The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not a notable person. Many of the many references are complete nonsense; the first one only appears to support the claim that Orlando is in Florida and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The claim of being elected to political office is not discussed in the body.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete article is overstuffed with 75 references, none of which appears to be a profile or feature story about her. Spotchecking sources on the page beings up brief mentions of her in her professional capacity as
"CEO of Samceda, San Mateo's economic development agency", and similar. A gNews search on her name got one lonely hit, an opinion article she penned for the opinion article farm Forbes hosts for self-promoting business consultants, her byline there self-promotes her in her capacity as "CEO of Your Strategic Solutions." Fails
WP:BASIC.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, agree with E.M.Gregory; a PR piece of trivial nature, which fails GNG; local news interest, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Kierzek (
talk)
14:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - the original draft was copied directly to mainspace without any review on 13 October. I moved it back to Draft on the same day since the notability was very suspect and I formed the view that it would be speedily deleted in its current state. However it was later moved back into mainspace without review on 19 October by the author. VelellaVelella Talk 23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - despite attempts to help the author to establish notability, none has been demonstrated and searches reveal nothing else - the barrel appears to have been scraped. This still reads as a politicians hustings address and an advertisement. Despite all the references it fails
WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 23:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. We judge notability by the quality of sources present in the article, not the quantity — an article is not keepable just because it has 75 footnotes in it, if none of the footnotes represent
reliable source coverage that's substantively about her (which is not the same thing as coverage that merely mentions her.) Nothing claimed in the article passes an automatic "must-include" criterion at all, and I'm especially unimpressed by the claim that she's one of the youngest people ever to hold political office in Illinois, when the article completely fails to actually explain what political office she ever actually held — so it's entirely impossible to even measure that claim against
WP:NPOL at all. This looks for all the world like a direct
conflict of interest, whether by Bringelson herself or by a paid-PR editor — but even if she does actually pass NPOL, which again hasn't been demonstrated, she still won't get to write the article herself or pad it out with PR bumf.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:04, 11 November 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.
Speedy keep. Three seconds with Google satisifes
WP:V including
a category at Commons. The article does need referencing desperately, but that is something to be done in normal editing,
not at AfD. The nominator is reminded that when it comes to V, for anything other than BLPs the article itself does not need to cite "this is a real thing", it only needs to have that proof exist. -
The BushrangerOne ping only03:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment --
The Bushranger, my Gooogle search, taking well over three seconds, did not turn up any reliable independent secondary sources in English. You have asserted there are plenty. Please add two ... as others have not done for the last nine years.
Rhadow (
talk)
14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per The Bushranger.
Rhadow,
WP:RS does not require that sources are in English. They are given priority over non-English sources where they exist, but an article can be fully referenced to non-English sources if necessary.
Mjroots (
talk)
19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
...that is
not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass
WP:V, and
a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass
WP:V. WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited
WP:GNG or
WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite
WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes
it exists, makes it a case of
speedy keep #3 applying. -
The BushrangerOne ping only01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Youtube is not a reliable source. Sources that are not in the article provide no verifiability, so finding them does not make the article verifiable. WP:V#Notability is different in that it requires a third-party source be found for the topic of the article, but that source does not have to be cited. WP:N does not require any sources. Why you think the picture verifies anything is a mystery. The picture has some Japanese characters at an angle, so maybe you read Japanese?
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Notability is not a content guideline. Content in the article does not define notability; and notability does not define content in the article, with an exception regarding certain lists. See WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The first sentence of WP:V states, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Delete The article fails WP:V (
WP:DEL7 with IAR for the source search, and see also
WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators). Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources, since the article must be entirely rewritten. This article might well be an exception, but no one so far seems interested in turning this into an article that satisfies our core content policies.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:Verifiability is a core content policy, and as per
WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This deletion guideline further states, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions." Unlike NPOV, which might have a grey area, this particular case is a bright line, as it unambiguously breaches verifiability policy. Note that the deletion guideline further states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."
Unscintillating (
talk)
14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
Unscintillating -- You say, " Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources." I had looked
WP:BEFORE with a reasonable amount of effort. Nothing found. Now we are getting claims of notability for a station spelled differently in English. What is the alternative, let these articles molder for another nine years?
Rhadow (
talk)
14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
In the big picture, notability is a minor guideline blown out of proportion at AfD. See also
WP:RAILOUTCOMES.Core content policies are different. We can hope that a closer will make a policy-based close, but I suspect that before that happens a closer will source the article instead of closing, rendering our delete arguments moot. At that point, I can change my !vote to keep, and if that happens I think you should consider withdrawing your nomination.
Unscintillating (
talk)
16:07, 12 November 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 or reinstate redirect. Nothing significant about this school has been covered by reliable sources. Fails notability per WP:ORG, GNG, and WP:N. Primary sources and coverage of routine maintenance do not indicate notability. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
02:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't understand why this school is being targeted among all the Connecticut school stubs on the Category:Connecticut school stubs page. This article is much longer than these other articles, and includes many more references. This is exactly why I said earlier to allow me more time to finish working on the article and not remove the construction template, but that was not the case. If this article is deleted, then it seems that we must delete many more school-stub pages, since this one contains much more material, is larger and more notable than many others.
Another aspect I would like to point out, is that school notability is different than notability for let's say, a business. Schools are notable based on alumni (which are rarely listed on middle and elementary schools), academic and test score rankings, and significance within a community. I encourage everyone who will vote or has already voted to keep this in mind while reading this article, and then make a realistic decision as to whether or not this school is any more or less notable than the other schools currently listed on the Connecticut school stub category page.--
AirportExpert (
talk)
17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpertreply
Schools are not notable based on alumni - notability is not inherited. Academic and test score rankings certainly do not add to notability - Wikipedia is neither a 'Best schools' site nor a popularity contest for any other topic. And
AirportExpert, could you please remember to sign your posts.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am just confused as to why this page should be deleted, when pages such as these belong under the Connecticut school stubs category. If what is being described here are reasons to delete a school-based article, then it seems as if every school listed under this category should be deleted.--
AirportExpert (
talk)
17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpertreply
As
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates, there has been an (unofficial) working procedure on Wikipedia with regard to schools: articles about verifiable secondary schools and colleges are usually kept, whereas articles about elementary and middle schools are redirected to their locales or school districts. If there are any of the latter in the stub category, it's probably because no one has noticed the articles yet.
Deor (
talk)
19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
This fate of this article is being determined on its own merits which has nothing to do with other articles. As noted above, other schools in this category probably have not been noticed. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
22:20, 6 November 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 is outdated, he's been made an associate professor
[1]. That's still a very good sign that he's not notable, especially in medicine. I don't see anything here that would get him in past PROF, and the GNG isn't met, and even if it was it should be considered subordinate to PROF in the overwhelming majority of cases involving academics.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
22:29, 5 November 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. Assuming by "external references" you mean sources independent of the subject, as far as I'm aware there's no requirement that all BLPs include them. The references in the article are reliable sources for the information they're supporting, and a
Google Scholar search turns up several thousand more independent sources that could be used to expand this stub. That citation record and, as Tony says, his position at Harvard is a clear pass of
WP:PROF. –
Joe (
talk)
21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - clearly meets
WP:PROF as a named chair (already pointed out by TonyBallioni), and as Captain Raju has pointed out his citation count is more than adequate to pass
WP:NSCHOLAR. This isn't even close.
Onel5969TT me21:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete. There are things here that could be potentially valid notability claims if he were properly sourced as the subject of enough
reliable source coverage for them to clear
WP:GNG, but there's nothing here that makes him an automatic must-include just because he exists. And I'm not finding any strong evidence that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG, either.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:53, 11 November 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 as an endowed chair at a research university, he is a clear pass of PROF and since the subject is in the United States, the odds of not being able to find reliable sourcing for him are approximately zero.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
20:16, 5 November 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. As noted, evidence that the organization exists is not enough to justify an article. I'll not salt yet but if it is recreated without some independent reliable sources it's a prime candidate.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Absolutely no independent sources, and article keeps getting over-written by a version with no sources. Appears to fail all appropriate notability guidelines, and just an attempt to promote.
KylieTastic (
talk)
19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I've worked on pages for a lot of Greek Letter Organizations including the Philippines and I've come up empty. not even any google hit on the University of the East website: ue.edu.ph.
Naraht (
talk)
20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Do not Delete Prior to this discussion, the page "Delta Lambda" was up and running fine without much prior or third party information available. Through my own means I was able to contact a benefactor of Delta Lambda in the Philippines that wished I carried on the baton here in the United States. This was months ago. The organization is legitimate and is now a legitimate organization in the United States. I assure you, this is a newly established organization, but not one that shouldn't be given a chance to remain on wikipedia. The page prior to this was far less developed, with far less sources than beforehand, and it would be a shame to see this page deleted in this manner. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beexj (
talk •
contribs)
18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) —
Beexj (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
NarahtDon't Delete this Page I can vouch for the legitimacy of this organization as I had a colleague in my law firm in NYC that was a prominent member of DELTA LAMBDA for some time in the early eighties. He told me how this organization formed him into the lawyer/ attorney he is today, graduating from University of East, NCR. Those practicing law find the United States a great breeding ground for law professions given their first language is English. Those with the background from the Philippines find migrating to America to be a smooth transition for living, and practicing their careers. These bridges also make the immigration and naturalization process much easier. DELTANs are some of the most compassionate people when it comes to relationships and friendships too. Thank you for hearing my testimony. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SpicyTiger (
talk •
contribs)
19:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC) —
SpicyTiger (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Personal testimony has zero value here even from accounts with long positive historical use, so a new account coming to give this would have less relevance, if that was possible. But to counter the argument it's a new proto-organisation with a
webite (blogspot) that appears to be only created today. Wikipedia is not for promotion of aspirations.
KylieTastic (
talk)
19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
–
KylieTastic Can you tell me why the old page stayed up so long without any other credibility? The page was mostly untouched, only now is it receiving such scrutiny. I understand the organization has been dormant for some time but only when new life is being breathed into it is it questioned for deletion. This is upsetting.
JJII (
talk)
20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Beexj there are 5.5 million articles so yes many with 'issues' go undetected even if its a low percentage. Many of the older articles get a bit of leniency on policy as they have existed for a long while, although they should not. However, just because the old version was around for a long term without showing notability gives no help to the current situation. The reason it now has scrutiny is because it has been changed fundamentally, or more to the point your edits changed the article in ways that were noticed by both the humans and the automated systems, thus bringing attention to its issues.
KylieTastic (
talk)
20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
–
KylieTastic Thank you for explaining that. I hope you can see my efforts through as this is a real organization and I'm trying to comply with the rules. I'm starting to feel defeated though since everyone is trying to disprove the existence of this organization. Lack of concrete sources is getting to me though, they will be available soon. I just wish we could have worked through the rough patches before putting the page up for deletion.
JJII (
talk)
21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello all,
J. Johnson (JJ)KylieTasticShawn in MontrealNaraht JJ I do understand the criteria needed, only I cannot prove the pure notability of this organization until relevant notable sources are produced. Thank you all for the discussion regarding this page, I will be back with notable information once it is made readily available to me. I'm determined to keep this page up, even if it's laid to rest for some time. I look forward to future discussions with you all. Thank you.
JJII (
talk)
19:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I beg to differ: it appears that you do not understand the criteria needed. (Which I explained at
here.) In the first place, you are still getting your terms mixed up. E.g.: "notable" does not apply to the sources, or even information; it applies to the topic. Second, notability – do read
WP:Notability – means that the topic has gained a certain amount of "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". There are several aspects of "significant"; you might note that "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" are explicitly excluded.
Finally: that you do not have reliable sources to show any significant attention by the world at large is a demonstration of non-notability. The issue is not in having "notable information" made available; the issue is that whatever attention Delta Lambda has gotten in "the world at large" is so minimal even you can't find it. That, despite that, you are "determined to keep this page up", and your lack of any other editing, indicates that you are "
not here" for the encyclopedia, but only for this article. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
00:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
±
J. Johnson (JJ) I appreciate your ambition towards this topic. This is a new organization based on old style ideals. I'm trying to prove that via the Wikipedia page, but the connections are vague because they are connections I have reestablished. The "connections" are vague, and therefore difficult to prove. And I've lacked other editing because I don't have the tools to keep posting updates to the page until I have sources readily available. If I could pull sources that are of influence to the club, I could use those, but still the connections between those sources and my new organization would be unclear. I am looking forward to updating the page for the sake of the encyclopedia, and it's upsetting you would think otherwise. I have been on these talk pages for the last week discussing validity and notability with
KylieTastic and
Naraht. And as far as my terms, I may have overlapped the meanings of legitimacy and notability but I think my point shines through. I suppose I would have to assume that any new organization, even when tied to an old one is difficult to broadcast on Wikipedia, and that's understandable. I just thought if I could connect it to old style ideals it would prove its legitimacy and therefore, it's notability. I suppose that isn't the case based on these inquiries.
JJII (
talk)
01:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Your "point" (whatever it is) does NOT "shine through". What does shine through is that you do not understand the basic concepts here, and that trying to explain them seems futile. It doesn't take a crystal ball to anticipate how this is going to turn out, including frustration on your part because you don't understand why. I'm afraid there is not much any of us can do about that. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
J. Johnson (JJ) your attempt at being a deep intellectual is failing, as you seem to be unable to formulate a simple sentence with grammatical structure. I suggest going back to university and taking a basic english and or sentence structure class, as it could do you well in a career on Wikipedia. Cheers
SpicyTiger (
talk)
23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Only warning to all parties. Knock it off, be civil. We're discussing an article about Delta Lambda, no critiquing each other's grammar.
Primefac (
talk)
23:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The old version at
Special:Diff/766064642 appears to be about an entirely different thing than the current version, and is entirely unreferenced. The group at Michigan State is not verifiable either and isn't at
[2] (a separate Delta Lambda Phi does exist); the blogspot blog isn't a reliable source and I believe it may be a
WP:HOAX created by a participant in this AfD.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
20:50, 10 November 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.
List of places in other countries which happen to have a namesake in Canada, without regard to whether either place was named for the other or not.
Richmond, British Columbia was not, for instance, named after
Richmond, New South Wales or vice versa -- they merely happen, through different processes of relevance to Canada and Australia, to both be named for the same historical person. And neither are Kinmundy, Alberta and
Kinmundy, Illinois relevant to each other just because they were both named after the same third place in Scotland, nor do
Warsaw, Ontario and
Warsaw, New York have a defining connection to each other just because they were both named after the one in Poland. Certainly some places in this list had the Canadian settlement directly named after them, which might be legitimate to note in a very different list than this one, but we don't need a list of every single place name in any world country that merely happens to also exist in Canada for completely independent reasons.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Some entries on the list are indeed correct, such as
Bruxelles, Manitoba being the namesake of
Brussels. But many other entries--probably most--are inaccurate or not supported by the sources cited.
Hull, Quebec may or may not be the namesake of
Kingston upon Hull; the source cited to support this does not even mention Kingston upon Hull. As well, many entries are sourced by the Geographical Names Data Base (GNIS), which contains no information about the history of the places it lists (so how can GNIS support that this place is named after that place)? The article also lists a number of Canadian cities which are the namesake of some non-Canadian "place" that is not even a city, such as
Waterloo, Ontario being the namesake of the
Battle of Waterloo, and
Grimsthorpe, Ontario (an redirect with no article) being the namesake of
Grimsthorpe Castle. This article as it is, is misleading and of little use to Wikipedia readers. Delete (and save to a draft if requested). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnolia677 (
talk •
contribs)
Keep The objections to the entries on the list are all mistaken. Most of the entries on the list are supported by the reference cited in the "notes" column. There are some do not have a citation; those are supported by the Wiki page for the Canadian city. Now many of the citations just take you to the Googlebooks page for the book and it's up to the user to type the name of the city in the search field to find the actual cite. This was done in an effort to keep the total number of citations for this page to a resonable number. If every cite took you to the exact page, there would be several hundred citations for this list. If someone thinks that's desirable, I can do that. But it's not a reason to delete the page. OK, let's take the specific objections in order:
Richmond, BC -- cite is British Columbia Place Names. Direct link:
Richmond Googlebooks won't let me copy the page, but it says that someone's daughter named it after her favorite place in Australia and this pre-dates someone else's claim that it's named after a place in England.
Kinmundy, Alberta -- cite is Community Place Names of Alberta. Direct link:
Kinmundy Again it won't let me copy and paste, but it does in fact say it was named for Kinmundy, Illinois, the hometown of the first postmaster. Kinmundy, IL was named for the Scottish place, but that's irrelevant to this list.
Warsaw, Ontario -- cite is Place names of Ontario. While Googlebooks has this book, all it has is snippetview. Unfortunately doing a search does not turn up the entry for Warsaw (the search function on Googlebooks is flakey at times and this is one of them.) I did not use Googlebooks, but rather checked the book out from the library. If I put it in the list, then the book actually says it was named for the place in New York and not the city in Poland. You'll have to take my word for it or check the book out of the library yourself.
Hull, Quebec -- The
cite given says "Hull Township got its name from the city of Hull in Yorkshire, Eng. ". Ok. so where is Hull, Yorkshire? Go to the page for
Hull, Yorkshire and you'll find it redirects to
Kingston upon Hull and the first thing it says after the pronunciation is "usually abbreviated to Hull".
Cites to GNIS -- GNIS is a resource for USA places; this page uses the Canadian equivalent. However, it only uses them to establish that the place in Canada actually exists, not that it's named for another city. That's because not all places in Canada have their own Wikipage. All those with cites to this database also have an additional cite in the "notes" column that establishes that it was named for the non-Canadian city.
Places named after non-cities, i.e. castles. If you read the lede, it says that " the namesakes are places (cities, towns, villages) in Canada that are named for a city, town, village, or institution such as a castle or country house in some other country." (emphasis added) OK, that part is not in the page's title, but there's only so much you can put in a title before it gets too unwieldy. Perhaps the title needs to be modified. If you think so, please make a suggestion as to what it should be. But it's not a reason to throw out the whole page.
Places named for battles such as Waterloo: These are indirect namings. The city in Ontario was named for the battle but the battle was named for the town it was fought at. I see no reason to object to these. (And if we do remove them, at some future time someone else will come along and add them. You can pretty much bet on that.)
I felt this was a useful addition to Wikipedia. If I didn't, I wouldn't have expended all the time and effort to compile it.
Waterloo, Belgium is of course a city, and the Battle of Waterloo is named after the city.
Grimsthorpe is a village in England after which Grimsthorpe Castle is named.
I think the page is useful. Even if a few of entries need to be amended or deleted later, or need better citations, the great majority of them seem to be valid, so there seems to be no reason to delete the whole page.
Green Wyvern (
talk)
10:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This list is actually interesting; and there is no point in deleting articles which may need to be recreated some time in the future. Impressively intensive. And very well-sourced.
Claverhouse (
talk)
11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Would that be the Royal We ? encyclopedic is a very subjective term, however there is nothing in this article that could not have been included in print encyclopedias of the distant past.
Claverhouse (
talk)
02:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It's been suggested to me elsewhere that I change it to something very much like that, where the emphasis is on Canadian cities rather than cities in other countries. That would reduce some confusion about the list. It would require some work, since the tables would have to be reordered to put the Canadian cities first. It would also open the list up to more than one Canadian town per foreign city, but this would not result it a great expansion of the list. Unlike, for example the US, where there are a dozen or more places named after many large European cities and even several each named for certain more obscure places. I'm amenable to doing this, but I'm not going to make any changes to the list until this deletion issue is resolved.
Dtilque (
talk)
08:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy KeepWP:SK#3, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question", or in this case the talk page of the article. WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". This AfD has quickly turned into the author providing explanations to the nominator, that are proof that no attempt was made to discuss this BEFORE nomination. Nor is there an argument for deletion, since "we don't need <this> list" is not to be found on policy-based
WP:DEL-REASONs, so
WP:SK#1 also applies.
Unscintillating (
talk)
14:22, 12 November 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.
Question@
Rathfelder: you've nominated a series of articles with this identical rationale; could you please clarify what you mean by "external references" and why you think lacking them is grounds for deletion? –
Joe (
talk)
19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I understand that the rules for living persons require some references which are not connected to the person themselves.
WP:BLPPRIMARY for example. I'm not suggesting that this person is not notable, and indeed I have no reason to think any of the statements made about them are contested. But the rules about BLPs are there for very good reasons and they should be applied to respectable doctors and academics as much as to anyone else. A surprising number of the articles about physicians are extremely poor. I am only nominating the worst ones.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I think you may be conflating primary sources with independent sources, which seems to be a common misunderstanding. Primary sources—things like public records and documents—are what
WP:BLPPRIMARY covers. But as far as I'm aware there's no guideline that says BLPs must contain sources that are not connected to the subject (
independent sources). The independence of sources is usually discussed with regard to notability, but they only have to exist, not be cited in the article. Just applying our common sense, there's no reason to think that a university website is an unreliable source for the details of an academic's career, simply because it is not an independent source. Therefore its perfectly acceptable (and routine) for short academic biographies to be sourced exclusively to institutional websites. As long as there are independent sources out there that could be used to expand the article in future (which is what
WP:PROF helps us judge), I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion. –
Joe (
talk)
23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Having held a position of Dean isn't a slam-dunk under
WP:PROF#C6, but it does count in that direction, I'd say. I did a little cleanup on the references (fixing linkrot, etc.).
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. just to clarify, I think our common practice is that Dean in the sense of a subordinate officer is not intrinsically notable, Dean as in head of a medical or law school usually is. Such schools are usually at least in the US essentially autonomous. One must look at the function, not at what happens to be the title of the position. DGG (
talk )
06:00, 7 November 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.
Subject has her music on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, and CDBaby, among other retailers. Yes, mentioned only in local sources, but I don't see why she wouldn't be notable, as she is actively selling her music, streaming it, and performing it.
User:Oneilno (
talk) 3:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - Beyond the sources in the article form the AFC (which is probably too close to the player to avoid being a primary source. The following sources seem to begin to indicate GNG in English language sources and given that I am not able to search Arabic language sources, I would assume from the below that there is also plenty on him in local sources:
FIFA - would argue that FIFA are sufficiently far removed from the player not to be
PRIMARY (although this is in the article as form the AFC, it seems quite clear it was an interview with FIFA)
Keep - although some of the sources listed above are duplicative (e.g., the ghanasoccernet piece is a reprint of an article from the-afc.com) or nearly primary sources (AFC and FIFA - while not technically his employer, these organization are closely aligned with the Iraq FA - which is a member of both), it does appear that the GNG can be satisfied here.
Jogurney (
talk)
15:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - fails
WP:NFOOTY but that's irrelevant as subject passes
WP:GNG. As Jogurney mentioned in the !vote above some of the citations are not the best but still enough, article needs expansion not deletion.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
23:41, 10 November 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 credible notability, lacks references from reliable sources. The one reference from the Toronto Star does not address the subject of this article. PKT(alk)18:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. No good claim of notability, no references (apart from the one described by nom). and nothing found in Google search (apart from this article).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
03:19, 11 November 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.
Fails
WP:GNG and seems to focus more on Occupy London than the account, one of tree accounts used by the City of London. I found a grand total of *two* RS's mentiong the fund, which seems underwhelming.
Kleuske (
talk)
18:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Well the issue of how information became available is to do with Occupy London, but the fact that there is this account of £2.3bn, and is one of just three funds available to the City of London makes it very notable.
Leutha (
talk)
18:35, 5 November 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 small chain; references seem to only discuss it in context of being acquired by another firm, but redirect was reverted. Inappropriate content: absurdly trivial menu in both infobox and text, and trivial news event--possibly because there was no other possible content at all. DGG (
talk )
17:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP, despite what previous user states, only from a united states-centric point of view is the chain non-notable. The chain has a hundred or so locations, as stated in in article, all in eastern canada, and while not necessarily known to non residents of said area, the chain is very popular and rather ubiquitous. References have been added, and the chain itself has notoriety from having started off as a single restaurant in rural quebec to a large chain now part of MTY group, one of the largest franchisor in Canada. While previous comment might find the chain trivial (undoubtedly due to lack of local knowledge and interest in local chain, which might explain why everything is "trivial" for said user), there is at least one newspaper article discussing the chain, as cited in the article, which makes it much less trivial than several hundred thousand wiki pages which discuss a topic not cited once, yet still deserve attention to be improved. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge and removing all articles that a single user without interest in a specific topic suggests for deletion is not realistic. This is not a chip stand at the corner of a street, this is a large chain 1/4 the size of white castle covering an area 1/16th the size of white castle's footprint.
Dread Specter (
talk)
18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep or delete
Tudor's Biscuit World with it. There is no reason a West Virginia chain should get an article and those who live in the thirteen northern states don't.
Tim Hortons isn't even Canadian anymore. We like articles that celebrate putain and curling, eh? To those who say there is no press coverage, of course there is. It's written in French.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
where is? It would help to add it to the article. (that is, substantial coverage, not routine reviews or notices about a store opening.) DGG (
talk )
05:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The first is a 150 word brief promotional notice, the second a 50 word paragraph introduced a video advertisement they made of themselves. DGG (
talk )
16:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
DGG -- No, it's not Pulitzer material, but it shouldn't inspire such undeserved scorn. It is independent. Infopresse is the analog of Adweek. Valentine paid to make the TV ads. That's legitimate; whether it is routine is another question. The other piece about 10,000 steps for a
poutine is independent and ironic. Did you get bad service in a Valentine?
Rhadow (
talk)
17:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I can not find any of the cited articles in the web or on wayback machine, but from the tiles it seems they deal with the chain only in context of its purchase by MTY. The two refs I can find are from the company itself, one direct, one on wayback. There are also two article in the Globe Mail about MTY acquisitions of food chains--both of which mentions this particular acquisition only as one of a list in a paragraph "MTY brands include: Mr. Sub, Country Style, Thai Express, Yogen Fruz, TCBY, Cultures, Tiki-Ming, Jugo Juice, Vanelli's, Tandori, KimChi, TacoTime, Sukiyaki, Koya, Sushi Shop, Vieux Duluth, Chick 'n Chick, Franx Supreme, La Crémière, Valentine, Croissant Plus, O'burger, Panini, Tutti-Frutti, Vie&Nam, Villa Madina, Koryo"
[4] ;
[5] claims of importance would seem to be based on ILIKEIT. I will certainly look at any other similar chains you mention--I've helped delete a number where the references don't amount to sayign more than it exists or once existed. And how is a section reading "==Products== French fries, hot dogs, hamburgers, poutine , club sandwich, hamburger steak, hot chicken sandwich ,smoked meat, chicken burger, chicken strips and breakfast items. " encyclopedic content? .(Some other trival or promotional contentthat I tried to delete has been restored also. At this point, it might qualify for G11. DGG (
talk )
00:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Very probably a few dozen at least in the US also; experience has been that they ted to very difficult to remove from WP, because they depend on pr and reputation: they tend to make sure they get a good deal of trivial press, and when they brought here, tend to encounter iLIKEIT.
I wouldn't object at all to an approach that considered several at a time, but of course they each have to be considered individually, because probably in a group of 10, 1 or 2 will have something substantial for notability. The same goes for many other classes of promotionalism.
More practically,we need to remove promotional material more systematically from the articles we do have--I might not have really bothered with this article were it not for the promotional contents--I haver found it almost impossible to remove trivial menu contents from restaurant articles. I do not understand the indifference to this: I could understand an approach to promotion that just removed promotional content though an approach which removes the article also is a more effective way of keep such content out of WP, but I do not understand an approach that keeps such articles with content intact. Those trying to do that may not be writing promotionalism themselves, but they are encouraging it. Either they do not know what promotionalism is, or they actually think it belongs in an encyclopedia DGG (
talk )
22:04, 6 November 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 Referenced articles are more about the author than the book. I do not see evidence of notability for inclusion in them. All I see in this article is an attempt at promotion. --
Alexf(talk)12:17, 8 November 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.
Actor whose main claim to notability appears to be semi-pro or non-pro University production. I am not very familiar with US sources, but those that are independent don't appear to qualify, or are dead.
Pincrete (
talk)
16:59, 5 November 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.
RBMedia is an umbrella company that formed in 2017 through the acquisition of other independent companies. Some of those companies were notable and others not. The companies are now imprints or brands of RBMedia, it's all one company. So there has to be an umbrella article about the company that owns brands like
Recorded Books and
Tantor Media - but also an article to discuss brands that are not (yet) notable like Audiobooks.com and HighBridge. Thus an article on RBMedia serves this purpose. It's theoretically possible to merge
Recorded Books and
Tantor Media into RBMedia but I wouldn't recommend it at this time. These companies are of historical interest as discussed in the history section of
audiobooks they were pioneering companies in the audiobook industry. --
GreenC19:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep claims like "It claims to be the largest audiobook publisher in the world." are almost certainly puffery. However, if multiple of its imprints/acquired companies/merged companies are notable, this entity probably is as well. The references are largely of corporate acquisitions and not of any actual business. If a merge with
Recorded Books is possible, that would be preferred.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
03:27, 11 November 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.
Utterly non-notable software that I can find exactly zero coverage of in reliable sourcing. Article currently reads as a spam directory entry as well, making it fail both points of
WP:N.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
16:14, 5 November 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 keep. The delete arguments (specifically JPL and Celestina007) are perfunctory and there is no real rebuttal to the assertions that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR.
ATraintalk19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Slow down. The article as currently constructed is trash. It is a badly paraphrased version of this
[6] with no critical thought. Ware is a published expert on central Asia (check Google Scholar). He's a TV guy
[7]. He's a full professor now. His books sell on Amazon not just by obscure university presses. He is way more notable than a single-appearance cricket player. And more literate than
Walid Phares.
Rhadow (
talk)
17:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speaking about
his own page, this is basically a self-published or simply an unreliable source. As disclaimer
tells, "The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SIUE.". If something can be supported by other sources which qualify as RS, that something can be included on the page.
My very best wishes (
talk)
19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I checked his ISI citation index ("Web of Science"), and it gives h-index of 3; his publications included in Web of Science (24 publications) were cited 30 times excluding self-citations. This is way too low.
My very best wishes (
talk)
19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
As I said, you are applying paper-publishing standards to a book-publishing academic. That doesn't work, and what you see is exactly what you would expect when you do this. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
If I understand correctly, you refer to
WP:PROF#C1 which reads as The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Yes, he published a few books, and each of them was cited several times in reviews, such as
that one. OK. But it does not seem "widely cited" to me.
My very best wishes (
talk)
20:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you are failing to understand what David Eppstein is saying. The subject is not a scientist, so shouldn't be judged on metrics applicable to scientists such as citations in the Web of Science. A book review is an article completely about the book author's work, so can't be compared to a citation to a particular finding in a journal article about something else.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Our article describes him as a philosopher, and one might imagine that at this point he is also more of a historian. Neither of those things is generally classified among the sciences. Which of the journals that he publishes in do you think is a science journal? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I must note that there is a reliable secondary source saying that the subject is a leading specialist on
Dagestan, but the nominator has repeatedly
removed both the source and the statement from the article. How can we have a proper discussion about notability when one of the participants is removing reliable sourced content? This is
WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour rather than an attempt to reach consensus.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
21:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Why do I get the idea that you have a verdict, and you're just waiting for your jury to come tell us what you want to hear? This guy is a professor of the humanities. He writes papers and books. If the New York Times would review one of his books, that would be, like, a thousand citations of a research paper on cancer. But he doesn't write about cancer. He writes about Dagestan. PBS News interviews him about that. Truth-out says he served as an advisor to the US State Department from 1999 to 2007. I have no idea who Truth-out is. He publishes in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies. How many citations do you think he will get? He wrote Ethnic parity and democratic pluralism in Dagestan: A consociational approach, 47 cited him. Not bad in that field. In the fifty years since Henry Kissinger wrote The troubled partnership: a re-appraisal of the Atlantic alliance, it has been cited only 350 times ... and he taught at Harvard and headed the State Department. If the standard for academics is the Nobel and the standard for a writer is the Man Booker, then the equivalent standard for athletes would be a world championship or the Olympic gold. That, however, is not our standard. We recognize anyone who has made a professional appearance. When PBS Newshour interviews you for four and a half minutes, you've made a professional appearance
[8]. Quit being such snobs.
Rhadow (
talk)
21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:PROF#C1 tells "widely cited". There are certain standards what is called "widely cited" in the scientific community. There are various resources and indexes, such as
Science Citation Index and
h-index. These resources and indexes usually do not make distinction between citations of books, reviews and original scientific articles (all count the same). They also do not make distinction if the citing paper was in Nature, JACS, or any other journal included in citation database. Based on these widely accepted indexes, that author has very low citation. This is all. If you want to check indexes other than Science Citation Index (and h-index it provides), that's fine. Please do, with supporting links.
My very best wishes (
talk)
22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with David that the multiple reviews of his books passes
WP:AUTHOR/
WP:PROF, and that citation metrics are not a reliable way of gauging the notability of humanities scholars. –
Joe (
talk)
22:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep We keep academics who have written multiple books each of which has gotten multiple multiple, thoughtful reviews in multiple, respected academic journals. We keep them. We just do.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
23:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I do not think that would be consistent with WP guidelines. I am looking, for example, at
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). #1 tells about high citation and Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. #4 tells: Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. This is not the case.
My very best wishes (
talk)
00:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I do see your point. However, there is also
WP:AUTHOR, which is routinely passed with three book reviews of at least one book in reliable, secondary sources such as an academic journal or general circulation newspaper. It is often used instead of WP:PROFESSOR with with academics in the humanities and social sciences. I am not saying that his books are reliable, or good or anything else about them - I do not know his work.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I did not know about the "three book reviews of at least one book" rule. Was it written in guidelines? If not, that must be written in
WP:AUTHOR. If I knew, I would never nominated this page for deletion. However, honestly, I think that "three book reviews of at least one book" is a very low cutoff. One can only guess how many pages about hardly notable researchers in humanities have been created and kept.
My very best wishes (
talk)
01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
No. It's an informal rule of thumb used by editors who regularly do
WP:AUTHORS which, as you may or may not know, is an area where Wikipedia is swamped on a daily basis by self-published, wannabe writers self-promoting self-published novels and by non-notable writers of non-notable books of self-promotion in all fields . We need some kind of guideline, and this is the rule of thumb we use. You're right that it's a pretty low bar. I have wondered about that, too.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
No. It's not. It's just a sort of consensus interpretation of
WP:AUTHOR 4.c. I know it sounds strange, but that guideline reads "The person's work (or works) either... (c) has won significant critical attention" and this is a sort of way to operationalize that. And, in our defense, to deal with the daily avalanche of truly non-notable authors who create pages for themselves. Three independent full-length reviews in major daily papers, or academic journals. An unwritten rule. (I hope that you have seen
Tom Cruise cross examine
Noah Wylie in
A Few Good Men, here:
[9].)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 02:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum; to clarify. It is, as I stated, a sort of rule of thumb. Other arguments can certainly trump it, and no one states outright: Keep as per three review rule - or anything like that. It's just, I have been doing AUTHOR and minor academic AfDs pretty regularly for for 2-3 years, and, well, I can't remember an article being deleted when an author had a book that had gotten three solid reviews in well-known journals or newspapers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
This is bad. One must start a formal RfC or discussion and include such rule in official guideline if RfC succeeds. Then I would not waste my time here. But I'd like to hear what a closing administrator thinks about it.
My very best wishes (
talk) 02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC
The formal rule or guideline exists, and has already been pointed out to you. It is
WP:AUTHOR. All such rules are interpreted as meaning something by the editors who apply them. EMG is merely describing to you EMG's interpretation of
WP:AUTHOR, which is apparently consistent with how many other editors have been interpreting it. What is bad about that? We are not robots, nor should we be; the guidelines and policies guide our interpretations, but they are not and cannot be purely mechanical. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It tells: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.. Should someone simply with a couple of books mentioned in several reviews be regarded as "widely cited" or an "important figure"? I thought the obvious answer was "no". Actually, I am even surprised that reviews like
that serve as a proof of notability. These guys/journals probably just review all recent books. This is not a scientific review of all literature in the field, where such citation would definitely count. This is like a peer review after the publication. Such book reviews frequently are not even included in "Web of Science" database.
My very best wishes (
talk)
13:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
That's only criterion #1 out of the four criteria of
WP:AUTHOR. Arguably, it is supported by the claim in
a source you pointed to yourself on the article talk page that Ware is "arguably America's leading authority on Dagestan". But the part of
WP:AUTHOR that is more relevant to EMG's argument is 3, "the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and 4(c), "The person's work (or works)...has won significant critical attention". —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
No, he was not "the primary subject" of publications
here or elsewhere. Yes, his work was cited, among many others. This is all. Having a few reviews of books does not mean "significant critical attention". Like I said, he has h-index of 3, and his works were cited ~30 times according to "Web of Science" (probably more because it does not cover everything). So yes, he was cited. However, this is very low citation.
My very best wishes (
talk)
18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
You are continuing to misread
WP:AUTHOR. It's not that long. Try harder. It doesn't require that Ware himself be the primary subject, but that his works be. His works (three books) are indeed the primary subject of multiple publications (the book reviews). And why on earth are you returning to this off-topic argument about citation counts? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Of course I read it. It tells:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
You are quoting only second phrase. It tells "In addition...". But I do not see any signs that the "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Low citation index is the proof that whatever he published was not "well-known" or "significant".
My very best wishes (
talk)
18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as
WP:AUTHOR; author / editor of multiple books with non-trivial reviews. Sample reviews:
Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the North Caucasus - By Robert Bruce Ware and Enver F. Kisriev. Zabyelina, Yuliya. Political Studies Review, Jan 01, 2012; Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 154. The article reviews the book "Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the... more
Caucasian problems and old Russian questions. Andrew Wachtel. Political Quarterly, Jan 01, 2014; Vol. 85, No. 1, p. 90-109. Reviews The Fire Below. How the Caucasus Shaped Russia, edited by Robert Bruce Ware. Bloomsbury. 360pp.
This is a typical "opinion piece" that does not explain anything. One can only guess that Evangelista criticizes B. Ware for misrepresenting genocide during Second Chechen War as a legitimate anti-terrorist operation. However, this is not really in the quoted source.
My very best wishes (
talk)
13:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
We do have an article on
Justin McCarthy (American historian), a genocide denier with footnotes, so bad history does not get your page deleted. However, I promise to return later and take a deep dive into the sources. One question would be whether the journals cited are reliable and independent.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment -- There is a big POV problem here.
User:My very best wishes, who argues for citation counts, dePRODs
Simon Saradzhyan, a similar academic who is a research fellow, not professor, with substantially lower citation counts than Ware. Oh, and NO book reviews. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Rhadow (
talk)
14:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Question to closing admin. Based on discussion
here and elsewhere
[10], the participants keep pages about academic researchers if they published at least a couple of books that have been reviewed, even without other indications of notability. Is it generally a good idea? Is it consistent with our guidelines? I understand that in the case of Ware there are additional indications of notability, such as his appearance (once) on TV and someone else calling him a "leading expert".
My very best wishes (
talk)
13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Observation -- Not just once on TV. Not the most notable appearance, but another on Pravda.ru
[11], and an interview by UPI
[12].
Pravda.ru is actually "a link to avoid" (no one will listen to this heavy Russian accent). 2nd one is a good RS, although the content is terrifying (the subject justifies murder of moderate Chechen leader
Aslan Maskhadov as an "achievement"). But here is bottom line. Just look at the page. It is now well sourced and objective, thanks to David Eppstein! Should it be kept? Yes, if someone thinks that pages about all authors with multiple reviews of their books should be kept. But is it anywhere in AfD guidelines? No, this is only in the "common outcomes" that should not be used as a guideline.
My very best wishes (
talk)
15:07, 10 November 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.
Originally PRODed by me, it was converted, out of process by an inexperienced user using my signature, to a AfD which had to be procedurally closed as keep. Concern was: Small organisation recently created with the goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at WP:ORG.
Let's do it properly this time.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
15:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Panam2014, I see that you are a major oontributor to the article. According t this statement: The final name of the movement will be announced on December 2, 2017 at a national meeting. To this end, a questionnaire was sent to the activists on 22 October to choose the name and define the functioning of the future party., the organisation is not a political party.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
03:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I am in favor of keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. Our readers have a right to expect such things from a comprehensive encyclopedia. Moreover, this passes GNG, per the exhaustive list of sources provided by Michig above.
Carrite (
talk)
19:36, 10 November 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.
Comment This is a long-standing and fairly prominent chain in Canberra, though it seems to have reduced its operations in the city over recent years.
Nick-D (
talk)
21:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak delete at this point. I am surprised I could not find a lot on this franchise chain. It is I suggest relatively well known. The first of the following is a better reference I think.
Aoziwe (
talk)
11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Keep, not speedy, but snowy. POV is no reason for deletion (nor is any POV proven), and as multiple editors point out, there are multiple reliable sources discussing the topic. If there are concerns about individual sources those can be addressed on the article talk page; same with POV concerns. I am closing per
WP:SNOW since the unanimous opinions of a great number of seasoned editors points toward "keep", and there is no sense in wasting time.
Drmies (
talk)
15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems to be an attack article which does not have a NPOV. Looking at the sources, they are either blogs, no RS or do not support the text cited. There’s also the issue of notability, which does not appear to have been established. Looking at the recent editors and edit patterns, can it be said they they have a NPOV? Overall, this article does not belong in WP due to source issues, NPOV issues and notability issues.
Tonyinman (
talk)
12:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Before bringing an article to AfD we expect editors to do at least a cursory search for possible sources. Such a search using Google News immediately turned up 4 reliable sources discussing this organisation.
[26],
[27][28][29] These seem sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. They also seem to share the same pov as the article. {re|Tonyinman}}, given your accusations against editors of this article, presumably including me, you should have notified them. Most of them aren't active any more or only did technical edits. But I'll ping the ones that are still active and have edited in recent years. @
Randykitty,
Tokyogirl79,
EdChem, and
Headbomb:.
Doug Wellertalk13:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, sufficiently sourced (and more sources exist as per above) even after discounting the blogs that specialise in this company. As to NPOV, are there any RS that state the company is not what the article claims it to be? —Kusma (
t·
c)
13:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I agree the Ottawa Citizen is RS , however the article text which relies on a page from the Ottawa Citizen for the citation is not backed up by the content of the Ottowa Citizen page referenced.
Tonyinman (
talk)
19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
As you started a deletion nomination, we are here to discuss whether we should have an article about the topic at all. If you want to suggest improvements to the article, please state your specific complaints on the talk page. —Kusma (
t·
c)
20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Certainly there is sufficient coverage, already by the sources listed in the article, to justify notability per
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG. There are many other examples of nontrivial coverage, e.g.
Times Higher Education[30],
Japan Times[31], etc. There may be issues with neutrality of the language currently used in the article, but, at least at first reading, the statements appear to be well supported by the sources cited. The nominator has not mentioned the existence of any other published sources that present and discuss more positive info about the subject of the article. If such sources exist, or if there is some positive counter-info/counter-arguments regarding WASET present in the sources already cited, such sources/info could be added to the article. The proper place to address the issues of neutrality and the language being used is at the article talk page, not by deletion of an article on a notable topic of significant current interest.
Nsk92 (
talk)
14:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Please give me an example of statement you consider to be non-neutral, and why. In the cases where neutrality is disputed, the burden is on the disputer, to bring up a specific issue, not the other way around.
Nsk92 (
talk)
18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I have given an example in the AFD. I cannot see any text in the article which is neutral, ie all the text in the article is non-neutral. Perhaps you could detail which text you believe is neutral and compliant with NPOV?? Thanks.
Tonyinman (
talk)
18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Please note my edits have been civil. I trust yours will be too. In response to your request, the following text in the lede is cited using a personal blog (not RS) and the term was coined by the same person who wrote the blog, therefore not NPOV."The World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology or WASET is a predatory publisher[1]"
WP:NPOV doesn't say that the article has to be neutral. Our articles on Creationism and Evolution are not neutral, they make it clear that Creationism is pseudoscience and evolution real science.
Doug Wellertalk19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I notice in your edit summary you've said "editor clearly doesn't understand our policies." Perhaps you could explain 'your' policies, and do you consider your edit summary an appropriate statement? Thanks.
Tonyinman (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh come on, by our I meant Wikipedia's. Yes, you've brought an article to AfD without doing the work that you should have done first and you failed to show good faith concerning its editors. But I'm not going to get into an argument here, if you want to discuss NPOV for this article to it at the article's talk page. The article is going to be kept and it would show good will if you withdrew the nomination.
Doug Wellertalk11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Personal comments will be ignored, thanks. I conducted a WP:Before and could not find RS sources to support the claims made in the article. Per Attack Pages, I still have concerns about this article.
Keep there's multiple statements sourced to reliable sources all describing this organization as a prolific predatory publisher. I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted.
Red Rock Canyon (
talk)
22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (edit conflict) Discussed in multiple prominent general-interest and specialist publications. It could stand a thorough edit of the prose, but that's not what AfD is for.
XOR'easter (
talk)
22:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Snow keep. Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources as detailed above, and even the blogs are of the kind permitted per
WP:SPS. The nominator seems to have either failed to perform a proper
WP:BEFORE, or has an axe to grind here. –
Joe (
talk)
23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
My edit history suggest otherwise. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.
Comment. While I disagree with Tonyinman's criticism of the sources (they seem quite adequate to establish what the alleged journal actually is), do the NYTimes and Japan Times articles demonstrate a pre-existing notability, or create it? How is WASET more notable than the thousands of other predatory journals? Would we still keep the article if the POV was different? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
the way we look at notability at WP, this is not a real distinction: reliable sources establish notability by writing about something. they may have a pre-existing importance in some manner, butthey only acquire notability for the purpose of wikipedia article if they are considered sufficient important to be written about . DGG (
talk )
04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
J. Johnson: WASET isn't a predatory journal, it's a publisher of predatory journals and has been accused of scamming by at least one university. And of course then there's the "conferences".
Doug Wellertalk11:28, 7 November 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.
Something like this is of zero encyclopedic value, it's completely impossible to maintain and distinguishing what would be a notable inclusion is near undoable. It's been unsourced since five years back now and I doubt it will improve.
★Trekker (
talk)
12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Really not sure what function this serves, totaly unsourced and OR (are they "fictional ranks" or real ranks used in fiction?) and with some sever undue issues.
Slatersteven (
talk)
12:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The best with this would seem to be splitting it down into genres and having each of those well sourced. We do manage to do this, with
List of fictional aircraft, so I think the sourcing problems aren't insurmountable. But I can't see how a single list article like this can cover from Game of Thrones to Star Trek in one article.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
13:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete INDISCRIMINATE does not apply and FANCRUFT is not a reason for deletion. However, this is OR that fails GNG, and that is. In general, these are not even fictional military ranks, but rather real world terms applied in interesting ways to fictional militaries. While the fictional military organizations might be notable, the lack of RS commentary on their rank structure renders our suppositions OR and demonstrates a lack of GNG.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per
WP:SKCRIT criteria #2 a0 and b), as an "obviously frivolous or vexatious nomination" and seemingly "made solely to provide a forum for disruption"- in this case, to make a
WP:POINT. Suggest immediate swift and temporary sanction for nominator for deliberately wasting our time. See also an increasingly bizarre conversation
here: apparently the purpose of this AfD is to challenge a previous closure...
(non-admin closure) —
fortunavelut luna13:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
" Small organisation recently created witht he goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at
WP:ORG. --
Kudpung (
talk) (UTC)"
Comment: According to this: The final name of the movement will be announced on December 2, 2017 at a national meeting. To this end, a questionnaire was sent to the activists on 22 October to choose the name and define the functioning of the future party, it is not yet a political party.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
13:32, 5 November 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.
Minimal coverage in reliable sources. Almost everything in this article except filmography is unverifiable in secondary sources. —
Guanaco11:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded this in February, but apparently it was declined for a prior prod 10 years go. The article hasn't improved since and has major issues with
WP:NOTABILITY as a minor fictional element with no real world significance. I don't think there is much here that would be even merge'able anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm seeing plenty of coverage for this fictional element in online game reviews and similar independent sources. If it were just the boardgame, you might be right, but there appear to be entire games centered around this fictional element.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:18, 11 November 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.
Comment. Unreferenced, fails
WP:V, also little indication of notability per nom. Still, on second thought, this may be notable since it was involved in an accident that had fatalities. Maybe someone can find sources? My quick search only turned few things in Finnish that I am not fluent in :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:51, 5 November 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.
He is a documentary film maker and is only making his debut film in 2018 and best is only upcoming cannot see how he is notable at this point. His debut feature fiction project based on Telugu writer Dr. Kesava Reddy's novel for which even the actors have not been selected as of now and it is still in the planning stage.His documentary Welcome to Telangana is a 3 minute film and so is Make Movies and Celebrate’ promo film another 3 minute film which are really ad films done for the government of Teleghana .
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation if the subject does become the US attorney. Happy to userfy upon request, please just ask on my talk page.
ATraintalk19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I have seen articles on US district attorneys deleted, but in general they are in the long run held to be notable, although no ruling that they are absolutely notable exists. The postion he is being considered for, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is especially important because it covers Manhattan, and thus is key to US securities enforcement, and is one of the more populous districts with large amounts of business going on. There are articles on every appointed (as opposed to interim) holder of the office since 1958, and many articles on previous holders. Although I did not review to see how many are most notable for this position, and how many notable for other positions held. Still, until Berman is actually confirmed as the USDA, and even more so until he is actually nominated, he is clearly not notable. If his nomination does occur, even if unconfirmed, it might propel him to notability, but nothing right now suggests notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and/or sandbox in user or draft space. If and when he gets appointed, he'll definitely be notable — federal prosecutor for New York City, as in Preet Bharara, is pretty much a no-brainer — but merely being a possible candidate for appointment to an office that's still up in the air as of today is not a notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he's appointed, but nothing here already gets him an article today.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I think we all agree that in the absence of a nomination, Berman will be a one-event phenom (his interview). If he is nominated, we can argue his notability.Berman was a defense lawyer in the Bridgegate trial. He represented the deputy director of the Port Authority. He exceeds
WP:BLP1E If confirmed, notability is almost assured. His popularity with the administration continues (and attracts press). It seems counterproductive to delete the article now, only to reinstate it in a few weeks. If another is nominated for the post at S.D.N.Y. I will see that this article is deleted.
Rhadow (
talk)
11:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)reply
We don't keep articles just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today — that would turn us into a repository of campaign brochures, because we'd have to keep an article about every non-winning candidate in every election on exactly the same grounds. We do not judge includability by what might become true in the future — we judge it by what's true today, and then permit recreation in the future if circumstances change. It's almost painfully easy for an administrator to simply restore the original article if that happens — it takes one click on one button, not any sort of complicated process — so the amount of work involved in recreating the article if and when those circumstances change is not enough of a burden to justify suspending normal practice.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Ok, fine. Dump it if you want. I find your argument about how painfully easy [it is] for an administrator to simply restore the original article not very compelling. Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up. That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.
It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
Bearcat -- Let's say I want an article about
A. Amaranath. I type it in, get a red link, and an invitation to create an article. Yes, there will be an invitation to contact the administrator who closed it the last time, but I suspect it's rare that an editor who has an opportunity to put her name on a new article will want to honor the original author or wait for the administrator. Or am I misunderstanding human nature?
Rhadow (
talk)
17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment If Berman is nominated for U.S. Attorney S.D.N.Y., the article will be valuable as a first stop for a reader. If he isn't, it should go. The question in a TOOSOON discussion is how much leeway we give. The AfD process probably gives it another two weeks of life. We don't have a means to sunset articles that grow stale over three weeks or three months. If we keep now, there is a good chance that if he is not appointed, a worthless article will be hanging around in three years. On the other hand, if his nomination proceeds, it's a waste of time to delete, with the likely result that the work already done will not be recovered, but created again from scratch. At the rate the administration is going, we won't see more discussion of Berman till 2018. Look at the progress of the nominees for DOL and EPA. Two months
David Zatezalo has been on the docket for
MSHA. For good order's sake, I'll stash a copy of Berman's article. Then, whatever consensus we arrive at will be okay.
Rhadow (
talk)
13:00, 5 November 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 References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
-- HighKing++ 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. This article could stand some attentive editing, but the company is a highly entertainment/media entity whose activities are covered extensively in reliable sources. Passes GNG and NCORP with ease. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
16:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Some of the films that were produced by Act III Communications received some Academy Award nominations in some of the categories. One of the films, Stand by Me received a Golden Globe nomination for best Motion Picture Drama. This is why we should keep it.
Evil Idiot14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is for a Non notable designer. The article was created by a SPA, and written in a promotional tone. Of the four citations, none meet WP:RS and most of them are broken links at present.
Theredproject (
talk)
21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - current sourcing is not anywhere near what's needed. Sources 1 and 2 don't even mention the subject. Another one appears to be publicity for quite a few folks, and the fourth is dead. Searches turned up a couple of trivial mentions, nothing else.
Onel5969TT me22:35, 4 November 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 newspaper in India with a circulation of 5,000 across seven states is little more than a vanity publication at present. I've raised the issue at
WT:INB in case non-English sources might improve the thing but it seems to fail
WP:NORG.
Sitush (
talk)
10:20, 29 October 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.
Comment: despite being Swiss, the band is virtually unknown outside of China and Taiwan, and therefore any potential sources are almost certainly going to be in Chinese – there's no detailed information about them in English, or any other European language, by the looks of it. The article used to have one reference from a Chinese newspaper
[32] but the link is now dead.
Richard3120 (
talk)
19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete the article has obvious problems and no references. A search by a Chinese-language-speaking contributor would be helpful.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 04:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC) --> Will never happen as communist China cannot access Wikipedia. Thus deleting this article is valid. Bandari disappears from the world except 2 countries, where it is even mistakenly considered as a domestic band O_o
31.61.114.124 (
talk)
11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)W4rb1rdreply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Rooster Teeth#Gen:Lock. Moved out of user's draft space without permission; it's been copied back (and since there's really only one author no extra attribution is needed), so this can be converted to redirect.
ansh66619:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Too soon. This show may very well be notable in the future, but right now, all that exists the most basic of teasers -- there isn't even a release date yet. There are no reviews, only one or two "first look" articles -- I think this article needs to be deleted until the show has actually launched and has some
significant coverage in reliable sources.
IagoQnsi (
talk)
05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Crazybob2014: You still made another mistake. I reverted your edit because per
WP:XFD and deletion processes you cannot blank or redirect page while its AfD hasn't been closed the same way you can't remove the AfD tag –
Ammarpad (
talk)
15:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:GNG fail
WP:NFO, not yet released and author has no objection it's clearly not notable, at least for now thus
WP:TOOSOON. It may be notable in the future as OP said but not yet and we don't predict what the future holds and definitely Wikipedia doesn't either
WP:FUTUREAmmarpad (
talk)
15:53, 29 October 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 consists of content appropriate to a sales site/brochure: describing the product features and available integrations. The references are poor, tending to "overview, pricing and features" listings. My searches are finding more of the same, with the paragraph on the Quality Unit firm and this product in
this article on "The Next Web" perhaps the best. Not enough to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability by
WP:NSOFT or
WP:GNG in my opinion.
AllyD (
talk)
08:08, 29 October 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 is a second AfD due to the first finding no consensus. Article on this organization is sourced almost entirely to its own website. The only substantial RS about it relates to a single contest it organized and, therefore, does not meet GNG for sustained and ongoing coverage. Edit - two additional RS discovered in the original AfD were fleeting and incidental mentions of the organization that do not establish anything about it other than it exists and, therefore, fail
WP:ORGDEPTH.
Chetsford (
talk)
00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - We dont put articles up for deletion again just days after the last AfD was closed. This would have been a matter for the talk page of the article. My stance has not changed in the last few days. Still keep.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
08:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Your reason for keep was "sources shows that the foundation exists"[33]. The mere existence of a thing does not meet the threshold of
WP:GNG. Many things exist, not all receive WP entries. For instance, my cat exists, however, she does not merit a WP entry even if I were able to prove her existence.
AfD is not a vote or ballot; per
WP:AFDEQ "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Therefore, "it exists" should not be given the same consideration as a policy-based argument for delete.
Chetsford (
talk)
15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep I don't see an obvious reason to delete, and it was *just* nominated. Also, I'm voting to merge a different nomination here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:05, 11 November 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 claim is that he was notable as a
third-level administrative division party leader, as an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament, as a commissioner for Dhaka's 48th ward, and as acting mayor of the city. It's true that for major cities, there is a tendency to keep city councillors, and mayors have usually survived AfD, according to explanatory supplement
WP:POLOUTCOMES. However he was at most acting mayor (typically in Bangladesh, a mayor appoints an acting mayor when they will be out of town). His time in government fails
verifiability, so we don't know if he did anything or how long he was acting mayor (or of course if any of it is true).
90% of the article is unverified. The cited sources are: (1) a newspaper article that mentions him as the father of
Ahsan Habib Bhuiyan, and (2) Wikipedia article
Gojmohal Tannery High School (which
circularly cites this Wikipedia article). Searches, including by Bengali-script name, of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and Questia found: an elections results listing that confirms he lost a bid for the Noakhali-2 seat in 1996,
[34] and a passing mention of his being one of several people injured when protesters clashed with police.
[35] (Raw results also include a different MA Sattar Bhuiyan, Chairman of the Bangladesh Finished Leather and Leather Goods Exporters Association (BFLLEA), who was still alive in 2013.) Does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:POLITICIAN.
Worldbruce (
talk)
00:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Even for major world cities on the order of Dhaka, we still only keep mayors or city councillors if they can be referenced to adequate
reliable source coverage about their work in those roles — we do not hand them an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie just because they exist, but require them to be the subject of substantive reliable source coverage. But there's no evidence of reliable source coverage being shown at all — even the one source present here was written by his son, and just mentions Sattar's existence without being about him. (I've already stripped the
WP:CIRCULAR "reference" to another Wikipedia article, for the record.) That's not even close to good enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:27, 29 October 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.
Inadequately sourced
WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county treasurer. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic
WP:NPOL pass -- it would be enough if he could be sourced as the subject of enough
reliable source coverage to pass NPOL #2, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie. All we have for sourcing here, however, is a single local source about him taking an even less inherently notable job after losing reelection as county treasurer. This is not what it takes to make a person at this level of office notable.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I just overhauled and expanded the article. Miles has held a bunch of different elected offices (though often by appointment to a vacancy), and apparently been consistently in Madison County politics and administration for 25 years, and just moved to Florida this month. I don't know if that will get it over
WP:GNG, but it might: He's probably had more news articles about him than I used for citations. --
Closeapple (
talk)
19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It doesn't. Of the new sources you added, one is an 18-word blurb in the "where are they now?" column of his own alma mater's alumni magazine (i.e. not a substantive source for the purposes of passing
WP:GNG), one is the
primary source website of his own former employer (i.e. not an independent source for the purposes of passing GNG), and one is the standard and
routine "candidate profile", involving the subject talking about himself in the first person, that every candidate in any election always gets. So there are only two sources that actually count for anything toward GNG, which still isn't enough coverage because every person at this level of significance could always show that much local coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:57, 5 November 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 person whose only stated claim of notability is running for political office and losing. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes
WP:NPOL -- a person has to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered notable as a politician, but this makes no other claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason. And for referencing, this is based entirely on
primary and
routine sources except for one brief biographical blurb in an omnibus compilation of biographical blurbs for all of the candidates in the election he lost (none of whom but the winner have articles either) -- so there's no evidence of enough substantivereliable source coverage about him to pass
WP:GNG in lieu.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Riderect I think redirect too will be better since it is
WP:CHEAP and the hit of his search shows he is likely to be searched here, though he didn't meet
WP:N guideline here (and there is chance he might in future) —Ammarpad (
talk)
14:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After I'd initially closed the discussion
recommending a merge, it's come to my attention that the proposed merge target isn't quite suitable for the content. Therefore, I've amended it to no consensus, since as I said in the previous rationale, it seems to be fairly evenly split between people who think
WP:GNG being met is enough to keep and those who think it fails
WP:LASTING and should be deleted.
ansh66606:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
A non-notable random incident that lacks notability per
WP:NOTNEWS. Incident was reported for less than 7 days
[36] and most of the news website basically plagiarised other. It was just like 100s of other same incidents that occur
[37][38] every year. We don't need article for each trivial information.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
05:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: This riot was covered well into
late April and
even July due to claims that it was a premeditated attack rather than general
WP:ROUTINE communalism. Also, keep in mind that this also probably got more coverage in Hindi newspapers than English-speaking ones due to it taking place in India.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
23:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
But never again after April. Your source is an unreliable personal website which is saying nothing different than the news sources that covered event for a couple of days. Language card cannot be played here since all Indian articles use English language sources. Looks like you are only 2 of the editors of this article. If this article is any important then why you have to speculate and make claims without substance about this article which is inherently non notable.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't let me point you to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Still an unreliable opinion website. Riots don't go discussed only for few months, they can be discussed for decades. Compare
1984 anti-Sikh riots with this subject that was discussed only for number of days, you would think that this article should be rather speedy deleted.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Actually the article in AltNews.in above makes the case for deletion shows why it fails
WP:LASTING and lacks significant coverage its claims
media bias against Vadavali and further states that only one channel made one video relating to Vadavali and that the media ignored the incident and one brief mention in the Guardian is clearly not enough to pass
WP:LASTING and 3 brief mentions in 8 months is clearly not significant coverage since the incident and one brief mention in a article in 8 months cannot be called international coverage .It further states no curfew was imposed and it was over within hours and the incident is dismissed as a case of minor communal disharmony.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom it is just another violation of
WP:NOTNEWS. Lack of coverage in independent sources and already lost relevance only some days after the incident took place.
D4iNa4 (
talk)
07:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
So we have got the creator of the article defending the existence of this article by misrepresenting sources and policies. There is no discussion in any of the sources, just two months old articles trying to interlink their many articles in one article. Fails
WP:INDEPTH,
WP:LASTING,
WP:NOTNEWS.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Misrepresenting my block log won't turn your article notable. Socks are never unblocked unless the block was a mistake and that was my case as well. Now back to topic, which you have been avoiding. None of your sources are making valid description of this non-notable incident that died out under few days. Just copying more links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other is not going to help you either.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Irrelevant personal bickering. Stop, please.
Stop taking this as personal! Its not about you or me. Its about whether this topic is notable for inclusion or not. That incident was covered widely through out all media in India including The Guardian I gave. There might be more. When you said "links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other" do you have a RS for that? or you are accusing these national media of plagiarism?
Jionakeli (
talk)
04:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
You are the one who personalized the dispute by misrepresenting my blog log and then started to wikihound my contribution history. You are only being disruptive. Because none of these articles have found any new facts or findings than those already reported during the first days of the incident, it is basically plagiarism. Relying on passing mentions for proving notability is not going to help you.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
You were actually misrepresenting here and elsewhere using
WP:POLSHOP. If I am being disruptive then use the diffs and report me. I bet you haven't even looked at the sources because these sources are not passing mentions or plagiarism but reported the facts in-depth and associated investigations.
Jionakeli (
talk)
04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Can you at least use your own rational in place of copying my rationales and pointing them to me even though you make no sense? Yes I have reported you on edit warring board. You can keep repeating yourself but people are not going to agree.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Look, this is a collaborative project. Opinions may differ and that is why we discuss things. So, these kind of irrational comments are not going to help this project. I have nothing personal with you. I presented my sources with my reason and it is upto the community to decide the outcome. That's all! Goodbye! --
Jionakeli (
talk)
05:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Pharaoh I'm not sure I understand your argument. If this were ITN/C, I could understand somebody saying "violence is routine, therefore not newsworthy". But we're discussing notability here; how do you conclude that a phenomenon being commonplace makes it less notable? Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:LASTING is an inclusion criterion: "If there is lasting coverage, it is likely to be notable", not an exclusion criterion, which is how it's being misused here ("If coverage isn't lasting the event is not notable"). The proper governing policy is
WP:NTEMP--notability is not temporary.
Jclemens (
talk)
03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)reply
There is no
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the
routine coverage which is clearly
WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day of the event which includes breaking news and Reports on events of the day.And further 2 passing mentions out of 3 in 8 Months to articles not even fully dedicated to the incident are a not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact and clearly could not a single book reference. There is a difference between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it which includes the piece the Guardian which is a brief mention beyond the incident day
WP:PRIMARYNEWS .Now every morning there is breaking news and Reports on events of the day even if covered in many newspapers papers not all topics are not notable for inclusion here it as it fails
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and
Primarynews ,otherwise every headlin across newspapers can have an article which would be
news . Passing mentions are not synonymous with
further analysis and there is no indication of a
lasting impact.I think there is a confusion between quality
indepth sources and finding any news piece .There is lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short beyond routine news on the day in addition to failing
WP:LASTING .
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It would be nice if y'all actually read through things.
WP:NOT#NEWS is very specific about what routine coverage is, and riots aren't remotely it. GNG is the primary notability criteria;
WP:NEVENT is a subject/specific notability guideline, and an event is notable if it meets NEVENT or the GNG.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete because this is a communal riot without a clear victim. Both sides are a party to the incident and one could easily categorize as violence against Hindus regardless of the end result of violence
Sdmarathe (
talk)
09:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, per Jclemens. GNG is met; the sources already in the article show this. It is unusual for an incident in India to receive coverage in the Guardian, further suggesting it is notable. Comments about "playing the language card" are totally off the mark. It is quite correct to suggest there will be coverage in Indian language sources (quite possibly in Urdu as well) and there is absolutely no basis in policy to ignore such.
Vanamonde (
talk)
12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually Guardian has made coverage of many other incidents,
[49] while they have provided only a passing mention for this incident and it really doesn't means the coverage. Yet you can find many other riots as well as criminal incidents that are covered by Guardian, BBC, but that alone doesn't justify failure of
WP:NOTNEWS.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
12:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete there have been a number of riots that happened years ago and to this day they are being discussed on daily or at least weekly basis. However this incident is not one of them and very far from it. It doesn't pass
WP:GNG because it violates
WP:NOT.
Excelse (
talk)
13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete agreed that there are too many riots that receive coverage and there will be dozens of articles created everyday. We need to understand that we have
WP:LASTING for a reason. Here the coverage is outdated and this "riot" has been already given enough time to gain importance and what it has gained is similar to thousands of other riots.
desmay (
talk)
16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Per Jclemens, Vanadmonde93.
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply - it refers mostly to routine coverage, but this has received coverage in international media too and so passes
WP:GNG. There may be much more significant riots but that are talked about for years but that doesn't mean that this one is not notable. There may also be a hundred other riots, but if all receive significant coverage in international media (highly doubt that's the case) all should be written about.
Galobtter (
talk)
08:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Addendum:Oh and
WP:LASTING - "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
Galobtter (
talk)
08:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The
Frontline (magazine) has in-depth coverage of this incident on their April, 2017 issue
[50]. What makes it different from other routine violence in India is according to the fact-finding team, the victims were "astounded by the speed and manner in which thousands of people were able to gather in a matter of hours to carry out the attack". 5,000 people as reported by
NDTV.
Jionakeli (
talk)
16:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The Guardian article in September is important. Passes WP:GNG, so notability is not at issue. WP:NOTNEWS is more complex, but after reviewing the policy, I don't see that it applies, as these events are unusual. The topic hasn't made it into Google books yet, so a plan to merge would be fine, but that should be a follow up effort.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Communal riots are an unfortunate reality, be it white-black as is
in USA, with the establishment and its arms being considered as white proxies, or inter-religious violence in the
sub-continent. Finding references for particular incidents isn't going to be difficult, the need is
to separate milk from water, is a particular incident of encyclopaedic significance, my delete vote above is my contribution to the debate.
Yogesh Khandke (
talk)
05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Just a friendly PSA about how OSE is not policy but rather just some essay. Yes, I think that poorly of it. I also doubt Notnews applies but I'm not participating any further in this.
L3X1(distænt write)02:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Violence against Muslims in India. Regarding
User:Jclemens's suggestion to go read
WP:NOTNEWS, I did just that and find I have to agree with him that it doesn't apply. Certainly, the Original reports, Who's who, and A diary paragraphs don't apply. The News reports paragraph is a little more interesting, but mostly that's talking about reporting on the latest tidbits about a notable person or event, which isn't the case here. Still, overall, I think (and, I'll admit this is a total judgement call), this makes more sense to talk about in the context of the larger article.
I'll also take this opportunity get on my
WP:RECENT soapbox. Looking at
Template:Violence against Muslims in India, I note that the events included are from: 1946(x2), 1947, 1969, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1992(x2), 2002, 2004, 2006(x2), 2007(x2), 2008(x2), 2013, 2014(x2), 2015, 2016, 2017(x2). This gives the impression that 50's, 60's, and 70's were decades of religious peace and love in India, which I'm sure is far from the truth. It's easy to look at an event that's happening now, find some threshold of google hits, and declare it to be notable. But, taking a step back, that gives us a very warped view of history. --
RoySmith(talk)15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, and Merge an event summary to
Violence against Muslims in India. This reminds me of the terrorist attack debate. I'm going to use the same criteria I arbitrarily applied to that - if a group attacks another and kills one or more people, and it can be linked to ethic strife, that could arguably also be defined as terrorism, and so it is notable. A short summary can also go to the violence against Muslims in India article.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
So you are telling that we should make articles about every death incidents of the millions of religious people that have been killed yearly. Anyway, did that "terrorist attack debate" concerned India where such kind of violence is common, or other places like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, where such violence is far more common? Even if it did, which I doubt, we are not going to certainly ruin qualities of other articles where we cite only major incidents, we cannot do anything to make these incidents notable so why we should be including content about the article that fails
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:LASTING? It will only turn other articles into a newspaper.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems like you have changed your rationale already. Yes such random attacks get great amount of press coverage, a few recent ones would include
[53][54][55][56][57] and many more. They don't deserve an article or mention anywhere unless notable.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep this is more than routine news coverage as currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes. Also initially it meet
WP:GNG by being covered in multiple reliable sources which are well obvious in the article.
WP:NOTNEWS is primarily meant to deter reporting original news direct from field to Wikipedia, but once the event received reasonable coverage in reputable secondary sources then NOTNEWS will no longer apply. And this article fulfilled that;
UK's Guardian,
Times of India and the
Indian Express are enough to satisfy
verifiability. —Ammarpad (
talk)
03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:LASTING is a guideline while
WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. And even as guideline I already addresed it in my previous comment "currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes." further coverage of the litigation and ensuing events will only further prove its
WP:LASTING effect. And perhaps it is you who misunderstood
WP:NOTNEWS, because ALL Wikipedia article are inherently from news, the scope of coverage is what makes one more notable than other —Ammarpad (
talk)
04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Not all of them are, and most of them receive frequent coverage when they are notable. Just compare this random incident with any other riot article you will know, like I have mentioned
1984 anti-Sikh riots which is still getting coverage even 2 hours ago
[58], but when they are not notable they don't receive any coverage after few days and that is the case here because this new incident has not received coverage for months. You are saying that because this news was covered by few other media sources it becomes notable, but that's not enough. If we go by your interpretation then we can create article about anything that has been covered by 2 sources, that is not what
WP:NOTNEWS says.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
05:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
OK, I see your bolded text. Your point is that for months now, the event have no new coverage, therefore either it continue receiving coverage every month or deleted.The below statement directly from
WP:N already answered you
'Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.'
Not only it received any coverage but it was reported in the manner like it is just another incident. And what about
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? That "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable."
Raymond3023 (
talk)
05:40, 15 November 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.
Not a notable person. Many of the many references are complete nonsense; the first one only appears to support the claim that Orlando is in Florida and has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The claim of being elected to political office is not discussed in the body.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
23:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete article is overstuffed with 75 references, none of which appears to be a profile or feature story about her. Spotchecking sources on the page beings up brief mentions of her in her professional capacity as
"CEO of Samceda, San Mateo's economic development agency", and similar. A gNews search on her name got one lonely hit, an opinion article she penned for the opinion article farm Forbes hosts for self-promoting business consultants, her byline there self-promotes her in her capacity as "CEO of Your Strategic Solutions." Fails
WP:BASIC.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
09:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, agree with E.M.Gregory; a PR piece of trivial nature, which fails GNG; local news interest, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
Kierzek (
talk)
14:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - the original draft was copied directly to mainspace without any review on 13 October. I moved it back to Draft on the same day since the notability was very suspect and I formed the view that it would be speedily deleted in its current state. However it was later moved back into mainspace without review on 19 October by the author. VelellaVelella Talk 23:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - despite attempts to help the author to establish notability, none has been demonstrated and searches reveal nothing else - the barrel appears to have been scraped. This still reads as a politicians hustings address and an advertisement. Despite all the references it fails
WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 23:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. We judge notability by the quality of sources present in the article, not the quantity — an article is not keepable just because it has 75 footnotes in it, if none of the footnotes represent
reliable source coverage that's substantively about her (which is not the same thing as coverage that merely mentions her.) Nothing claimed in the article passes an automatic "must-include" criterion at all, and I'm especially unimpressed by the claim that she's one of the youngest people ever to hold political office in Illinois, when the article completely fails to actually explain what political office she ever actually held — so it's entirely impossible to even measure that claim against
WP:NPOL at all. This looks for all the world like a direct
conflict of interest, whether by Bringelson herself or by a paid-PR editor — but even if she does actually pass NPOL, which again hasn't been demonstrated, she still won't get to write the article herself or pad it out with PR bumf.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:04, 11 November 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.
Speedy keep. Three seconds with Google satisifes
WP:V including
a category at Commons. The article does need referencing desperately, but that is something to be done in normal editing,
not at AfD. The nominator is reminded that when it comes to V, for anything other than BLPs the article itself does not need to cite "this is a real thing", it only needs to have that proof exist. -
The BushrangerOne ping only03:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment --
The Bushranger, my Gooogle search, taking well over three seconds, did not turn up any reliable independent secondary sources in English. You have asserted there are plenty. Please add two ... as others have not done for the last nine years.
Rhadow (
talk)
14:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per The Bushranger.
Rhadow,
WP:RS does not require that sources are in English. They are given priority over non-English sources where they exist, but an article can be fully referenced to non-English sources if necessary.
Mjroots (
talk)
19:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I understand that references do not have to be in English. That's not the point, I contend there is no Iyoki Station as no one has provided to the article an independent reliable citation in any language for nine years. Wikipedia and Wikimedia are not reliable sources.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
...that is
not how references work. As noted by Mjroots, sources do not have to be in the article to pass
WP:V, and
a third-party reliable source is not needed to pass
WP:V. WP:N, yes, but "there are no sources in the article, therefore I conclude that it doesn't exist" is something that leaves me absolutely dumbfounded. Now, the lack of references would be something to open the 'are railway stations inherently notable' can of worms, and had you cited
WP:GNG or
WP:STATION in your nomination, it would have been a valid nomination. Instead you chose to cite
WP:V, which, as the article has a photograph of the station that establishes
it exists, makes it a case of
speedy keep #3 applying. -
The BushrangerOne ping only01:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Youtube is not a reliable source. Sources that are not in the article provide no verifiability, so finding them does not make the article verifiable. WP:V#Notability is different in that it requires a third-party source be found for the topic of the article, but that source does not have to be cited. WP:N does not require any sources. Why you think the picture verifies anything is a mystery. The picture has some Japanese characters at an angle, so maybe you read Japanese?
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Notability is not a content guideline. Content in the article does not define notability; and notability does not define content in the article, with an exception regarding certain lists. See WP:ARTN and WP:NEXIST.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The first sentence of WP:V states, "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source."
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Delete The article fails WP:V (
WP:DEL7 with IAR for the source search, and see also
WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators). Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources, since the article must be entirely rewritten. This article might well be an exception, but no one so far seems interested in turning this into an article that satisfies our core content policies.
Unscintillating (
talk)
02:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:Verifiability is a core content policy, and as per
WP:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "core content policies...are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus." This deletion guideline further states, "Where it is very unlikely that an article on the topic can exist without breaching policy, policy must be respected above individual opinions." Unlike NPOV, which might have a grey area, this particular case is a bright line, as it unambiguously breaches verifiability policy. Note that the deletion guideline further states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."
Unscintillating (
talk)
14:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
Unscintillating -- You say, " Using AfD to source unsourced articles is a questionable use of editorial resources." I had looked
WP:BEFORE with a reasonable amount of effort. Nothing found. Now we are getting claims of notability for a station spelled differently in English. What is the alternative, let these articles molder for another nine years?
Rhadow (
talk)
14:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
In the big picture, notability is a minor guideline blown out of proportion at AfD. See also
WP:RAILOUTCOMES.Core content policies are different. We can hope that a closer will make a policy-based close, but I suspect that before that happens a closer will source the article instead of closing, rendering our delete arguments moot. At that point, I can change my !vote to keep, and if that happens I think you should consider withdrawing your nomination.
Unscintillating (
talk)
16:07, 12 November 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 or reinstate redirect. Nothing significant about this school has been covered by reliable sources. Fails notability per WP:ORG, GNG, and WP:N. Primary sources and coverage of routine maintenance do not indicate notability. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
02:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I don't understand why this school is being targeted among all the Connecticut school stubs on the Category:Connecticut school stubs page. This article is much longer than these other articles, and includes many more references. This is exactly why I said earlier to allow me more time to finish working on the article and not remove the construction template, but that was not the case. If this article is deleted, then it seems that we must delete many more school-stub pages, since this one contains much more material, is larger and more notable than many others.
Another aspect I would like to point out, is that school notability is different than notability for let's say, a business. Schools are notable based on alumni (which are rarely listed on middle and elementary schools), academic and test score rankings, and significance within a community. I encourage everyone who will vote or has already voted to keep this in mind while reading this article, and then make a realistic decision as to whether or not this school is any more or less notable than the other schools currently listed on the Connecticut school stub category page.--
AirportExpert (
talk)
17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpertreply
Schools are not notable based on alumni - notability is not inherited. Academic and test score rankings certainly do not add to notability - Wikipedia is neither a 'Best schools' site nor a popularity contest for any other topic. And
AirportExpert, could you please remember to sign your posts.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
10:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I am just confused as to why this page should be deleted, when pages such as these belong under the Connecticut school stubs category. If what is being described here are reasons to delete a school-based article, then it seems as if every school listed under this category should be deleted.--
AirportExpert (
talk)
17:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)AirportExpertreply
As
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES indicates, there has been an (unofficial) working procedure on Wikipedia with regard to schools: articles about verifiable secondary schools and colleges are usually kept, whereas articles about elementary and middle schools are redirected to their locales or school districts. If there are any of the latter in the stub category, it's probably because no one has noticed the articles yet.
Deor (
talk)
19:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
This fate of this article is being determined on its own merits which has nothing to do with other articles. As noted above, other schools in this category probably have not been noticed. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
22:20, 6 November 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 is outdated, he's been made an associate professor
[1]. That's still a very good sign that he's not notable, especially in medicine. I don't see anything here that would get him in past PROF, and the GNG isn't met, and even if it was it should be considered subordinate to PROF in the overwhelming majority of cases involving academics.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
22:29, 5 November 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. Assuming by "external references" you mean sources independent of the subject, as far as I'm aware there's no requirement that all BLPs include them. The references in the article are reliable sources for the information they're supporting, and a
Google Scholar search turns up several thousand more independent sources that could be used to expand this stub. That citation record and, as Tony says, his position at Harvard is a clear pass of
WP:PROF. –
Joe (
talk)
21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - clearly meets
WP:PROF as a named chair (already pointed out by TonyBallioni), and as Captain Raju has pointed out his citation count is more than adequate to pass
WP:NSCHOLAR. This isn't even close.
Onel5969TT me21:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete. There are things here that could be potentially valid notability claims if he were properly sourced as the subject of enough
reliable source coverage for them to clear
WP:GNG, but there's nothing here that makes him an automatic must-include just because he exists. And I'm not finding any strong evidence that he's been the subject of enough reliable source coverage to clear GNG, either.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:53, 11 November 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 as an endowed chair at a research university, he is a clear pass of PROF and since the subject is in the United States, the odds of not being able to find reliable sourcing for him are approximately zero.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
20:16, 5 November 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. As noted, evidence that the organization exists is not enough to justify an article. I'll not salt yet but if it is recreated without some independent reliable sources it's a prime candidate.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
16:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Absolutely no independent sources, and article keeps getting over-written by a version with no sources. Appears to fail all appropriate notability guidelines, and just an attempt to promote.
KylieTastic (
talk)
19:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I've worked on pages for a lot of Greek Letter Organizations including the Philippines and I've come up empty. not even any google hit on the University of the East website: ue.edu.ph.
Naraht (
talk)
20:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Do not Delete Prior to this discussion, the page "Delta Lambda" was up and running fine without much prior or third party information available. Through my own means I was able to contact a benefactor of Delta Lambda in the Philippines that wished I carried on the baton here in the United States. This was months ago. The organization is legitimate and is now a legitimate organization in the United States. I assure you, this is a newly established organization, but not one that shouldn't be given a chance to remain on wikipedia. The page prior to this was far less developed, with far less sources than beforehand, and it would be a shame to see this page deleted in this manner. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Beexj (
talk •
contribs)
18:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC) —
Beexj (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
NarahtDon't Delete this Page I can vouch for the legitimacy of this organization as I had a colleague in my law firm in NYC that was a prominent member of DELTA LAMBDA for some time in the early eighties. He told me how this organization formed him into the lawyer/ attorney he is today, graduating from University of East, NCR. Those practicing law find the United States a great breeding ground for law professions given their first language is English. Those with the background from the Philippines find migrating to America to be a smooth transition for living, and practicing their careers. These bridges also make the immigration and naturalization process much easier. DELTANs are some of the most compassionate people when it comes to relationships and friendships too. Thank you for hearing my testimony. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
SpicyTiger (
talk •
contribs)
19:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC) —
SpicyTiger (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Personal testimony has zero value here even from accounts with long positive historical use, so a new account coming to give this would have less relevance, if that was possible. But to counter the argument it's a new proto-organisation with a
webite (blogspot) that appears to be only created today. Wikipedia is not for promotion of aspirations.
KylieTastic (
talk)
19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
–
KylieTastic Can you tell me why the old page stayed up so long without any other credibility? The page was mostly untouched, only now is it receiving such scrutiny. I understand the organization has been dormant for some time but only when new life is being breathed into it is it questioned for deletion. This is upsetting.
JJII (
talk)
20:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Beexj there are 5.5 million articles so yes many with 'issues' go undetected even if its a low percentage. Many of the older articles get a bit of leniency on policy as they have existed for a long while, although they should not. However, just because the old version was around for a long term without showing notability gives no help to the current situation. The reason it now has scrutiny is because it has been changed fundamentally, or more to the point your edits changed the article in ways that were noticed by both the humans and the automated systems, thus bringing attention to its issues.
KylieTastic (
talk)
20:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
–
KylieTastic Thank you for explaining that. I hope you can see my efforts through as this is a real organization and I'm trying to comply with the rules. I'm starting to feel defeated though since everyone is trying to disprove the existence of this organization. Lack of concrete sources is getting to me though, they will be available soon. I just wish we could have worked through the rough patches before putting the page up for deletion.
JJII (
talk)
21:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello all,
J. Johnson (JJ)KylieTasticShawn in MontrealNaraht JJ I do understand the criteria needed, only I cannot prove the pure notability of this organization until relevant notable sources are produced. Thank you all for the discussion regarding this page, I will be back with notable information once it is made readily available to me. I'm determined to keep this page up, even if it's laid to rest for some time. I look forward to future discussions with you all. Thank you.
JJII (
talk)
19:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I beg to differ: it appears that you do not understand the criteria needed. (Which I explained at
here.) In the first place, you are still getting your terms mixed up. E.g.: "notable" does not apply to the sources, or even information; it applies to the topic. Second, notability – do read
WP:Notability – means that the topic has gained a certain amount of "significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time". There are several aspects of "significant"; you might note that "works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it" are explicitly excluded.
Finally: that you do not have reliable sources to show any significant attention by the world at large is a demonstration of non-notability. The issue is not in having "notable information" made available; the issue is that whatever attention Delta Lambda has gotten in "the world at large" is so minimal even you can't find it. That, despite that, you are "determined to keep this page up", and your lack of any other editing, indicates that you are "
not here" for the encyclopedia, but only for this article. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
00:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
±
J. Johnson (JJ) I appreciate your ambition towards this topic. This is a new organization based on old style ideals. I'm trying to prove that via the Wikipedia page, but the connections are vague because they are connections I have reestablished. The "connections" are vague, and therefore difficult to prove. And I've lacked other editing because I don't have the tools to keep posting updates to the page until I have sources readily available. If I could pull sources that are of influence to the club, I could use those, but still the connections between those sources and my new organization would be unclear. I am looking forward to updating the page for the sake of the encyclopedia, and it's upsetting you would think otherwise. I have been on these talk pages for the last week discussing validity and notability with
KylieTastic and
Naraht. And as far as my terms, I may have overlapped the meanings of legitimacy and notability but I think my point shines through. I suppose I would have to assume that any new organization, even when tied to an old one is difficult to broadcast on Wikipedia, and that's understandable. I just thought if I could connect it to old style ideals it would prove its legitimacy and therefore, it's notability. I suppose that isn't the case based on these inquiries.
JJII (
talk)
01:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Your "point" (whatever it is) does NOT "shine through". What does shine through is that you do not understand the basic concepts here, and that trying to explain them seems futile. It doesn't take a crystal ball to anticipate how this is going to turn out, including frustration on your part because you don't understand why. I'm afraid there is not much any of us can do about that. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
20:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
J. Johnson (JJ) your attempt at being a deep intellectual is failing, as you seem to be unable to formulate a simple sentence with grammatical structure. I suggest going back to university and taking a basic english and or sentence structure class, as it could do you well in a career on Wikipedia. Cheers
SpicyTiger (
talk)
23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Only warning to all parties. Knock it off, be civil. We're discussing an article about Delta Lambda, no critiquing each other's grammar.
Primefac (
talk)
23:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The old version at
Special:Diff/766064642 appears to be about an entirely different thing than the current version, and is entirely unreferenced. The group at Michigan State is not verifiable either and isn't at
[2] (a separate Delta Lambda Phi does exist); the blogspot blog isn't a reliable source and I believe it may be a
WP:HOAX created by a participant in this AfD.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
20:50, 10 November 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.
List of places in other countries which happen to have a namesake in Canada, without regard to whether either place was named for the other or not.
Richmond, British Columbia was not, for instance, named after
Richmond, New South Wales or vice versa -- they merely happen, through different processes of relevance to Canada and Australia, to both be named for the same historical person. And neither are Kinmundy, Alberta and
Kinmundy, Illinois relevant to each other just because they were both named after the same third place in Scotland, nor do
Warsaw, Ontario and
Warsaw, New York have a defining connection to each other just because they were both named after the one in Poland. Certainly some places in this list had the Canadian settlement directly named after them, which might be legitimate to note in a very different list than this one, but we don't need a list of every single place name in any world country that merely happens to also exist in Canada for completely independent reasons.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Some entries on the list are indeed correct, such as
Bruxelles, Manitoba being the namesake of
Brussels. But many other entries--probably most--are inaccurate or not supported by the sources cited.
Hull, Quebec may or may not be the namesake of
Kingston upon Hull; the source cited to support this does not even mention Kingston upon Hull. As well, many entries are sourced by the Geographical Names Data Base (GNIS), which contains no information about the history of the places it lists (so how can GNIS support that this place is named after that place)? The article also lists a number of Canadian cities which are the namesake of some non-Canadian "place" that is not even a city, such as
Waterloo, Ontario being the namesake of the
Battle of Waterloo, and
Grimsthorpe, Ontario (an redirect with no article) being the namesake of
Grimsthorpe Castle. This article as it is, is misleading and of little use to Wikipedia readers. Delete (and save to a draft if requested). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Magnolia677 (
talk •
contribs)
Keep The objections to the entries on the list are all mistaken. Most of the entries on the list are supported by the reference cited in the "notes" column. There are some do not have a citation; those are supported by the Wiki page for the Canadian city. Now many of the citations just take you to the Googlebooks page for the book and it's up to the user to type the name of the city in the search field to find the actual cite. This was done in an effort to keep the total number of citations for this page to a resonable number. If every cite took you to the exact page, there would be several hundred citations for this list. If someone thinks that's desirable, I can do that. But it's not a reason to delete the page. OK, let's take the specific objections in order:
Richmond, BC -- cite is British Columbia Place Names. Direct link:
Richmond Googlebooks won't let me copy the page, but it says that someone's daughter named it after her favorite place in Australia and this pre-dates someone else's claim that it's named after a place in England.
Kinmundy, Alberta -- cite is Community Place Names of Alberta. Direct link:
Kinmundy Again it won't let me copy and paste, but it does in fact say it was named for Kinmundy, Illinois, the hometown of the first postmaster. Kinmundy, IL was named for the Scottish place, but that's irrelevant to this list.
Warsaw, Ontario -- cite is Place names of Ontario. While Googlebooks has this book, all it has is snippetview. Unfortunately doing a search does not turn up the entry for Warsaw (the search function on Googlebooks is flakey at times and this is one of them.) I did not use Googlebooks, but rather checked the book out from the library. If I put it in the list, then the book actually says it was named for the place in New York and not the city in Poland. You'll have to take my word for it or check the book out of the library yourself.
Hull, Quebec -- The
cite given says "Hull Township got its name from the city of Hull in Yorkshire, Eng. ". Ok. so where is Hull, Yorkshire? Go to the page for
Hull, Yorkshire and you'll find it redirects to
Kingston upon Hull and the first thing it says after the pronunciation is "usually abbreviated to Hull".
Cites to GNIS -- GNIS is a resource for USA places; this page uses the Canadian equivalent. However, it only uses them to establish that the place in Canada actually exists, not that it's named for another city. That's because not all places in Canada have their own Wikipage. All those with cites to this database also have an additional cite in the "notes" column that establishes that it was named for the non-Canadian city.
Places named after non-cities, i.e. castles. If you read the lede, it says that " the namesakes are places (cities, towns, villages) in Canada that are named for a city, town, village, or institution such as a castle or country house in some other country." (emphasis added) OK, that part is not in the page's title, but there's only so much you can put in a title before it gets too unwieldy. Perhaps the title needs to be modified. If you think so, please make a suggestion as to what it should be. But it's not a reason to throw out the whole page.
Places named for battles such as Waterloo: These are indirect namings. The city in Ontario was named for the battle but the battle was named for the town it was fought at. I see no reason to object to these. (And if we do remove them, at some future time someone else will come along and add them. You can pretty much bet on that.)
I felt this was a useful addition to Wikipedia. If I didn't, I wouldn't have expended all the time and effort to compile it.
Waterloo, Belgium is of course a city, and the Battle of Waterloo is named after the city.
Grimsthorpe is a village in England after which Grimsthorpe Castle is named.
I think the page is useful. Even if a few of entries need to be amended or deleted later, or need better citations, the great majority of them seem to be valid, so there seems to be no reason to delete the whole page.
Green Wyvern (
talk)
10:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep This list is actually interesting; and there is no point in deleting articles which may need to be recreated some time in the future. Impressively intensive. And very well-sourced.
Claverhouse (
talk)
11:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
We keep or delete stuff based on whether or not the content is encyclopedic, not whether or not the content is interesting to somebody.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Would that be the Royal We ? encyclopedic is a very subjective term, however there is nothing in this article that could not have been included in print encyclopedias of the distant past.
Claverhouse (
talk)
02:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It's been suggested to me elsewhere that I change it to something very much like that, where the emphasis is on Canadian cities rather than cities in other countries. That would reduce some confusion about the list. It would require some work, since the tables would have to be reordered to put the Canadian cities first. It would also open the list up to more than one Canadian town per foreign city, but this would not result it a great expansion of the list. Unlike, for example the US, where there are a dozen or more places named after many large European cities and even several each named for certain more obscure places. I'm amenable to doing this, but I'm not going to make any changes to the list until this deletion issue is resolved.
Dtilque (
talk)
08:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speedy KeepWP:SK#3, "The nomination is so erroneous that it indicates the nominator has not even read the article in question", or in this case the talk page of the article. WP:BEFORE C3 states, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". This AfD has quickly turned into the author providing explanations to the nominator, that are proof that no attempt was made to discuss this BEFORE nomination. Nor is there an argument for deletion, since "we don't need <this> list" is not to be found on policy-based
WP:DEL-REASONs, so
WP:SK#1 also applies.
Unscintillating (
talk)
14:22, 12 November 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.
Question@
Rathfelder: you've nominated a series of articles with this identical rationale; could you please clarify what you mean by "external references" and why you think lacking them is grounds for deletion? –
Joe (
talk)
19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I understand that the rules for living persons require some references which are not connected to the person themselves.
WP:BLPPRIMARY for example. I'm not suggesting that this person is not notable, and indeed I have no reason to think any of the statements made about them are contested. But the rules about BLPs are there for very good reasons and they should be applied to respectable doctors and academics as much as to anyone else. A surprising number of the articles about physicians are extremely poor. I am only nominating the worst ones.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I think you may be conflating primary sources with independent sources, which seems to be a common misunderstanding. Primary sources—things like public records and documents—are what
WP:BLPPRIMARY covers. But as far as I'm aware there's no guideline that says BLPs must contain sources that are not connected to the subject (
independent sources). The independence of sources is usually discussed with regard to notability, but they only have to exist, not be cited in the article. Just applying our common sense, there's no reason to think that a university website is an unreliable source for the details of an academic's career, simply because it is not an independent source. Therefore its perfectly acceptable (and routine) for short academic biographies to be sourced exclusively to institutional websites. As long as there are independent sources out there that could be used to expand the article in future (which is what
WP:PROF helps us judge), I don't think it's a valid argument for deletion. –
Joe (
talk)
23:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Having held a position of Dean isn't a slam-dunk under
WP:PROF#C6, but it does count in that direction, I'd say. I did a little cleanup on the references (fixing linkrot, etc.).
XOR'easter (
talk)
19:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. just to clarify, I think our common practice is that Dean in the sense of a subordinate officer is not intrinsically notable, Dean as in head of a medical or law school usually is. Such schools are usually at least in the US essentially autonomous. One must look at the function, not at what happens to be the title of the position. DGG (
talk )
06:00, 7 November 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.
Subject has her music on iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, and CDBaby, among other retailers. Yes, mentioned only in local sources, but I don't see why she wouldn't be notable, as she is actively selling her music, streaming it, and performing it.
User:Oneilno (
talk) 3:48, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 - Beyond the sources in the article form the AFC (which is probably too close to the player to avoid being a primary source. The following sources seem to begin to indicate GNG in English language sources and given that I am not able to search Arabic language sources, I would assume from the below that there is also plenty on him in local sources:
FIFA - would argue that FIFA are sufficiently far removed from the player not to be
PRIMARY (although this is in the article as form the AFC, it seems quite clear it was an interview with FIFA)
Keep - although some of the sources listed above are duplicative (e.g., the ghanasoccernet piece is a reprint of an article from the-afc.com) or nearly primary sources (AFC and FIFA - while not technically his employer, these organization are closely aligned with the Iraq FA - which is a member of both), it does appear that the GNG can be satisfied here.
Jogurney (
talk)
15:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - fails
WP:NFOOTY but that's irrelevant as subject passes
WP:GNG. As Jogurney mentioned in the !vote above some of the citations are not the best but still enough, article needs expansion not deletion.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
23:41, 10 November 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 credible notability, lacks references from reliable sources. The one reference from the Toronto Star does not address the subject of this article. PKT(alk)18:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. No good claim of notability, no references (apart from the one described by nom). and nothing found in Google search (apart from this article).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
03:19, 11 November 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.
Fails
WP:GNG and seems to focus more on Occupy London than the account, one of tree accounts used by the City of London. I found a grand total of *two* RS's mentiong the fund, which seems underwhelming.
Kleuske (
talk)
18:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Well the issue of how information became available is to do with Occupy London, but the fact that there is this account of £2.3bn, and is one of just three funds available to the City of London makes it very notable.
Leutha (
talk)
18:35, 5 November 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 small chain; references seem to only discuss it in context of being acquired by another firm, but redirect was reverted. Inappropriate content: absurdly trivial menu in both infobox and text, and trivial news event--possibly because there was no other possible content at all. DGG (
talk )
17:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
KEEP, despite what previous user states, only from a united states-centric point of view is the chain non-notable. The chain has a hundred or so locations, as stated in in article, all in eastern canada, and while not necessarily known to non residents of said area, the chain is very popular and rather ubiquitous. References have been added, and the chain itself has notoriety from having started off as a single restaurant in rural quebec to a large chain now part of MTY group, one of the largest franchisor in Canada. While previous comment might find the chain trivial (undoubtedly due to lack of local knowledge and interest in local chain, which might explain why everything is "trivial" for said user), there is at least one newspaper article discussing the chain, as cited in the article, which makes it much less trivial than several hundred thousand wiki pages which discuss a topic not cited once, yet still deserve attention to be improved. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide knowledge and removing all articles that a single user without interest in a specific topic suggests for deletion is not realistic. This is not a chip stand at the corner of a street, this is a large chain 1/4 the size of white castle covering an area 1/16th the size of white castle's footprint.
Dread Specter (
talk)
18:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep or delete
Tudor's Biscuit World with it. There is no reason a West Virginia chain should get an article and those who live in the thirteen northern states don't.
Tim Hortons isn't even Canadian anymore. We like articles that celebrate putain and curling, eh? To those who say there is no press coverage, of course there is. It's written in French.
Rhadow (
talk)
19:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
where is? It would help to add it to the article. (that is, substantial coverage, not routine reviews or notices about a store opening.) DGG (
talk )
05:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The first is a 150 word brief promotional notice, the second a 50 word paragraph introduced a video advertisement they made of themselves. DGG (
talk )
16:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
DGG -- No, it's not Pulitzer material, but it shouldn't inspire such undeserved scorn. It is independent. Infopresse is the analog of Adweek. Valentine paid to make the TV ads. That's legitimate; whether it is routine is another question. The other piece about 10,000 steps for a
poutine is independent and ironic. Did you get bad service in a Valentine?
Rhadow (
talk)
17:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I can not find any of the cited articles in the web or on wayback machine, but from the tiles it seems they deal with the chain only in context of its purchase by MTY. The two refs I can find are from the company itself, one direct, one on wayback. There are also two article in the Globe Mail about MTY acquisitions of food chains--both of which mentions this particular acquisition only as one of a list in a paragraph "MTY brands include: Mr. Sub, Country Style, Thai Express, Yogen Fruz, TCBY, Cultures, Tiki-Ming, Jugo Juice, Vanelli's, Tandori, KimChi, TacoTime, Sukiyaki, Koya, Sushi Shop, Vieux Duluth, Chick 'n Chick, Franx Supreme, La Crémière, Valentine, Croissant Plus, O'burger, Panini, Tutti-Frutti, Vie&Nam, Villa Madina, Koryo"
[4] ;
[5] claims of importance would seem to be based on ILIKEIT. I will certainly look at any other similar chains you mention--I've helped delete a number where the references don't amount to sayign more than it exists or once existed. And how is a section reading "==Products== French fries, hot dogs, hamburgers, poutine , club sandwich, hamburger steak, hot chicken sandwich ,smoked meat, chicken burger, chicken strips and breakfast items. " encyclopedic content? .(Some other trival or promotional contentthat I tried to delete has been restored also. At this point, it might qualify for G11. DGG (
talk )
00:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Very probably a few dozen at least in the US also; experience has been that they ted to very difficult to remove from WP, because they depend on pr and reputation: they tend to make sure they get a good deal of trivial press, and when they brought here, tend to encounter iLIKEIT.
I wouldn't object at all to an approach that considered several at a time, but of course they each have to be considered individually, because probably in a group of 10, 1 or 2 will have something substantial for notability. The same goes for many other classes of promotionalism.
More practically,we need to remove promotional material more systematically from the articles we do have--I might not have really bothered with this article were it not for the promotional contents--I haver found it almost impossible to remove trivial menu contents from restaurant articles. I do not understand the indifference to this: I could understand an approach to promotion that just removed promotional content though an approach which removes the article also is a more effective way of keep such content out of WP, but I do not understand an approach that keeps such articles with content intact. Those trying to do that may not be writing promotionalism themselves, but they are encouraging it. Either they do not know what promotionalism is, or they actually think it belongs in an encyclopedia DGG (
talk )
22:04, 6 November 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 Referenced articles are more about the author than the book. I do not see evidence of notability for inclusion in them. All I see in this article is an attempt at promotion. --
Alexf(talk)12:17, 8 November 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.
Actor whose main claim to notability appears to be semi-pro or non-pro University production. I am not very familiar with US sources, but those that are independent don't appear to qualify, or are dead.
Pincrete (
talk)
16:59, 5 November 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.
RBMedia is an umbrella company that formed in 2017 through the acquisition of other independent companies. Some of those companies were notable and others not. The companies are now imprints or brands of RBMedia, it's all one company. So there has to be an umbrella article about the company that owns brands like
Recorded Books and
Tantor Media - but also an article to discuss brands that are not (yet) notable like Audiobooks.com and HighBridge. Thus an article on RBMedia serves this purpose. It's theoretically possible to merge
Recorded Books and
Tantor Media into RBMedia but I wouldn't recommend it at this time. These companies are of historical interest as discussed in the history section of
audiobooks they were pioneering companies in the audiobook industry. --
GreenC19:58, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep claims like "It claims to be the largest audiobook publisher in the world." are almost certainly puffery. However, if multiple of its imprints/acquired companies/merged companies are notable, this entity probably is as well. The references are largely of corporate acquisitions and not of any actual business. If a merge with
Recorded Books is possible, that would be preferred.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
03:27, 11 November 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.
Utterly non-notable software that I can find exactly zero coverage of in reliable sourcing. Article currently reads as a spam directory entry as well, making it fail both points of
WP:N.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
16:14, 5 November 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 keep. The delete arguments (specifically JPL and Celestina007) are perfunctory and there is no real rebuttal to the assertions that the subject passes WP:AUTHOR.
ATraintalk19:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Slow down. The article as currently constructed is trash. It is a badly paraphrased version of this
[6] with no critical thought. Ware is a published expert on central Asia (check Google Scholar). He's a TV guy
[7]. He's a full professor now. His books sell on Amazon not just by obscure university presses. He is way more notable than a single-appearance cricket player. And more literate than
Walid Phares.
Rhadow (
talk)
17:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Speaking about
his own page, this is basically a self-published or simply an unreliable source. As disclaimer
tells, "The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by SIUE.". If something can be supported by other sources which qualify as RS, that something can be included on the page.
My very best wishes (
talk)
19:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I checked his ISI citation index ("Web of Science"), and it gives h-index of 3; his publications included in Web of Science (24 publications) were cited 30 times excluding self-citations. This is way too low.
My very best wishes (
talk)
19:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
As I said, you are applying paper-publishing standards to a book-publishing academic. That doesn't work, and what you see is exactly what you would expect when you do this. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
19:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
If I understand correctly, you refer to
WP:PROF#C1 which reads as The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. Yes, he published a few books, and each of them was cited several times in reviews, such as
that one. OK. But it does not seem "widely cited" to me.
My very best wishes (
talk)
20:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure why you are failing to understand what David Eppstein is saying. The subject is not a scientist, so shouldn't be judged on metrics applicable to scientists such as citations in the Web of Science. A book review is an article completely about the book author's work, so can't be compared to a citation to a particular finding in a journal article about something else.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
20:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Our article describes him as a philosopher, and one might imagine that at this point he is also more of a historian. Neither of those things is generally classified among the sciences. Which of the journals that he publishes in do you think is a science journal? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I must note that there is a reliable secondary source saying that the subject is a leading specialist on
Dagestan, but the nominator has repeatedly
removed both the source and the statement from the article. How can we have a proper discussion about notability when one of the participants is removing reliable sourced content? This is
WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour rather than an attempt to reach consensus.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
21:16, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Why do I get the idea that you have a verdict, and you're just waiting for your jury to come tell us what you want to hear? This guy is a professor of the humanities. He writes papers and books. If the New York Times would review one of his books, that would be, like, a thousand citations of a research paper on cancer. But he doesn't write about cancer. He writes about Dagestan. PBS News interviews him about that. Truth-out says he served as an advisor to the US State Department from 1999 to 2007. I have no idea who Truth-out is. He publishes in the Journal of Slavic Military Studies. How many citations do you think he will get? He wrote Ethnic parity and democratic pluralism in Dagestan: A consociational approach, 47 cited him. Not bad in that field. In the fifty years since Henry Kissinger wrote The troubled partnership: a re-appraisal of the Atlantic alliance, it has been cited only 350 times ... and he taught at Harvard and headed the State Department. If the standard for academics is the Nobel and the standard for a writer is the Man Booker, then the equivalent standard for athletes would be a world championship or the Olympic gold. That, however, is not our standard. We recognize anyone who has made a professional appearance. When PBS Newshour interviews you for four and a half minutes, you've made a professional appearance
[8]. Quit being such snobs.
Rhadow (
talk)
21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:PROF#C1 tells "widely cited". There are certain standards what is called "widely cited" in the scientific community. There are various resources and indexes, such as
Science Citation Index and
h-index. These resources and indexes usually do not make distinction between citations of books, reviews and original scientific articles (all count the same). They also do not make distinction if the citing paper was in Nature, JACS, or any other journal included in citation database. Based on these widely accepted indexes, that author has very low citation. This is all. If you want to check indexes other than Science Citation Index (and h-index it provides), that's fine. Please do, with supporting links.
My very best wishes (
talk)
22:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. I agree with David that the multiple reviews of his books passes
WP:AUTHOR/
WP:PROF, and that citation metrics are not a reliable way of gauging the notability of humanities scholars. –
Joe (
talk)
22:12, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep We keep academics who have written multiple books each of which has gotten multiple multiple, thoughtful reviews in multiple, respected academic journals. We keep them. We just do.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
23:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I do not think that would be consistent with WP guidelines. I am looking, for example, at
Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). #1 tells about high citation and Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1. #4 tells: Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education. This is not the case.
My very best wishes (
talk)
00:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I do see your point. However, there is also
WP:AUTHOR, which is routinely passed with three book reviews of at least one book in reliable, secondary sources such as an academic journal or general circulation newspaper. It is often used instead of WP:PROFESSOR with with academics in the humanities and social sciences. I am not saying that his books are reliable, or good or anything else about them - I do not know his work.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I did not know about the "three book reviews of at least one book" rule. Was it written in guidelines? If not, that must be written in
WP:AUTHOR. If I knew, I would never nominated this page for deletion. However, honestly, I think that "three book reviews of at least one book" is a very low cutoff. One can only guess how many pages about hardly notable researchers in humanities have been created and kept.
My very best wishes (
talk)
01:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
No. It's an informal rule of thumb used by editors who regularly do
WP:AUTHORS which, as you may or may not know, is an area where Wikipedia is swamped on a daily basis by self-published, wannabe writers self-promoting self-published novels and by non-notable writers of non-notable books of self-promotion in all fields . We need some kind of guideline, and this is the rule of thumb we use. You're right that it's a pretty low bar. I have wondered about that, too.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
01:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
No. It's not. It's just a sort of consensus interpretation of
WP:AUTHOR 4.c. I know it sounds strange, but that guideline reads "The person's work (or works) either... (c) has won significant critical attention" and this is a sort of way to operationalize that. And, in our defense, to deal with the daily avalanche of truly non-notable authors who create pages for themselves. Three independent full-length reviews in major daily papers, or academic journals. An unwritten rule. (I hope that you have seen
Tom Cruise cross examine
Noah Wylie in
A Few Good Men, here:
[9].)
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 02:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Addendum; to clarify. It is, as I stated, a sort of rule of thumb. Other arguments can certainly trump it, and no one states outright: Keep as per three review rule - or anything like that. It's just, I have been doing AUTHOR and minor academic AfDs pretty regularly for for 2-3 years, and, well, I can't remember an article being deleted when an author had a book that had gotten three solid reviews in well-known journals or newspapers.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
02:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
This is bad. One must start a formal RfC or discussion and include such rule in official guideline if RfC succeeds. Then I would not waste my time here. But I'd like to hear what a closing administrator thinks about it.
My very best wishes (
talk) 02:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC
The formal rule or guideline exists, and has already been pointed out to you. It is
WP:AUTHOR. All such rules are interpreted as meaning something by the editors who apply them. EMG is merely describing to you EMG's interpretation of
WP:AUTHOR, which is apparently consistent with how many other editors have been interpreting it. What is bad about that? We are not robots, nor should we be; the guidelines and policies guide our interpretations, but they are not and cannot be purely mechanical. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
07:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It tells: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.. Should someone simply with a couple of books mentioned in several reviews be regarded as "widely cited" or an "important figure"? I thought the obvious answer was "no". Actually, I am even surprised that reviews like
that serve as a proof of notability. These guys/journals probably just review all recent books. This is not a scientific review of all literature in the field, where such citation would definitely count. This is like a peer review after the publication. Such book reviews frequently are not even included in "Web of Science" database.
My very best wishes (
talk)
13:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
That's only criterion #1 out of the four criteria of
WP:AUTHOR. Arguably, it is supported by the claim in
a source you pointed to yourself on the article talk page that Ware is "arguably America's leading authority on Dagestan". But the part of
WP:AUTHOR that is more relevant to EMG's argument is 3, "the primary subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" and 4(c), "The person's work (or works)...has won significant critical attention". —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
No, he was not "the primary subject" of publications
here or elsewhere. Yes, his work was cited, among many others. This is all. Having a few reviews of books does not mean "significant critical attention". Like I said, he has h-index of 3, and his works were cited ~30 times according to "Web of Science" (probably more because it does not cover everything). So yes, he was cited. However, this is very low citation.
My very best wishes (
talk)
18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
You are continuing to misread
WP:AUTHOR. It's not that long. Try harder. It doesn't require that Ware himself be the primary subject, but that his works be. His works (three books) are indeed the primary subject of multiple publications (the book reviews). And why on earth are you returning to this off-topic argument about citation counts? —
David Eppstein (
talk)
18:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Of course I read it. It tells:
The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
You are quoting only second phrase. It tells "In addition...". But I do not see any signs that the "person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". Low citation index is the proof that whatever he published was not "well-known" or "significant".
My very best wishes (
talk)
18:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as
WP:AUTHOR; author / editor of multiple books with non-trivial reviews. Sample reviews:
Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the North Caucasus - By Robert Bruce Ware and Enver F. Kisriev. Zabyelina, Yuliya. Political Studies Review, Jan 01, 2012; Vol. 10, No. 1, p. 154. The article reviews the book "Dagestan: Russian Hegemony and Islamic Resistance in the... more
Caucasian problems and old Russian questions. Andrew Wachtel. Political Quarterly, Jan 01, 2014; Vol. 85, No. 1, p. 90-109. Reviews The Fire Below. How the Caucasus Shaped Russia, edited by Robert Bruce Ware. Bloomsbury. 360pp.
This is a typical "opinion piece" that does not explain anything. One can only guess that Evangelista criticizes B. Ware for misrepresenting genocide during Second Chechen War as a legitimate anti-terrorist operation. However, this is not really in the quoted source.
My very best wishes (
talk)
13:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
We do have an article on
Justin McCarthy (American historian), a genocide denier with footnotes, so bad history does not get your page deleted. However, I promise to return later and take a deep dive into the sources. One question would be whether the journals cited are reliable and independent.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
13:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment -- There is a big POV problem here.
User:My very best wishes, who argues for citation counts, dePRODs
Simon Saradzhyan, a similar academic who is a research fellow, not professor, with substantially lower citation counts than Ware. Oh, and NO book reviews. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.Rhadow (
talk)
14:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Question to closing admin. Based on discussion
here and elsewhere
[10], the participants keep pages about academic researchers if they published at least a couple of books that have been reviewed, even without other indications of notability. Is it generally a good idea? Is it consistent with our guidelines? I understand that in the case of Ware there are additional indications of notability, such as his appearance (once) on TV and someone else calling him a "leading expert".
My very best wishes (
talk)
13:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Observation -- Not just once on TV. Not the most notable appearance, but another on Pravda.ru
[11], and an interview by UPI
[12].
Pravda.ru is actually "a link to avoid" (no one will listen to this heavy Russian accent). 2nd one is a good RS, although the content is terrifying (the subject justifies murder of moderate Chechen leader
Aslan Maskhadov as an "achievement"). But here is bottom line. Just look at the page. It is now well sourced and objective, thanks to David Eppstein! Should it be kept? Yes, if someone thinks that pages about all authors with multiple reviews of their books should be kept. But is it anywhere in AfD guidelines? No, this is only in the "common outcomes" that should not be used as a guideline.
My very best wishes (
talk)
15:07, 10 November 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.
Originally PRODed by me, it was converted, out of process by an inexperienced user using my signature, to a AfD which had to be procedurally closed as keep. Concern was: Small organisation recently created with the goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at WP:ORG.
Let's do it properly this time.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
15:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Panam2014, I see that you are a major oontributor to the article. According t this statement: The final name of the movement will be announced on December 2, 2017 at a national meeting. To this end, a questionnaire was sent to the activists on 22 October to choose the name and define the functioning of the future party., the organisation is not a political party.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
03:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I am in favor of keeping all articles about political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections regardless of size or ideology. Our readers have a right to expect such things from a comprehensive encyclopedia. Moreover, this passes GNG, per the exhaustive list of sources provided by Michig above.
Carrite (
talk)
19:36, 10 November 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.
Comment This is a long-standing and fairly prominent chain in Canberra, though it seems to have reduced its operations in the city over recent years.
Nick-D (
talk)
21:52, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak delete at this point. I am surprised I could not find a lot on this franchise chain. It is I suggest relatively well known. The first of the following is a better reference I think.
Aoziwe (
talk)
11:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Keep, not speedy, but snowy. POV is no reason for deletion (nor is any POV proven), and as multiple editors point out, there are multiple reliable sources discussing the topic. If there are concerns about individual sources those can be addressed on the article talk page; same with POV concerns. I am closing per
WP:SNOW since the unanimous opinions of a great number of seasoned editors points toward "keep", and there is no sense in wasting time.
Drmies (
talk)
15:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems to be an attack article which does not have a NPOV. Looking at the sources, they are either blogs, no RS or do not support the text cited. There’s also the issue of notability, which does not appear to have been established. Looking at the recent editors and edit patterns, can it be said they they have a NPOV? Overall, this article does not belong in WP due to source issues, NPOV issues and notability issues.
Tonyinman (
talk)
12:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep Before bringing an article to AfD we expect editors to do at least a cursory search for possible sources. Such a search using Google News immediately turned up 4 reliable sources discussing this organisation.
[26],
[27][28][29] These seem sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. They also seem to share the same pov as the article. {re|Tonyinman}}, given your accusations against editors of this article, presumably including me, you should have notified them. Most of them aren't active any more or only did technical edits. But I'll ping the ones that are still active and have edited in recent years. @
Randykitty,
Tokyogirl79,
EdChem, and
Headbomb:.
Doug Wellertalk13:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, sufficiently sourced (and more sources exist as per above) even after discounting the blogs that specialise in this company. As to NPOV, are there any RS that state the company is not what the article claims it to be? —Kusma (
t·
c)
13:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I agree the Ottawa Citizen is RS , however the article text which relies on a page from the Ottawa Citizen for the citation is not backed up by the content of the Ottowa Citizen page referenced.
Tonyinman (
talk)
19:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
As you started a deletion nomination, we are here to discuss whether we should have an article about the topic at all. If you want to suggest improvements to the article, please state your specific complaints on the talk page. —Kusma (
t·
c)
20:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Certainly there is sufficient coverage, already by the sources listed in the article, to justify notability per
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG. There are many other examples of nontrivial coverage, e.g.
Times Higher Education[30],
Japan Times[31], etc. There may be issues with neutrality of the language currently used in the article, but, at least at first reading, the statements appear to be well supported by the sources cited. The nominator has not mentioned the existence of any other published sources that present and discuss more positive info about the subject of the article. If such sources exist, or if there is some positive counter-info/counter-arguments regarding WASET present in the sources already cited, such sources/info could be added to the article. The proper place to address the issues of neutrality and the language being used is at the article talk page, not by deletion of an article on a notable topic of significant current interest.
Nsk92 (
talk)
14:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Please give me an example of statement you consider to be non-neutral, and why. In the cases where neutrality is disputed, the burden is on the disputer, to bring up a specific issue, not the other way around.
Nsk92 (
talk)
18:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I have given an example in the AFD. I cannot see any text in the article which is neutral, ie all the text in the article is non-neutral. Perhaps you could detail which text you believe is neutral and compliant with NPOV?? Thanks.
Tonyinman (
talk)
18:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Please note my edits have been civil. I trust yours will be too. In response to your request, the following text in the lede is cited using a personal blog (not RS) and the term was coined by the same person who wrote the blog, therefore not NPOV."The World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology or WASET is a predatory publisher[1]"
WP:NPOV doesn't say that the article has to be neutral. Our articles on Creationism and Evolution are not neutral, they make it clear that Creationism is pseudoscience and evolution real science.
Doug Wellertalk19:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
I notice in your edit summary you've said "editor clearly doesn't understand our policies." Perhaps you could explain 'your' policies, and do you consider your edit summary an appropriate statement? Thanks.
Tonyinman (
talk)
19:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Oh come on, by our I meant Wikipedia's. Yes, you've brought an article to AfD without doing the work that you should have done first and you failed to show good faith concerning its editors. But I'm not going to get into an argument here, if you want to discuss NPOV for this article to it at the article's talk page. The article is going to be kept and it would show good will if you withdrew the nomination.
Doug Wellertalk11:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Personal comments will be ignored, thanks. I conducted a WP:Before and could not find RS sources to support the claims made in the article. Per Attack Pages, I still have concerns about this article.
Keep there's multiple statements sourced to reliable sources all describing this organization as a prolific predatory publisher. I don't see any reason for this article to be deleted.
Red Rock Canyon (
talk)
22:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep (edit conflict) Discussed in multiple prominent general-interest and specialist publications. It could stand a thorough edit of the prose, but that's not what AfD is for.
XOR'easter (
talk)
22:56, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Snow keep. Plenty of coverage in independent reliable sources as detailed above, and even the blogs are of the kind permitted per
WP:SPS. The nominator seems to have either failed to perform a proper
WP:BEFORE, or has an axe to grind here. –
Joe (
talk)
23:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
My edit history suggest otherwise. Please refrain from personal attacks. Thanks.
Comment. While I disagree with Tonyinman's criticism of the sources (they seem quite adequate to establish what the alleged journal actually is), do the NYTimes and Japan Times articles demonstrate a pre-existing notability, or create it? How is WASET more notable than the thousands of other predatory journals? Would we still keep the article if the POV was different? ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk)
00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
the way we look at notability at WP, this is not a real distinction: reliable sources establish notability by writing about something. they may have a pre-existing importance in some manner, butthey only acquire notability for the purpose of wikipedia article if they are considered sufficient important to be written about . DGG (
talk )
04:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
@
J. Johnson: WASET isn't a predatory journal, it's a publisher of predatory journals and has been accused of scamming by at least one university. And of course then there's the "conferences".
Doug Wellertalk11:28, 7 November 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.
Something like this is of zero encyclopedic value, it's completely impossible to maintain and distinguishing what would be a notable inclusion is near undoable. It's been unsourced since five years back now and I doubt it will improve.
★Trekker (
talk)
12:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Really not sure what function this serves, totaly unsourced and OR (are they "fictional ranks" or real ranks used in fiction?) and with some sever undue issues.
Slatersteven (
talk)
12:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete The best with this would seem to be splitting it down into genres and having each of those well sourced. We do manage to do this, with
List of fictional aircraft, so I think the sourcing problems aren't insurmountable. But I can't see how a single list article like this can cover from Game of Thrones to Star Trek in one article.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
13:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete INDISCRIMINATE does not apply and FANCRUFT is not a reason for deletion. However, this is OR that fails GNG, and that is. In general, these are not even fictional military ranks, but rather real world terms applied in interesting ways to fictional militaries. While the fictional military organizations might be notable, the lack of RS commentary on their rank structure renders our suppositions OR and demonstrates a lack of GNG.
Jclemens (
talk)
02:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per
WP:SKCRIT criteria #2 a0 and b), as an "obviously frivolous or vexatious nomination" and seemingly "made solely to provide a forum for disruption"- in this case, to make a
WP:POINT. Suggest immediate swift and temporary sanction for nominator for deliberately wasting our time. See also an increasingly bizarre conversation
here: apparently the purpose of this AfD is to challenge a previous closure...
(non-admin closure) —
fortunavelut luna13:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
" Small organisation recently created witht he goal of founding a new political party. Translated from the French Wikipedia (where it is also PRODed) without attribution. Totally unsourced. Fails notability at
WP:ORG. --
Kudpung (
talk) (UTC)"
Comment: According to this: The final name of the movement will be announced on December 2, 2017 at a national meeting. To this end, a questionnaire was sent to the activists on 22 October to choose the name and define the functioning of the future party, it is not yet a political party.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk)
13:32, 5 November 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.
Minimal coverage in reliable sources. Almost everything in this article except filmography is unverifiable in secondary sources. —
Guanaco11:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I prodded this in February, but apparently it was declined for a prior prod 10 years go. The article hasn't improved since and has major issues with
WP:NOTABILITY as a minor fictional element with no real world significance. I don't think there is much here that would be even merge'able anywhere. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I'm seeing plenty of coverage for this fictional element in online game reviews and similar independent sources. If it were just the boardgame, you might be right, but there appear to be entire games centered around this fictional element.
Jclemens (
talk)
04:18, 11 November 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.
Comment. Unreferenced, fails
WP:V, also little indication of notability per nom. Still, on second thought, this may be notable since it was involved in an accident that had fatalities. Maybe someone can find sources? My quick search only turned few things in Finnish that I am not fluent in :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:51, 5 November 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.
He is a documentary film maker and is only making his debut film in 2018 and best is only upcoming cannot see how he is notable at this point. His debut feature fiction project based on Telugu writer Dr. Kesava Reddy's novel for which even the actors have not been selected as of now and it is still in the planning stage.His documentary Welcome to Telangana is a 3 minute film and so is Make Movies and Celebrate’ promo film another 3 minute film which are really ad films done for the government of Teleghana .
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
01:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creation if the subject does become the US attorney. Happy to userfy upon request, please just ask on my talk page.
ATraintalk19:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete I have seen articles on US district attorneys deleted, but in general they are in the long run held to be notable, although no ruling that they are absolutely notable exists. The postion he is being considered for, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, is especially important because it covers Manhattan, and thus is key to US securities enforcement, and is one of the more populous districts with large amounts of business going on. There are articles on every appointed (as opposed to interim) holder of the office since 1958, and many articles on previous holders. Although I did not review to see how many are most notable for this position, and how many notable for other positions held. Still, until Berman is actually confirmed as the USDA, and even more so until he is actually nominated, he is clearly not notable. If his nomination does occur, even if unconfirmed, it might propel him to notability, but nothing right now suggests notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete and/or sandbox in user or draft space. If and when he gets appointed, he'll definitely be notable — federal prosecutor for New York City, as in Preet Bharara, is pretty much a no-brainer — but merely being a possible candidate for appointment to an office that's still up in the air as of today is not a notability criterion. No prejudice against recreation in the future if he's appointed, but nothing here already gets him an article today.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I think we all agree that in the absence of a nomination, Berman will be a one-event phenom (his interview). If he is nominated, we can argue his notability.Berman was a defense lawyer in the Bridgegate trial. He represented the deputy director of the Port Authority. He exceeds
WP:BLP1E If confirmed, notability is almost assured. His popularity with the administration continues (and attracts press). It seems counterproductive to delete the article now, only to reinstate it in a few weeks. If another is nominated for the post at S.D.N.Y. I will see that this article is deleted.
Rhadow (
talk)
11:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)reply
We don't keep articles just because the subject might become more notable in the future than he is today — that would turn us into a repository of campaign brochures, because we'd have to keep an article about every non-winning candidate in every election on exactly the same grounds. We do not judge includability by what might become true in the future — we judge it by what's true today, and then permit recreation in the future if circumstances change. It's almost painfully easy for an administrator to simply restore the original article if that happens — it takes one click on one button, not any sort of complicated process — so the amount of work involved in recreating the article if and when those circumstances change is not enough of a burden to justify suspending normal practice.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:13, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Ok, fine. Dump it if you want. I find your argument about how painfully easy [it is] for an administrator to simply restore the original article not very compelling. Betcha a hamburger barnstar that if this article is deleted and Berman is formally nominated that someone writes a new one and the work from the old goes to the big bit-bucket in the sky. It is one of the unintended consequences of the policy to make deleted articles invisible. Only if an editor remembers that there was a previously deleted article would the idea to resurrect it come up. That brings up another approach: a hybrid approach between PROD and AfD. Set this Berman article to expire in six weeks or six months. If he hasn't been nominated by then, the article can just slip beneath the waves.
It's impossible to "forget" that the original article existed; by the very definition of how our process of article creation works, anybody who tries to create a new article will see a notice that there was a deleted old one, right on the very page they would have to be looking at to start the "new" one in the first place.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:54, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Hello
Bearcat -- Let's say I want an article about
A. Amaranath. I type it in, get a red link, and an invitation to create an article. Yes, there will be an invitation to contact the administrator who closed it the last time, but I suspect it's rare that an editor who has an opportunity to put her name on a new article will want to honor the original author or wait for the administrator. Or am I misunderstanding human nature?
Rhadow (
talk)
17:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment If Berman is nominated for U.S. Attorney S.D.N.Y., the article will be valuable as a first stop for a reader. If he isn't, it should go. The question in a TOOSOON discussion is how much leeway we give. The AfD process probably gives it another two weeks of life. We don't have a means to sunset articles that grow stale over three weeks or three months. If we keep now, there is a good chance that if he is not appointed, a worthless article will be hanging around in three years. On the other hand, if his nomination proceeds, it's a waste of time to delete, with the likely result that the work already done will not be recovered, but created again from scratch. At the rate the administration is going, we won't see more discussion of Berman till 2018. Look at the progress of the nominees for DOL and EPA. Two months
David Zatezalo has been on the docket for
MSHA. For good order's sake, I'll stash a copy of Berman's article. Then, whatever consensus we arrive at will be okay.
Rhadow (
talk)
13:00, 5 November 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 References are not intellectually independent and/or relating to their productions and not to the company itself. Notability is not inherited. Fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
-- HighKing++ 18:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. This article could stand some attentive editing, but the company is a highly entertainment/media entity whose activities are covered extensively in reliable sources. Passes GNG and NCORP with ease. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
16:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Some of the films that were produced by Act III Communications received some Academy Award nominations in some of the categories. One of the films, Stand by Me received a Golden Globe nomination for best Motion Picture Drama. This is why we should keep it.
Evil Idiot14:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is for a Non notable designer. The article was created by a SPA, and written in a promotional tone. Of the four citations, none meet WP:RS and most of them are broken links at present.
Theredproject (
talk)
21:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - current sourcing is not anywhere near what's needed. Sources 1 and 2 don't even mention the subject. Another one appears to be publicity for quite a few folks, and the fourth is dead. Searches turned up a couple of trivial mentions, nothing else.
Onel5969TT me22:35, 4 November 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 newspaper in India with a circulation of 5,000 across seven states is little more than a vanity publication at present. I've raised the issue at
WT:INB in case non-English sources might improve the thing but it seems to fail
WP:NORG.
Sitush (
talk)
10:20, 29 October 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.
Comment: despite being Swiss, the band is virtually unknown outside of China and Taiwan, and therefore any potential sources are almost certainly going to be in Chinese – there's no detailed information about them in English, or any other European language, by the looks of it. The article used to have one reference from a Chinese newspaper
[32] but the link is now dead.
Richard3120 (
talk)
19:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete the article has obvious problems and no references. A search by a Chinese-language-speaking contributor would be helpful.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 04:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC) --> Will never happen as communist China cannot access Wikipedia. Thus deleting this article is valid. Bandari disappears from the world except 2 countries, where it is even mistakenly considered as a domestic band O_o
31.61.114.124 (
talk)
11:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)W4rb1rdreply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Rooster Teeth#Gen:Lock. Moved out of user's draft space without permission; it's been copied back (and since there's really only one author no extra attribution is needed), so this can be converted to redirect.
ansh66619:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Too soon. This show may very well be notable in the future, but right now, all that exists the most basic of teasers -- there isn't even a release date yet. There are no reviews, only one or two "first look" articles -- I think this article needs to be deleted until the show has actually launched and has some
significant coverage in reliable sources.
IagoQnsi (
talk)
05:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Crazybob2014: You still made another mistake. I reverted your edit because per
WP:XFD and deletion processes you cannot blank or redirect page while its AfD hasn't been closed the same way you can't remove the AfD tag –
Ammarpad (
talk)
15:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete fails
WP:GNG fail
WP:NFO, not yet released and author has no objection it's clearly not notable, at least for now thus
WP:TOOSOON. It may be notable in the future as OP said but not yet and we don't predict what the future holds and definitely Wikipedia doesn't either
WP:FUTUREAmmarpad (
talk)
15:53, 29 October 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 consists of content appropriate to a sales site/brochure: describing the product features and available integrations. The references are poor, tending to "overview, pricing and features" listings. My searches are finding more of the same, with the paragraph on the Quality Unit firm and this product in
this article on "The Next Web" perhaps the best. Not enough to demonstrate encyclopaedic notability by
WP:NSOFT or
WP:GNG in my opinion.
AllyD (
talk)
08:08, 29 October 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 is a second AfD due to the first finding no consensus. Article on this organization is sourced almost entirely to its own website. The only substantial RS about it relates to a single contest it organized and, therefore, does not meet GNG for sustained and ongoing coverage. Edit - two additional RS discovered in the original AfD were fleeting and incidental mentions of the organization that do not establish anything about it other than it exists and, therefore, fail
WP:ORGDEPTH.
Chetsford (
talk)
00:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - We dont put articles up for deletion again just days after the last AfD was closed. This would have been a matter for the talk page of the article. My stance has not changed in the last few days. Still keep.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
08:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Your reason for keep was "sources shows that the foundation exists"[33]. The mere existence of a thing does not meet the threshold of
WP:GNG. Many things exist, not all receive WP entries. For instance, my cat exists, however, she does not merit a WP entry even if I were able to prove her existence.
AfD is not a vote or ballot; per
WP:AFDEQ "justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself". Therefore, "it exists" should not be given the same consideration as a policy-based argument for delete.
Chetsford (
talk)
15:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Procedural Keep I don't see an obvious reason to delete, and it was *just* nominated. Also, I'm voting to merge a different nomination here.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:05, 11 November 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 claim is that he was notable as a
third-level administrative division party leader, as an unsuccessful candidate for Parliament, as a commissioner for Dhaka's 48th ward, and as acting mayor of the city. It's true that for major cities, there is a tendency to keep city councillors, and mayors have usually survived AfD, according to explanatory supplement
WP:POLOUTCOMES. However he was at most acting mayor (typically in Bangladesh, a mayor appoints an acting mayor when they will be out of town). His time in government fails
verifiability, so we don't know if he did anything or how long he was acting mayor (or of course if any of it is true).
90% of the article is unverified. The cited sources are: (1) a newspaper article that mentions him as the father of
Ahsan Habib Bhuiyan, and (2) Wikipedia article
Gojmohal Tannery High School (which
circularly cites this Wikipedia article). Searches, including by Bengali-script name, of the usual Google types, EBSCO, HighBeam, JSTOR, Project Muse, ProQuest, and Questia found: an elections results listing that confirms he lost a bid for the Noakhali-2 seat in 1996,
[34] and a passing mention of his being one of several people injured when protesters clashed with police.
[35] (Raw results also include a different MA Sattar Bhuiyan, Chairman of the Bangladesh Finished Leather and Leather Goods Exporters Association (BFLLEA), who was still alive in 2013.) Does not meet
WP:GNG or
WP:POLITICIAN.
Worldbruce (
talk)
00:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Even for major world cities on the order of Dhaka, we still only keep mayors or city councillors if they can be referenced to adequate
reliable source coverage about their work in those roles — we do not hand them an automatic "no sourcing required" freebie just because they exist, but require them to be the subject of substantive reliable source coverage. But there's no evidence of reliable source coverage being shown at all — even the one source present here was written by his son, and just mentions Sattar's existence without being about him. (I've already stripped the
WP:CIRCULAR "reference" to another Wikipedia article, for the record.) That's not even close to good enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:27, 29 October 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.
Inadequately sourced
WP:BLP of a person notable only as a county treasurer. This is not a level of office that confers an automatic
WP:NPOL pass -- it would be enough if he could be sourced as the subject of enough
reliable source coverage to pass NPOL #2, but it's not an automatic inclusion freebie. All we have for sourcing here, however, is a single local source about him taking an even less inherently notable job after losing reelection as county treasurer. This is not what it takes to make a person at this level of office notable.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment: I just overhauled and expanded the article. Miles has held a bunch of different elected offices (though often by appointment to a vacancy), and apparently been consistently in Madison County politics and administration for 25 years, and just moved to Florida this month. I don't know if that will get it over
WP:GNG, but it might: He's probably had more news articles about him than I used for citations. --
Closeapple (
talk)
19:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It doesn't. Of the new sources you added, one is an 18-word blurb in the "where are they now?" column of his own alma mater's alumni magazine (i.e. not a substantive source for the purposes of passing
WP:GNG), one is the
primary source website of his own former employer (i.e. not an independent source for the purposes of passing GNG), and one is the standard and
routine "candidate profile", involving the subject talking about himself in the first person, that every candidate in any election always gets. So there are only two sources that actually count for anything toward GNG, which still isn't enough coverage because every person at this level of significance could always show that much local coverage.
Bearcat (
talk)
19:57, 5 November 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 person whose only stated claim of notability is running for political office and losing. As always, this is not a claim of notability that passes
WP:NPOL -- a person has to hold office, not just run for it, to be considered notable as a politician, but this makes no other claim that he had preexisting notability for any other reason. And for referencing, this is based entirely on
primary and
routine sources except for one brief biographical blurb in an omnibus compilation of biographical blurbs for all of the candidates in the election he lost (none of whom but the winner have articles either) -- so there's no evidence of enough substantivereliable source coverage about him to pass
WP:GNG in lieu.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Riderect I think redirect too will be better since it is
WP:CHEAP and the hit of his search shows he is likely to be searched here, though he didn't meet
WP:N guideline here (and there is chance he might in future) —Ammarpad (
talk)
14:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. After I'd initially closed the discussion
recommending a merge, it's come to my attention that the proposed merge target isn't quite suitable for the content. Therefore, I've amended it to no consensus, since as I said in the previous rationale, it seems to be fairly evenly split between people who think
WP:GNG being met is enough to keep and those who think it fails
WP:LASTING and should be deleted.
ansh66606:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
A non-notable random incident that lacks notability per
WP:NOTNEWS. Incident was reported for less than 7 days
[36] and most of the news website basically plagiarised other. It was just like 100s of other same incidents that occur
[37][38] every year. We don't need article for each trivial information.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
05:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: This riot was covered well into
late April and
even July due to claims that it was a premeditated attack rather than general
WP:ROUTINE communalism. Also, keep in mind that this also probably got more coverage in Hindi newspapers than English-speaking ones due to it taking place in India.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
23:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)reply
But never again after April. Your source is an unreliable personal website which is saying nothing different than the news sources that covered event for a couple of days. Language card cannot be played here since all Indian articles use English language sources. Looks like you are only 2 of the editors of this article. If this article is any important then why you have to speculate and make claims without substance about this article which is inherently non notable.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Don't let me point you to
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Still an unreliable opinion website. Riots don't go discussed only for few months, they can be discussed for decades. Compare
1984 anti-Sikh riots with this subject that was discussed only for number of days, you would think that this article should be rather speedy deleted.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Actually the article in AltNews.in above makes the case for deletion shows why it fails
WP:LASTING and lacks significant coverage its claims
media bias against Vadavali and further states that only one channel made one video relating to Vadavali and that the media ignored the incident and one brief mention in the Guardian is clearly not enough to pass
WP:LASTING and 3 brief mentions in 8 months is clearly not significant coverage since the incident and one brief mention in a article in 8 months cannot be called international coverage .It further states no curfew was imposed and it was over within hours and the incident is dismissed as a case of minor communal disharmony.
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
06:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom it is just another violation of
WP:NOTNEWS. Lack of coverage in independent sources and already lost relevance only some days after the incident took place.
D4iNa4 (
talk)
07:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)reply
So we have got the creator of the article defending the existence of this article by misrepresenting sources and policies. There is no discussion in any of the sources, just two months old articles trying to interlink their many articles in one article. Fails
WP:INDEPTH,
WP:LASTING,
WP:NOTNEWS.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Misrepresenting my block log won't turn your article notable. Socks are never unblocked unless the block was a mistake and that was my case as well. Now back to topic, which you have been avoiding. None of your sources are making valid description of this non-notable incident that died out under few days. Just copying more links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other is not going to help you either.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
04:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Irrelevant personal bickering. Stop, please.
Stop taking this as personal! Its not about you or me. Its about whether this topic is notable for inclusion or not. That incident was covered widely through out all media in India including The Guardian I gave. There might be more. When you said "links of news websites that have basically plagiarised each other" do you have a RS for that? or you are accusing these national media of plagiarism?
Jionakeli (
talk)
04:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
You are the one who personalized the dispute by misrepresenting my blog log and then started to wikihound my contribution history. You are only being disruptive. Because none of these articles have found any new facts or findings than those already reported during the first days of the incident, it is basically plagiarism. Relying on passing mentions for proving notability is not going to help you.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
04:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
You were actually misrepresenting here and elsewhere using
WP:POLSHOP. If I am being disruptive then use the diffs and report me. I bet you haven't even looked at the sources because these sources are not passing mentions or plagiarism but reported the facts in-depth and associated investigations.
Jionakeli (
talk)
04:39, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Can you at least use your own rational in place of copying my rationales and pointing them to me even though you make no sense? Yes I have reported you on edit warring board. You can keep repeating yourself but people are not going to agree.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
04:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Look, this is a collaborative project. Opinions may differ and that is why we discuss things. So, these kind of irrational comments are not going to help this project. I have nothing personal with you. I presented my sources with my reason and it is upto the community to decide the outcome. That's all! Goodbye! --
Jionakeli (
talk)
05:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Pharaoh I'm not sure I understand your argument. If this were ITN/C, I could understand somebody saying "violence is routine, therefore not newsworthy". But we're discussing notability here; how do you conclude that a phenomenon being commonplace makes it less notable? Regards,
Vanamonde (
talk)
12:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:LASTING is an inclusion criterion: "If there is lasting coverage, it is likely to be notable", not an exclusion criterion, which is how it's being misused here ("If coverage isn't lasting the event is not notable"). The proper governing policy is
WP:NTEMP--notability is not temporary.
Jclemens (
talk)
03:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)reply
There is no
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the
routine coverage which is clearly
WP:PRIMARYNEWS on the day of the event which includes breaking news and Reports on events of the day.And further 2 passing mentions out of 3 in 8 Months to articles not even fully dedicated to the incident are a not synonymous with further analysis and there is no indication of a lasting impact and clearly could not a single book reference. There is a difference between quality indepth sources and finding any news piece that briefly mentions it which includes the piece the Guardian which is a brief mention beyond the incident day
WP:PRIMARYNEWS .Now every morning there is breaking news and Reports on events of the day even if covered in many newspapers papers not all topics are not notable for inclusion here it as it fails
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and
Primarynews ,otherwise every headlin across newspapers can have an article which would be
news . Passing mentions are not synonymous with
further analysis and there is no indication of a
lasting impact.I think there is a confusion between quality
indepth sources and finding any news piece .There is lack of coverage and even during the heydays the coverage was short beyond routine news on the day in addition to failing
WP:LASTING .
Pharaoh of the Wizards (
talk)
09:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)reply
It would be nice if y'all actually read through things.
WP:NOT#NEWS is very specific about what routine coverage is, and riots aren't remotely it. GNG is the primary notability criteria;
WP:NEVENT is a subject/specific notability guideline, and an event is notable if it meets NEVENT or the GNG.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete because this is a communal riot without a clear victim. Both sides are a party to the incident and one could easily categorize as violence against Hindus regardless of the end result of violence
Sdmarathe (
talk)
09:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, per Jclemens. GNG is met; the sources already in the article show this. It is unusual for an incident in India to receive coverage in the Guardian, further suggesting it is notable. Comments about "playing the language card" are totally off the mark. It is quite correct to suggest there will be coverage in Indian language sources (quite possibly in Urdu as well) and there is absolutely no basis in policy to ignore such.
Vanamonde (
talk)
12:19, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually Guardian has made coverage of many other incidents,
[49] while they have provided only a passing mention for this incident and it really doesn't means the coverage. Yet you can find many other riots as well as criminal incidents that are covered by Guardian, BBC, but that alone doesn't justify failure of
WP:NOTNEWS.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
12:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete there have been a number of riots that happened years ago and to this day they are being discussed on daily or at least weekly basis. However this incident is not one of them and very far from it. It doesn't pass
WP:GNG because it violates
WP:NOT.
Excelse (
talk)
13:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete agreed that there are too many riots that receive coverage and there will be dozens of articles created everyday. We need to understand that we have
WP:LASTING for a reason. Here the coverage is outdated and this "riot" has been already given enough time to gain importance and what it has gained is similar to thousands of other riots.
desmay (
talk)
16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Per Jclemens, Vanadmonde93.
WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply - it refers mostly to routine coverage, but this has received coverage in international media too and so passes
WP:GNG. There may be much more significant riots but that are talked about for years but that doesn't mean that this one is not notable. There may also be a hundred other riots, but if all receive significant coverage in international media (highly doubt that's the case) all should be written about.
Galobtter (
talk)
08:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Addendum:Oh and
WP:LASTING - "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable."
Galobtter (
talk)
08:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment The
Frontline (magazine) has in-depth coverage of this incident on their April, 2017 issue
[50]. What makes it different from other routine violence in India is according to the fact-finding team, the victims were "astounded by the speed and manner in which thousands of people were able to gather in a matter of hours to carry out the attack". 5,000 people as reported by
NDTV.
Jionakeli (
talk)
16:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The Guardian article in September is important. Passes WP:GNG, so notability is not at issue. WP:NOTNEWS is more complex, but after reviewing the policy, I don't see that it applies, as these events are unusual. The topic hasn't made it into Google books yet, so a plan to merge would be fine, but that should be a follow up effort.
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Communal riots are an unfortunate reality, be it white-black as is
in USA, with the establishment and its arms being considered as white proxies, or inter-religious violence in the
sub-continent. Finding references for particular incidents isn't going to be difficult, the need is
to separate milk from water, is a particular incident of encyclopaedic significance, my delete vote above is my contribution to the debate.
Yogesh Khandke (
talk)
05:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Just a friendly PSA about how OSE is not policy but rather just some essay. Yes, I think that poorly of it. I also doubt Notnews applies but I'm not participating any further in this.
L3X1(distænt write)02:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Violence against Muslims in India. Regarding
User:Jclemens's suggestion to go read
WP:NOTNEWS, I did just that and find I have to agree with him that it doesn't apply. Certainly, the Original reports, Who's who, and A diary paragraphs don't apply. The News reports paragraph is a little more interesting, but mostly that's talking about reporting on the latest tidbits about a notable person or event, which isn't the case here. Still, overall, I think (and, I'll admit this is a total judgement call), this makes more sense to talk about in the context of the larger article.
I'll also take this opportunity get on my
WP:RECENT soapbox. Looking at
Template:Violence against Muslims in India, I note that the events included are from: 1946(x2), 1947, 1969, 1980, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1992(x2), 2002, 2004, 2006(x2), 2007(x2), 2008(x2), 2013, 2014(x2), 2015, 2016, 2017(x2). This gives the impression that 50's, 60's, and 70's were decades of religious peace and love in India, which I'm sure is far from the truth. It's easy to look at an event that's happening now, find some threshold of google hits, and declare it to be notable. But, taking a step back, that gives us a very warped view of history. --
RoySmith(talk)15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, and Merge an event summary to
Violence against Muslims in India. This reminds me of the terrorist attack debate. I'm going to use the same criteria I arbitrarily applied to that - if a group attacks another and kills one or more people, and it can be linked to ethic strife, that could arguably also be defined as terrorism, and so it is notable. A short summary can also go to the violence against Muslims in India article.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)23:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)reply
So you are telling that we should make articles about every death incidents of the millions of religious people that have been killed yearly. Anyway, did that "terrorist attack debate" concerned India where such kind of violence is common, or other places like Pakistan, Libya, Burma, where such violence is far more common? Even if it did, which I doubt, we are not going to certainly ruin qualities of other articles where we cite only major incidents, we cannot do anything to make these incidents notable so why we should be including content about the article that fails
WP:NOTNEWS and
WP:LASTING? It will only turn other articles into a newspaper.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
00:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Seems like you have changed your rationale already. Yes such random attacks get great amount of press coverage, a few recent ones would include
[53][54][55][56][57] and many more. They don't deserve an article or mention anywhere unless notable.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
01:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep this is more than routine news coverage as currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes. Also initially it meet
WP:GNG by being covered in multiple reliable sources which are well obvious in the article.
WP:NOTNEWS is primarily meant to deter reporting original news direct from field to Wikipedia, but once the event received reasonable coverage in reputable secondary sources then NOTNEWS will no longer apply. And this article fulfilled that;
UK's Guardian,
Times of India and the
Indian Express are enough to satisfy
verifiability. —Ammarpad (
talk)
03:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
WP:LASTING is a guideline while
WP:NOTNEWS is a policy. And even as guideline I already addresed it in my previous comment "currently there's pending litigation which will call for more coverage and providing more content to the article as time passes." further coverage of the litigation and ensuing events will only further prove its
WP:LASTING effect. And perhaps it is you who misunderstood
WP:NOTNEWS, because ALL Wikipedia article are inherently from news, the scope of coverage is what makes one more notable than other —Ammarpad (
talk)
04:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Not all of them are, and most of them receive frequent coverage when they are notable. Just compare this random incident with any other riot article you will know, like I have mentioned
1984 anti-Sikh riots which is still getting coverage even 2 hours ago
[58], but when they are not notable they don't receive any coverage after few days and that is the case here because this new incident has not received coverage for months. You are saying that because this news was covered by few other media sources it becomes notable, but that's not enough. If we go by your interpretation then we can create article about anything that has been covered by 2 sources, that is not what
WP:NOTNEWS says.
Raymond3023 (
talk)
05:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)reply
OK, I see your bolded text. Your point is that for months now, the event have no new coverage, therefore either it continue receiving coverage every month or deleted.The below statement directly from
WP:N already answered you
'Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.'
Not only it received any coverage but it was reported in the manner like it is just another incident. And what about
WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? That "Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable."
Raymond3023 (
talk)
05:40, 15 November 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.