enough references to support a stand-alone article rather than merging into that list. I'd consider references in the context of Star Trek (the TV series) to be sufficient; I don't believe there's consensus as to whether those exist.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 20:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your response; it just would be helpful to get some links to the references that are considered as enough support to satisfy the notability standards. If I could see those links, I would be more than happy to change my vote, but I just am not seeing them when looking online.
Aoba47 (
talk) 03:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
From a Google news search,
[8] is the best I can find for the character, and that's a trivial reference.
[9] actively avoids mentioning him by name but does reference him.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 03:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your response. I do not believe that those two sources (especially the Hollywood Reporter one, which is extremely trivial) is enough to support the notability of this character, but I will leave the discussion to other, more experienced users.
Aoba47 (
talk) 15:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric 05:30, 19 May 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. The "keep" !votes are weak but there is clearly no consensus for any other action.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This supposed film has no reliable sources and is just a strung together set of episodes of
The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) and can be covered in that article. I redirected it but it was reversed by an editor claiming
Notability is not a reason to delete an article.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same notability problem:
Redirect to
The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series). It has received some notable
coverage and
reviews, but the current article has only two sources, and they're both Amazon. The articles is essentially cast and plot, both of which are at the proposed target. I have no objection to the articles being split out after the sourced content is expanded.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: The notable coverage you indicate are mostly list articles, blogs or other non-reliable websites thus do not significantly cover any of the three films. (WP:N - "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") The reviews link brings up just space for reviews or short reviews (not over 300 words) not there for not significant reviews (per
WP:NFSOURCES "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', ..."). Reliable notable sources do not current exist.
Spshu (
talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Therefore, some of the list articles do count toward reliable sourcing and discussion of the subject. There are some critical reviews if you scroll past the first page of results, but the content is still pretty light. Hence, my !vote to redirect.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
To the overall length of the list articles generally they have had trival mentions, not more than a few lines just to be complete.
Spshu (
talk) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Notable. Though I do agree the article does need more sources.--
Total-Truth-Teller-24 (
talk) 18:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Three editors have said Keep without any further comment. Surely one of you can explain what's notable...
Argento Surfer (
talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Definitely not notable. Article is all plot and the "sources" are from Amazon; I'm not sure what the three "keep" voters above are thinking. Even trying to gather out-of-universe content to improve the article would be next to impossible since a whopping two pages on Google make barely a mention of this picture, mainly by non-viable niche sites like comicreview and rateyourmusic.
sixtynine• speak up • 00:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I found three more sources for the 1977 film:
[10][11][12]. I would strongly reccomend going through JSTOr and Google Books some more before closing this. These are some of the earliest Spider-Man films, and there is some indication that sources are covering these films in that context.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 06:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. These source most just indicated that the films exists and should be covered in WP but not enough signification coverage for their own article. Deseret News article has 171 out of 1356 words (only 12.6%) about the three TV series based films and is not the original sources (Sources: io9.com's "The Secret History of Spider-Man Movies," spidermanfilms.wikia.com, comicbookmovie.com, weminoredinfilm.com's "6 Spider-Man Movies That Almost But Thankfully Didn't Get Made," wikipedia.com). Using WP, WP based sites, WP sourced articles or other wiki powered site (wikia.com) as a source is not allowed. Nor is 12.6% of an article signification coverage. The IO9 has even less about (166 words) the three TV films. And none of the books give signification coverage as the books are not about the three movies, not just about Spider-Man and have brief entries.
Spshu (
talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
MRD2014📞contribs 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Selective Merge I listed a few potential sources late last night because I was concerned that the deletion nomination would be closed before a proper examination of all possible sources could be performed. I went through Google Books, JSTOR and a few other places, and I am now of the opinion that a merge is the best option. There were a number of book and a few media sources covering the various movies, but they did not contain much information beyond a plot summary, the connection to the television series and a few interesting tidbits about the production. All in all, I think that these films are extremely relevant to the history of Spider-Man, but that the coverage is just not substantial enough to write a fleshed out article. (Most of the articles do not have many citations to reliable sources, which is why I am proposing a selective merge of the limited cited content).
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 17:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems to be a legit, made for TV movie (though low budget). Authorised Spider Man Marvel movie, so can't see any reason not to keep it, when others of it's nature are notable for Wikipedia. Article does need more sources. It has its own IMDB page. [[
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078308/Deathlibrarian (
talk) 12:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
IMDB is not an indicator of notability.
★Trekker (
talk) 12:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. Per the
WP:NFSOURCES section of Film notability indicates like the IMDB, "capsule reviews" which are reviews up to 300 words. The Time Out is clearly less than 300 words. --
Spshu (
talk) 12:56, 22 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I do not think there is any credible claim of notability here, nor are the sources substantial enough to confer notability.
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The previous AfD has many sources and more have been created since.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Major player in its industry area. Sufficient sources exist. --
Michig (
talk) 06:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The result of the previous AfD was Delete and the article does not appear to have been improved since then, nor are there any new sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Can the previous "Keep" !voters explain point to which of the sources meet the criteria to establish notability please? All of the references are either advertorials, mentions in passing or PR releases, therefore fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.
-- HighKing++ 15:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- strictly promotional; this content belongs on the company web site, not here. No indications of notability or significance; "sufficient sources exist" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. I've reviewed the sources from the first AfD and they are not independent reliable sources. Should be again deleted & perhaps salted.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 00:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I have added more sources to the page, (see sources 12-15) and made a few edits (see the last sentence under "History and founding" with sources 7-10). I am curious if you have any recommendations about which specific aspects of the page need the most attention, and how I should go about improving it so it does not get taken down?
Eugene450 (
talk) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The problem is that the existing sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You've added more references which is great, thank you, but the references you've added also do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You say you added references 12-15. Reference 12 is the same as 18 and fails
WP:ORGIND as it is a simple regurgitation of a Press Release and/or not "intellectually independent". This is the same problems for references 14 and 15. Reference 13 only mentions the company in passing.
-- HighKing++ 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The problem is that the sources do meet RS and the quantity do help subject meet GNG. Have a nice day. PS: I have correctly formatted your indenting per
MOS:LISTGAP.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Very kind, thank you. So what are you saying? That *all* the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability? Or some sources? Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable please and it gives everyone an idea of which sources to look at in particular because the article has a lot and most of those are PR statements or interviews and all of that type of reference fails
WP:ORGIND. I've commented on the most recent ones that were added above and they clearly do not meet the criteria.
-- HighKing++ 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Is this a special case of
Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU where you are unintentionally being "disruptive and time wasting"? It seems to me that you made up your mind before you looked at the sources in the article and did not do a Google search at all. If that's the case, you're a waste of space and you desrve a topic ban from AfDs.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric 05:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh Wow, disruptive and time-wasting? Feel better? You could always have waited until you were less cranky to respond (unless this is your normal mood). Had I known that the breaking of your beloved indentation would prove so traumatic, I could have asked an easier-to-understand question - saved you the bother of creating an answer to a question nobody has asked. Nevertheless, you've put a lot of effort into your response....
You appear to understand what
WP:RS is all about (great) but I asked specifically about CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which maybe you missed in what I've now assumed was a red mist of rage (inadvertently) caused by my asking a simple question (which I thought is the point, after all, of discussions on AfD). I asked Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable with regards to those criteria but there's nothing in your vinegary response to indicate that you have critically examined the *contents* of the articles being referred to and I apologize for not anticipating the trouble you obviously had with the word "couple".
For example.
Here's the "official" Press Release for the Francisco Partners acquisition at the start of the month. Compared against
the first RS you list I would say it fails ORGIND as the news article is plainly regurgitating a Press Release.
Similarly, the other RS you proclaim is
this blog post from bizjournals. I was always under the impression that blogs are considered self-published and therefore fail RS.
But, you know Walter, it is clear that all you really want is to drive away collegiate editors that are interested in quality articles who ask really simply questions (apologies again for using that difficult word "couple") so I'll just leave this as it is and leave my !vote unchanged.
-- HighKing++ 07:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't really care about CORPDEPTH or ORGIND since they all die in respect to GNG. Sorry to have pissed you off. No, no all blogs are not considered self-pubs. If it's a self-published blog it certainly is. If it's writing for a company that has an editorial process, it's not. I won't comment on the rest of your diatribe per
WP:TROLLFOOD, but I will say, in relation to assuming that I was responding in anger (or rage), you might want to read about
psychological projection.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 01:15, 26 May 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.
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.
Keep Unless things have changed, we usually presume notability for high schools, as independent sources can usually be found if one digs deep enough. (See
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES).
LK (
talk) 06:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Chung Ling is one of the most notable schools in Penang, with an excellent academic record and alumni that include the likes of Khaw Boon Wan, Lee Koon Choy, Ming Tatt Cheah and so on. In fact, deleting this article is a lazy solution, when a lot can be done to improve this article.Vnonymous 10:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Snow Keep - As others said, Chung Ling is a notable school on Penang because of its history. It still need more references and expanding though.
2001:D08:1810:6195:75FB:79E6:2BAE:9125 (
talk) 02:18, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No real indication of notability, as defined by
WP:PROF. For starters, there are no sources, which is kind of a problem. She doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria, but I'll just zero in on point 6. The subject is indeed an administrator, but a rather low-level one. She is -
see here - a prodecan, or "vice dean". That's below rector, vice rector and dean. She's one of five vice deans in her faculty. It's a step above department head, but a long way from establishing notability under point 6. For the rest, as noted, nothing stands out. -
BiruitorulTalk 03:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete fails WP:PROF WP:GNG. Why did we bother translating this when we could have been translating a featured article or a highly notable topic?
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Just not cited anywhere. Please correct if wrong.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 01:33, 27 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
totally non-notable album that does not meet the requirements of NALBUM: there are no professional reviews, nor is there any discussion of the album in reliable sources. the best of the internet is this link,
[13], and that is just another webzine. I had redirected the article but it was restored here,
[14], by
User:Yk49, who said he added references--but that's to Roth's own website and to Blabbermouth, which is just a zine and not a reliable source.
User:Atlantic306's revert is not very useful either: he clearly didn't see that there is no proper sourcing for the article, which is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards.
Mindy Dirt (
talk) 15:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment If a bold redirect is reverted it should go to AFD or at least be discussed on the talk page. According to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources Blabbermouth is a reliable source for reviews but not for news so in this case as it is a news item it is unreliable but not in every case. Reserving judgement on notability incase offline or non google sources are found.
Atlantic306 (
talk) 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Blabbermouth is generally considered an
WP:RS. It's usable for news too, the consensus is just to be cautious on BLP stuff. See
WP:MUSIC/SOURCES.
Sergecross73msg me 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
(
User:Sergecross73, that is news to me, and it's somewhat surprising given Blabbermouth's lack of editorial oversight and their tendency to (re)publish everything they run into, including press releases. There is a claim of reliability in their article, sourced to the London Free Press--it was
introduced in 2009, but that supposed article is nowhere to be found--
look. So I don't believe that Blabbermouth is that reliable, but more importantly I don't believe that it's that important. One review on Blabbermouth, one user-submitted review on a website that seems to lack editorial oversight, isn't enough for notability.
Mindy Dirt (
talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
In this particular situation, I do agree with you - that Blabbermouth source is rather short - not exactly siginificant coverage about the article subject. But in a general sense, I'd be rather shocked if it wasn't deemed reliable in a general sense. I've used the website heavily these last 5-7 years in writing articles and saving articles at AFD, and I don't recall ever running into any opposition over it.
Sergecross73msg me 22:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect - I couldn't find enough reliable sources to meet the
WP:GNG - a very short
Blabbermouth.net source is not enough. Open to re-evaluating should someone come up with better sources off-line someday - the album was released in the mid-90s, before online sources were prevalent, and judging by some the type of coverage he receives in later albums, they may exist out there somewhere. (Though, then again,
even Allmusic doesn't cover this release, despite covering others, so who knows.) Very little can be sourced now, so its best to redirect for now, and spinout if/when sourcing is provided and prose is written.
Sergecross73msg me 15:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - just what Sergecross said. It's 1996, sorta pre-internet era. I can dig out mid-90s old
Burrn magazine myself. He is at least interviewed and covered in Feb 1996 issue
[15].
Kerrang! at the time did not cover much of European hard rock scene but I'm sure
Metal Hammer probably did record review of some sort. --
Yk49 (
talk) 04:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 19 May 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.
A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, she is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actress' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene.
DerricktanJCW (
talk) 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because all of the following are also pages about Singaporean child actors who do not have much notability in Singapore. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page
Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability.
The following are the articles that are in question:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 19 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This appears to be something personal from 2008 with no significant changes since then. There are no references and no reason for its notability. The two images are of extremely low quality and provide neither identification nor any reason for notability. It seems to me that it might merit a section and better image on
Ireland Wood. I cannot see that it merits its own page.
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 20:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not seem to be a recognized place, therefore fails
WP:GEOLAND. Searching does not turn up anything else, so also fails GNG. Satellite imagery shows the old quarry and no development - so it appears no housing development has occurred. I don't think it belongs in
Ireland Wood since there are no sources and it is not clear if this area is within Ireland Wood.
MB 04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Named location which is covered in numerous geological journals.
Andrew D. (
talk) 18:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You are welcome to establish notability by editing the article. I do not know that simply being a named place makes it notable.
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:5, Wikipedia's function includes that of a
gazetteer. For this reason, all valid placenames should be blue links. If the details are meagre, there will always be a higher-level geographical area to merge into and so, per our
editing policy, we should always prefer this
alternative to deletion. In this case, there seems to be plenty to say about the topic. I could expand the page but
AFD is not cleanup and we must first dismiss this question of deletion.
Andrew D. (
talk) 16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:5 does not say it is a gazetteer, it says it combines features of encylopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. There are many woods in Leeds: I do not believe that all the woods in the world each deserve a page. According to
WP:GEOLAND "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography."
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 16:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The
University of Leeds has a geology department, and thus journals in the library. I have searched the library (online) and other university libraries plus Google Scholar without finding anything other than a single mention of mushroom sample being taken there (British Mycological Society 1955) amongst other places.
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I have just browsed online from home and have done much better than that. My position remains that this place is quite notable and the page should be improved rather than deleted.
Andrew D. (
talk) 19:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Could you give just one citation to support your position?
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 20:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete No claim made for notability. Fails
WP:NGEOLK (
talk) 02:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a location with no claim to notability. While AfD isn't cleanup, there's nothing at all precluding anyone who's found sources and claims to notability from adding these during the discussion, and I for one would happily revisit my opinion at such a time.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 04:33, 19 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Non-notable low-level hockey player and coach that appears to fail
WP:GNG by only
WP:ROUTINE sources and is well below any criteria in
WP:NHOCKEY.
Yosemiter (
talk) 22:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Notable hockey player and coach who is gaining international attention coaching in south korea for the upcoming olympics — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hockeynut999 (
talk •
contribs) 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:NHOCKEY both as a player and a coach by a long suit, all the sources given are routine sports reporting of the kind debarred by
WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability.
Ravenswing 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Hard to validate users claim about coaching for in Korea for the upcoming olympics when he is not listed amongst 6 coaches and trainers that travel with the team.
18abruce (
talk) 13:29, 21 May 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. On balance it appears she does not have a significant enough body of work to meet
WP:PROF.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Academics are judged by by the impact their work has had on others. Although she has worked with a very influential economist, her citations on GS (Sudha R Shenoy) are too small to pass
WP:Prof#C1. I am open to change my vote on production of better evidence.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 23:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Hello
Xxanthippe, I was actually looking at the impact she has had (broadly construed, as suggested by
WP:PROF#1), documented by reliable sources. For example,
Lawrence H. White writes that she "was one of the first to promote liberalization of Indian economic policy during the 1970s."[35] He also writes in another co-authored report, "Nevertheless, in India in the 1940s and 1950s, no one in academic circles other than Shenoy fought against statism and central planning."[36] The European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation considers her amongst the 6th generation of eminent Austrian economists, alongside Nobel laureates like
Vernon Smith.[37] Robert Leeson writes in his book that when Sudha Shenoy along with
Richard Ebeling,
Gary North,
Murray Rothbardet al "initiated an Austrian revivalist conference in 1974, one of the highlights was the baiting of Friedman [...] Subsequently, US Presidents and Presidential hopefuls embraced the Austrian School of Economics."[38] These works and many such other references point out to the impact her work has had globally. I would look forward to whether you may consider this perspective of
WP:PROF#1, which says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed,... the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."Lourdes 00:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comment. This is an unusual case. Although she appears to have been a committed disciple of the great
Friedrich Hayek (a GS
h-index of 107 no less!) she seems to have done little on her own and has not held a substantial academic position. Maybe
WP:GNG would help?
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Thanks. With
Steven Horwitz addressing her as "truly one of the founders of the Austrian revival"[39] and
John Blundell describing her as "the original pin-up model of the Austrian school of thought in economics,"[40] I would prefer
WP:PROF as that explicitly considers the impact rather than the number of her works ("Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study."). Thanks.
Lourdes 01:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The difficulty is the lack of citations to independent work. Her highest cited publication A Tiger by the Tail gets only 79 citations on GS and anyway was written by
Hayek; she only compiled it. She evidently was a person much regarded in the circle of libertarian economists ("pin-up girl", a sexist remark if ever I heard one), as the several obituaries that you quote show, but Wikipedia is not a repository for obituaries
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I can't see a pass of
WP:Prof here, but, as I suggested before, can a case be made for
WP:GNG? (late sign)
Xxanthippe (
talk) 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Hello again. I'm sorry but I think you misunderstand
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The guideline refers to not using Wikipedia as a memorial service for non-notable individuals like one's friends, relatives.... It does not prohibit the usage of obituaries written by reliable sources to prove notability of subjects. In fact, reliably sourced obits are one of the best sources on Wikipedia to understand and confirm enduring notability (e.g. in my references above Chris Matthew Sciabarra too calls her "one of the great, and gentle, voices of the Austrian economics revival." This points to the impact she has had). Notwithstanding that, I would mention that the sources I quoted of
White, Austrian Economics Foundation, Robert Leeson are not obits. In my opinion, these sources – combined with obits given by
Blundell,
Horwitz,
Sciabarra, et al (all of whom mention that she is one of the founders of Austrian school revival or that she is amongst the great Austrian economists), satisfies
WP:PROF, a guideline which attempts to assess the impact of the individual on their respective field etc.
WP:PROF also considers editorial board membership in respectable publications (to which part, I have provided a source above confirming that the subject was an editorial board member of
The Review of Austrian Economics). I realize that you may not agree with my view, but I have to thank you for the time you've taken to assess the subject. I look forward to interact with you again across Wikipedia. Cheers.
Lourdes 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
All of the obits listed above appear to be personal blogs, and hence not reliable. Were there any obituaries published in newspapers, journals, or other reliable sources. (Not counting paid death notices in newspapers; I mean only the newspaper obituaries that the newspaper editors publish themselves.) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
David, no. I haven't been able to find any newspaper/journal obits.
Lourdes 08:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
References
^Hayek, F. A., & Shenoy, S. R. (1972). A tiger by the tail: a 40-years' running commentary on Keynesianism by Hayek (Vol. 4). Transatlantic Arts.
Delete. As discussed above, she does not appear to pass
WP:PROF but might pass
WP:GNG. However, all sources in the article and provided about her above are either unreliable blogs or (for one reference currently in the article) an interview with the subject, something that past AfDs have found not to contribute to GNG notability. So I don't see a pass at this time, but I would be willing to change my mind if better sources turn up. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete This article presents her as an academic, hence, the relevant guideline is
WP:PROF , which is generally more lenient than
WP:GNG. She clearly fails to pass any of the criteria at
WP:PROF. In her field of
Economics (broadly construed, as suggested by
WP:PROF#1), or more narrowly
Development economics, the impact she has had is negligible to non-existent.
Austrian school economics is a methodology, and should not a considered her field of study.
LK (
talk) 02:20, 25 May 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. SNOW--no other conclusion is imaginable. This was tagged for G11, and the tag was unwisely removed. DGG (
talk ) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not in English, not notable, promotional, COI, deleted repeatedly from Spanish Wikipedia. There should really be a way of swiftly getting rid of this kind of junk without invoking a full AfC and expecting people to translate it so its "notability" can be evaluated.
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 00:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, or Speedy per above.
Mathglot (
talk) 01:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment proper procedures were not followed in creating this Afd, am trying to repair now...
Mathglot (
talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I was in the middle of listing this at
Afd log May 20 when I got an edit conflict, and
User:cyberbot I butted in, and listed it at 19 May instead. Let's see if the bot also publicizes it to WikiProject Afd lists....
Mathglot (
talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Comment: creating editor has been notified, and Project Delsorts as well per above. Nom, please take care to follow
all procedures when nominating an article for deletion. Any ticking clock on this Afd, should be zeroed and reset as of now.
Mathglot (
talk) 02:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Which means no Snow, per "reset the clock" just above. updated by
Mathglot (
talk) 02:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Snow deletion doesn't require a clock, by definition. It also
WP:IGNORES wikilawyering and
WP:bureaucratic technicalities because it follows
WP:Commonsense to do what is best for the project without pointless delay
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 08:26, 20 May 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 - per
No original research. Wikipedia doesn't seem to be the right place for this page. It appears to be original research, not an encyclopedia topic.
Ajpolino (
talk) 00:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think that Furies: Erinyes is a helpful content page. Its value is that it provides information about a particular subject based upon first-hand source material. I think that it could be a featured article. —
FUSTER1965 (
talk) 05:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC).— Note to closing admin:
FUSTER1965 (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD. —
FUSTER1965 (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I didn't realize that this page was nominated for deletion. I speedily moved it to
Draft:Furies: Erinyes as clearly not ready for mainspace.
bd2412T 14:42, 22 May 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 23:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Non-notable tiny tech company, with no credible assertion of notability; only going to AfD process as act of courtesy to
User:SoWhy, who feels it does not quite meet A7 speedy deletion standards.
Orange Mike |
Talk 23:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: An article on a start-up firm, noting its fundraising and involvement in a couple of start-up competitions. The May 2017 TechCrunch article is the nearest to an independent source, but is doing little more than summarising a propositional presentation. I am not seeing sufficient for
WP:CORPDEPTH or
WP:GNG; at best, this is
WP:TOOSOON for encyclopaedic notability.
AllyD (
talk) 06:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject for this article is not notable and the article may appear to be for promotional use.
Bmbaker88 (
talk) 12:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete agree with the above. Insufficiently notable.
Pichpich (
talk) 17:30, 23 May 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 result was delete.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a
fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy
GNG.
Fenix down (
talk) 09:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment It isn't clear whether the Iraqi Premier League is professional or not, but it seems like it would be, particularly given the AFC Champions League berths. Plus, it isn't clear if the Olympic qualifier involved the "A" U23 team for Iraq, one would assume would satisfy criteria #1 of NFOOTY. Can these two things be clarified?
South Nashua (
talk) 01:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
If the Iraqi league is fully pro, and I doubt that it is, it hasn't been verified in reliable sources. A fully pro status cannot be inferred from the Champions League berths for two reasons. First, the berths do not actually exist. According to the article on the
2017 AFC Champions League, "Iraq did not fulfill the AFC Club Licensing Criteria." As such, no Iraqi clubs participated in the competition. Second, there are leagues that have such berths but are confirmed not fully pro (e.g. Bahrain). As for point #1 of
WP:NFOOTY, to meet this point a footballer must have a played a tier 1 (i.e. senior level) international match or at the Olympic games. Olympic qualifiers are very deliberately not included. The guideline explicitly says that it does not cover youth level football, like the Olympic qualifiers.
Sir Sputnik (
talk) 01:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Whoops, didn't notice the part about the senior level. However, it appears he took part in the
2006 AFC Champions League, not the 2017 edition. I think it's important to get some clarity on the status of professionalism in this league in that era before moving forward on this article. If it can be confirmed that the league was not fully professional, deletion seems appropriate.
South Nashua (
talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
On the contrary
WP:FPL works by assuming all leagues not listed there are not fully professional. Unless the player can be shown to meet GNG then the article should be deleted, though that does not preclude recreation at a later date if sources are presented at
WT:FPL indicating full professionalism of the Iraqi League.
Fenix down (
talk) 09:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
That's incredibly unfortunate, but understandable.
South Nashua (
talk) 19:28, 24 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
One article in The Washington Post and an article in an anyone-can-edit Wiki do not suggest notability. The Washington Post does human interest stories about some random person doing something unusual, and most of these persons and doings are not notable.
Anomalocaris (
talk) 22:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
delete promotional and not-notable.
Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement.
Jytdog (
talk) 02:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Reverting the speedy tag was bad judgement Uh, A7 doesn't apply to trebuchets...
Adam9007 (
talk) 02:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)~reply
Agreed; speedy deletions don't apply to things as a type of catapult.
Anomalocaris was 100% in the wrong, dude nominated it for deletion, and than 20 minutes later decided to nominate it for speedy deletion. This is just vandalism.
ElThomas (
talk) 04:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Any excuse in a storm to keep letting WP get filled with dreck.
Jytdog (
talk) 02:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:CB. More specifically, a
WP: BEFORE indicates a dearth of
persistent,
in-depth coverage:
[1],
[2]. As for the 'A7 does not apply to this type of subject'; I assumed this to be some kind of joke. Is there some kind of inherent notability in lobbing pumpkins around with medieval siege engines? On edit, I see what you are trying to say- that it doesn't apply to objects, only people, events, companies etc, which is true. But the point was expressed poorly enough to raise an eyebrow. I suggest greater precision in edit summaries, so the reasoning is in plain sight. Apologies for the confusion. Incidentally, a merge with / redirect to
trebuchet is within the bounds of possibility I suppose: but it would need a helluva lot of coverage in reliable sources into the future. —
O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 08:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article does not have a substantial amount of information, lacks credible sources, and is not notable.
Bmbaker88 (
talk) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
ElThomas: I nominated it for speedy deletion; another editor removed the deletion template, which that editor had a right to do; I nominated it for deletion using this process, which I had a right to do. Anyone is free to express their belief that the article should be kept and to present evidence in support the notability of the topic, and I encourage editors to do so. None of this is vandalism; it's how things are supposed to work.
Bmbaker88: I think the article does have at least one credible source, but I agree with you, of course, that it is not notable. —
Anomalocaris (
talk) 05:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, and probably should have tried PROD first, which doesn't seem to have happened. Single thing built by a single individual, for a single competition, which got the "local firefighter rescues kitten from tree" coverage.
TimothyJosephWood 13:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Query Lack experience with
WP:CSD#a11 (adopted while I was away). Would it apply here?
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Meh, I think not- it makes a sort-of credible claim of significance (if pumpkin chucking applies, of course!) and I think A11 is more for things imagined as important by the creator. Others' mileage may vary though- it's an interesting question. —
O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:57, 22 May 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.
Warren Muck was an enlisted man with E Company, 2nd Battalion, 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment during World War II. He parachuted into Europe twice and fought in Normandy, the Netherlands, and Belgium. He did not attain rank or receive awards to qualify him under
WP:SOLDIER and he died in Belgium from artillery fire. His portrayal in Band of Brothers on TV is not as a major character. Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - "...and he died in Belgium when a trophy firearm discharged accidentally." This actually refers to
Donald Hoobler, not Warren Muck. Muck was killed during an artillery strike. Commenting so there's no confusion.
Chiafriend12 (
talk) 13:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Thank you and pardon my confusion; I modified my nomination text.--Jim in GeorgiaContribsTalk 14:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I would vouch that this page should stay, and while Muck isn't as "famous" as some other soldiers, he is still notable enough to warrant an article. The writing quality, reliable sources, and authorized images of the article make it quite comprehensive as well. My second choice would be to make it a redirect.
☞ Rim<
Talk |
Edits > 23:15, 22 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No indication of
book notability. Google search does not find independent reliable sources on book. Promotional.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - appears to be self published and I assumed that the article was a simple advert and was assessing the CSD options. As this is now at AfD, deletion is the only option. It is wholly unreferenced, searches yield nothing of any worth - (Amazon sell it but that is the extent of the search results)VelellaVelella Talk 22:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - This article was already deleted, on my nomination, once as
advertising, and was promptly re-created. This version differs slightly from the deleted version in that it does not include the link to order the book.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 22:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as it is entirely unreferenced and fails
WP:GNG, also per Robert McClenon's comment. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This article lacks credible sources and seems like it was created for promotional use.
Bmbaker88 (
talk) 12:57, 20 May 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. While there is support to redirect this to the band's article, that article has been deleted. All opinions, including that of "redirect" appear to be that this content doesn't belong in its current form. —
SpacemanSpiff 03:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Notability issue. —usernamekiran
(talk) 20:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Usernamekiran: According to the
notability criteria, finishing 1st, 2nd, or 3rd in a music competition grants notability, and the page states that this musician was 1st runner up on a TV music competition(which I take to mean 2nd place). The article is slim and could use some sourcing improvement, but this musician would seem to merit an article, unless you know information I do not.
331dot (
talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
331dot: hi. I apologise for the cnfusion. The subject, Rajan, didnt come up second or the runner up. It was the band that he is member of. I am still not sure if that reality show is over, and if the band won. Still searching on internet. PS: How to update "concer" for the deletion? —usernamekiran
(talk) 20:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Usernamekiran: Thanks for your reply. That is helpful, as if it was this person's band that merits an article, this article should just be turned into a redirect to the page about the band if one exists.
331dot (
talk) 21:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
331dot: I updated the article a little. All the WP:RS make passing reference to band itself. A couple of websites mention him as the band member. Nothing much. —usernamekiran
(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Ah, the age-old cycle I ProD'd, an anon deProD'd.
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Dlohcierekim: lol. Isn't that how AfD now-a-days?
—usernamekiran
(talk) 21:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
SInce time immemorable. When I was a lad, we had to carry our ProD's on our backs through the snow, going uphill both ways.21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 21:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Rename and repurpose this page into an article about the band; this person's name can be a redirect.
331dot (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I didn't realize that existed, thanks; then (assuming that survivies) this should just be redirected.
331dot (
talk) 21:52, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
331dot and
Dlohcierekim: I dont think either of them will survive. They were created with COI. An account with band's name, IP hopping, another a/c with name roshan.tony —usernamekiran
(talk) 22:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
delete dearth of coverage, does not meet
WP:GNG. The contest was not sufficiently significant to meet
WP:Music. Subject does not meet
WP:Music.
Dlohcierekim (
talk) 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian: I disagree. Rajan's article should be deleted with no redirect. If anything, the band that he is member of, should be mentioned on the show's article. With another sentence mentioning Rajan as a band member. —usernamekiran
(talk) 19:31, 25 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I disagree. The history of championship belts is a standalone subject which is lacking on Wikipedia. This is an area which will be expanded upon. Given the vast information online it is certainly not "pointless" to many people. The history of this specific title and it's various belt designs goes back decades with too much information to include in the separate WWE championship page (including belt creators, design details, material, debut dates, background history etc.). Many professional wrestling articles of a much smaller interest have
WP:SPINOUT (TNA Hall of Fame etc.)
Bbx118 (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bbx118 (
talk •
contribs) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Hall of Fame in pro wrestling is radically different, but this is about the history of a championship belt design. We never create a separate articles for them, since it's redundant. Nickag989talk 19:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
That is incorrect. 'The Big Gold Belt' for example has it's own page. If you believe it's redundant, then by definition of the word you believe it had meaning before. What changed this? Do you mean irrelevant? This seems to be leaning towards a POV. This article also covers all designs in the history of the championship, not just one design. No
valid grounds for deletion nor any proposed
alternatives to deletionBbx118 (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Neutral - I'm a bit on the fence with this one. I feel that the current
WWE Championship article covers the designs well enough, but that's not to say that it can't be expanded into its own article if there is enough coverage that could talk about each design (the early designs may be a bit harder to find, unless their print sources have been uploaded online). In the meantime, I would suggest to at least add the sources from this new pending article to the design section on the WWE Championship article, as it needs sources. --
JDC808♫ 20:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
That section covers the title design belt much better than this article as a whole, even if it has the half size of it. Nickag989talk 20:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The section does not go into nearly as much detail as the new article; hence it's creation and sourcing. There is simply too much information to cram into the WWE championship page without it looking bulky. Perhaps it would make sense to merge that section of the WWE championship page to this new page, since some information from there is now here (but expanded upon)?
Bbx118 (
talk) 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Expanded with what? Unreliable, unsourced content and poorly written sentences. That's why this article is too big. Nickag989talk 22:22, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
WWE.com etc. is not "unreliable, unsourced content". Please refrain from insulting members and simply edit where you see appropriate if you believe there are "poorly written sentences" (POV). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bbx118 (
talk •
contribs) 17:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Most of the sources that I deleted yesterday were clearly unreliable (am I saying that WWE.com is unreliable? never), because that's what I've done for a long time. As a nominator, I'm no longer going to edit this page. "The Big Gold" has its own article, since it's a historic professional wrestling championship belt that has represented multiple world championships throughout its history contested in various promotions. As far as the WWE Title goes, it spun off from NWA in 1963, it has represented the symbol of WWE since then, and it has undergone many name changes, title design (unlike the Big Gold Belt), unifications etc. There's clearly not enough material nor independent notability for its own separate article, due to the fact that the belt designs are part of the championship (the history of title holders is different). Nickag989talk 18:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
There are not sources to merit keeping it. Some sections don't even have sources. If you really want to the article, put it in your sandbox and edit it as you can. Otherwise it needs to be deleted. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The section at the article is enough. The material doesn't have sufficient independent notability for its own article. The belt designs are part and parcel of the championship, and unlike the history of title holders, it's not large enough to need to be spun out.
oknazevad (
talk) 12:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Not enough sources to merit keeping the article. It would take a long time to find enough sources to fufill the need for amount of sources it would require. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 10:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nomination. Original article not large enough for this to be a spin-off. Majority of sourcing is primary.
Nikki♥311 00:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - within-fictional-universe cruft. Yes, WWE is fiction.
Bearian (
talk) 14:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Bearian: Everyone here knows that, no need to point it out.
★Trekker (
talk) 14:44, 24 May 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.
Fails
WP:NBIO. Relies too much on promotional or primary sources. No coverage found in reliable secondary sources.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk) 17:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. The subject was only covered in-depth by (likely) self-published sources, written entirely in a promotional tone (e.g.
[3]), and mentioned in passing in independent sources (e.g.
[4]). Fails
WP:NBIO and
WP:GNG. --
Dps04 (
talk) 10:04, 21 May 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 result was delete.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No sourcing online to show a pass at
WP:GNG, article needs a total rewrite, written like an advertisement right now.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C) 16:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Vuno. Jali Beach exists within the Vuno territory and inarguably is a tourist attraction too. It is a plausible search term for that geography. A delete is not required.
Lourdes 18:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Nom's comment Redirect: This seems like a more sensible target.
Vuno#Attractions covers the beach as an attraction specifically.
TheMagikCow (
T) (
C) 20:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete for advertising. Since the capitalization is wrong it is not even good for a redirect. If this AFD had not been started, I would have deleted this by now!
Graeme Bartlett (
talk) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
Graeme Bartlett, I couldn't understand your comment about capitalization cancelling out the need for a redirect. Could you please clarify? Thanks.
Lourdes 01:05, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I understand what you're pointing to. I suspect that when people might try to find the beach on search engines and on Wikipedia, the capitalization rule might not hold necessarily true. You could probably consider that. Thanks for the quick reply.
Lourdes 01:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect as might be searched for and appears to make the most sense per the above. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:30, 20 May 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.
GP and so far unsuccessful Parliamentary Candidate. Not convinced there is enough to warrant inclusion here.
Uhooep (
talk) 16:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Her prior role in the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign and her role now as figurehead for the
National Health Action Party have generated her enough coverage, I'd say, to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Bondegezou (
talk) 16:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Current media interest in current and previous SW Surrey elections generated non-trivial coverage. Past campaigns also sufficient to satisfy
WP:GNG.
Seantellis (
talk) 17:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Per
WP:NPOL, political candidates are not notable purely for their current or previous campaigns for office. Irvine has no continuing notability outside her candidacy for a minor party.
AusLondonder (
talk) 01:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The article needed a bit of a clean-up. She has been involved in significant campaigning activities on health and education issues for more than a decade. There is substantial coverage of this in multiple articles appearing in a range of newspapers over this time. She meets
WP:BASIC.
Drchriswilliams (
talk) 14:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks
Drchriswilliams for your substantial work on the article yesterday. I think that adds a lengthy history of pre-National Health Action Party campaigning that has been covered by reliable sources.
Bondegezou (
talk) 10:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The article is sufficiently long and well-sourced. This would be impossible if the person were non-notable.
Munci (
talk) 14:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This satisfies the general notability guidelines. Her role in the National Health Action Party is significant.
LoudLizard (
📞 |
contribs |
✉) 15:05, 22 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete Fails WP:NBASE. This is one of those articles that I've love to save, but I just don't think the case exists to bring it up to current notability standards.
South Nashua (
talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete nothing notable about this subject.
Lepricavark (
talk) 22:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete does not appear to be anything notable about this and (at a glance) the reference URLs do not seem overly notable. Per nom, fails
WP:NBASE at this time. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:31, 20 May 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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America1000 23:59, 26 May 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. Statement added subsequent to closing to allow the Afd script to parse the results. Lourdes 13:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)) The result was Speedied and saltedRickinBaltimore (
talk) 18:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Aside the non-notable awards, the organization has not been discussed on independent third-party sources thereby failing Wikipedia's
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG criteria. —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 15:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. It seems not much changed from the version of this article that was speedy deleted. As the nominator states, independent sources for this are lacking.
331dot (
talk) 15:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete for the third time, and salt.
TimothyJosephWood 15:51, 19 May 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.
Mz7 (
talk) 05:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Promotional material for an organization with fails
WP:ORG and
WP:GNG.
This search only shows press releases and passing mentions on non-notable sources. —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 15:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep- It has independent sources. It shows notability. Maybe it could be reworded or copy edited.
Reb1981 (
talk) 20:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Kindly point out the "independent sources" which do not look PR-like —
Oluwa2Chainz »» (
talk to me) 21:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
+1 - Please point out the "independent sources" to which you refer. The only sources in the article fail
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND.
-- HighKing++ 17:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I've also removed a lot of puffery from the article. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform to use to parrot company "messaging".
-- HighKing++ 17:33, 21 May 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.
A search turned up the usual social websites, but zero independent coverage. Several of the citations in the article don't mention Exquisite Knives at all. Fails
WP:GNG,
WP:NORG and
WP:PROMONarky Blert (
talk) 15:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG. I have removed most of the puffery in the article as it was referring to a Mr. Ellis and the article isn't about him.
-- HighKing++ 17:26, 21 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Apart from the fact that it is totally unreadable (which, given the topic, may be intentional) this is essaylike and mainlyrelies on two sources, not enough to establish that this is 'idea' is notable. Pity there isn't a speedy tag for obscurantist b*ll*cks.
TheLongTone (
talk) 15:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete this is a real theory - I've read about the ideas in my teaching textbook - but the page is totally
original research and
brand-labeled.
Bearian (
talk) 14:49, 24 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Prod removed for no discernible (or stated) reason. Nothing here to suggest notability.
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Was a notable figure in a period of change to the college admissions system at a notable university. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hyungjoo98 (
talk •
contribs) 15:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Administrative position not high enough for automatic notability through
WP:PROF (he was not head of an entire university) so to be notable he needs to pass
WP:GNG, which requires multiple reliably-published sources, independent of him, that provide significant coverage of him. But that's not what we have; instead, we have stories that mention him only in passing or that quote him rather than covering him. And the claim that he was a leader in changes to college admissions, rather than merely being an administrator during those changes, are only very weakly supported by the sources. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 18:35, 19 May 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. Absent evidence of
verifiability through coverage in
reliable sources of the claims in the article, such as that Ware competed in the Winter Olympics (or at a similar competitive level), I see no other outcome besides "delete" here. While it is likely that Ben Ware exists, this article is being deleted because it consists almost entirely of unverifiable information, especially as it is a
biography of a living person.
Mz7 (
talk) 05:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I think this is a hoax article. I tried fact checking a few things but with no luck. I tried some fact checks, such as Googling "Team Green Kawasaki" and it is something that exists, but I can't find a connection with them and a Ben Ware. When I google "Ben Ware" and Motocross pretty much all that comes up is the reference already cited - in which a Ben Ware places 67th out of 150 in some event in Dorset. Nothing about Winter Olympics, nothing about Maxxis, nothing about Monster Energy. As it isn't a blatant hoax, Ben Ware seems to exist (there is a Twitter account for a Ben Ware who does do motocross, see @benwareuk, but he's only posted for a bit in 2015) and there is ONE reference, plus claims of notability in his being an Olympian (two years running, which is amazingly impressive for an four-yearly event) I see no option but to take to AFD.
Mabalu (
talk) 14:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I've tagged it as having disputed factual accuracy, accordingly.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 16:59, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I race motocross professionally and have competed with Ben a few times throughout the years so I can assure you that he is no hoax and a respected rider amongst the youth riders in the UK. The only detail that I could find that is potentially wrong in this article is the year that he won the British nationals as I believe it was 2014. He uses various social media accounts, mainly instagram, that you could check for further information.
Kobush99 (
talk) 18:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete not a hoax but a personal bio full of puffery. Performance in high-school sporting competitions almost never gives notability.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 06:03, 20 May 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 delete. If the arguments are to believed this sounds mostly like a
G3 or
G11 deletion. No opposition.
Primefac (
talk) 17:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unintelligable andprobably eye-wateringly trivial. I do not think that translation would alter my opinion.
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and there's probably a speedy criterion that fits.
Lepricavark (
talk) 23:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as a native speaker of Tagalog/Filipino, the article basically centers around a "fact" that someone's a "Handsome Man" or Poging Lalake who supposedly had relations with certain local celebrities.. Nothing encyclopedic and all vanity.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk) 13:03, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:TNT - I can read a bit of Taglish, and it makes no sense to me. What is it? I could use a curse but won't.
Bearian (
talk) 14:51, 24 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Apparently non-notable band, unsigned, only releases are on SoundCloud. Generic name makes finding sources difficult, but I'm not really finding ... anything, not that I expected to.
TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as nom stated, does not appear to be notable at this time. SoundCloud as only references does not help either. --
TheSandDoctor (
talk) 06:34, 20 May 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.
fails WP:GNG. as per my previous nomination. There has never been a resident ambassador. The keep votes in the last AfD were far from convincing
LibStar (
talk) 13:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Move to
Iceland–Turkey relations. An article on the relations of the two nations would have more content than an article on an ambassador to Turkey.--
Snaevar (
talk) 23:47, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: A
WP:SPA article about a brokerage firm, barely sourced to routine listings. The article text makes no claim as to why this firm would feature in an encyclopaedia (indeed, the indication is that the prime concern is appearance on Google) and I am finding nothing better. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk) 15:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
'Delete as spam. No indications of notability or significance.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 15:08, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. Too soon. Also, did they make a spelling mistake? I think "
Jacqueline I am coming" is spelled with a U and two M. —usernamekiran
(talk) 19:14, 23 May 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. The article's sole source appears to be a dead link (at least, I couldn't find the article in the newspaper archive that the link sent me to). But the official website is interesting -- this tooth powder is also advertised to relieve or cure a variety of non-tooth ailments, including dysentery, cholera and swine flu. I think this article has serious problems under
WP:MEDRS.
NewYorkActuary (
talk) 02:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
delete essentially an advertisement. I searched for refs and found no independent refs with substantial discussion of the topic.
Jytdog (
talk) 02:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: as per comments above. —usernamekiran
(talk) 18:38, 23 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Non-notable musician lacking significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Has not produced any notable work. Fails
WP:NBIO,
WP:NMUSIC and
WP:GNG.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em) 10:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks reliable noteworthy sources and instead gets most of it's references from sites such as facebook and youtube. Fails
WP:NBIO.
Bakilas (
talk) 11:02, 19 May 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.
Article has only cited one source (iTunes) for 3–4 years. The source is only used for the release date of the album, and digital music stores
may not be reliable.
DBZFan30 (
talk) 02:46, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I have added 9 English language citations and text sections on the release, title song's success, controversy and reception. The "turning point" in his career of the successful title track "Champion" makes this album valuable (although a page on the song alone might be as valid). I'll leave it to consensus.--
Bonnielou2013 (
talk) 22:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The English-language citations all appear to be passing mentions, a sentence or half a sentence. It's not enough to establish notability.--
Colapeninsula (
talk) 14:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:36, 19 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This currently fails
WP:V and is a borderline
WP:HOAX. While the 90th Academy Awards will almost certainly take place, the submissions for the Best Foreign Language film don't start for some months yet. The two sources pertain to the last list, and the dates for this year's list have not been announced by the Academy. The one entry in the list is not sourced, and nothing supports that submission online either. Futhermore, the article's creator has past form for adding
unsourced information to similar lists in the past, which they have been taken to ANI about and blocked. They've just come off a block for creating non-notable articles, with a history of disruption which strongly suggests
WP:NOTHERE. Therefore, this should be deleted until any concrete information is available. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 09:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - for all the reasons clearly stated by the nom. Like Betty Logan, I have no issue with it being a redirect, as long as it's protected until it becomes not
WP:TOOSOON.
Onel5969TT me 11:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The two films mentioned (one now that I removed the IP added after this AFD started) are not sourced (nor is there one out there) so it is possible that it is an attempt to give them pub that they don't merit.
MarnetteD|
Talk 15:26, 23 May 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.
Contains claims of importance enough to fail A7 but I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources (minor mentions such as
[5] in local newspapers is all I could find).
Delete No in-depth coverage (really any coverage), just products listed for sale. Fails
WP:NCORP.
MB 00:29, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete unless improved -- This appears to be a some kind of museum collection, but it is not clear if it is a permanent exhibit or a temporary exhibition, not where it is. If this is clarified and it is a permanent exhibit somewhere, we might possibly keep it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - It looks like until March 25, 2005, this article stated the project was to be housed at
Forest_Lawn,_Hollywood_Hills_Cemetery,
diff. I don't find any information about the project on the Forest Lawn website, either today's version or versions from 2004/2005 using the wayback machine,
for instance. Perhaps this was a proposal. Perhaps it was a temporary exhibit. But currently it fails
WP:V.
Smmurphy(
Talk) 01:44, 22 May 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. Arguments roughly divided between both sides after three relists.
(non-admin closure)feminist 13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not your household Star Trek name - this is a comic book/novel character. Sources are primarily primary (novels, etc.). Influences section looks promising - until one realizes it is based on a mailing list/blog comments by the author who invented this character (primary/OR/self-published/etc.). There is nothing to suggest this character has significance outside niche fandom discussions, and certainly nothing that warrants him being in an encyclopedia. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 06:47, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The character indeed debuted in a novel (not a comic book), and Peter David's site is indeed a blog (not a "mailing list"). I created this article before I fully came to understand the mportance of
WP:PSTS. I'll try to find secondary sources for it.
Nightscream (
talk) 06:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep 1) No deletion rationale advanced: even if it's non-notable
WP:ATD expects that it be merged or redirected. There's no question it's verifiable. 2) Several RS'es exist, specifically in the 'news' and 'books' sections of the above {{Find sources AFD}} template, sufficient to meet GNG. 3) As a notable author, Peter David's own comments meet
WP:SPS.
Jclemens (
talk) 05:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No keep rationale advanced. If you want to merge, vote so or do it, there is no rule saying merge has to proposed before deletion. I don't see what could be merged - he deserves a one-sentence on some list of ST characters at most.
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - please cite them, and please don't cite in-universe plot summaries; those are not sufficient. And no, author's comments about his own character on a blog/discussion list/social media/etc. don't suffice to establish a character's notability. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Piotrus, there never needs to be a keep rationale: rebutting the delete rationale is sufficient. In this case, as nominator, you are positively asserting that nothing in
WP:ATD is relevant--not improvement, not merging, not redirection--and that therefore the existing article should be removed from Wikipedia and nothing left in its place. Your nominations consistently fail this, and I do find it quite frustrating that you seem immune to any education on your responsibilities as nominator. You think all it take is starting an AfD that says 'NN, delete' and then anyone arguing keep has the burden to provide sources. Sorry, but
WP:BEFORE makes it clear that the nominator is expected to do the work beforehand.
Jclemens (
talk) 04:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Jclemens I don't understand your point. Both deletion and keep arguments need a rationale. And I provided my rationale: failure at
WP:GNG. PS. I am quite fine with soft deletion, merging and redirecting, and you should know that by now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 05:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)reply
How many times need I explain 1) that you need to do
WP:BEFORE, 2) how to do it effectively, and 3) how to communicate your findings to justify deletion as opposed to any other outcome preferred by
WP:ATD? Seriously, what part of that is unclear?
Jclemens (
talk) 02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
How many times will you try to change the topic? There are no good sources. The low quality sources you found don't help. I saw most of them BEFORE, and I dismissed them as garbage. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The article relies too much on primary sources without showing significance of the subject.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The article says "Calhoun is the only Star Trek character that has not appeared in any of the Star Trek television series or movies to have an action figure." without a source. I'd be interested in learning more about that.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 23:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
As requested here are a couple of sources that mention an action figure:
[6],
[7],
eBay, and
this is likely the most interesting of the four, quite critical of the figure.
Jclemens (
talk) 02:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You cannot seriously think those are reliable, and on topic. That he has action figures doesn't make him notable, and the product description plus few blog fan comments on the figure are hardly helpful for anything except to reference a sentence saying he has an action figure - which, again, does not make him notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep thanks. I'm not convinced it's a useful article personally, but I'm convinced it meets notability guidelines.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 08:27, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
There's no argument provided for deleting the article. It's clearly not
WP:TNT and I'm convinced it passes
WP:GNG as well. Why do you want to delete the article?
Power~enwiki (
talk) 19:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't believe I said he fails
WP:GNG. Simply saying that all the references are "Star Trek related" doesn't mean they can be ignored.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 20:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
They can when they are all plot references: he is only discussed in 1) works of fiction where he is a plot element 2) summaries of plot element like Star Trek encyclopedias, omnibuses, etc. 3) social media fan discussions (blogs, forums) and 4) merchandise pages (reviews of action figurine). There is not a single reliable reference discussing his significance, etc. The burden of proof to show he is notable is on the article creator(s) and those voting keep and so far that burden has not been fulfilled. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 03:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Good sourcing, also per WP:GNG.--
BabbaQ (
talk) 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
@
BabbaQ: Which sourcing is 'good' here? Do you mean the novels? The blog review of the action figure? Or perhaps you refer to my favorite, 'Advertisement printed on the inside back cover of multiple Star Trek novels published in 1998 and 1999.'? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 04:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Star Trek: New Frontier characters: I am not convinced about this particular character's notability as I do not necessarily see a significant amount of coverage on this subject in third-party, notable sources. It would be greatly beneficial if the keep votes could provide the links to the sources that support this character meets the notability standards, as I can see all of the information regarding this subject fitting rather comfortably in the list article. I would be more than happy to change my vote to keep if I could see more links (and I do not believe the links about the existence of an action figure are particularly useful in this context). While I think the Peter David links are good and permissible, I think this article needs a few more third-party sources on the development or reception of the character would greatly help to support this subject's notability. I apologize for the length of my response and I look forward to a longer discussion about this. As someone who greatly enjoys creating articles about fictional characters (and I have received some notes about their questionable notability as well), I would greatly appreciate hearing a little more from the "keep" votes. Thank you in advance.
Aoba47 (
talk) 15:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I believe the claim for notability is that he is the most notable character from New Frontier, and that there are enough references to support a stand-alone article rather than merging into that list. I'd consider references in the context of Star Trek (the TV series) to be sufficient; I don't believe there's consensus as to whether those exist.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 20:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your response; it just would be helpful to get some links to the references that are considered as enough support to satisfy the notability standards. If I could see those links, I would be more than happy to change my vote, but I just am not seeing them when looking online.
Aoba47 (
talk) 03:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
From a Google news search,
[8] is the best I can find for the character, and that's a trivial reference.
[9] actively avoids mentioning him by name but does reference him.
Power~enwiki (
talk) 03:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your response. I do not believe that those two sources (especially the Hollywood Reporter one, which is extremely trivial) is enough to support the notability of this character, but I will leave the discussion to other, more experienced users.
Aoba47 (
talk) 15:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric 05:30, 19 May 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. The "keep" !votes are weak but there is clearly no consensus for any other action.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This supposed film has no reliable sources and is just a strung together set of episodes of
The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series) and can be covered in that article. I redirected it but it was reversed by an editor claiming
Notability is not a reason to delete an article.
I am also nominating the following related pages because they have the same notability problem:
Redirect to
The Amazing Spider-Man (TV series). It has received some notable
coverage and
reviews, but the current article has only two sources, and they're both Amazon. The articles is essentially cast and plot, both of which are at the proposed target. I have no objection to the articles being split out after the sourced content is expanded.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 15:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: The notable coverage you indicate are mostly list articles, blogs or other non-reliable websites thus do not significantly cover any of the three films. (WP:N - "those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time") The reviews link brings up just space for reviews or short reviews (not over 300 words) not there for not significant reviews (per
WP:NFSOURCES "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, 'capsule reviews', ..."). Reliable notable sources do not current exist.
Spshu (
talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material" - Therefore, some of the list articles do count toward reliable sourcing and discussion of the subject. There are some critical reviews if you scroll past the first page of results, but the content is still pretty light. Hence, my !vote to redirect.
Argento Surfer (
talk) 19:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
To the overall length of the list articles generally they have had trival mentions, not more than a few lines just to be complete.
Spshu (
talk) 00:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Notable. Though I do agree the article does need more sources.--
Total-Truth-Teller-24 (
talk) 18:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Three editors have said Keep without any further comment. Surely one of you can explain what's notable...
Argento Surfer (
talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk 01:34, 4 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Definitely not notable. Article is all plot and the "sources" are from Amazon; I'm not sure what the three "keep" voters above are thinking. Even trying to gather out-of-universe content to improve the article would be next to impossible since a whopping two pages on Google make barely a mention of this picture, mainly by non-viable niche sites like comicreview and rateyourmusic.
sixtynine• speak up • 00:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I found three more sources for the 1977 film:
[10][11][12]. I would strongly reccomend going through JSTOr and Google Books some more before closing this. These are some of the earliest Spider-Man films, and there is some indication that sources are covering these films in that context.
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 06:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. These source most just indicated that the films exists and should be covered in WP but not enough signification coverage for their own article. Deseret News article has 171 out of 1356 words (only 12.6%) about the three TV series based films and is not the original sources (Sources: io9.com's "The Secret History of Spider-Man Movies," spidermanfilms.wikia.com, comicbookmovie.com, weminoredinfilm.com's "6 Spider-Man Movies That Almost But Thankfully Didn't Get Made," wikipedia.com). Using WP, WP based sites, WP sourced articles or other wiki powered site (wikia.com) as a source is not allowed. Nor is 12.6% of an article signification coverage. The IO9 has even less about (166 words) the three TV films. And none of the books give signification coverage as the books are not about the three movies, not just about Spider-Man and have brief entries.
Spshu (
talk) 13:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —
MRD2014📞contribs 13:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Selective Merge I listed a few potential sources late last night because I was concerned that the deletion nomination would be closed before a proper examination of all possible sources could be performed. I went through Google Books, JSTOR and a few other places, and I am now of the opinion that a merge is the best option. There were a number of book and a few media sources covering the various movies, but they did not contain much information beyond a plot summary, the connection to the television series and a few interesting tidbits about the production. All in all, I think that these films are extremely relevant to the history of Spider-Man, but that the coverage is just not substantial enough to write a fleshed out article. (Most of the articles do not have many citations to reliable sources, which is why I am proposing a selective merge of the limited cited content).
Spirit of Eagle (
talk) 17:48, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Seems to be a legit, made for TV movie (though low budget). Authorised Spider Man Marvel movie, so can't see any reason not to keep it, when others of it's nature are notable for Wikipedia. Article does need more sources. It has its own IMDB page. [[
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078308/Deathlibrarian (
talk) 12:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
IMDB is not an indicator of notability.
★Trekker (
talk) 12:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. Per the
WP:NFSOURCES section of Film notability indicates like the IMDB, "capsule reviews" which are reviews up to 300 words. The Time Out is clearly less than 300 words. --
Spshu (
talk) 12:56, 22 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I do not think there is any credible claim of notability here, nor are the sources substantial enough to confer notability.
TheLongTone (
talk) 14:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The previous AfD has many sources and more have been created since.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 17:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Major player in its industry area. Sufficient sources exist. --
Michig (
talk) 06:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The result of the previous AfD was Delete and the article does not appear to have been improved since then, nor are there any new sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Can the previous "Keep" !voters explain point to which of the sources meet the criteria to establish notability please? All of the references are either advertorials, mentions in passing or PR releases, therefore fails
WP:CORPDEPTH and GNG.
-- HighKing++ 15:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- strictly promotional; this content belongs on the company web site, not here. No indications of notability or significance; "sufficient sources exist" is not a valid argument in a deletion discussion. I've reviewed the sources from the first AfD and they are not independent reliable sources. Should be again deleted & perhaps salted.
K.e.coffman (
talk) 00:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I have added more sources to the page, (see sources 12-15) and made a few edits (see the last sentence under "History and founding" with sources 7-10). I am curious if you have any recommendations about which specific aspects of the page need the most attention, and how I should go about improving it so it does not get taken down?
Eugene450 (
talk) 13:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The problem is that the existing sources do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You've added more references which is great, thank you, but the references you've added also do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. You say you added references 12-15. Reference 12 is the same as 18 and fails
WP:ORGIND as it is a simple regurgitation of a Press Release and/or not "intellectually independent". This is the same problems for references 14 and 15. Reference 13 only mentions the company in passing.
-- HighKing++ 17:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The problem is that the sources do meet RS and the quantity do help subject meet GNG. Have a nice day. PS: I have correctly formatted your indenting per
MOS:LISTGAP.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 17:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Very kind, thank you. So what are you saying? That *all* the sources meet the criteria for establishing notability? Or some sources? Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable please and it gives everyone an idea of which sources to look at in particular because the article has a lot and most of those are PR statements or interviews and all of that type of reference fails
WP:ORGIND. I've commented on the most recent ones that were added above and they clearly do not meet the criteria.
-- HighKing++ 19:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Is this a special case of
Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU where you are unintentionally being "disruptive and time wasting"? It seems to me that you made up your mind before you looked at the sources in the article and did not do a Google search at all. If that's the case, you're a waste of space and you desrve a topic ban from AfDs.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 06:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades Godric 05:28, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh Wow, disruptive and time-wasting? Feel better? You could always have waited until you were less cranky to respond (unless this is your normal mood). Had I known that the breaking of your beloved indentation would prove so traumatic, I could have asked an easier-to-understand question - saved you the bother of creating an answer to a question nobody has asked. Nevertheless, you've put a lot of effort into your response....
You appear to understand what
WP:RS is all about (great) but I asked specifically about CORPDEPTH and ORGIND which maybe you missed in what I've now assumed was a red mist of rage (inadvertently) caused by my asking a simple question (which I thought is the point, after all, of discussions on AfD). I asked Can you pick a couple that you believe are acceptable with regards to those criteria but there's nothing in your vinegary response to indicate that you have critically examined the *contents* of the articles being referred to and I apologize for not anticipating the trouble you obviously had with the word "couple".
For example.
Here's the "official" Press Release for the Francisco Partners acquisition at the start of the month. Compared against
the first RS you list I would say it fails ORGIND as the news article is plainly regurgitating a Press Release.
Similarly, the other RS you proclaim is
this blog post from bizjournals. I was always under the impression that blogs are considered self-published and therefore fail RS.
But, you know Walter, it is clear that all you really want is to drive away collegiate editors that are interested in quality articles who ask really simply questions (apologies again for using that difficult word "couple") so I'll just leave this as it is and leave my !vote unchanged.
-- HighKing++ 07:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't really care about CORPDEPTH or ORGIND since they all die in respect to GNG. Sorry to have pissed you off. No, no all blogs are not considered self-pubs. If it's a self-published blog it certainly is. If it's writing for a company that has an editorial process, it's not. I won't comment on the rest of your diatribe per
WP:TROLLFOOD, but I will say, in relation to assuming that I was responding in anger (or rage), you might want to read about
psychological projection.
Walter Görlitz (
talk) 01:15, 26 May 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.
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.
Keep Unless things have changed, we usually presume notability for high schools, as independent sources can usually be found if one digs deep enough. (See
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES).
LK (
talk) 06:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Chung Ling is one of the most notable schools in Penang, with an excellent academic record and alumni that include the likes of Khaw Boon Wan, Lee Koon Choy, Ming Tatt Cheah and so on. In fact, deleting this article is a lazy solution, when a lot can be done to improve this article.Vnonymous 10:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Snow Keep - As others said, Chung Ling is a notable school on Penang because of its history. It still need more references and expanding though.
2001:D08:1810:6195:75FB:79E6:2BAE:9125 (
talk) 02:18, 20 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
No real indication of notability, as defined by
WP:PROF. For starters, there are no sources, which is kind of a problem. She doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria, but I'll just zero in on point 6. The subject is indeed an administrator, but a rather low-level one. She is -
see here - a prodecan, or "vice dean". That's below rector, vice rector and dean. She's one of five vice deans in her faculty. It's a step above department head, but a long way from establishing notability under point 6. For the rest, as noted, nothing stands out. -
BiruitorulTalk 03:10, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete fails WP:PROF WP:GNG. Why did we bother translating this when we could have been translating a featured article or a highly notable topic?
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Just not cited anywhere. Please correct if wrong.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 01:33, 27 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
totally non-notable album that does not meet the requirements of NALBUM: there are no professional reviews, nor is there any discussion of the album in reliable sources. the best of the internet is this link,
[13], and that is just another webzine. I had redirected the article but it was restored here,
[14], by
User:Yk49, who said he added references--but that's to Roth's own website and to Blabbermouth, which is just a zine and not a reliable source.
User:Atlantic306's revert is not very useful either: he clearly didn't see that there is no proper sourcing for the article, which is simply not notable by Wikipedia standards.
Mindy Dirt (
talk) 15:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment If a bold redirect is reverted it should go to AFD or at least be discussed on the talk page. According to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources Blabbermouth is a reliable source for reviews but not for news so in this case as it is a news item it is unreliable but not in every case. Reserving judgement on notability incase offline or non google sources are found.
Atlantic306 (
talk) 15:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Blabbermouth is generally considered an
WP:RS. It's usable for news too, the consensus is just to be cautious on BLP stuff. See
WP:MUSIC/SOURCES.
Sergecross73msg me 15:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
(
User:Sergecross73, that is news to me, and it's somewhat surprising given Blabbermouth's lack of editorial oversight and their tendency to (re)publish everything they run into, including press releases. There is a claim of reliability in their article, sourced to the London Free Press--it was
introduced in 2009, but that supposed article is nowhere to be found--
look. So I don't believe that Blabbermouth is that reliable, but more importantly I don't believe that it's that important. One review on Blabbermouth, one user-submitted review on a website that seems to lack editorial oversight, isn't enough for notability.
Mindy Dirt (
talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
In this particular situation, I do agree with you - that Blabbermouth source is rather short - not exactly siginificant coverage about the article subject. But in a general sense, I'd be rather shocked if it wasn't deemed reliable in a general sense. I've used the website heavily these last 5-7 years in writing articles and saving articles at AFD, and I don't recall ever running into any opposition over it.
Sergecross73msg me 22:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect - I couldn't find enough reliable sources to meet the
WP:GNG - a very short
Blabbermouth.net source is not enough. Open to re-evaluating should someone come up with better sources off-line someday - the album was released in the mid-90s, before online sources were prevalent, and judging by some the type of coverage he receives in later albums, they may exist out there somewhere. (Though, then again,
even Allmusic doesn't cover this release, despite covering others, so who knows.) Very little can be sourced now, so its best to redirect for now, and spinout if/when sourcing is provided and prose is written.
Sergecross73msg me 15:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - just what Sergecross said. It's 1996, sorta pre-internet era. I can dig out mid-90s old
Burrn magazine myself. He is at least interviewed and covered in Feb 1996 issue
[15].
Kerrang! at the time did not cover much of European hard rock scene but I'm sure
Metal Hammer probably did record review of some sort. --
Yk49 (
talk) 04:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 19 May 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.
A child actor who has acted in various drama series in Singapore. However, she is not as notable as other established actors/artistes in Singapore and should not be warranted an article. Winning awards in a local award show should not define the actress' notability in the Singaporean entertainment scene.
DerricktanJCW (
talk) 16:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because all of the following are also pages about Singaporean child actors who do not have much notability in Singapore. It seems like someone has been trying to mass create Wikipedia articles for Singaporean child actors. I have came to notice about this as I am a regular editor of the page
Star Awards for Young Talent. Many child actors' names have been linked to a standalone article of themselves. I have read through the articles and found them really unnecessary as most of them do not have any notability.
The following are the articles that are in question:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:48, 19 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
This appears to be something personal from 2008 with no significant changes since then. There are no references and no reason for its notability. The two images are of extremely low quality and provide neither identification nor any reason for notability. It seems to me that it might merit a section and better image on
Ireland Wood. I cannot see that it merits its own page.
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 20:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Does not seem to be a recognized place, therefore fails
WP:GEOLAND. Searching does not turn up anything else, so also fails GNG. Satellite imagery shows the old quarry and no development - so it appears no housing development has occurred. I don't think it belongs in
Ireland Wood since there are no sources and it is not clear if this area is within Ireland Wood.
MB 04:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Named location which is covered in numerous geological journals.
Andrew D. (
talk) 18:33, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You are welcome to establish notability by editing the article. I do not know that simply being a named place makes it notable.
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 18:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:5, Wikipedia's function includes that of a
gazetteer. For this reason, all valid placenames should be blue links. If the details are meagre, there will always be a higher-level geographical area to merge into and so, per our
editing policy, we should always prefer this
alternative to deletion. In this case, there seems to be plenty to say about the topic. I could expand the page but
AFD is not cleanup and we must first dismiss this question of deletion.
Andrew D. (
talk) 16:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:5 does not say it is a gazetteer, it says it combines features of encylopedias, almanacs and gazetteers. There are many woods in Leeds: I do not believe that all the woods in the world each deserve a page. According to
WP:GEOLAND "The number of known sources should be considered to ensure there is enough verifiable content for an encyclopedic article. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the feature can instead be included in a more general article on local geography."
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 16:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The
University of Leeds has a geology department, and thus journals in the library. I have searched the library (online) and other university libraries plus Google Scholar without finding anything other than a single mention of mushroom sample being taken there (British Mycological Society 1955) amongst other places.
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Well I have just browsed online from home and have done much better than that. My position remains that this place is quite notable and the page should be improved rather than deleted.
Andrew D. (
talk) 19:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Could you give just one citation to support your position?
Chemical Engineer (
talk) 20:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete No claim made for notability. Fails
WP:NGEOLK (
talk) 02:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a location with no claim to notability. While AfD isn't cleanup, there's nothing at all precluding anyone who's found sources and claims to notability from adding these during the discussion, and I for one would happily revisit my opinion at such a time.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an 04:33, 19 May 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.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Non-notable low-level hockey player and coach that appears to fail
WP:GNG by only
WP:ROUTINE sources and is well below any criteria in
WP:NHOCKEY.
Yosemiter (
talk) 22:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Notable hockey player and coach who is gaining international attention coaching in south korea for the upcoming olympics — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hockeynut999 (
talk •
contribs) 20:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
WP:NHOCKEY both as a player and a coach by a long suit, all the sources given are routine sports reporting of the kind debarred by
WP:ROUTINE from supporting notability.
Ravenswing 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails both NHOCKEY and GNG. Hard to validate users claim about coaching for in Korea for the upcoming olympics when he is not listed amongst 6 coaches and trainers that travel with the team.
18abruce (
talk) 13:29, 21 May 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. On balance it appears she does not have a significant enough body of work to meet
WP:PROF.
King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Academics are judged by by the impact their work has had on others. Although she has worked with a very influential economist, her citations on GS (Sudha R Shenoy) are too small to pass
WP:Prof#C1. I am open to change my vote on production of better evidence.
Xxanthippe (
talk) 23:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Hello
Xxanthippe, I was actually looking at the impact she has had (broadly construed, as suggested by
WP:PROF#1), documented by reliable sources. For example,
Lawrence H. White writes that she "was one of the first to promote liberalization of Indian economic policy during the 1970s."[35] He also writes in another co-authored report, "Nevertheless, in India in the 1940s and 1950s, no one in academic circles other than Shenoy fought against statism and central planning."[36] The European Center of Austrian Economics Foundation considers her amongst the 6th generation of eminent Austrian economists, alongside Nobel laureates like
Vernon Smith.[37] Robert Leeson writes in his book that when Sudha Shenoy along with
Richard Ebeling,
Gary North,
Murray Rothbardet al "initiated an Austrian revivalist conference in 1974, one of the highlights was the baiting of Friedman [...] Subsequently, US Presidents and Presidential hopefuls embraced the Austrian School of Economics."[38] These works and many such other references point out to the impact her work has had globally. I would look forward to whether you may consider this perspective of
WP:PROF#1, which says "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed,... the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."Lourdes 00:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your comment. This is an unusual case. Although she appears to have been a committed disciple of the great
Friedrich Hayek (a GS
h-index of 107 no less!) she seems to have done little on her own and has not held a substantial academic position. Maybe
WP:GNG would help?
Xxanthippe (
talk) 00:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Thanks. With
Steven Horwitz addressing her as "truly one of the founders of the Austrian revival"[39] and
John Blundell describing her as "the original pin-up model of the Austrian school of thought in economics,"[40] I would prefer
WP:PROF as that explicitly considers the impact rather than the number of her works ("Having published does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study."). Thanks.
Lourdes 01:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The difficulty is the lack of citations to independent work. Her highest cited publication A Tiger by the Tail gets only 79 citations on GS and anyway was written by
Hayek; she only compiled it. She evidently was a person much regarded in the circle of libertarian economists ("pin-up girl", a sexist remark if ever I heard one), as the several obituaries that you quote show, but Wikipedia is not a repository for obituaries
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I can't see a pass of
WP:Prof here, but, as I suggested before, can a case be made for
WP:GNG? (late sign)
Xxanthippe (
talk) 06:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC).reply
Hello again. I'm sorry but I think you misunderstand
WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The guideline refers to not using Wikipedia as a memorial service for non-notable individuals like one's friends, relatives.... It does not prohibit the usage of obituaries written by reliable sources to prove notability of subjects. In fact, reliably sourced obits are one of the best sources on Wikipedia to understand and confirm enduring notability (e.g. in my references above Chris Matthew Sciabarra too calls her "one of the great, and gentle, voices of the Austrian economics revival." This points to the impact she has had). Notwithstanding that, I would mention that the sources I quoted of
White, Austrian Economics Foundation, Robert Leeson are not obits. In my opinion, these sources – combined with obits given by
Blundell,
Horwitz,
Sciabarra, et al (all of whom mention that she is one of the founders of Austrian school revival or that she is amongst the great Austrian economists), satisfies
WP:PROF, a guideline which attempts to assess the impact of the individual on their respective field etc.
WP:PROF also considers editorial board membership in respectable publications (to which part, I have provided a source above confirming that the subject was an editorial board member of
The Review of Austrian Economics). I realize that you may not agree with my view, but I have to thank you for the time you've taken to assess the subject. I look forward to interact with you again across Wikipedia. Cheers.
Lourdes 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
All of the obits listed above appear to be personal blogs, and hence not reliable. Were there any obituaries published in newspapers, journals, or other reliable sources. (Not counting paid death notices in newspapers; I mean only the newspaper obituaries that the newspaper editors publish themselves.) —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
David, no. I haven't been able to find any newspaper/journal obits.
Lourdes 08:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
References
^Hayek, F. A., & Shenoy, S. R. (1972). A tiger by the tail: a 40-years' running commentary on Keynesianism by Hayek (Vol. 4). Transatlantic Arts.
Delete. As discussed above, she does not appear to pass
WP:PROF but might pass
WP:GNG. However, all sources in the article and provided about her above are either unreliable blogs or (for one reference currently in the article) an interview with the subject, something that past AfDs have found not to contribute to GNG notability. So I don't see a pass at this time, but I would be willing to change my mind if better sources turn up. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 04:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete This article presents her as an academic, hence, the relevant guideline is
WP:PROF , which is generally more lenient than
WP:GNG. She clearly fails to pass any of the criteria at
WP:PROF. In her field of
Economics (broadly construed, as suggested by
WP:PROF#1), or more narrowly
Development economics, the impact she has had is negligible to non-existent.
Austrian school economics is a methodology, and should not a considered her field of study.
LK (
talk) 02:20, 25 May 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. SNOW--no other conclusion is imaginable. This was tagged for G11, and the tag was unwisely removed. DGG (
talk ) 06:59, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Not in English, not notable, promotional, COI, deleted repeatedly from Spanish Wikipedia. There should really be a way of swiftly getting rid of this kind of junk without invoking a full AfC and expecting people to translate it so its "notability" can be evaluated.
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 00:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, or Speedy per above.
Mathglot (
talk) 01:35, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment proper procedures were not followed in creating this Afd, am trying to repair now...
Mathglot (
talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I was in the middle of listing this at
Afd log May 20 when I got an edit conflict, and
User:cyberbot I butted in, and listed it at 19 May instead. Let's see if the bot also publicizes it to WikiProject Afd lists....
Mathglot (
talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
(
edit conflict) Comment: creating editor has been notified, and Project Delsorts as well per above. Nom, please take care to follow
all procedures when nominating an article for deletion. Any ticking clock on this Afd, should be zeroed and reset as of now.
Mathglot (
talk) 02:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Which means no Snow, per "reset the clock" just above. updated by
Mathglot (
talk) 02:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Snow deletion doesn't require a clock, by definition. It also
WP:IGNORES wikilawyering and
WP:bureaucratic technicalities because it follows
WP:Commonsense to do what is best for the project without pointless delay
Siuenti (
씨유엔티) 08:26, 20 May 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.