The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. North America 1000 12:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia, and page is linked by five articles, out of which two are disambiguation pages and two are lists. Character is too minor to merge to a list article. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 05:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
*Shramajivi Samanvay Committee, West Bengal *TUCI West Bengal State Committee *Udayani Social Action Forum, West Bengal *Uttar Bango Bon-Jon Shromojivi Manch, West Bengal *Vadodara Kamdar Union, Gujarat
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E, that event being his walking out of a recent fight. I see almost no other coverage; a 2015 interview describes him as "little-known". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, but that's not enough in the face of specific consensus to not redirect due to it being an unlikely search term -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
As per WP:SPINOUT this page is not necessary for size reasons as the main article Alec Wilkinson is only 4k bytes WP:SIZERULE is a long way away from being met. The main article is quite possibly not notable either. This bibliography is not long enough to warrant a separate article. I have already removed the newspaper articles and essays that do not meet the goals of WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY. Dom from Paris ( talk) 11:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a band whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not properly sourced. This claims charting hits in Billboard's Canadian Hot 100 and Dance charts, but the source being cited to support them isn't actually Billboard -- it's an unreliable WP:BADCHART provider called Alphacharts, which is not accepted as a notability-conferring chart on Wikipedia, and the chart positions completely fail right across the board to verify on the real Billboard site. And beyond the falsified charting data, there's not a single reference being cited here at all for anything else. As always, it's not what an article says that determines whether it qualifies for inclusion or not, it's how well the article references what it says as true, and this isn't even trying to do that at all. Bearcat ( talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
not notable. Produces "a variety of shows" Interviews a variety of people. Has press credentials--listed as if that had been a elite membership. References are mainly his own broadcasts, along with some routine notices of very minor awards. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 21:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. A marginal case, but I think the arguments for deletion have been adequately addressed and there is consensus to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:N and WP:NOT - it fails WP:GNG. This article is about a comparatively small prize at a private British school, Eton College. The sources provided are obscure, and generally mention it only in passing - usually they only write that some famous person happened to win it in their youth. The only text on it appears to be published by Eton, so is a primary source. These issues haven't been fixed for several years. The tables of winners truly are indiscriminate collections of information, and have not been kept up to date. Eton College has many prizes listed on its page already, and this one doesn't need to be separate. Knowto ( talk) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
45ossington ( talk) 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)"The Newcastle has been described by a subsequent victor as the Everest of Eton scholarships. Founded by the Duke of Newcastle in 1829, it consisted of ten papers, taken morning and afternoon over five days in late March. Most of these were in construing unseen Greek and Latin Prose, and composing Greek and Latin Verses. To these were added a general paper on Divinity, and detailed examinations on St Matthew's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek. With few exceptions it had been won by Collegers, and in the previous year by Daniel MacMillan, with Ronald Knox as proxime accessit. It was generally expected that Knox would now get it, even though he was younger than several of the other contenders, and would be able to try for it again in the following year. The two examiners were Oxford or Cambridge Dons, though famously Mr Gladstone had once taken it upon himself to judge the Newcastle. Those sitting for it were cosseted and given the unique privilege of playing fives between the buttresses of College Chapel between their mental gymnastics. The result was published in The Times and the winner considered by many to be the cleverest boy in the country. The Scholarship was worth £50 for three years. Patrick could look forward to two further Newcastle contests, but decided to go all out for this one for a special reason. It was the convention that the Newcastle winner, if not already in Sixth Form, would be immediately promoted into it. In his case this would place him above Prior and secure for him the Captaincy of the School in 1906/7. It was indeed a mountainous task, and several of the aspirants were two years older than he was. But, encouraged by the Reynolds victory, he set forth to climb it, or rather, to dig into it – ‘to sap like a thousand devils.' He ploughed slowly and deliberately through the scriptural texts, reading every word of a book once begun, and refraining from annotating down the side, determined to rely on his memory. Although the Classical texts could not be prepared, he spent weeks studying the Birds of Aristophanes, without notes or cribs. The week of trial began. He rendered into English verse passages from Homer, Aeschylus and Aristophanes, and from Lucretius, Horace, Lucan and Martial; and into English prose passages from Thucydides, Aeschines and Plato, and from Cicero, Livius and Tacitus. He composed his Greek hexameters and iambics and his Latin hexameters, elegiacs and lyrics, from passages of English poetry. And he answered the technical questions relating to grammar and criticism in Classics and in Divinity. On 7 April the result was announced: Patrick had won. As Evelyn Waugh puts it in his biography of Ronald Knox: 'On hearing the result, Ronald sat down and read the Book of Job straight through; Shaw-Stewart gave up work for the next four years.'"
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing as nobody seems to agree there's a BLP concern. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
A teenage who is a world champion in fly casting, apparently a niche sport. I'm not sure the coverage outweighs possible BLP concerns. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
If you came here because
https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/1031647567799623680, 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
original research}}
tag to the article.
Diff 6"Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations", previously the sentence with the most citations in the article, consequently turned out to be original research as well. Diff 12
"Rick Rogers [line break] Rogers is Regional Director for Africa at Check Point Software Limited"-- That's the same company that Cindyjwilson, the article creator, has declared to work for. Not a reliable source, and original research as well. Diff 13
"Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations"despite there being no widespread use of such terminology outside of recent CheckPoint articles and op-eds. MalwareTechBlog ( talk) 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
21:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Kvng Thank you for asking, here is the thought process that initially lead me to believe that this topic met Wikipedia's notability standard.
First, the "five generations" discussed today grow out of the idea of "three generations" of firewall, which is very well established, and is prominently featured in Wikipedia's own article firewall (computing). Initially I looked at the "firewall" article, but because a firewall is not the proper tool to protect against the more recent generations, it didn't make sense to add it there, where it's only tangentially relevant. That's why I came to the cyberattack article -- because it seemed like the more natural fit. For the first three "generations," there are numerous reliable sources, which cite a wide variety of primary sources (industry experts, analysts, etc.) over many years. Just a couple examples -- more should be very easy to find if needed: TechRepublic (2002) and Computer Weekly (2012).
As I pointed out above, the definition of cyberattack had no references more recent than 2010, which I think anybody familiar with the field would agree is problematic for a rapidly evolving field. (I see that an editor here has since reverted it to that state, overriding the discussion you and I had on the talk page.)
I already listed the core articles I think establish it on Talk:Cyberattack, but here is a somewhat annotated, and updated, list:
Independent industry analysts who have used the terms -- analysts like these will communicate with companies in the industry, but this kind of piece reflects the analyst's perspective, it is not a commisioned report. I consider this a strong indication of general industry knowledge, and I believe it meets WP:RS.
Earned media -- these are publishers that make their own editorial judgments. If it's an interview with Check Point personnel, or in some cases a byline by Check Point personnel, there is still independent judgment being exercised for it to be published. These are not recycled press releases, or "pay-to-play" sites.
Industry usage -- these are companies independent of Check Point which are also using the "five generations" terminology. While they may not score high as "reliable sources," I believe their usage of the term speaks to its usage outside of my own company.
Discussion of general concepts I can see from discussion by others above that WP:SYNTH may be a concern here. But these articles also initially struck me as significant, because even though they do not use the word "generation," they discuss trends in ways that align with the "generations" thinking.
To the editor who took offense to my naming them, I am sorry. I am still getting familiar with the etiquette here; I had thought that, since we had an extensive discussion about my editing, they would be interested to know the next step in the discussion, and I honestly thought they had reviewed my edits fairly closely. I meant no disresepect. I appreciate that they took the time to weigh in here.
One last point -- I hope the admin who closes this discussion will take note that the discussion was started on Twitter, by a competitor, and a good deal of discussion and coordination took place off Wikipedia, among editors who may or may not have undisclosed conflicts of interest of their own. I don't know how much that should impact the outcome, but I hope it is at least taken into consideration. Kvng, I appreciate your taking my good intentions toward Wikipedia, and I hope our competitors in the field share my wish to approach Wikipedia with curiosity and deference to the judgment of more experienced editors. - Cindy ( talk) 01:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. In my opinion, the award she received does not confer notability. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Based almost exclusively on publications by Andrea Ponsi except for this article. I have a hard time finding enough independent reliable sources. MarioGom ( talk) 22:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG, largely based on related sources The Banner talk 21:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawing. Horrible spammy article but some evidence of actual coverage elsewhere, will work on it. Guy ( Help!) 09:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This article has two kinds of sources: those based on press releases, and primary sources (e.g. patents). Oh, and it reads like a PR blurb. The fact of Reiuters and the BBC reporting the press rleases previously resulted in Keep, but the "Marsh test" (following the Bad PR script on how to identify churnalism) shows that these originated with the firm and do not have intellectual independence. Add to that the fact that it's identified as a "prototype", as of two years ago, with nothing available on the market yet that I can find. Guy ( Help!) 21:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV/ WP:NCORP. Lordtobi ( ✉) 21:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per rough consensus that there are sufficient sources (if only narrowly) to satisfy GNG. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG, promo. Largely based on its own website and related sources. The Banner talk 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete ( CSD G12) ( Non-admin closure). — sparklism hey! 10:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
After Speedy deletion declined, and PROD declined by creator, this probable hoax or self-promotional article now goes to AfD. No coverage found in reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, No credible assertion of significance. Even if everything in this article were true (doubtful), we need sources beyond IMDb and personal blogs. It is also noteworthy that article creator is indefinitely blocked on Commons as sock of a prolific sockpuppeteer of an affiliated account, see Commons:category:Sockpuppets of JOHAN ARCHILES. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
please do not delete it help me update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttwqs985 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC) — Ttwqs985 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Possible COI author, and notability for a BLP XyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 09:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
None of the citations are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. They are not reliable sources and are all primary sources. Promotional, non-encyclopedic tone. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Only passing mentions are observed, except for the book which is written by the director himself. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Article created from passing mentions cobbled together to create the semblance of notability. Accesscrawl ( talk) 04:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet
WP:BASIC.
WP:BEFORE searches have yielded no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, just minor name checks and mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 17:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Radio station not properly sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations. Every radio station that exists is not automatically presumed notable — a radio station has to pass all four of four criteria to qualify for a Wikipedia article. But this station appears to fail two of the four conditions: radio station requires a permanent OFCOM license, not just temporary special authority licenses, and it requires that the station is the subject of reliable source coverage to properly verify the article's content. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This non-notable subject does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very minor passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Per
WP:BEFORE searches, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist for this subject. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 17:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This non-notable subject does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very minor passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist for this subject. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This non-notable subject does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, brief quotations from the subject, and fleeting passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, name checks and very brief passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, name checks and fleeting passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 01:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Has not received significant coverage outside of one event (his death). Hirolovesswords ( talk) 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was [He] does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. This remains valid as Settsu has not played in a fully pro league or received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he will play in future and on the number links in the article. Claims to notability based on future appearances have been consistently rejected, and the links listed are routine coverage, insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he will play in future and on the number links in the article. Claims to notability based on future appearances have been consistently rejected, and the links listed are routine coverage, insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary list, no apparent inclusion criteria, inexhaustive and prone to promotional editing. MarioGom ( talk) 15:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The subject in question fails WP:NACTOR, has appeared in 2 non-notable films and in my opinion does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. Fit India 15:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 20:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I've given this the benefit of some time, but the original deletion PROD was spot on, and I regret converting dab to SIA to preserve, as clearly this hasn't been validated at the articles I checked, so needs sources here which has also not been done. As the unsourced tag was removed, this is just an unverified mess with my name on, and returning to a dab with 0 valid entries and deletion is the obvious default. Widefox; talk 14:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ( talk| c| em) 14:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 14:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails guidelines for company notability. No significant coverage exists. Considering the conflict of interest, it appears to simply be promotional. Jmertel23 ( talk) 11:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Already considered in greater depth in Military dictatorship. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Appears to be a routine Bollywood actor. Refs are IMDB etc plus mentions in what appear to be press releases. No substantial , reliable and independent refs. Fails WP:NACTOR Velella Velella Talk 13:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Convert to article about the kidnapping. No definite consensus that the kidnapping is notable. If anyone finds the kidnapping not notable, feel free to nominate it for deletion. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 13:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not notable enough. Is not a well known businessman. The only claim of notability is kidnapping, but hundreds of people are kidnapped everyday and there are no articles for them. A few sources discuss about his father or other family members only. Clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG Knightrises10 ( talk) 12:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Production (Mirwais Ahmadzaï album). (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not notable. Fails WP:NSONG. SummerPhD v2.0 15:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages. Alternatively, be bold and just merge it. Michig ( talk) 11:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Thrikkunnapuzha about same topic is existed. Merge and keep as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it). Michig ( talk) 11:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Thazhakkara about same topic is existed. Merge and keep as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it). Michig ( talk) 12:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Pathirappally about same tpoic existed. Merge and keep this as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it). Michig ( talk) 12:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Edanadu about same topic is existed. Merge and keep this page as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it) Spinning Spark 15:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Thottapuzhassery of same topic is existed. Keep this as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No need to bring this to AfD, just carry out the redirect and merge as necessary Spinning Spark 15:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Konnithazham of same topic is existed. Keep this page as redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No need to bring this to AfD, just carry out the redirect Spinning Spark 15:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Vadavucode of same topic is existed. Keep this page as redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently non-notable reality TV show. In the face of the creator's assertion that "every show deserves a Wikipedia page", I see myself going back and forth on the redirect with them, so I'd rather have this formalized... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was Merge into SCL Group. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist as a separate article. bd2412 T 13:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The result was Keep: Non-admin closure; Significant improvements to the article since nomination and clear consensus.-- 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC) .
Redirect to Test Icicles. Found not notable in 2016 by @ GiantSnowman:, who redirected it, I still don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC 1l2l3k ( talk) 14:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Munroe Island. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Munroe Island of same topic is existed. Keep this as redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 09:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Aryankavu. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Aryankavu of same topic is existed. Keep this page as a redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 09:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. If anyone would like the article userfied, drop me a line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Following the precedent of recent political party deletions (see Patriotic Socialist Party and The Radical Party (UK). This party clearly fails GNG and related guidelines on notability. Has limited secondary or third party sources. Has no notable coverage during or after an election, at which results were derisory. Does not meet Wikipedia policy on notable political parties, notable organisation, or notable associated people. doktorb words deeds 08:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Not finding much independent coverage in reliable sources about this subject; specifically, there's a lack of significant coverage in non-primary, non-LDS related sources. As per source searches for said independent coverage, the subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Several primary sources exist about the subject, but they are not usable to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP:
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
– North America 1000 02:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
OK - thank you Northamerica. Fair enough comment. Vorbee ( talk) 11:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails to meet notability bar per WP:NCORP or other suitable standard. Creator immediately de-PRODded without substantial improvement so we are obliged to dicuss via AfD. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I genuinely believe this article is for a notable company and shouldn't be deleted. What resources can I look at to learn more about the policy you are trying to enforce? Does this article require more sources? What kind? Faradorian ( talk) 18:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
To better prove the notability of this article I have added more sources, including Macworld and PC Mag. Please let me know what you all think, I'm ready to debate. Thanks! Faradorian ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What’s the next step? Do we vote? Faradorian ( talk) 19:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. If anyone wants the content userfied in order to create a broader article about Cordell Drive generally (and consequently create a new redirect), let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
non notable home. All sources are discussions of various sales of the property, which has had some famous owners, but WP:INHERIT should apply to that. There is an entire book on another of Errol Flynn's home, but that isn't this one. Really no sources found with any meat on them. All are sales pitches. John from Idegon ( talk) 00:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Then why have we got Bill Gates's house? The brave celery ( talk) 02:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment So far we have 3 keep (including me, the article creator), 2 delete. The brave celery ( talk) 16:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Just an overview of the sources:
Janet Irene Atkinson. "George Cukor Home". Los Angeles County Historical Directory. McFarland. 1988. Page 21. Google Books.
John Eastman. "Tracy, Spencer Bonaventure (1900-1967)". Who Lived Where: A Biographical Guide to Homes and Museums. Bonanza Books. 1 March 1988. Pages 430 and 502. Google BooksA Scott Berg. Kate Remembered. Simon and Schuster. 2003. Paperback edition. 2013. [1] [2]Ralph Gary. The Presidents Were Here: A State-by-state Historical Guide. McFarland & Company. 2008. Page 15. Google Books.Anne Edwards. Early Reagan: The Rise to Power. Morrow. 1987. Pages 282, 320, 342 and 343. Google BooksHearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry: Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, First Session. United States Government Printing Office. 1947. Pages 213 and 532. Google Books"9250 Cordell Drive". www.zillow.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09. "Paul Lynde villa fetches close to its asking price". SFGate. 2002-01-27. Retrieved 2018-08-09. David, Mark (2009-02-24). "Moby Leases Out Hollywood Hills House". Variety. Retrieved 2018-08-09. Leitereg, Neal J. "Former Hollywood Hills home of Errol Flynn, Moby comes to market". latimes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09. Chancellor, Jonathan. "Former Hollywood home of Errol Flynn listed". www.propertyobserver.com.au. Retrieved 2018-08-09. David, Mark (2015-04-21). "Former Errol Flynn House Above Sunset Strip Lists for $6 Million". Variety. Retrieved 2018-08-09. Leitereg, Neal J. "Hollywood Regency with ties to Errol Flynn and Moby fetches $3.875 million". latimes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
The brave celery ( talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
*Procedural note - since this article was moved without consensus during this discussion, I'm asking the closer to delete both
Cordell Drive and
9250 Cordell Drive, the redirect left behind by the page move.
John from Idegon (
talk) 21:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. (Channel Emily Latella). Didn't notice an administrator actually had moved it back.
John from Idegon (
talk)
21:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. bd2412 T 13:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is poorly sourced and has a lack of independent sources, but it's loaded with Original Research, so it fails WP:OR and WP:NMUSIC. It is a terribly written article with many opinions and unnecessary dialogue tags as if this article were a story, so it fails WP:V as well. There is no notability presented anywhere, so it fails all notability guidelines. Unless this article gets some drastic changes, it should be deleted A.S.A.P. Redditaddict 6 9 08:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
No apparent evidence of notability. The only reference this article had was a dead link, and the only one I could find to replace it was from TheBigIdea, a site on which artists list their own artist's statements. FWIW I work as an arts reviewer in New Zealand, and have not heard of Parra (not that thats a valid reason in itself for deletion). The article had been prodded (and had the prod removed) in the past - eleven years ago! - and has not grown since then. Grutness... wha? 02:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Diocese of Fredericton. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a person whose claim of notability is not reliably sourced. Wikipedia has no stated notability criteria for religious archdeacons at all, so getting an archdeacon into Wikipedia is a matter of getting her over WP:GNG rather than an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — but the references here are primary sources and Blogspot blogs, not reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are plenty of sources in the article, but they're all primary, unreliable (no editorial oversight, download sites, how-to guides, etc.), or (probably) reliable but trivial. (See Talk:DeSmuME for discussions about source issues.) I looked for sources using the WPVG custom Google searches ( WP:VG/LRS) and could only find more of the same. The last AfD (which resulted in delete) was just over six months ago and no new sources have emerged since then. Woodroar ( talk) 02:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Extended commentary on GNG/Source reliability, etc.
|
---|
If anyone could direct me to some resources to help explain “reliable sources” and “significant coverage” in more detail I would be very grateful, please post the information on my user talk page rather than the AfD discussion here, and please do it in a polite, constructive way that doesn’t make it sound like I did anything wrong, although I suppose that by creating this article I DID do something wrong. I will try not to make the same mistake again. I really don’t want to end up back here again with another AfD for another article I wrote, with that article getting deleted too, that would show that I haven’t learned anything about how exactly notability on Wikipedia works, and I really want to learn but it is very confusing. I am on the autistic spectrum and take things very literally and do not think quite the same way as most people so for me personally it is perhaps harder than for the average person to understand the General Notability Guideline ( WP:GNG), although I am not really sure, maybe this is also hard for average people too, I would not know since I am not one of them, I would say that I have a bit of a thick skull when it comes to certain things sinking in so I need to put in extra effort to learn them. Thank you everyone and have a wonderful day, and I hope that at least one of you please explains this to me on my user talk page, you can write something yourself or just post some handy links if there already is a detailed explanation of what reliable sources and significant coverage mean. Although those are really 2 separate issues, the reliableness of a source and the significance of the coverage appearing in that source, and I must admit my understanding of both issues is rudimentary at best at the current time, something I hope we can remedy and thereby prevent this exact situation from happening again with another article. For now I suppose I shall proceed with extreme caution regarding the issue of creating new articles and hold myself to higher standards than I did when I wrote the DeSmuME article. But exactly what standards? For instance on the subject of a video game emulator, what is the most reliable source of information on emulators? Does ANY reliable source on that subject even exist, by Wikipedia standards? If not, does that mean that ALL articles on emulators fail to meet notability standards? When I try and examine the standards of Woodroar and Salvidrim, I know that they draw the line regarding sources in a stricter place than I do, but just HOW strict are we talking here? Can you do this for me, can you look at the page List of video game emulators, pick whichever emulator there sounds the most obscure that you have never heard of, look at its Wikipedia page, go through the sources, show me which ones do and don’t establish notability and why, and tell me about it on my user talk page? Because, my suspicion is, for pretty much all of them, if you held those articles to the same standard as this one, poof, the articles would vanish, none of the sources cited would be good enough to establish notability. And then what? Should we delete all of the articles on emulators that are not notable? Or do the other ones meet notability standards, are some of their sources actually ones that satisfy the General Notability Guideline? You see, while I don’t disagree with you about the notability standards, it seems you are not applying those standards consistently. I could force the issue by nominating every single existing video game emulator article for deletion and seeing what happens, but honestly speaking, I am quite fond of emulators as well as the articles on them. I like the article I wrote about DeSmuME and the articles about the other emulators too. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. There are 34 emulators linked to from List of video game emulators, including DeSmuME. It is my contention that the vast majority of them, if indeed DeSmuME is not notable, are likewise not notable, if you look at their sources and check to see if any meet WP:GNG. When I added the DeSmuME article, it was definitely better-sourced than several of them. So, I would like to see these standards being applied a bit more consistently. And regarding the possibility that Wikipedia might cease to have any articles at all about video game emulators, while that would be sad and all, there are plenty of other wikis including several that are specifically about emulation. Anyway, could you all please look into this? I understand that naturally if I create an article where the previous article was deleted less than a year ago for lack of notability, this arouses suspicion regarding notability, suspicion that does not exist in the same way for articles that have just been sitting there for years under the radar without anyone seriously considering whether they are notable or not. But, having looked at many of those articles and their sources, I have suspicions that they are equally lacking in notability to this one that I wrote. So if you are really going to enforce WP:GNG so strictly, fine, I agree with you, but try and apply the rules consistently to all articles please, instead of enforcing it very strictly on some articles while completely ignoring others. Here are the other articles whose notability might be in doubt: UAE (emulator) Stella (emulator) Xenia (emulator) FCEUX NESticle Nestopia Snes9x ZSNES 1964 (emulator) Mupen64Plus Project64 Project Unreality UltraHLE Dolphin (emulator) Cemu VisualBoyAdvance Citra (emulator) nullDC bleem! bleemcast! Connectix Virtual Game Station ePSXe PCSX-Reloaded PCSX2 RPCS3 PPSSPP higan (emulator) Kega Fusion MAME MESS Mednafen OpenEmu RetroArch While I would prefer it if we could keep all of those articles and find it depressing whenever Wikipedia loses an article, I must say, you have really opened my eyes regarding this General Notability Guideline and the real meanings of “reliable source” and “significant coverage”, and I have now realized, probably the VAST majority of those 33 articles should be deleted for not meeting the General Notability Guideline, if we are really going to be enforcing that rule here. I just thought it would be helpful to point that out, if you really want to enforce that rule. Because it doesn’t seem like you are really enforcing it on all articles, not that it is your fault, of course not, Wikipedia has 6,862,169 articles and it is very hard to go through all of them to find which ones lack notability, it would take almost forever to go through that many, but, I think I just gave you all some very good leads on other articles that probably lack notability, I am giving you 33 good leads. But since I don’t quite understand your standards and originally thought the sources for DeSmuME were fine, and in fact I thought they were better than the sources cited in many of those other articles, obviously I am not the right person to check this given my implicit bias as well as my lack of understanding of the relevant notability policies, and someone who actually understands notability policies much better than I do should look into it. Please get back to me on my user talk page with what you think about all this, and if I am getting anything wrong, please inform me. If nobody responds to me or looks at those articles seriously I suppose I will have to just nominate all 33 of them for deletion myself and let you sort through it then, but I really do not want to have to do that because I really do not understand the policies well enough and I might be nominating articles for deletion that actually do belong on this wiki and I would prefer an expert on these policies do it. |
The result was speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Placing this at AFD as this article's been moved around & been thru a lot of back & forth, but it's an unsourced article on a PROPOSED tv station with no actual release date (per the info box) by a creator who's posted a number of articles on similarly non-existent TV stations. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. JamesG5 ( talk) 02:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: T. North America 1000 12:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Does not meet WP:GNG. Character appears eight times according to Marvel Wikia, and page is linked by five articles, out of which two are disambiguation pages and two are lists. Character is too minor to merge to a list article. Namenamenamenamename ( talk) 05:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 11:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
*Shramajivi Samanvay Committee, West Bengal *TUCI West Bengal State Committee *Udayani Social Action Forum, West Bengal *Uttar Bango Bon-Jon Shromojivi Manch, West Bengal *Vadodara Kamdar Union, Gujarat
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP1E, that event being his walking out of a recent fight. I see almost no other coverage; a 2015 interview describes him as "little-known". power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, but that's not enough in the face of specific consensus to not redirect due to it being an unlikely search term -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
As per WP:SPINOUT this page is not necessary for size reasons as the main article Alec Wilkinson is only 4k bytes WP:SIZERULE is a long way away from being met. The main article is quite possibly not notable either. This bibliography is not long enough to warrant a separate article. I have already removed the newspaper articles and essays that do not meet the goals of WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY. Dom from Paris ( talk) 11:29, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-advertorialized article about a band whose claims to passing WP:NMUSIC are not properly sourced. This claims charting hits in Billboard's Canadian Hot 100 and Dance charts, but the source being cited to support them isn't actually Billboard -- it's an unreliable WP:BADCHART provider called Alphacharts, which is not accepted as a notability-conferring chart on Wikipedia, and the chart positions completely fail right across the board to verify on the real Billboard site. And beyond the falsified charting data, there's not a single reference being cited here at all for anything else. As always, it's not what an article says that determines whether it qualifies for inclusion or not, it's how well the article references what it says as true, and this isn't even trying to do that at all. Bearcat ( talk) 23:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:08, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
not notable. Produces "a variety of shows" Interviews a variety of people. Has press credentials--listed as if that had been a elite membership. References are mainly his own broadcasts, along with some routine notices of very minor awards. DGG ( talk ) 08:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 21:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 18:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. A marginal case, but I think the arguments for deletion have been adequately addressed and there is consensus to keep the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:N and WP:NOT - it fails WP:GNG. This article is about a comparatively small prize at a private British school, Eton College. The sources provided are obscure, and generally mention it only in passing - usually they only write that some famous person happened to win it in their youth. The only text on it appears to be published by Eton, so is a primary source. These issues haven't been fixed for several years. The tables of winners truly are indiscriminate collections of information, and have not been kept up to date. Eton College has many prizes listed on its page already, and this one doesn't need to be separate. Knowto ( talk) 22:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
45ossington ( talk) 14:46, 23 August 2018 (UTC)"The Newcastle has been described by a subsequent victor as the Everest of Eton scholarships. Founded by the Duke of Newcastle in 1829, it consisted of ten papers, taken morning and afternoon over five days in late March. Most of these were in construing unseen Greek and Latin Prose, and composing Greek and Latin Verses. To these were added a general paper on Divinity, and detailed examinations on St Matthew's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles in the original Greek. With few exceptions it had been won by Collegers, and in the previous year by Daniel MacMillan, with Ronald Knox as proxime accessit. It was generally expected that Knox would now get it, even though he was younger than several of the other contenders, and would be able to try for it again in the following year. The two examiners were Oxford or Cambridge Dons, though famously Mr Gladstone had once taken it upon himself to judge the Newcastle. Those sitting for it were cosseted and given the unique privilege of playing fives between the buttresses of College Chapel between their mental gymnastics. The result was published in The Times and the winner considered by many to be the cleverest boy in the country. The Scholarship was worth £50 for three years. Patrick could look forward to two further Newcastle contests, but decided to go all out for this one for a special reason. It was the convention that the Newcastle winner, if not already in Sixth Form, would be immediately promoted into it. In his case this would place him above Prior and secure for him the Captaincy of the School in 1906/7. It was indeed a mountainous task, and several of the aspirants were two years older than he was. But, encouraged by the Reynolds victory, he set forth to climb it, or rather, to dig into it – ‘to sap like a thousand devils.' He ploughed slowly and deliberately through the scriptural texts, reading every word of a book once begun, and refraining from annotating down the side, determined to rely on his memory. Although the Classical texts could not be prepared, he spent weeks studying the Birds of Aristophanes, without notes or cribs. The week of trial began. He rendered into English verse passages from Homer, Aeschylus and Aristophanes, and from Lucretius, Horace, Lucan and Martial; and into English prose passages from Thucydides, Aeschines and Plato, and from Cicero, Livius and Tacitus. He composed his Greek hexameters and iambics and his Latin hexameters, elegiacs and lyrics, from passages of English poetry. And he answered the technical questions relating to grammar and criticism in Classics and in Divinity. On 7 April the result was announced: Patrick had won. As Evelyn Waugh puts it in his biography of Ronald Knox: 'On hearing the result, Ronald sat down and read the Book of Job straight through; Shaw-Stewart gave up work for the next four years.'"
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawing as nobody seems to agree there's a BLP concern. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:50, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
A teenage who is a world champion in fly casting, apparently a niche sport. I'm not sure the coverage outweighs possible BLP concerns. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 23:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 06:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
If you came here because
https://twitter.com/ericgeller/status/1031647567799623680, 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. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:12, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
original research}}
tag to the article.
Diff 6"Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations", previously the sentence with the most citations in the article, consequently turned out to be original research as well. Diff 12
"Rick Rogers [line break] Rogers is Regional Director for Africa at Check Point Software Limited"-- That's the same company that Cindyjwilson, the article creator, has declared to work for. Not a reliable source, and original research as well. Diff 13
"Computer security experts generally describe cyberattacks in terms of five generations"despite there being no widespread use of such terminology outside of recent CheckPoint articles and op-eds. MalwareTechBlog ( talk) 23:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
{{u|
zchrykng}} {
T|
C}
21:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)Kvng Thank you for asking, here is the thought process that initially lead me to believe that this topic met Wikipedia's notability standard.
First, the "five generations" discussed today grow out of the idea of "three generations" of firewall, which is very well established, and is prominently featured in Wikipedia's own article firewall (computing). Initially I looked at the "firewall" article, but because a firewall is not the proper tool to protect against the more recent generations, it didn't make sense to add it there, where it's only tangentially relevant. That's why I came to the cyberattack article -- because it seemed like the more natural fit. For the first three "generations," there are numerous reliable sources, which cite a wide variety of primary sources (industry experts, analysts, etc.) over many years. Just a couple examples -- more should be very easy to find if needed: TechRepublic (2002) and Computer Weekly (2012).
As I pointed out above, the definition of cyberattack had no references more recent than 2010, which I think anybody familiar with the field would agree is problematic for a rapidly evolving field. (I see that an editor here has since reverted it to that state, overriding the discussion you and I had on the talk page.)
I already listed the core articles I think establish it on Talk:Cyberattack, but here is a somewhat annotated, and updated, list:
Independent industry analysts who have used the terms -- analysts like these will communicate with companies in the industry, but this kind of piece reflects the analyst's perspective, it is not a commisioned report. I consider this a strong indication of general industry knowledge, and I believe it meets WP:RS.
Earned media -- these are publishers that make their own editorial judgments. If it's an interview with Check Point personnel, or in some cases a byline by Check Point personnel, there is still independent judgment being exercised for it to be published. These are not recycled press releases, or "pay-to-play" sites.
Industry usage -- these are companies independent of Check Point which are also using the "five generations" terminology. While they may not score high as "reliable sources," I believe their usage of the term speaks to its usage outside of my own company.
Discussion of general concepts I can see from discussion by others above that WP:SYNTH may be a concern here. But these articles also initially struck me as significant, because even though they do not use the word "generation," they discuss trends in ways that align with the "generations" thinking.
To the editor who took offense to my naming them, I am sorry. I am still getting familiar with the etiquette here; I had thought that, since we had an extensive discussion about my editing, they would be interested to know the next step in the discussion, and I honestly thought they had reviewed my edits fairly closely. I meant no disresepect. I appreciate that they took the time to weigh in here.
One last point -- I hope the admin who closes this discussion will take note that the discussion was started on Twitter, by a competitor, and a good deal of discussion and coordination took place off Wikipedia, among editors who may or may not have undisclosed conflicts of interest of their own. I don't know how much that should impact the outcome, but I hope it is at least taken into consideration. Kvng, I appreciate your taking my good intentions toward Wikipedia, and I hope our competitors in the field share my wish to approach Wikipedia with curiosity and deference to the judgment of more experienced editors. - Cindy ( talk) 01:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. In my opinion, the award she received does not confer notability. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Based almost exclusively on publications by Andrea Ponsi except for this article. I have a hard time finding enough independent reliable sources. MarioGom ( talk) 22:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG, largely based on related sources The Banner talk 21:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was Withdrawing. Horrible spammy article but some evidence of actual coverage elsewhere, will work on it. Guy ( Help!) 09:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
This article has two kinds of sources: those based on press releases, and primary sources (e.g. patents). Oh, and it reads like a PR blurb. The fact of Reiuters and the BBC reporting the press rleases previously resulted in Keep, but the "Marsh test" (following the Bad PR script on how to identify churnalism) shows that these originated with the firm and do not have intellectual independence. Add to that the fact that it's identified as a "prototype", as of two years ago, with nothing available on the market yet that I can find. Guy ( Help!) 21:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:SIGCOV/ WP:NCORP. Lordtobi ( ✉) 21:19, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Per rough consensus that there are sufficient sources (if only narrowly) to satisfy GNG. (non-admin closure) Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG, promo. Largely based on its own website and related sources. The Banner talk 21:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was Speedy Delete ( CSD G12) ( Non-admin closure). — sparklism hey! 10:06, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
After Speedy deletion declined, and PROD declined by creator, this probable hoax or self-promotional article now goes to AfD. No coverage found in reliable sources per WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR, No credible assertion of significance. Even if everything in this article were true (doubtful), we need sources beyond IMDb and personal blogs. It is also noteworthy that article creator is indefinitely blocked on Commons as sock of a prolific sockpuppeteer of an affiliated account, see Commons:category:Sockpuppets of JOHAN ARCHILES. --Animalparty! ( talk) 20:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
please do not delete it help me update — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttwqs985 ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 27 August 2018 (UTC) — Ttwqs985 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Possible COI author, and notability for a BLP XyzSpaniel Talk Page 20:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Universidad Iberoamericana Ciudad de México. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG, promo The Banner talk 09:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
None of the citations are acceptable by Wikipedia standards. They are not reliable sources and are all primary sources. Promotional, non-encyclopedic tone. †Basilosauridae ❯❯❯Talk 20:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Only passing mentions are observed, except for the book which is written by the director himself. Fails WP:GOLDENRULE. Article created from passing mentions cobbled together to create the semblance of notability. Accesscrawl ( talk) 04:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet
WP:BASIC.
WP:BEFORE searches have yielded no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, just minor name checks and mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 17:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Radio station not properly sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA's criteria for the notability of radio stations. Every radio station that exists is not automatically presumed notable — a radio station has to pass all four of four criteria to qualify for a Wikipedia article. But this station appears to fail two of the four conditions: radio station requires a permanent OFCOM license, not just temporary special authority licenses, and it requires that the station is the subject of reliable source coverage to properly verify the article's content. Bearcat ( talk) 17:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This non-notable subject does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very minor passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Per
WP:BEFORE searches, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist for this subject. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 17:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This non-notable subject does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks and very minor passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources does not appear to exist for this subject. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:56, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This non-notable subject does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to name checks, brief quotations from the subject, and fleeting passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, name checks and very brief passing mentions. The article is reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:46, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. No prejudice against re-creating as a redirect. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
A non-notable subject that does not meet
WP:BASIC. Coverage found in searches for independent, reliable sources is limited to quotations from the subject, name checks and fleeting passing mentions. The article is entirely reliant on primary sources, which do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Furthermore, per:
WP:SPIP:
– North America 1000 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 01:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Has not received significant coverage outside of one event (his death). Hirolovesswords ( talk) 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was [He] does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Association football. This remains valid as Settsu has not played in a fully pro league or received sufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he will play in future and on the number links in the article. Claims to notability based on future appearances have been consistently rejected, and the links listed are routine coverage, insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator based on a claim that he will play in future and on the number links in the article. Claims to notability based on future appearances have been consistently rejected, and the links listed are routine coverage, insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 15:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Arbitrary list, no apparent inclusion criteria, inexhaustive and prone to promotional editing. MarioGom ( talk) 15:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The subject in question fails WP:NACTOR, has appeared in 2 non-notable films and in my opinion does not warrant a standalone article on Wikipedia. Fit India 15:00, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, nomination withdrawn and no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor 20:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I've given this the benefit of some time, but the original deletion PROD was spot on, and I regret converting dab to SIA to preserve, as clearly this hasn't been validated at the articles I checked, so needs sources here which has also not been done. As the unsourced tag was removed, this is just an unverified mess with my name on, and returning to a dab with 0 valid entries and deletion is the obvious default. Widefox; talk 14:34, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no evidence of satisfying WP:NFILM. GSS ( talk| c| em) 14:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. North America 1000 14:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails guidelines for company notability. No significant coverage exists. Considering the conflict of interest, it appears to simply be promotional. Jmertel23 ( talk) 11:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 05:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Already considered in greater depth in Military dictatorship. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:59, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
No evidence of notability. Appears to be a routine Bollywood actor. Refs are IMDB etc plus mentions in what appear to be press releases. No substantial , reliable and independent refs. Fails WP:NACTOR Velella Velella Talk 13:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Convert to article about the kidnapping. No definite consensus that the kidnapping is notable. If anyone finds the kidnapping not notable, feel free to nominate it for deletion. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 13:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not notable enough. Is not a well known businessman. The only claim of notability is kidnapping, but hundreds of people are kidnapped everyday and there are no articles for them. A few sources discuss about his father or other family members only. Clearly doesn't satisfy WP:GNG Knightrises10 ( talk) 12:40, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Production (Mirwais Ahmadzaï album). (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Not notable. Fails WP:NSONG. SummerPhD v2.0 15:54, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages. Alternatively, be bold and just merge it. Michig ( talk) 11:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Thrikkunnapuzha about same topic is existed. Merge and keep as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:51, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it). Michig ( talk) 11:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Thazhakkara about same topic is existed. Merge and keep as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it). Michig ( talk) 12:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Pathirappally about same tpoic existed. Merge and keep this as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep - mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it). Michig ( talk) 12:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Edanadu about same topic is existed. Merge and keep this page as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. mergers are proposed on article talk pages (or just be bold and do it) Spinning Spark 15:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Thottapuzhassery of same topic is existed. Keep this as redirect. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No need to bring this to AfD, just carry out the redirect and merge as necessary Spinning Spark 15:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Konnithazham of same topic is existed. Keep this page as redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:25, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was speedy keep. No need to bring this to AfD, just carry out the redirect Spinning Spark 15:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Vadavucode of same topic is existed. Keep this page as redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 10:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 ( talk) 19:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Apparently non-notable reality TV show. In the face of the creator's assertion that "every show deserves a Wikipedia page", I see myself going back and forth on the redirect with them, so I'd rather have this formalized... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was Merge into SCL Group. There is a clear consensus that this should not exist as a separate article. bd2412 T 13:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
The result was Keep: Non-admin closure; Significant improvements to the article since nomination and clear consensus.-- 1l2l3k ( talk) 13:52, 27 August 2018 (UTC) .
Redirect to Test Icicles. Found not notable in 2016 by @ GiantSnowman:, who redirected it, I still don't think he passes WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC 1l2l3k ( talk) 14:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was redirect to Munroe Island. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Munroe Island of same topic is existed. Keep this as redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 09:39, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Aryankavu. (non-admin closure) — Alpha3031 ( t • c) 01:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
There is an another article named Aryankavu of same topic is existed. Keep this page as a redirect if necessary. PATH SLOPU ( Talk) 09:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. If anyone would like the article userfied, drop me a line. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Following the precedent of recent political party deletions (see Patriotic Socialist Party and The Radical Party (UK). This party clearly fails GNG and related guidelines on notability. Has limited secondary or third party sources. Has no notable coverage during or after an election, at which results were derisory. Does not meet Wikipedia policy on notable political parties, notable organisation, or notable associated people. doktorb words deeds 08:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was keep. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Not finding much independent coverage in reliable sources about this subject; specifically, there's a lack of significant coverage in non-primary, non-LDS related sources. As per source searches for said independent coverage, the subject does not appear to meet WP:BASIC. Several primary sources exist about the subject, but they are not usable to establish notability. See also: WP:SPIP:
The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter.
– North America 1000 02:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
OK - thank you Northamerica. Fair enough comment. Vorbee ( talk) 11:39, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails to meet notability bar per WP:NCORP or other suitable standard. Creator immediately de-PRODded without substantial improvement so we are obliged to dicuss via AfD. ☆ Bri ( talk) 17:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I genuinely believe this article is for a notable company and shouldn't be deleted. What resources can I look at to learn more about the policy you are trying to enforce? Does this article require more sources? What kind? Faradorian ( talk) 18:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
To better prove the notability of this article I have added more sources, including Macworld and PC Mag. Please let me know what you all think, I'm ready to debate. Thanks! Faradorian ( talk) 20:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
What’s the next step? Do we vote? Faradorian ( talk) 19:18, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. If anyone wants the content userfied in order to create a broader article about Cordell Drive generally (and consequently create a new redirect), let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
non notable home. All sources are discussions of various sales of the property, which has had some famous owners, but WP:INHERIT should apply to that. There is an entire book on another of Errol Flynn's home, but that isn't this one. Really no sources found with any meat on them. All are sales pitches. John from Idegon ( talk) 00:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Then why have we got Bill Gates's house? The brave celery ( talk) 02:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment So far we have 3 keep (including me, the article creator), 2 delete. The brave celery ( talk) 16:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Just an overview of the sources:
Janet Irene Atkinson. "George Cukor Home". Los Angeles County Historical Directory. McFarland. 1988. Page 21. Google Books.
John Eastman. "Tracy, Spencer Bonaventure (1900-1967)". Who Lived Where: A Biographical Guide to Homes and Museums. Bonanza Books. 1 March 1988. Pages 430 and 502. Google BooksA Scott Berg. Kate Remembered. Simon and Schuster. 2003. Paperback edition. 2013. [1] [2]Ralph Gary. The Presidents Were Here: A State-by-state Historical Guide. McFarland & Company. 2008. Page 15. Google Books.Anne Edwards. Early Reagan: The Rise to Power. Morrow. 1987. Pages 282, 320, 342 and 343. Google BooksHearings Regarding the Communist Infiltration of the Motion Picture Industry: Hearings Before the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Eightieth Congress, First Session. United States Government Printing Office. 1947. Pages 213 and 532. Google Books"9250 Cordell Drive". www.zillow.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09. "Paul Lynde villa fetches close to its asking price". SFGate. 2002-01-27. Retrieved 2018-08-09. David, Mark (2009-02-24). "Moby Leases Out Hollywood Hills House". Variety. Retrieved 2018-08-09. Leitereg, Neal J. "Former Hollywood Hills home of Errol Flynn, Moby comes to market". latimes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09. Chancellor, Jonathan. "Former Hollywood home of Errol Flynn listed". www.propertyobserver.com.au. Retrieved 2018-08-09. David, Mark (2015-04-21). "Former Errol Flynn House Above Sunset Strip Lists for $6 Million". Variety. Retrieved 2018-08-09. Leitereg, Neal J. "Hollywood Regency with ties to Errol Flynn and Moby fetches $3.875 million". latimes.com. Retrieved 2018-08-09.
The brave celery ( talk) 15:28, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
*Procedural note - since this article was moved without consensus during this discussion, I'm asking the closer to delete both
Cordell Drive and
9250 Cordell Drive, the redirect left behind by the page move.
John from Idegon (
talk) 21:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Never mind. (Channel Emily Latella). Didn't notice an administrator actually had moved it back.
John from Idegon (
talk)
21:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
The result was no consensus. bd2412 T 13:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
This article is poorly sourced and has a lack of independent sources, but it's loaded with Original Research, so it fails WP:OR and WP:NMUSIC. It is a terribly written article with many opinions and unnecessary dialogue tags as if this article were a story, so it fails WP:V as well. There is no notability presented anywhere, so it fails all notability guidelines. Unless this article gets some drastic changes, it should be deleted A.S.A.P. Redditaddict 6 9 08:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't meet WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Only primary and WP:ROUTINE coverage HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 16:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
No apparent evidence of notability. The only reference this article had was a dead link, and the only one I could find to replace it was from TheBigIdea, a site on which artists list their own artist's statements. FWIW I work as an arts reviewer in New Zealand, and have not heard of Parra (not that thats a valid reason in itself for deletion). The article had been prodded (and had the prod removed) in the past - eleven years ago! - and has not grown since then. Grutness... wha? 02:29, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was merge to Diocese of Fredericton. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
WP:BLP of a person whose claim of notability is not reliably sourced. Wikipedia has no stated notability criteria for religious archdeacons at all, so getting an archdeacon into Wikipedia is a matter of getting her over WP:GNG rather than an automatic presumption of notability just for existing — but the references here are primary sources and Blogspot blogs, not reliable source coverage in real media. Bearcat ( talk) 16:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
The result was delete. Michig ( talk) 06:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There are plenty of sources in the article, but they're all primary, unreliable (no editorial oversight, download sites, how-to guides, etc.), or (probably) reliable but trivial. (See Talk:DeSmuME for discussions about source issues.) I looked for sources using the WPVG custom Google searches ( WP:VG/LRS) and could only find more of the same. The last AfD (which resulted in delete) was just over six months ago and no new sources have emerged since then. Woodroar ( talk) 02:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Extended commentary on GNG/Source reliability, etc.
|
---|
If anyone could direct me to some resources to help explain “reliable sources” and “significant coverage” in more detail I would be very grateful, please post the information on my user talk page rather than the AfD discussion here, and please do it in a polite, constructive way that doesn’t make it sound like I did anything wrong, although I suppose that by creating this article I DID do something wrong. I will try not to make the same mistake again. I really don’t want to end up back here again with another AfD for another article I wrote, with that article getting deleted too, that would show that I haven’t learned anything about how exactly notability on Wikipedia works, and I really want to learn but it is very confusing. I am on the autistic spectrum and take things very literally and do not think quite the same way as most people so for me personally it is perhaps harder than for the average person to understand the General Notability Guideline ( WP:GNG), although I am not really sure, maybe this is also hard for average people too, I would not know since I am not one of them, I would say that I have a bit of a thick skull when it comes to certain things sinking in so I need to put in extra effort to learn them. Thank you everyone and have a wonderful day, and I hope that at least one of you please explains this to me on my user talk page, you can write something yourself or just post some handy links if there already is a detailed explanation of what reliable sources and significant coverage mean. Although those are really 2 separate issues, the reliableness of a source and the significance of the coverage appearing in that source, and I must admit my understanding of both issues is rudimentary at best at the current time, something I hope we can remedy and thereby prevent this exact situation from happening again with another article. For now I suppose I shall proceed with extreme caution regarding the issue of creating new articles and hold myself to higher standards than I did when I wrote the DeSmuME article. But exactly what standards? For instance on the subject of a video game emulator, what is the most reliable source of information on emulators? Does ANY reliable source on that subject even exist, by Wikipedia standards? If not, does that mean that ALL articles on emulators fail to meet notability standards? When I try and examine the standards of Woodroar and Salvidrim, I know that they draw the line regarding sources in a stricter place than I do, but just HOW strict are we talking here? Can you do this for me, can you look at the page List of video game emulators, pick whichever emulator there sounds the most obscure that you have never heard of, look at its Wikipedia page, go through the sources, show me which ones do and don’t establish notability and why, and tell me about it on my user talk page? Because, my suspicion is, for pretty much all of them, if you held those articles to the same standard as this one, poof, the articles would vanish, none of the sources cited would be good enough to establish notability. And then what? Should we delete all of the articles on emulators that are not notable? Or do the other ones meet notability standards, are some of their sources actually ones that satisfy the General Notability Guideline? You see, while I don’t disagree with you about the notability standards, it seems you are not applying those standards consistently. I could force the issue by nominating every single existing video game emulator article for deletion and seeing what happens, but honestly speaking, I am quite fond of emulators as well as the articles on them. I like the article I wrote about DeSmuME and the articles about the other emulators too. But what is good for the goose is good for the gander. There are 34 emulators linked to from List of video game emulators, including DeSmuME. It is my contention that the vast majority of them, if indeed DeSmuME is not notable, are likewise not notable, if you look at their sources and check to see if any meet WP:GNG. When I added the DeSmuME article, it was definitely better-sourced than several of them. So, I would like to see these standards being applied a bit more consistently. And regarding the possibility that Wikipedia might cease to have any articles at all about video game emulators, while that would be sad and all, there are plenty of other wikis including several that are specifically about emulation. Anyway, could you all please look into this? I understand that naturally if I create an article where the previous article was deleted less than a year ago for lack of notability, this arouses suspicion regarding notability, suspicion that does not exist in the same way for articles that have just been sitting there for years under the radar without anyone seriously considering whether they are notable or not. But, having looked at many of those articles and their sources, I have suspicions that they are equally lacking in notability to this one that I wrote. So if you are really going to enforce WP:GNG so strictly, fine, I agree with you, but try and apply the rules consistently to all articles please, instead of enforcing it very strictly on some articles while completely ignoring others. Here are the other articles whose notability might be in doubt: UAE (emulator) Stella (emulator) Xenia (emulator) FCEUX NESticle Nestopia Snes9x ZSNES 1964 (emulator) Mupen64Plus Project64 Project Unreality UltraHLE Dolphin (emulator) Cemu VisualBoyAdvance Citra (emulator) nullDC bleem! bleemcast! Connectix Virtual Game Station ePSXe PCSX-Reloaded PCSX2 RPCS3 PPSSPP higan (emulator) Kega Fusion MAME MESS Mednafen OpenEmu RetroArch While I would prefer it if we could keep all of those articles and find it depressing whenever Wikipedia loses an article, I must say, you have really opened my eyes regarding this General Notability Guideline and the real meanings of “reliable source” and “significant coverage”, and I have now realized, probably the VAST majority of those 33 articles should be deleted for not meeting the General Notability Guideline, if we are really going to be enforcing that rule here. I just thought it would be helpful to point that out, if you really want to enforce that rule. Because it doesn’t seem like you are really enforcing it on all articles, not that it is your fault, of course not, Wikipedia has 6,862,169 articles and it is very hard to go through all of them to find which ones lack notability, it would take almost forever to go through that many, but, I think I just gave you all some very good leads on other articles that probably lack notability, I am giving you 33 good leads. But since I don’t quite understand your standards and originally thought the sources for DeSmuME were fine, and in fact I thought they were better than the sources cited in many of those other articles, obviously I am not the right person to check this given my implicit bias as well as my lack of understanding of the relevant notability policies, and someone who actually understands notability policies much better than I do should look into it. Please get back to me on my user talk page with what you think about all this, and if I am getting anything wrong, please inform me. If nobody responds to me or looks at those articles seriously I suppose I will have to just nominate all 33 of them for deletion myself and let you sort through it then, but I really do not want to have to do that because I really do not understand the policies well enough and I might be nominating articles for deletion that actually do belong on this wiki and I would prefer an expert on these policies do it. |
The result was speedy delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:14, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Placing this at AFD as this article's been moved around & been thru a lot of back & forth, but it's an unsourced article on a PROPOSED tv station with no actual release date (per the info box) by a creator who's posted a number of articles on similarly non-existent TV stations. At best this is WP:TOOSOON. JamesG5 ( talk) 02:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)