The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I had just hit the Twinkle button to AfD this myself and was beat to it. I couldn't find any independent sourcing on Google or Google News, either by searching for the org name, the org with the founders, or the founders names individually. Fails GNG.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
23:09, 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.
Notability issue tagged since 2016. Sources are mentions in guidebooks. The presence of the Pub on the
St Hilary, Vale of Glamorgan page could seem enough or be expanded there if necessary. The building is a Grade II Listed building (the lowest rank, for special interest buildings; buildings dating from before 1700 seem easily listed as such...) darthbunk pakt dunft22:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: There are around 350,000 Grade II listed buildings in the UK. I can see four (including a
Red telephone box) from our bedroom window. This pub may or may not meet GNG but it certainly shouldn't purely because it is listed. If it was Grade II* or Grade I, that would be a different matter.
Black Kite (talk)22:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indeed; it's sometimes hard to convey to people in other countries—where "historic" status is usually more carefully guarded—just how freely listed building status is handed out in the UK. To put things in perspective, this pub is listed at the same level of historic importance as
this fence or
these gateposts. The pub may or may not be noteworthy—I don't know enough about the area to judge—but a grade II listing means absolutely nothing in terms of determining notability. ‑
Iridescent22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree, but the Dutch have managed to pursuade English WP that ALL
Rijksmonumenten are individually notable, and there are over 61,000 of them. It's the same with US national & state listings, which in many places automatically include all buildings before dates like 1880.
Johnbod (
talk)
13:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Grade II listing certainly does mean something; it puts the historic significance of the place out there. Not at all saying that all Grade II's are notable. But, hmm, look at the photo in the article. It's in
Category:Thatched buildings, which is oddly small as a category. I think it is better to leave it tagged and encourage development on the historic specifics. Also, I don't see what is wrong with guidebooks. --
doncram23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - This ancient public house is notable as an example given in books of its type of historic building. See
here and
here, and appears in an inventory of ancient monuments in Glamorganshire
here.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
13:22, 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.
No sources since 2012, only the School website. Notability issue tagged that same year and yet unaddressed. darthbunk pakt dunft22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete normally I'm very open to redirection in these cases, but I can't find a clear target and the article has a promotional tone as well. No objection to creating a redirect after deletion if someone can find something to point it towards.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
22:06, 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 article topic is not covered by
reliable, secondary, in-depth source (that is, also not in-passing mentions) in any degree sufficient to justify a standalone article. All of the sources in the present article are primary. All of the sources presented as possibly indicating notability in the previous AFD are weak or unreliable. A brief
reviewtoday also indicates a lack of the sources necessary to write this article.
A "redirect" result is not particularly objectionable (presumably to
Magic: The Gathering), but given the previous AFD survival,
a bold redirect might have been undone, so I'm skipping that step.
Merge to either WotC or MtG articles. I agree with Power~enwiki, that this does not appear to be current branding for the product line.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:35, 15 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.
Any updated relevant information about this channel should be moved into
City Channel. Since neither the channel nor the parent company articles seem to be up to date, I can't really find any information about it other than it was planned for launch around 2009, not sure if it ever launched based on information in City Channel article.
WikiVirusC (
talk)
19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Amazingly the little paragraph at
City_Channel#City_7 seems to be more up to date than the entire article!, Anyway there's not really anything to be merged, Suppose it could be redirected if really desired, Thanks, –
Davey2010Talk21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom,
WP:GNG,
WP:CORPDEPTH, and related guidelines. I had considered suggesting merge/redirect, for
WP:PRODUCT reasons, and as there is no content here that can't be dealt with in the article on the parent entity marketing this product/channel. However, after looking around to see if GNG/SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH could be established, I can find no indication that the subject entity/product/channel ever actually existed. If anything it seems to stand as an example of why we have
WP:CRYSTALBALL and
WP:TOOSOON guidelines (in that we created an article about something that was proposed to happen in the future, didn't then happen, and now we've got a less-then-useless article cum press release about a project that was never realised.) Best to just delete. Creating a redirect is just kicking-the-can to a later
WP:RFD.
Guliolopez (
talk)
23:13, 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.
A search of Swedish and English news sites makes it appears that he currently fails
WP:GNG per only
routine sources and being noted in his recent signing due to his relation to his older brother. Currently
WP:TOOSOON to meet any criteria in
WP:NHOCKEY, he needs over 100 games in the AHL to reach that level. Could be suitable to redirect to
Oliver Ekman-Larsson#Personal life until when or if Kevin ever reaches notability.
Yosemiter (
talk)
18:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Was unaware of the notability guidelines for ice hockey players when I created the article. As per
WP:NHOCKEY guidelines he has 90 games played in the HockeyAllsvenskan, Sweden's second-tier national league. He would require 110 more in the American Hockey League to fulfill the 200 games requirement or a callup to the National Hockey League (which, if it's acceptable to put an opinion in, an NHL callup is extremely unlikely).
Clarktricia86User talk:Clarktricia8609:40, 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.
Cut down to to what? Two of the sources are broken, one is Wikipedia, one is a
power point (we'll get back to that later), and most of the rest don't use the term at all, not even in passing (
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6]). One source actually does (
[7]), and it's pretty much empty jargon all the way down (e.g., lets talk about vision... and pretend like its a term that has some sort of well-defined substance when it obviously doesn't).
The term itself is so exceedingly vague that its really fundamentally impossible to tell if sources "using it" are actually using it, or just using those words in that order, that is, unless it somehow traces back to
this single book, which appears to be the crux of the whole thing, and is the same actual source for the power point and the one interview that seems to be using the term in this particular way.
The only thing of any encyclopedic relevance I can see this ever turning into is an article on the book itself. It
might actually be notable, but it's hard to tell. A lot of the sources are "about stuff" and mention the book, and vaguely about concepts related to the person, or book, or something... and some of it is so ... honestly patently cringe worthy in the sheer magnitude of the corporate circle jerk that it's hard to read (e.g., Successful digital transformation is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly.[8]). If you made some of this stuff up as a parody of corporate cruft it wouldn't be believable.
But even if the book is notable, this article isn't about the book, and clearing away all the gory borderline advocacy-like uncritical acceptance of the book's concepts, and all the obvious original research along with it, we're pretty much left with Digital Mastery is a concept coined by some guy in some book.
TimothyJosephWood12:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- poorly sourced original research which also comes across as
WP:ADVOCACY for something, I could not figure out which :-). Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:36, 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.
Merge or Redirect . He does not seem to meet notability guidelines in his own right, being only notable for his presence in the web series.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
12:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge or Redirect to
Nostalgia Critic. He's only notable for one thing. I don't see much information that could benefit for him having a standalone article that could be inserted/used in the Nostalgia Critic article, either. --ZLMedia23:54, 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.
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 articles creator without providing a reason.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
16:35, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Completely agree with the nominator's comment; this information can be included in the appropriate episode/series articles. This appears to be an example of fancruft and is more appropriate for a Wikia. I also doubt anyone will type in this exact title in the search bar so I do not believe a redirect would be particularly helpful in this context.
Aoba47 (
talk)
17:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete It duplicates content in the articles for the episodes/seasons. Additionally, there's an element of original research unless references can be provided for the assignment of each episode to the "monster-of-the-week"/"mythology arc" category; the division isn't so clear or important that we need an index of this sort anyway, and it's not (as far as I know) done for any other show. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
11:41, 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.
Keep National teams officially recognized are notable. And as others have pointed out, "too small" is not an argument for deletion.
Smartyllama (
talk)
12:28, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about a sports tournament that will not happen for nearly a year. Consists of empty tables and closely connected sources. This stats page is
WP:TOOSOON and fails
WP:NOTSTATS. -
MrX13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Trying to understand the nomination; calling it a stats page, when it does not yet have stats is puzzling. It displays how the teams involved qualified for their respective tournaments. It also briefly discusses the nominations for hosting. The referencing could be better, but having an independent page for explaining qualification and hosting, that will later fill up with stats, seems perfectly reasonable. As for TOOSOON, the hosting was news now, seems appropriate to explain it now. Perhaps redirecting until main page is too cumbersome could be appropriate, but it seems rather big already in my opinion.
18abruce (
talk)
18:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I called it a stats page because it has empty tables for the stats that will exist almost a year in the future. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac for events that haven't even happened. The title should be redirected until there is meaningful content with
WP:INDEPENDENT sources. There are currently meta discussions about forbidding recent news events from being added to Wikipedia until well after the events have occurred. Adding far future events is magnitudes worse in my opinion. -
MrX20:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Except that if you read the page, or read my comments, you would know that what is being discussed is current events, that affect the future. The standings tables are not necessary right now, but that is only one part of the page. Explaining the effect of what happened in late April, and what was voted on last week, do not in any way constitute an almanac or being a "stats page". If you need assistance understanding the content please ask.
18abruce (
talk)
22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As mentioned above, it helps to have separate pages to explain qualification and hosting, which have already been decided.
Smartyllama (
talk)
19:28, 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.
This look like a non-notable list. The only cited reference is the web page of the contest itself, which is offline now. I can't find any other reliable sources with significant coverage. Google News Search returns no hits
[10]. Similarly, Google Books search returns only one, self published book.
[11]Vanjagenije(talk)13:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - can you comment on the Dutch spelling of the subject, Canon van Amsterdam? I haven't had a chance to look very closely, but google news and books give results for that spelling.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This appears to be a list of 50 topics related to Amsterdam, selected by the authors of a book as "windows" on the city. Many are significant (and have articles) but the selection of this (rather than some other) 50 is the author's and is ultimately a POV issue.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:10, 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.
This article's sources are all either affiliated with the company, re-postings of press releases, or blog posts. The award listed on the site is a second place mention from 'CMS critic', which appears to be a non-notable blog. I've looked and I haven't found any better sources, so I believe this article does not meet the
general notability guideline or the
notability guideline for software.
MrOllie (
talk)
17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The article sources are not all affiliated with the company.
1) The first link is the link to our license as we state in our article that our software is open source. Thus we need to mention the license.
2) The second link is the link to GitHub where we host our open source code. Again, it's a separate website where developers host their open source projects.
3) CodeProject - again, it's a repository of our code but on another developer community platform.
4) Habrahabr is the hugest IT community in Russia with the strong moderation system. They posted our article about the system. This website is not affiliated with us and to post on it you have to have the high rating. It's not a blog post or press-release, it's a description of the system on the high-quality resource.
5) This one is wrong link and can be deleted.
6) This is a press-release, can be deleted.
7) It's a list of code contributors to our product. Can be deleted, but I don't understand what's bad with it?
8) Yes, it's a press-release which explains how the product was created. We can provide more written proofs for this.
9) This is not actual, can be deleted.
10) It's a featured app in Microsoft list. 7th place.
11) It's a personal view of the moderator for CMS Critic. This site is ranked high in Google for ecommerce, just one example -
https://screencast.com/t/JHpoVlx6V7W.
So, I agree with some comments from the moderator above, but the GitHub links and some other point for deletion can't be treated as negative from my point of view.
It's also important to mention that this moderator never gently told me what exactly to fix and never helped me, just deleted, marked and replied "I will say simply, just stop spamming". This is not a way polite people help each other. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Andrei Iunisov (
talk •
contribs)
07:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Andrei Iunisov: Independent reliable sources are needed to prove notability (eg. reviews/articles in published/online magazines, books about article subject etc.). Press-releases are OK for plain verifitability of undisputed content, but their abundance is often sign of lack of better sources.
Pavlor (
talk)
09:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The point is not that these primary and company written sources should not be here or should be 'treated badly', the point is that certain types of sources are required to have an article, and none of the sources currently used in the article are the
type that satisfy the article inclusion requirements. We need those sources in addition to what is already there. -
MrOllie (
talk)
21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's try this again...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant
WP:RS coverage. Per nom, sources are user-editable, blogs, or not independent. A search turns up incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an
SPA as possibly promotional.
Dialectric (
talk)
02:29, 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.
Looking further, all three are tagged {{
expand Ukrainian|Українська медична стоматологічна академія}}...the same article even in the native language. And no apparent independent refs make me uncertain we can even support two different articles, or even any at all, but I don't know enough about the topic to make a case for/against
WP:N overall.
DMacks (
talk)
04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete at least this one. As I read the title of the Ukrainian article they want to expand (disclaimer: don't expect much more than a transliteration of the title, as I don't have any Ukrainian), it's the "Ukrayins'ka Medichna Stomatologichna Akademiya", which suggests that the "Stomatological" academy's article is the one which should be kept.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an06:42, 12 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, under the title
Carriage Factory Islamabad, was deleted through a prod last month. It has now been recreated under this name, and the original name has been recreated as a redirect. Searches turned up very little on this company. No indication it passes
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP. Both should be deleted.
Onel5969TT me11:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the recently created redirect to the main article under nomination for deletion:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep (or speedy keep this). Disagree with nom's rationale, it's clearly not a promotional article. It was created by
KAP03 (
talk·contribs), who, as far as I can tell, does not have any ties with the developer. It could use some editing, but that's basic
WP:BEFORE stuff.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK09:36, 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. I will consider restoring as a redirect if someone wants to merge it somewhere else, but I suggest they come up with some references first. This close doesn't preclude anyone creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.520:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article was merged and redirected into
List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters by me per request(s) at the
Merger noticeboard and per precedent for fictional, non-notable characters, as discussed
here and elsewhere. Merger was reverted by @
Emir of Wikipedia: with no improvement to the article. This article is a horribly written, plot-only article with no encyclopedic value, no notability, and no referencing or citations (absolutely zero) and has been sitting as such for over a decade.
GenQuest"Talk to Me"14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The article is quite well written and I voted against merge in the hope that someone who knew the subject would add real world information and references but unfortunately nothing happened in the next 8 months
Atlantic306 (
talk)
17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You certainly are an optimist. The article had ten years to collect notability references and just couldn't. Largely because the subject is wholly non-notable, especially for a stand-alone article. Keep looking up!
GenQuest"Talk to Me"15:04, 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 - Article reeks of paid promotion or autobiography, given that
this guy pulled a mostly-formed article out of thin air. I do also notice this slightly-older
Md Asif article, which seems to have been created by the article subject via (at least) 2 different Wikipedia accounts. I would not be surprised if "Rocky Sharma" was MD Asif. Anyway, getting to the stronger deletion rationale, I don't find any significant coverage of this person via the
Indian newspaper search engine. I mostly see stuff like
this, which is about a Pakistani cricket player. Searching the engine for
his name plus Thuppaki (you know, one of the major films he was in where he played "second in command of the sleeper cell", "opposite superstar actor Vijay"
[14]) produces no hits, which strongly implies that no reliable source was interested in covering him. References like
this seem like little more than press releases. Seriously, how can the subject be a renowned actor with only two films under his belt? Article seems like fluff and
APN News is questionable as a reference as their About page seems like a vanity project itself. There are no significant Google News hit for
"MD Asif" kamasutra or
"MD Asif" Thuppaki. There appears to be no record of him in reliable mainstream sources. Far too soon for article, and this has vanity written all over it, especially since in
the Career section we're expected to assume success-by-association. His non-major role in Thuppaki contributed to Thuppaki being the highest-grossing Indian film of that year and his minor role in Kamasutra 3D resulted in the film being eligible for Oscar consideration. The confusing language "Kamasutra 3D was retained for nominations of the 86th Academy Awards in three categories" was especially perplexing, as it suggests the film was actually nominated, when in fact it
looks like it was submitted for consideration. Unless I'm mistaken, this looks like puffery. Delete.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
04:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see evidence to show he meets
WP:GNG. I also didn't find anything that shows he meets the notability criteria for actors or martial artists.
Papaursa (
talk)
19:30, 28 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 contains no claim to notability, merely describing a company's business, nor are my searches finding anything better than routine listings and customer reviews. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
11:21, 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.
Delete Non-notable wrestler who competed for a number of indepdent British promotions. No indication of significant independent coverage to meet
WP:GNG and nothing to show he's a notable entertainer (which is the SNG pro wrestlers fall under).
Papaursa (
talk)
19:44, 28 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.
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant coverage or mention of the beach in doing some Google Searches. Is There a list of Irish beaches it could be added to if there are sources to support it?
Elmmapleoakpine (
talk)
21:43, 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.
Delete. Most of sources cited in the article are press releases from Martin's various teams, so don't qualify as independent coverage. Google search for ["james martin" marlies] turns up nothing indicative of general media coverage. Searching the website of the
Toronto Sun for ["james martin"] turns up only three articles on our subject, none of which seems to offer in-depth coverage. Appears to fail
WP:GNG.
Ammodramus (
talk)
14:47, 3 June 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. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Significant coverage of the topic is only found in self-published primary sources, such as the subject's youtube and facebook pages. I should note an article on the topic exists in the Italian wikipedia, but even that article is created recently, and, perhaps more importantly, poorly sourced.--
Dps04 (
talk)
08:38, 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.
Keep 2 major TV roles (both ongoing, although one does ends in May). Also has a significant role in the Will Smith movie Bright (released later this year). These three roles, in particular), are a good sign of notability, but some more references would be better, so I agree it does need a little work, but nowhere near a delete.
Somethingwickedly (
talk)
20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - this seems excessively deletionist. Hopefully someone who has watched Bloodline or 13 Reasons Why can give a more informed opinion.
Power~enwiki (
talk)
02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Looking through his IMDB page, he's been in a number of productions, several of which are major. I think he fits the criteria for being notable. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
05:48, 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.
WP:BLP of a writer and filmmaker, who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't
reliably sourcing them. Of the four sources present here, all four represent classes of sourcing that cannot be used to establish notability: a Q&A interview on a
blog, a
primary source "staff" profile on the website of a radio show with which he has a direct affiliation, a piece of media content in which he's the bylined author and not the subject, and a piece of media content which glancingly namechecks his existence but is not about him. And on a
Google News search, he gets just four hits not already cited here, all of which are also bylines or namechecks rather than coverage about him. As always, neither filmmakers nor writers are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be the subject of enough media coverage to clear
WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - notable enough for ABC News to interview him as a "piracy expert". I reviewed this brand spanking new BLP, did a bit of online research before I gave it a green-go, and as you stated above, the potential is there. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to dig for more because we're trying to catch-up on a growing backlog at NPR, and I'm currently in transit internationally, so my time is limited.
Bearcat, just curious - did you try to find any sources that would establish his notability, or did you feel that because the cited sources didn't pass that it was best to delete the article? Perhaps it should've gone to the article TP first? I came across a few other articles with questionable notability - not even with the potential of this BLP - and they survived AfD. Atsme📞📧18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
For starters being the interview guest does not assist notability at all, because if he's talking about something other than himself then he fails to be the subject of that coverage. The only kind of source that can assist notability at all is where a
reliable source is publishing or broadcasting content in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And secondly, as my nomination statement already plainly demonstrates, I did undertake a search for the necessary type of sourcing — but I came up completely dry for anything at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Addional sources have been added, and there are more but I'm comfortable with what's there now as having satisfied N. He clearly meets N as a "creative professional" (filmmaker, director, author, expert on piracy, etc.) PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials.) Atsme📞📧19:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Except that the new sources you added are virtually all still either
primary sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. The only one that counts for anything at all toward getting him over
WP:GNG is in his hometown newspaper — but one piece of media coverage is not enough to claim GNG all by itself, and it doesn't support anything that would constitute an automatic pass of any SNG. His hometown newspaper might very well still have covered him if his only claim of notability was "owns a coffeeshop at the corner of Wellington and Pim", so the fact that one article exists in his hometown newspaper is not a GNG pass in and of itself. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence — creative professionals do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their work exists, so the fact that "PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials" does not exempt him from having to pass GNG just because one of his films aired as a PBS special. His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Your arguments for deletion are contradicted by
WP:N and the reasons follow:
You stated: "His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test." Please see the ABC News article which is hardly trivial mention about Sekulich's expertise on piracy, and his book "Terror on the Seas: True Tales of Modern Pirates." One of the sections begins "Sekulich has little sympathy for the plight of the pirates, and he doesn't exactly buy their tale of losing the fishing industry or their claims about rampant pollution from outside ships." There's also the Variety review about the film Sekulich directed, Aftermath: The Remnants of War, which further serves as verifiability in an independent RS and includes information about him, such as "Helmer Daniel Sekulich follows the grim work of Valery Shtrykov, who is trying to identify and reclaim the remains of the battle’s dead, both Russian and German."
Hotnews.ro, is an international news source that was cited in the article, and it states: "Piracy is today a multinational entity that produces billions of dollars of income and affects the security of the global economy," says Daniel Sekulich, a Canadian journalist who has been pursuing the phenomenon of global piracy for years. What is Pirateria SRL, which are the most dangerous oceans, why some of the pirates believe modern Robin Hood and how to manage some people in tiny boats and boats to capture thousands of tons of superpowers, Sekulich tells us in an interview with HotNews .com.." When major news sources are writing articles and interviewing a person about their work, and consider them an expert in their field,
WP:GNG considers the personal notable. Being notable is not the same as being famous. When you stack the multiple sources about Sekulich and his work, it's rather obvious that he passes GNG.
You stated: "Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence." Well,
WP:NPOSSIBLE disagrees, and specifically states (my bold): Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Look again at what editors have already sourced with limited searching.
You even agreed in your deletion request: "who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't reliably sourcing them.". Sekulich is a new article created 10 May 2017, and should not be deleted if we're following
WP:PAG.
Again, it's rather obvious that he easily passes GNG based
WP:CREATIVE and RS media coverage to satisfy verifiability including ABC News, Variety, Hot News.ro, and local media such as Sault Star. I'm changing my position to Strong Keep. Atsme📞📧15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
1) A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of the sources, not by being one of several soundbite-givers in an article whose subject is a topic that is not him. The ABC News article falls in the class of "glancing namechecks of his existence", which is not a class of sourcing that assists in showing notability. Variety also namechecks his existence, but is about the film rather than him. HotNews.ro is not a reliable source at all, so it counts for nothing. And the Sault Star is local coverage in his own hometown, in which again he's providing commentary on an issue rather than being the subject of the coverage. So the ABC News, Variety and Sault Star sources would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts within a mix of much more solid sourcing than the article is showing — but none of them is substantively enough about him to bring the GNG in and of itself.
2) You're misreading what that criterion means. The possibility of improved sourceability existing despite one's own lack of finding viable sources on a search does not create a blanket exemption from an article having to be sourced properly — and it pertains mainly to historical topics who might not turn up much in Google searches because they didn't get media coverage during the era when that media coverage was reliably locatable on the web. If he'd lived and worked and died 100 years ago, then one would have to dig deeper into news retrieval databases before going ahead with a nomination, because 100-year-old media coverage won't Google properly. But for a person who is currently active in his field and producing current work, Google is a reliable judge of whether the necessary level of sourcing exists or not — for a contemporary topic in the era when all media coverage that exists at all is always web-accessible in some form, it's quite literally impossible for any valid sourcing to somehow still exist outside of the ability to locate it via a Google search.
3) Notability criteria are not passed just because their passage has been asserted — lots of self-promoting wannabes try to get Wikipedia articles for publicity purposes by hyping their notability claim past the actual or sourceable reality of the situation (e.g. a musician falsely claiming to have achieved a higher chart position in Billboard than he ever actually did, a writer claiming to have been "nominated" for a major literary award for which she never actually made the shortlist just because her book was submitted by its publisher for consideration, a filmmaker PR-bumfing himself as "award-winning" without actually naming or sourcing what awards he won, etc.) So the mere claim to passing a notability criterion does not constitute a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have a
WP:GNG-satisfying level of reliable source coverage — the claim still has to be supported by a stronger volume of coverage than anything that's been shown here.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, Notable journalist and award winning film maker. One of his films picked up 9 awards. Quoted and referred to in many books relating to various issues. Easy keep for me, but I have to point out that the page needs some improvement here and there and a bit of a tidy and re-arrange.
Karl Twist (
talk)
09:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Firstly, what
properly sourced evidence is there of his winning any award notable enough to confer an automatic
WP:CREATIVE pass because award? This article, as written, claims no award wins at all — it claims one honourable mention for a non-notable literary award, and one nomination for an award at a local film festival, neither of which is grounds for a CREATIVE pass. For a nomination to be enough in and of itself to get a person into Wikipedia, the award has to be on the elite level of the Oscars or the BAFTAs — and outside of the elite Cannes-Berlin-TIFF-Sundance tier of film festivals (which Hot Docs is not in), even a win of a film festival award still wouldn't confer an automatic CREATIVE pass in the absence of a demonstrated GNG pass. And his IMDb profile lists no awards at all either — literally the only sourcing I can find for his winning any award at all, let alone any award that would actually be notable enough to constitute a valid notability claim in a Wikipedia article, is his own
self-published elevator pitch about being "award-winning".
Secondly, a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by being "quoted" or "referred to" in coverage of other things that aren't him. But nobody's shown any evidence that he's the subject of any degree of reliable source coverage — this is based almost entirely on
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not on coverage which has him as its subject.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
strong keep surely he meets
WP:CREATIVE according to the third criterion, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work [...] or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews [emphasis added]." Clearly his documentaries have been the primary subject of multiple articles AND reviews, whether or not these are cited in the article in its current form.
Newimpartial (
talk)
07:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep career as a journalist and author are readily source-able, (WP:NOTCLEANUP]]; both books got come media coverage, especially the second book (pirate!). Serious journalist, respected writer, patent notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
He garners just six Google News hits total, of which five are glancing acknowledgements of his existence, usually as a soundbite-giver, in articles whose subject is something other than him, and the other is a
blog — where is there any evidence locatable that he or his books have been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass
WP:GNG?
Bearcat (
talk)
13:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
On the films, first. Aftermath: The Remnants of War has a wikipedia article, won awards in 2002 (Gold Camera Award US International Film &Video Awards; Special Jury Award Houston International Film Festival; Wilbur Award Best Theatrical Documentary; Bronze Plaque Columbus International Film &Video Festival; Special Prize International Environmental Film Festival in Barcelona; UNESCO Prize/Jury Prize Brazil International Environmental Film Festival) and was independly reviewed, e.g. <
http://libweb.lib.buffalo.edu/emro/emroDetail.asp?Number=1052>. Per
WP:CREATIVE anyone who creates a notable work is notable, whether or not their name receives hits on Google News.
Newimpartial (
talk)
15:13, 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.
Non-notable blogger. No evidence found of
WP:BIO. Sole "claim to fame" appears to be an essay that was republished widely online and a few independent books, and discussed mainly on blogs and user forums. A few mentions in unreliable user forums, and op-ed contributions, do not satisfy
WP:JOURNALIST.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - his essay may be notable if it were the subject of reviews and commentary (but probably not), but Marek himself does not seem to be covered in sufficient reliable sources.
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:56, 31 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.
Delete because it fails
WP:CORP. This article appears to be the result of a couple of articles that appeared after Miyako Taxi of Kyota launched a new policy where its cab drivers would no longer engage their passengers in conversation. There is not any of the in-depth coverage required by
WP:CORP. Miyako Taxi of Kyota is only a relatively small Japanese taxi company. "Miyako Taxi" is a name used by a number of local taxi companies throughout Japan; see
Talk:Miyako Taxi#Possible confusion. In fact, the Japanese Wikipedia article about
Miyako Taxi is about the one in
Miyazaki City. Perhaps it deserves mention in an article about Japanese transport, although I note that taxis are not discussed in the section
Transport in Japan#Road, nor anywhere in the
Transport in Japan article. --
Bejnar (
talk)
14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the article makes no claim to notability, and consists entirely of a description of a marketing gimmick. No value to the project at this time.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, this seems to be a
WP:ONEEVENT sort of case, where there was a very brief flurry of some media interest, followed by nothing. It would be good to have some information on the Japanese taxi industry somewhere, and this event might justify a brief mention in said article, but there's no real valid merge target at the moment and the content in this article isn't so extensive it couldn't be easily recreated from scratch.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:17, 2 June 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.
According to
WP:SCHOLARSHIP, PhD theses are acceptable, these theses are Masters and Bachelor-level. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." --
122.108.141.214 (
talk)
08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The quality of the first reference is disappointing, the entire section on him, while spanning three pages, is a plot summary. I don't see any analysis of his real world impact. Second link is broken (The Flinders University webpage you were looking for cannot be found) and since you did not provide a title or such, there is no way I can even discuss the source. The last source provides us with the following useful content: "Weyoun is typically portrayed as a diplomatic and jovial character, but his loyalty in the Founder means he disregards morals for the sake of faith as a conscious choice. His faith leads him to commit terrible acts in their name and at their command, such as ordering the execution of innocent individuals and also committing genocidal purges.75 His story and eventual downfall, as he dies protecting a Founder, demonstrates the lengths a person is willing to go to for the sake of one's beliefs". Useful, but I don't think this is sufficient for a stand-alone article. I still think this doesn't need anything else than 2-3 sentences in a relevant list. Soft deletion through redirect with no prejudice to merger, as I wrote above, would be totally fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
But
Piotrus, the problem with your 'no prejudice against a merger' argument is that it's not binding on other !voters or the closing administrator, as we've seen at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). Since there are no outright delete votes, why don't you withdraw the AfD, merge the content, and we can close this discussion as 'consensus to merge' if anyone disputes it? The content gets merged, the allegedly NN article no longer exists as a standalone, and the contribution history is preserved in case someone comes up with more than you or I did and wants to expand it. What's wrong with that approach?
Jclemens (
talk)
18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Simple. It means I have to work to save content that I don't think belongs here. Given that this is already better described at MemoryAlpha, I don't see why I should waste my time trying to do so. Even if this is deleted, soft or not, it won't be a loss to anyone. I have better things to do than saving fancruft like this. If the community agrees it is a problem, the article will be deleted/redirect with no loss to anyone. If the community decides it should be kept, then I'll learn from that outcome. I don't see any reason I should be the one to spend time doing the merging - this should be left to someone who cares about the given topic more than, clearly, I do. PS. I really do think that in cases like EA we should be using soft deletion, and you are welcome to ping on me in any relevant discussion about undeletion/soft redirecting/changing our policies to make it so (pun intended). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
And yet, you do nothing to follow
WP:BEFORE or
WP:ATD. Your contempt for the content and the people who contributed it is as palpable as it is elitist. You admit you don't care, but belittle ("Fancruft") those who do. Oh, "Memory Alpha"? That might pass
WP:ELNO #12, but most fictional elements won't have an appropriate destination, and even if they did, then that destination would likely not be suitable as an external link. Real problems like POV pushing, astroturfing, and a dozen more serious issues pervade wikipedia, and yet you focus on destroying things that are, at worst, non-notable.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Jclemens - according to my reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, neither of the theses are of high enough quality to count as sources. Could you please address this? --
122.108.141.214 (
talk)
23:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. I did some reference checks, no references seem to substantiate him as significant. I'm a bit of a trekky, and I like the Weyoun character (and Jeffrey Combs is an excellent actor!)... but don't see this character as significant enough to warrant his own page.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
03:06, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as according to Vice which has an article
here about his whole life not just his death he was famous before his death and had millions of downloads from Soundcloud (not that I understand Soundcloud) so it seems to be more than a
WP:BIO1E.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
16:46, 16 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 nom, with the caveat that Wikipedia should have articles about notable cases and important areas of law. But in this instance, we do - under
Copyright law of the United States. If there is some aspect of Broadcaster's rights that bears discussion, it would be best to discuss it there.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did15:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
As noted below, the US article is but one example of the articles we already have on this topic. A comparative analysis of differences and similarities between the laws of these two countries might be worth exploring - but there's no real way to do that in an encyclopedic manner, within our rules. We don't analyze here.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did15:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of view. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right which is separate from the rights of the copyright owner. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research.
Srishti Singhania (
talk)
05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, what is stated here is an argument for importance, not an argument for notability. The
notability guidelines say little, if anything, about important fields of study. Topics "worthy of research" are researched by professionals outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia only reports the consensus of professional results if there are independent, reliable sources indicating significant coverage.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)05:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
In response to the discussion going on, I would like to submit the following:
1. This article is on definitely a notable' topic. By notability, Wikipedia refers something as 'worthy of notice'. Broadcaster organisations' right is worthy of notice. In many jurisdictions, it is becoming a heavily litigated aspect of law.
2. It cannot be included in the same page as Copyright under US or Copyright under India law, as
(a) it is one of the neighbouring rights, distinct from the rights of copyright owners.
(b) This topic has its own set of controversies, and interpretations, that take heavily from technology and media industry.
3. In my quest to keep this page as neutral, I have limited my engagements with the arguments in this area of study. I have mentioned the important rights, the scope of rights, their exceptions and the important case laws.
Moreover, in consonance with the Wikipedia aim, I believe with eventual contributions and edits, this page will indeed be at a better position. I myself is engaging in editing the same.
Yashasvi.law (
talk)
13:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment the concept that a copyrighted work has separate rules regarding re-publication and broadcasting is probably notable. The article as written doesn't appear to describe that.
Power~enwiki (
talk)
01:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep The article needs work but there's more than enough information on this topic to warrant keeping the article. The
Copyright law of the United States article that you mentioned is excessively long as is, so a link to this article with {{main}} would be more appropriate than moving the content from here to there. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
06:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The page should be reformatted to bring it more in line with the manual of style. It should also include more worldwide examples and not just the US/India. Those are solvable quality issues and don't warrant a deletion. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You're not correct here. This essay should be deleted (start it again from scratch if you want to, per
WP:TNT) because it's a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete As noted above, we already have articles on copyright law in both the US and India. I can think of no reason why we would want to start populating Wikipedia with arbitrary 'contrast and compare' articles of this kind.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:26, 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.
Appears to be a small non notable commercial organisation. Unaffiliated and with no evidence of any notability, this appears to be simple advertising. Does not benefit from assumed notability for schools - this is a commercial company. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Genuine college preparing for degrees, though an established university issues them, as for a great many college in UK-associated systems. It doesn't mater whether a college is non-profit or profit--why should it? We have always kept them, unless they are too 1promotional to rewrite. This was promotional , but I rewrote it. DGG (
talk )
23:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Seems to be in line with many other small colleges that have articles. Somebody should add the college's enrollment numbers and more about its history but those are just article quality issues. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
06:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per recent article improvements and as a degree college. If kept, I would suggest protecting the article due to COI / SPA editing.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:11, 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.
Fails
WP:PRODUCT for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only sources that I could find were passing mentions in a couple of books. -
MrX19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
If redirected, it should actually be merged, as there is content on the current Gnop article not currently summarized on the Bungie article. --
Pfhorrest (
talk)
18:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh and I guess I should register my vote to Keep while I'm here as well. It's a small article about a small game but small articles are fine, and it's definitely notable for its importance in the history of a big notable company as soetermans' sources (and those in the article itself) testify. --
Pfhorrest (
talk)
05:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Bungie. The article cites only primary sources (often for statements for which primary sources cannot be considered reliable), so there's nothing worth keeping or merging.--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge & redirect to Bungie per Soetermans. Not independently notable based on the amount of coverage, but should be mentioned in the main article. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)17:03, 28 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.
Film does not appear to satisfy WP:NFP. I found 2 local newspaper articles on the film, one from the area that it was shot in, the other reflecting most of what the original article stated. The majority of mentions are retailers selling the movie. Perhaps should just be a mention on
Lea Thompson's page, if it isn't already.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
19:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment:DVD Talk, which seems to be treated as a reliable source, reviewed the film
here.
CHUD.com also reviewed it
here but I am less sure if that is reliable. There are a few other reviews listed
here but none that I recognize as reliable. Then again, I do not work with direct-to-video films often.
NinjaRobotPirate, you may know more than me. Have any insights?
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alex Pires#Mayor Cupcake. A standalone article isn't merited, and it's covered in the article on the film's writer/producer/director (and can be expanded there should coverage be found). Rotten Tomatoes lists no professional reviews, and
this was the best coverage I found. --
Michig (
talk)
19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, a few sites that used to review low-budget independent films have closed, making it harder to establish notability for direct-to-video films. I'd consider DVD Talk a reliable source, but CHUD.com is pushing it. I did find a few sources, though. There's
this short review from The Mercury. There's also a bit of production info from
this article at The News Journal and
this article from Delaware Today.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
20:33, 8 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.
Keep - He's an important figure in ICW and has a fair amount of coverage. His article needs to focus a bit more on himself but its understandable that it would include a lot about ICW due to his heavy involvement with it. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
07:07, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Mr. Blood has been cited in hundreds of publications due to a current matter relating to his client Karrueche Tran. Upon Googling "Patrick Blood Karrueche" and finding many results, this does rise to "significant coverage". Perhaps more citations needed but this is significant coverage. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheAmericanIdol (
talk •
contribs)
00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Google searches revealed many passing mentions (most as "X's other lawyer") in articles about a celeb-spat. That does not establish notability. What is needed is "significant coverage" and I haven't found any.
Kleuske (
talk)
00:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The Google searches sometimes mention a co-counsel named Michelle Trigger but in the Google results, Mr. Blood has been quoted on this high publicity matter on almost every major celebrity/entertainment website covering this (E, HollywoodLife, New York Daily News, just to name a few). There does appear to be significant coverage. Further, as the former Vice President of a major entertainment company makes him a well known entertainment and celebrity attorney. I would recommend that in light of the foregoing that 'significant coverage' has been met. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheAmericanIdol (
talk •
contribs)
00:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, being quoted about someone else does not constitute coverage of him. Being VP of a company just makes him good at his job, it doesn't make him encyclopedically notable. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)16:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, there is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for a view that merely being quoted repeatedly in the press is not enough to push one past the
WP:GNG, if those quotes pertain to another topic. Of the sources out there where Blood is mentioned, none of them are primarily about Blood, which is what we look for. This doesn't mean that he's not a decent person or not good at his job, but we need substantial and independent sources if we hope to write a decent and impartial biography on someone.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:11, 2 June 2017 (UTC).reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete I had just hit the Twinkle button to AfD this myself and was beat to it. I couldn't find any independent sourcing on Google or Google News, either by searching for the org name, the org with the founders, or the founders names individually. Fails GNG.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
23:09, 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.
Notability issue tagged since 2016. Sources are mentions in guidebooks. The presence of the Pub on the
St Hilary, Vale of Glamorgan page could seem enough or be expanded there if necessary. The building is a Grade II Listed building (the lowest rank, for special interest buildings; buildings dating from before 1700 seem easily listed as such...) darthbunk pakt dunft22:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: There are around 350,000 Grade II listed buildings in the UK. I can see four (including a
Red telephone box) from our bedroom window. This pub may or may not meet GNG but it certainly shouldn't purely because it is listed. If it was Grade II* or Grade I, that would be a different matter.
Black Kite (talk)22:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Indeed; it's sometimes hard to convey to people in other countries—where "historic" status is usually more carefully guarded—just how freely listed building status is handed out in the UK. To put things in perspective, this pub is listed at the same level of historic importance as
this fence or
these gateposts. The pub may or may not be noteworthy—I don't know enough about the area to judge—but a grade II listing means absolutely nothing in terms of determining notability. ‑
Iridescent22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree, but the Dutch have managed to pursuade English WP that ALL
Rijksmonumenten are individually notable, and there are over 61,000 of them. It's the same with US national & state listings, which in many places automatically include all buildings before dates like 1880.
Johnbod (
talk)
13:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Grade II listing certainly does mean something; it puts the historic significance of the place out there. Not at all saying that all Grade II's are notable. But, hmm, look at the photo in the article. It's in
Category:Thatched buildings, which is oddly small as a category. I think it is better to leave it tagged and encourage development on the historic specifics. Also, I don't see what is wrong with guidebooks. --
doncram23:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - This ancient public house is notable as an example given in books of its type of historic building. See
here and
here, and appears in an inventory of ancient monuments in Glamorganshire
here.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
13:22, 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.
No sources since 2012, only the School website. Notability issue tagged that same year and yet unaddressed. darthbunk pakt dunft22:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete normally I'm very open to redirection in these cases, but I can't find a clear target and the article has a promotional tone as well. No objection to creating a redirect after deletion if someone can find something to point it towards.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
22:06, 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 article topic is not covered by
reliable, secondary, in-depth source (that is, also not in-passing mentions) in any degree sufficient to justify a standalone article. All of the sources in the present article are primary. All of the sources presented as possibly indicating notability in the previous AFD are weak or unreliable. A brief
reviewtoday also indicates a lack of the sources necessary to write this article.
A "redirect" result is not particularly objectionable (presumably to
Magic: The Gathering), but given the previous AFD survival,
a bold redirect might have been undone, so I'm skipping that step.
Merge to either WotC or MtG articles. I agree with Power~enwiki, that this does not appear to be current branding for the product line.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:35, 15 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.
Any updated relevant information about this channel should be moved into
City Channel. Since neither the channel nor the parent company articles seem to be up to date, I can't really find any information about it other than it was planned for launch around 2009, not sure if it ever launched based on information in City Channel article.
WikiVirusC (
talk)
19:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Amazingly the little paragraph at
City_Channel#City_7 seems to be more up to date than the entire article!, Anyway there's not really anything to be merged, Suppose it could be redirected if really desired, Thanks, –
Davey2010Talk21:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom,
WP:GNG,
WP:CORPDEPTH, and related guidelines. I had considered suggesting merge/redirect, for
WP:PRODUCT reasons, and as there is no content here that can't be dealt with in the article on the parent entity marketing this product/channel. However, after looking around to see if GNG/SIGCOV/CORPDEPTH could be established, I can find no indication that the subject entity/product/channel ever actually existed. If anything it seems to stand as an example of why we have
WP:CRYSTALBALL and
WP:TOOSOON guidelines (in that we created an article about something that was proposed to happen in the future, didn't then happen, and now we've got a less-then-useless article cum press release about a project that was never realised.) Best to just delete. Creating a redirect is just kicking-the-can to a later
WP:RFD.
Guliolopez (
talk)
23:13, 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.
A search of Swedish and English news sites makes it appears that he currently fails
WP:GNG per only
routine sources and being noted in his recent signing due to his relation to his older brother. Currently
WP:TOOSOON to meet any criteria in
WP:NHOCKEY, he needs over 100 games in the AHL to reach that level. Could be suitable to redirect to
Oliver Ekman-Larsson#Personal life until when or if Kevin ever reaches notability.
Yosemiter (
talk)
18:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Was unaware of the notability guidelines for ice hockey players when I created the article. As per
WP:NHOCKEY guidelines he has 90 games played in the HockeyAllsvenskan, Sweden's second-tier national league. He would require 110 more in the American Hockey League to fulfill the 200 games requirement or a callup to the National Hockey League (which, if it's acceptable to put an opinion in, an NHL callup is extremely unlikely).
Clarktricia86User talk:Clarktricia8609:40, 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.
Cut down to to what? Two of the sources are broken, one is Wikipedia, one is a
power point (we'll get back to that later), and most of the rest don't use the term at all, not even in passing (
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6]). One source actually does (
[7]), and it's pretty much empty jargon all the way down (e.g., lets talk about vision... and pretend like its a term that has some sort of well-defined substance when it obviously doesn't).
The term itself is so exceedingly vague that its really fundamentally impossible to tell if sources "using it" are actually using it, or just using those words in that order, that is, unless it somehow traces back to
this single book, which appears to be the crux of the whole thing, and is the same actual source for the power point and the one interview that seems to be using the term in this particular way.
The only thing of any encyclopedic relevance I can see this ever turning into is an article on the book itself. It
might actually be notable, but it's hard to tell. A lot of the sources are "about stuff" and mention the book, and vaguely about concepts related to the person, or book, or something... and some of it is so ... honestly patently cringe worthy in the sheer magnitude of the corporate circle jerk that it's hard to read (e.g., Successful digital transformation is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly.[8]). If you made some of this stuff up as a parody of corporate cruft it wouldn't be believable.
But even if the book is notable, this article isn't about the book, and clearing away all the gory borderline advocacy-like uncritical acceptance of the book's concepts, and all the obvious original research along with it, we're pretty much left with Digital Mastery is a concept coined by some guy in some book.
TimothyJosephWood12:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- poorly sourced original research which also comes across as
WP:ADVOCACY for something, I could not figure out which :-). Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:36, 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.
Merge or Redirect . He does not seem to meet notability guidelines in his own right, being only notable for his presence in the web series.
Cwmhiraeth (
talk)
12:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge or Redirect to
Nostalgia Critic. He's only notable for one thing. I don't see much information that could benefit for him having a standalone article that could be inserted/used in the Nostalgia Critic article, either. --ZLMedia23:54, 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.
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 articles creator without providing a reason.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
16:35, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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: Completely agree with the nominator's comment; this information can be included in the appropriate episode/series articles. This appears to be an example of fancruft and is more appropriate for a Wikia. I also doubt anyone will type in this exact title in the search bar so I do not believe a redirect would be particularly helpful in this context.
Aoba47 (
talk)
17:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete It duplicates content in the articles for the episodes/seasons. Additionally, there's an element of original research unless references can be provided for the assignment of each episode to the "monster-of-the-week"/"mythology arc" category; the division isn't so clear or important that we need an index of this sort anyway, and it's not (as far as I know) done for any other show. --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
11:41, 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.
Keep National teams officially recognized are notable. And as others have pointed out, "too small" is not an argument for deletion.
Smartyllama (
talk)
12:28, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 about a sports tournament that will not happen for nearly a year. Consists of empty tables and closely connected sources. This stats page is
WP:TOOSOON and fails
WP:NOTSTATS. -
MrX13:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Trying to understand the nomination; calling it a stats page, when it does not yet have stats is puzzling. It displays how the teams involved qualified for their respective tournaments. It also briefly discusses the nominations for hosting. The referencing could be better, but having an independent page for explaining qualification and hosting, that will later fill up with stats, seems perfectly reasonable. As for TOOSOON, the hosting was news now, seems appropriate to explain it now. Perhaps redirecting until main page is too cumbersome could be appropriate, but it seems rather big already in my opinion.
18abruce (
talk)
18:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I called it a stats page because it has empty tables for the stats that will exist almost a year in the future. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac for events that haven't even happened. The title should be redirected until there is meaningful content with
WP:INDEPENDENT sources. There are currently meta discussions about forbidding recent news events from being added to Wikipedia until well after the events have occurred. Adding far future events is magnitudes worse in my opinion. -
MrX20:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Except that if you read the page, or read my comments, you would know that what is being discussed is current events, that affect the future. The standings tables are not necessary right now, but that is only one part of the page. Explaining the effect of what happened in late April, and what was voted on last week, do not in any way constitute an almanac or being a "stats page". If you need assistance understanding the content please ask.
18abruce (
talk)
22:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As mentioned above, it helps to have separate pages to explain qualification and hosting, which have already been decided.
Smartyllama (
talk)
19:28, 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.
This look like a non-notable list. The only cited reference is the web page of the contest itself, which is offline now. I can't find any other reliable sources with significant coverage. Google News Search returns no hits
[10]. Similarly, Google Books search returns only one, self published book.
[11]Vanjagenije(talk)13:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - can you comment on the Dutch spelling of the subject, Canon van Amsterdam? I haven't had a chance to look very closely, but google news and books give results for that spelling.
Smmurphy(
Talk)15:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This appears to be a list of 50 topics related to Amsterdam, selected by the authors of a book as "windows" on the city. Many are significant (and have articles) but the selection of this (rather than some other) 50 is the author's and is ultimately a POV issue.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:10, 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.
This article's sources are all either affiliated with the company, re-postings of press releases, or blog posts. The award listed on the site is a second place mention from 'CMS critic', which appears to be a non-notable blog. I've looked and I haven't found any better sources, so I believe this article does not meet the
general notability guideline or the
notability guideline for software.
MrOllie (
talk)
17:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The article sources are not all affiliated with the company.
1) The first link is the link to our license as we state in our article that our software is open source. Thus we need to mention the license.
2) The second link is the link to GitHub where we host our open source code. Again, it's a separate website where developers host their open source projects.
3) CodeProject - again, it's a repository of our code but on another developer community platform.
4) Habrahabr is the hugest IT community in Russia with the strong moderation system. They posted our article about the system. This website is not affiliated with us and to post on it you have to have the high rating. It's not a blog post or press-release, it's a description of the system on the high-quality resource.
5) This one is wrong link and can be deleted.
6) This is a press-release, can be deleted.
7) It's a list of code contributors to our product. Can be deleted, but I don't understand what's bad with it?
8) Yes, it's a press-release which explains how the product was created. We can provide more written proofs for this.
9) This is not actual, can be deleted.
10) It's a featured app in Microsoft list. 7th place.
11) It's a personal view of the moderator for CMS Critic. This site is ranked high in Google for ecommerce, just one example -
https://screencast.com/t/JHpoVlx6V7W.
So, I agree with some comments from the moderator above, but the GitHub links and some other point for deletion can't be treated as negative from my point of view.
It's also important to mention that this moderator never gently told me what exactly to fix and never helped me, just deleted, marked and replied "I will say simply, just stop spamming". This is not a way polite people help each other. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Andrei Iunisov (
talk •
contribs)
07:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Andrei Iunisov: Independent reliable sources are needed to prove notability (eg. reviews/articles in published/online magazines, books about article subject etc.). Press-releases are OK for plain verifitability of undisputed content, but their abundance is often sign of lack of better sources.
Pavlor (
talk)
09:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The point is not that these primary and company written sources should not be here or should be 'treated badly', the point is that certain types of sources are required to have an article, and none of the sources currently used in the article are the
type that satisfy the article inclusion requirements. We need those sources in addition to what is already there. -
MrOllie (
talk)
21:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Let's try this again...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant
WP:RS coverage. Per nom, sources are user-editable, blogs, or not independent. A search turns up incidental mentions, but no significant RS coverage. Article was created by an
SPA as possibly promotional.
Dialectric (
talk)
02:29, 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.
Looking further, all three are tagged {{
expand Ukrainian|Українська медична стоматологічна академія}}...the same article even in the native language. And no apparent independent refs make me uncertain we can even support two different articles, or even any at all, but I don't know enough about the topic to make a case for/against
WP:N overall.
DMacks (
talk)
04:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete at least this one. As I read the title of the Ukrainian article they want to expand (disclaimer: don't expect much more than a transliteration of the title, as I don't have any Ukrainian), it's the "Ukrayins'ka Medichna Stomatologichna Akademiya", which suggests that the "Stomatological" academy's article is the one which should be kept.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an06:42, 12 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, under the title
Carriage Factory Islamabad, was deleted through a prod last month. It has now been recreated under this name, and the original name has been recreated as a redirect. Searches turned up very little on this company. No indication it passes
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP. Both should be deleted.
Onel5969TT me11:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages because it is the recently created redirect to the main article under nomination for deletion:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep (or speedy keep this). Disagree with nom's rationale, it's clearly not a promotional article. It was created by
KAP03 (
talk·contribs), who, as far as I can tell, does not have any ties with the developer. It could use some editing, but that's basic
WP:BEFORE stuff.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK09:36, 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. I will consider restoring as a redirect if someone wants to merge it somewhere else, but I suggest they come up with some references first. This close doesn't preclude anyone creating a redirect at this title. Hut 8.520:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: Article was merged and redirected into
List of Power Rangers Lost Galaxy characters by me per request(s) at the
Merger noticeboard and per precedent for fictional, non-notable characters, as discussed
here and elsewhere. Merger was reverted by @
Emir of Wikipedia: with no improvement to the article. This article is a horribly written, plot-only article with no encyclopedic value, no notability, and no referencing or citations (absolutely zero) and has been sitting as such for over a decade.
GenQuest"Talk to Me"14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The article is quite well written and I voted against merge in the hope that someone who knew the subject would add real world information and references but unfortunately nothing happened in the next 8 months
Atlantic306 (
talk)
17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You certainly are an optimist. The article had ten years to collect notability references and just couldn't. Largely because the subject is wholly non-notable, especially for a stand-alone article. Keep looking up!
GenQuest"Talk to Me"15:04, 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 - Article reeks of paid promotion or autobiography, given that
this guy pulled a mostly-formed article out of thin air. I do also notice this slightly-older
Md Asif article, which seems to have been created by the article subject via (at least) 2 different Wikipedia accounts. I would not be surprised if "Rocky Sharma" was MD Asif. Anyway, getting to the stronger deletion rationale, I don't find any significant coverage of this person via the
Indian newspaper search engine. I mostly see stuff like
this, which is about a Pakistani cricket player. Searching the engine for
his name plus Thuppaki (you know, one of the major films he was in where he played "second in command of the sleeper cell", "opposite superstar actor Vijay"
[14]) produces no hits, which strongly implies that no reliable source was interested in covering him. References like
this seem like little more than press releases. Seriously, how can the subject be a renowned actor with only two films under his belt? Article seems like fluff and
APN News is questionable as a reference as their About page seems like a vanity project itself. There are no significant Google News hit for
"MD Asif" kamasutra or
"MD Asif" Thuppaki. There appears to be no record of him in reliable mainstream sources. Far too soon for article, and this has vanity written all over it, especially since in
the Career section we're expected to assume success-by-association. His non-major role in Thuppaki contributed to Thuppaki being the highest-grossing Indian film of that year and his minor role in Kamasutra 3D resulted in the film being eligible for Oscar consideration. The confusing language "Kamasutra 3D was retained for nominations of the 86th Academy Awards in three categories" was especially perplexing, as it suggests the film was actually nominated, when in fact it
looks like it was submitted for consideration. Unless I'm mistaken, this looks like puffery. Delete.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
04:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I don't see evidence to show he meets
WP:GNG. I also didn't find anything that shows he meets the notability criteria for actors or martial artists.
Papaursa (
talk)
19:30, 28 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 contains no claim to notability, merely describing a company's business, nor are my searches finding anything better than routine listings and customer reviews. Fails
WP:CORPDEPTH,
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
11:21, 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.
Delete Non-notable wrestler who competed for a number of indepdent British promotions. No indication of significant independent coverage to meet
WP:GNG and nothing to show he's a notable entertainer (which is the SNG pro wrestlers fall under).
Papaursa (
talk)
19:44, 28 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.
Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant coverage or mention of the beach in doing some Google Searches. Is There a list of Irish beaches it could be added to if there are sources to support it?
Elmmapleoakpine (
talk)
21:43, 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.
Delete. Most of sources cited in the article are press releases from Martin's various teams, so don't qualify as independent coverage. Google search for ["james martin" marlies] turns up nothing indicative of general media coverage. Searching the website of the
Toronto Sun for ["james martin"] turns up only three articles on our subject, none of which seems to offer in-depth coverage. Appears to fail
WP:GNG.
Ammodramus (
talk)
14:47, 3 June 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. I agree with the nominator's assessment. Significant coverage of the topic is only found in self-published primary sources, such as the subject's youtube and facebook pages. I should note an article on the topic exists in the Italian wikipedia, but even that article is created recently, and, perhaps more importantly, poorly sourced.--
Dps04 (
talk)
08:38, 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.
Keep 2 major TV roles (both ongoing, although one does ends in May). Also has a significant role in the Will Smith movie Bright (released later this year). These three roles, in particular), are a good sign of notability, but some more references would be better, so I agree it does need a little work, but nowhere near a delete.
Somethingwickedly (
talk)
20:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - this seems excessively deletionist. Hopefully someone who has watched Bloodline or 13 Reasons Why can give a more informed opinion.
Power~enwiki (
talk)
02:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Looking through his IMDB page, he's been in a number of productions, several of which are major. I think he fits the criteria for being notable. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
05:48, 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.
WP:BLP of a writer and filmmaker, who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't
reliably sourcing them. Of the four sources present here, all four represent classes of sourcing that cannot be used to establish notability: a Q&A interview on a
blog, a
primary source "staff" profile on the website of a radio show with which he has a direct affiliation, a piece of media content in which he's the bylined author and not the subject, and a piece of media content which glancingly namechecks his existence but is not about him. And on a
Google News search, he gets just four hits not already cited here, all of which are also bylines or namechecks rather than coverage about him. As always, neither filmmakers nor writers are automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist; they must be the subject of enough media coverage to clear
WP:GNG for a Wikipedia article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - notable enough for ABC News to interview him as a "piracy expert". I reviewed this brand spanking new BLP, did a bit of online research before I gave it a green-go, and as you stated above, the potential is there. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to dig for more because we're trying to catch-up on a growing backlog at NPR, and I'm currently in transit internationally, so my time is limited.
Bearcat, just curious - did you try to find any sources that would establish his notability, or did you feel that because the cited sources didn't pass that it was best to delete the article? Perhaps it should've gone to the article TP first? I came across a few other articles with questionable notability - not even with the potential of this BLP - and they survived AfD. Atsme📞📧18:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
For starters being the interview guest does not assist notability at all, because if he's talking about something other than himself then he fails to be the subject of that coverage. The only kind of source that can assist notability at all is where a
reliable source is publishing or broadcasting content in which other people are writing or speaking about him in the third person. And secondly, as my nomination statement already plainly demonstrates, I did undertake a search for the necessary type of sourcing — but I came up completely dry for anything at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:46, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Addional sources have been added, and there are more but I'm comfortable with what's there now as having satisfied N. He clearly meets N as a "creative professional" (filmmaker, director, author, expert on piracy, etc.) PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials.) Atsme📞📧19:35, 14 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Except that the new sources you added are virtually all still either
primary sources or glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things. The only one that counts for anything at all toward getting him over
WP:GNG is in his hometown newspaper — but one piece of media coverage is not enough to claim GNG all by itself, and it doesn't support anything that would constitute an automatic pass of any SNG. His hometown newspaper might very well still have covered him if his only claim of notability was "owns a coffeeshop at the corner of Wellington and Pim", so the fact that one article exists in his hometown newspaper is not a GNG pass in and of itself. Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence — creative professionals do not get an automatic inclusion freebie just because their work exists, so the fact that "PBS programs/specials don't always get the kind of media attention as would a major network series or specials" does not exempt him from having to pass GNG just because one of his films aired as a PBS special. His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Your arguments for deletion are contradicted by
WP:N and the reasons follow:
You stated: "His includability depends entirely on media coverage about him, and the sourcing here just isn't showing that he passes that test." Please see the ABC News article which is hardly trivial mention about Sekulich's expertise on piracy, and his book "Terror on the Seas: True Tales of Modern Pirates." One of the sections begins "Sekulich has little sympathy for the plight of the pirates, and he doesn't exactly buy their tale of losing the fishing industry or their claims about rampant pollution from outside ships." There's also the Variety review about the film Sekulich directed, Aftermath: The Remnants of War, which further serves as verifiability in an independent RS and includes information about him, such as "Helmer Daniel Sekulich follows the grim work of Valery Shtrykov, who is trying to identify and reclaim the remains of the battle’s dead, both Russian and German."
Hotnews.ro, is an international news source that was cited in the article, and it states: "Piracy is today a multinational entity that produces billions of dollars of income and affects the security of the global economy," says Daniel Sekulich, a Canadian journalist who has been pursuing the phenomenon of global piracy for years. What is Pirateria SRL, which are the most dangerous oceans, why some of the pirates believe modern Robin Hood and how to manage some people in tiny boats and boats to capture thousands of tons of superpowers, Sekulich tells us in an interview with HotNews .com.." When major news sources are writing articles and interviewing a person about their work, and consider them an expert in their field,
WP:GNG considers the personal notable. Being notable is not the same as being famous. When you stack the multiple sources about Sekulich and his work, it's rather obvious that he passes GNG.
You stated: "Wikipedia's inclusion criteria hinge entirely on the sourceability or lack thereof, not on mere existence." Well,
WP:NPOSSIBLE disagrees, and specifically states (my bold): Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Look again at what editors have already sourced with limited searching.
You even agreed in your deletion request: "who has potentially valid claims of notability but isn't reliably sourcing them.". Sekulich is a new article created 10 May 2017, and should not be deleted if we're following
WP:PAG.
Again, it's rather obvious that he easily passes GNG based
WP:CREATIVE and RS media coverage to satisfy verifiability including ABC News, Variety, Hot News.ro, and local media such as Sault Star. I'm changing my position to Strong Keep. Atsme📞📧15:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
1) A person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of the sources, not by being one of several soundbite-givers in an article whose subject is a topic that is not him. The ABC News article falls in the class of "glancing namechecks of his existence", which is not a class of sourcing that assists in showing notability. Variety also namechecks his existence, but is about the film rather than him. HotNews.ro is not a reliable source at all, so it counts for nothing. And the Sault Star is local coverage in his own hometown, in which again he's providing commentary on an issue rather than being the subject of the coverage. So the ABC News, Variety and Sault Star sources would be acceptable for supplementary sourcing of stray facts within a mix of much more solid sourcing than the article is showing — but none of them is substantively enough about him to bring the GNG in and of itself.
2) You're misreading what that criterion means. The possibility of improved sourceability existing despite one's own lack of finding viable sources on a search does not create a blanket exemption from an article having to be sourced properly — and it pertains mainly to historical topics who might not turn up much in Google searches because they didn't get media coverage during the era when that media coverage was reliably locatable on the web. If he'd lived and worked and died 100 years ago, then one would have to dig deeper into news retrieval databases before going ahead with a nomination, because 100-year-old media coverage won't Google properly. But for a person who is currently active in his field and producing current work, Google is a reliable judge of whether the necessary level of sourcing exists or not — for a contemporary topic in the era when all media coverage that exists at all is always web-accessible in some form, it's quite literally impossible for any valid sourcing to somehow still exist outside of the ability to locate it via a Google search.
3) Notability criteria are not passed just because their passage has been asserted — lots of self-promoting wannabes try to get Wikipedia articles for publicity purposes by hyping their notability claim past the actual or sourceable reality of the situation (e.g. a musician falsely claiming to have achieved a higher chart position in Billboard than he ever actually did, a writer claiming to have been "nominated" for a major literary award for which she never actually made the shortlist just because her book was submitted by its publisher for consideration, a filmmaker PR-bumfing himself as "award-winning" without actually naming or sourcing what awards he won, etc.) So the mere claim to passing a notability criterion does not constitute a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have a
WP:GNG-satisfying level of reliable source coverage — the claim still has to be supported by a stronger volume of coverage than anything that's been shown here.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, Notable journalist and award winning film maker. One of his films picked up 9 awards. Quoted and referred to in many books relating to various issues. Easy keep for me, but I have to point out that the page needs some improvement here and there and a bit of a tidy and re-arrange.
Karl Twist (
talk)
09:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Firstly, what
properly sourced evidence is there of his winning any award notable enough to confer an automatic
WP:CREATIVE pass because award? This article, as written, claims no award wins at all — it claims one honourable mention for a non-notable literary award, and one nomination for an award at a local film festival, neither of which is grounds for a CREATIVE pass. For a nomination to be enough in and of itself to get a person into Wikipedia, the award has to be on the elite level of the Oscars or the BAFTAs — and outside of the elite Cannes-Berlin-TIFF-Sundance tier of film festivals (which Hot Docs is not in), even a win of a film festival award still wouldn't confer an automatic CREATIVE pass in the absence of a demonstrated GNG pass. And his IMDb profile lists no awards at all either — literally the only sourcing I can find for his winning any award at all, let alone any award that would actually be notable enough to constitute a valid notability claim in a Wikipedia article, is his own
self-published elevator pitch about being "award-winning".
Secondly, a person gets a Wikipedia article by being the subject of reliable source coverage, not by being "quoted" or "referred to" in coverage of other things that aren't him. But nobody's shown any evidence that he's the subject of any degree of reliable source coverage — this is based almost entirely on
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not on coverage which has him as its subject.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)reply
strong keep surely he meets
WP:CREATIVE according to the third criterion, "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work [...] In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work [...] or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews [emphasis added]." Clearly his documentaries have been the primary subject of multiple articles AND reviews, whether or not these are cited in the article in its current form.
Newimpartial (
talk)
07:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep career as a journalist and author are readily source-able, (WP:NOTCLEANUP]]; both books got come media coverage, especially the second book (pirate!). Serious journalist, respected writer, patent notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
He garners just six Google News hits total, of which five are glancing acknowledgements of his existence, usually as a soundbite-giver, in articles whose subject is something other than him, and the other is a
blog — where is there any evidence locatable that he or his books have been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to pass
WP:GNG?
Bearcat (
talk)
13:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)reply
On the films, first. Aftermath: The Remnants of War has a wikipedia article, won awards in 2002 (Gold Camera Award US International Film &Video Awards; Special Jury Award Houston International Film Festival; Wilbur Award Best Theatrical Documentary; Bronze Plaque Columbus International Film &Video Festival; Special Prize International Environmental Film Festival in Barcelona; UNESCO Prize/Jury Prize Brazil International Environmental Film Festival) and was independly reviewed, e.g. <
http://libweb.lib.buffalo.edu/emro/emroDetail.asp?Number=1052>. Per
WP:CREATIVE anyone who creates a notable work is notable, whether or not their name receives hits on Google News.
Newimpartial (
talk)
15:13, 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.
Non-notable blogger. No evidence found of
WP:BIO. Sole "claim to fame" appears to be an essay that was republished widely online and a few independent books, and discussed mainly on blogs and user forums. A few mentions in unreliable user forums, and op-ed contributions, do not satisfy
WP:JOURNALIST.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
03:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - his essay may be notable if it were the subject of reviews and commentary (but probably not), but Marek himself does not seem to be covered in sufficient reliable sources.
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:56, 31 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.
Delete because it fails
WP:CORP. This article appears to be the result of a couple of articles that appeared after Miyako Taxi of Kyota launched a new policy where its cab drivers would no longer engage their passengers in conversation. There is not any of the in-depth coverage required by
WP:CORP. Miyako Taxi of Kyota is only a relatively small Japanese taxi company. "Miyako Taxi" is a name used by a number of local taxi companies throughout Japan; see
Talk:Miyako Taxi#Possible confusion. In fact, the Japanese Wikipedia article about
Miyako Taxi is about the one in
Miyazaki City. Perhaps it deserves mention in an article about Japanese transport, although I note that taxis are not discussed in the section
Transport in Japan#Road, nor anywhere in the
Transport in Japan article. --
Bejnar (
talk)
14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- the article makes no claim to notability, and consists entirely of a description of a marketing gimmick. No value to the project at this time.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, this seems to be a
WP:ONEEVENT sort of case, where there was a very brief flurry of some media interest, followed by nothing. It would be good to have some information on the Japanese taxi industry somewhere, and this event might justify a brief mention in said article, but there's no real valid merge target at the moment and the content in this article isn't so extensive it couldn't be easily recreated from scratch.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:17, 2 June 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.
According to
WP:SCHOLARSHIP, PhD theses are acceptable, these theses are Masters and Bachelor-level. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." --
122.108.141.214 (
talk)
08:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The quality of the first reference is disappointing, the entire section on him, while spanning three pages, is a plot summary. I don't see any analysis of his real world impact. Second link is broken (The Flinders University webpage you were looking for cannot be found) and since you did not provide a title or such, there is no way I can even discuss the source. The last source provides us with the following useful content: "Weyoun is typically portrayed as a diplomatic and jovial character, but his loyalty in the Founder means he disregards morals for the sake of faith as a conscious choice. His faith leads him to commit terrible acts in their name and at their command, such as ordering the execution of innocent individuals and also committing genocidal purges.75 His story and eventual downfall, as he dies protecting a Founder, demonstrates the lengths a person is willing to go to for the sake of one's beliefs". Useful, but I don't think this is sufficient for a stand-alone article. I still think this doesn't need anything else than 2-3 sentences in a relevant list. Soft deletion through redirect with no prejudice to merger, as I wrote above, would be totally fine. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here12:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)reply
But
Piotrus, the problem with your 'no prejudice against a merger' argument is that it's not binding on other !voters or the closing administrator, as we've seen at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eastern Alliance (2nd nomination). Since there are no outright delete votes, why don't you withdraw the AfD, merge the content, and we can close this discussion as 'consensus to merge' if anyone disputes it? The content gets merged, the allegedly NN article no longer exists as a standalone, and the contribution history is preserved in case someone comes up with more than you or I did and wants to expand it. What's wrong with that approach?
Jclemens (
talk)
18:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Simple. It means I have to work to save content that I don't think belongs here. Given that this is already better described at MemoryAlpha, I don't see why I should waste my time trying to do so. Even if this is deleted, soft or not, it won't be a loss to anyone. I have better things to do than saving fancruft like this. If the community agrees it is a problem, the article will be deleted/redirect with no loss to anyone. If the community decides it should be kept, then I'll learn from that outcome. I don't see any reason I should be the one to spend time doing the merging - this should be left to someone who cares about the given topic more than, clearly, I do. PS. I really do think that in cases like EA we should be using soft deletion, and you are welcome to ping on me in any relevant discussion about undeletion/soft redirecting/changing our policies to make it so (pun intended). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)reply
And yet, you do nothing to follow
WP:BEFORE or
WP:ATD. Your contempt for the content and the people who contributed it is as palpable as it is elitist. You admit you don't care, but belittle ("Fancruft") those who do. Oh, "Memory Alpha"? That might pass
WP:ELNO #12, but most fictional elements won't have an appropriate destination, and even if they did, then that destination would likely not be suitable as an external link. Real problems like POV pushing, astroturfing, and a dozen more serious issues pervade wikipedia, and yet you focus on destroying things that are, at worst, non-notable.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Jclemens - according to my reading of WP:SCHOLARSHIP, neither of the theses are of high enough quality to count as sources. Could you please address this? --
122.108.141.214 (
talk)
23:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge & redirect as suggested by nom. I did some reference checks, no references seem to substantiate him as significant. I'm a bit of a trekky, and I like the Weyoun character (and Jeffrey Combs is an excellent actor!)... but don't see this character as significant enough to warrant his own page.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
03:06, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep as according to Vice which has an article
here about his whole life not just his death he was famous before his death and had millions of downloads from Soundcloud (not that I understand Soundcloud) so it seems to be more than a
WP:BIO1E.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
16:46, 16 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 nom, with the caveat that Wikipedia should have articles about notable cases and important areas of law. But in this instance, we do - under
Copyright law of the United States. If there is some aspect of Broadcaster's rights that bears discussion, it would be best to discuss it there.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did15:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
As noted below, the US article is but one example of the articles we already have on this topic. A comparative analysis of differences and similarities between the laws of these two countries might be worth exploring - but there's no real way to do that in an encyclopedic manner, within our rules. We don't analyze here.
UltraExactZZSaid~
Did15:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)reply
We should retain this page as it is a comparative analysis of US law and Indian Law. It is written in encyclopedia-style and from a neutral point of view. The page does not simply state the statutory provisions and case laws, but provides information about broadcaster's rights under Indian and US law. Even though there is a page on US copyright law, broadcaster's rights is a neighbouring right which is separate from the rights of the copyright owner. Thus, this article satisfies the requirement of notability as the topic is worthy of research.
Srishti Singhania (
talk)
05:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
On the contrary, what is stated here is an argument for importance, not an argument for notability. The
notability guidelines say little, if anything, about important fields of study. Topics "worthy of research" are researched by professionals outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia only reports the consensus of professional results if there are independent, reliable sources indicating significant coverage.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)05:52, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
In response to the discussion going on, I would like to submit the following:
1. This article is on definitely a notable' topic. By notability, Wikipedia refers something as 'worthy of notice'. Broadcaster organisations' right is worthy of notice. In many jurisdictions, it is becoming a heavily litigated aspect of law.
2. It cannot be included in the same page as Copyright under US or Copyright under India law, as
(a) it is one of the neighbouring rights, distinct from the rights of copyright owners.
(b) This topic has its own set of controversies, and interpretations, that take heavily from technology and media industry.
3. In my quest to keep this page as neutral, I have limited my engagements with the arguments in this area of study. I have mentioned the important rights, the scope of rights, their exceptions and the important case laws.
Moreover, in consonance with the Wikipedia aim, I believe with eventual contributions and edits, this page will indeed be at a better position. I myself is engaging in editing the same.
Yashasvi.law (
talk)
13:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment the concept that a copyrighted work has separate rules regarding re-publication and broadcasting is probably notable. The article as written doesn't appear to describe that.
Power~enwiki (
talk)
01:06, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep The article needs work but there's more than enough information on this topic to warrant keeping the article. The
Copyright law of the United States article that you mentioned is excessively long as is, so a link to this article with {{main}} would be more appropriate than moving the content from here to there. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
06:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The page should be reformatted to bring it more in line with the manual of style. It should also include more worldwide examples and not just the US/India. Those are solvable quality issues and don't warrant a deletion. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
00:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
You're not correct here. This essay should be deleted (start it again from scratch if you want to, per
WP:TNT) because it's a blatant example of what Wikipedia is not.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete As noted above, we already have articles on copyright law in both the US and India. I can think of no reason why we would want to start populating Wikipedia with arbitrary 'contrast and compare' articles of this kind.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:26, 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.
Appears to be a small non notable commercial organisation. Unaffiliated and with no evidence of any notability, this appears to be simple advertising. Does not benefit from assumed notability for schools - this is a commercial company. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Genuine college preparing for degrees, though an established university issues them, as for a great many college in UK-associated systems. It doesn't mater whether a college is non-profit or profit--why should it? We have always kept them, unless they are too 1promotional to rewrite. This was promotional , but I rewrote it. DGG (
talk )
23:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - Seems to be in line with many other small colleges that have articles. Somebody should add the college's enrollment numbers and more about its history but those are just article quality issues. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
06:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per recent article improvements and as a degree college. If kept, I would suggest protecting the article due to COI / SPA editing.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:11, 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.
Fails
WP:PRODUCT for lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The only sources that I could find were passing mentions in a couple of books. -
MrX19:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
If redirected, it should actually be merged, as there is content on the current Gnop article not currently summarized on the Bungie article. --
Pfhorrest (
talk)
18:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh and I guess I should register my vote to Keep while I'm here as well. It's a small article about a small game but small articles are fine, and it's definitely notable for its importance in the history of a big notable company as soetermans' sources (and those in the article itself) testify. --
Pfhorrest (
talk)
05:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Bungie. The article cites only primary sources (often for statements for which primary sources cannot be considered reliable), so there's nothing worth keeping or merging.--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
12:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge & redirect to Bungie per Soetermans. Not independently notable based on the amount of coverage, but should be mentioned in the main article. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)17:03, 28 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.
Film does not appear to satisfy WP:NFP. I found 2 local newspaper articles on the film, one from the area that it was shot in, the other reflecting most of what the original article stated. The majority of mentions are retailers selling the movie. Perhaps should just be a mention on
Lea Thompson's page, if it isn't already.
LovelyLillith (
talk)
19:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment:DVD Talk, which seems to be treated as a reliable source, reviewed the film
here.
CHUD.com also reviewed it
here but I am less sure if that is reliable. There are a few other reviews listed
here but none that I recognize as reliable. Then again, I do not work with direct-to-video films often.
NinjaRobotPirate, you may know more than me. Have any insights?
Erik (
talk |
contrib) (
ping me)19:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Alex Pires#Mayor Cupcake. A standalone article isn't merited, and it's covered in the article on the film's writer/producer/director (and can be expanded there should coverage be found). Rotten Tomatoes lists no professional reviews, and
this was the best coverage I found. --
Michig (
talk)
19:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, a few sites that used to review low-budget independent films have closed, making it harder to establish notability for direct-to-video films. I'd consider DVD Talk a reliable source, but CHUD.com is pushing it. I did find a few sources, though. There's
this short review from The Mercury. There's also a bit of production info from
this article at The News Journal and
this article from Delaware Today.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
20:33, 8 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.
Keep - He's an important figure in ICW and has a fair amount of coverage. His article needs to focus a bit more on himself but its understandable that it would include a lot about ICW due to his heavy involvement with it. --Posted byPikamander2(Talk) at
07:07, 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Mr. Blood has been cited in hundreds of publications due to a current matter relating to his client Karrueche Tran. Upon Googling "Patrick Blood Karrueche" and finding many results, this does rise to "significant coverage". Perhaps more citations needed but this is significant coverage. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheAmericanIdol (
talk •
contribs)
00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Google searches revealed many passing mentions (most as "X's other lawyer") in articles about a celeb-spat. That does not establish notability. What is needed is "significant coverage" and I haven't found any.
Kleuske (
talk)
00:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
The Google searches sometimes mention a co-counsel named Michelle Trigger but in the Google results, Mr. Blood has been quoted on this high publicity matter on almost every major celebrity/entertainment website covering this (E, HollywoodLife, New York Daily News, just to name a few). There does appear to be significant coverage. Further, as the former Vice President of a major entertainment company makes him a well known entertainment and celebrity attorney. I would recommend that in light of the foregoing that 'significant coverage' has been met. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TheAmericanIdol (
talk •
contribs)
00:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, being quoted about someone else does not constitute coverage of him. Being VP of a company just makes him good at his job, it doesn't make him encyclopedically notable. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)16:57, 28 May 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, there is plenty of precedent on Wikipedia for a view that merely being quoted repeatedly in the press is not enough to push one past the
WP:GNG, if those quotes pertain to another topic. Of the sources out there where Blood is mentioned, none of them are primarily about Blood, which is what we look for. This doesn't mean that he's not a decent person or not good at his job, but we need substantial and independent sources if we hope to write a decent and impartial biography on someone.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:11, 2 June 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.