Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Can be draftified or userfied for improvement via
WP:REFUND.
Sandstein
13:47, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Margaret Devaney (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:GNG. Has not been subject to much media coverage by
reliable sources. Only claim of notability is surviving the titanic's sinking, which is not enough.
Eddie891
Talk
Work
23:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
CThomas3 (
talk)
00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CThomas3 (
talk)
00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.
CThomas3 (
talk)
00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions.
CThomas3 (
talk)
00:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Draftify I know it's been sitting here languishing for a long time, but maybe see if it's possible to find more sources? From the bio
here it looks like there might have been significant coverage in the 50s? Got here from list of women-related.
valereee (
talk)
11:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete a non-notable survivor of the Titanic. Nothing makes Devaney more notable than the other 705 survivors, and I doubt anyone thinks we should have articles on all 706 survivors.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
07:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
RL0919 (
talk)
07:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Romanian Principalities (disambiguation) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is an impartial nomination following on from a discussion at
Talk:Romanian Principalities (disambiguation)#Page mis-named. I have no opinion on the substance of the article. I say only that it cannot remain under its present name, and that !keep is not an option
Romanian Principalities (disambiguation) bears no resemblance to a DAB page. It violates
MOS:DAB in all sorts of ways: essay-like material, a picture, non-title-matches, orphan redlinks, irrelevant sections and links, citations, and external links. That is my case for something other than the status quo. If that were all, I could have proposed delete (which I now do as default option to avoid sitting on the fence), but I would accept any outcome except !keep. However, other proposals have been made. I therefore bring the page here.
Background notes, which may help contributors to this discussion get up to speed:
-
Romanian Principalities (disambiguation) appears to be a translation of
ro:Principatele române (dezambiguizare). I do not know what the Romanian rules for DAB pages are, but they are as inapplicable in English WP as English rules are in Romanian WP.
-
Romanian Principalities redirects to
United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia
-
ro:Principatele române redirects to
ro:Principatele române (dezambiguizare). (In English WP, that would be a
WP:MALPLACED error.)
-
ro:Principatele Române (no English equivalent) covers much the same ground as
Romanian Principalities (disambiguation).
- (Different capitalisation is one of the known tricks in English WP to unhelpfully evade a name clash. I do not know whether Romanian requires a capital for a nationality adjective (as English does) or lowercase (as e.g. French, German and Italian do). The issue of the correct titling of pages in Romanian WP is outside the scope of this discussion -
Narky Blert (
talk)
22:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC))
reply
Pinging
Heptametru,
KIENGIR,
Dahn and
Cnilep, who were involved in the Talk Page discussion.
Narky Blert (
talk)
22:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.
CoolSkittle (
talk)
22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Romania-related deletion discussions.
CoolSkittle (
talk)
22:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I don't find anything here worth keeping or merging. What does "supposed Romanian state forms" mean? Who supposes them? What is a "state form"? The original Romanian expressions may have meaning, but the English as translated doesn't. What are the
WP:RS for this "generic term" and its definition as stated here? As for the rest of the article - the historic eras are better covered in the other articles about Romania and the info box on the History of Romania within those articles. The Historic leaders section is not very informative when arranged alphabetically, and it's hard to believe that the area of Romania has had only 21 leaders between ca 82BC and 1878AD. I don't know what the last section, Concepts, entities, formations, other, is meant to cover, including as it does a battle and 'Romanian mediaeval village'. So, delete.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
00:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Two comments: First, the closing admin may wish to review the discussion at
Talk:Romanian Principalities (disambiguation)#Page mis-named. My reading of that discussion is that it tends to support deleting, but since that was not really a deletion discussion, it may be unfair of me to impute such a notion to others who commented there. Second, I agree with Narky Blert that "keep" is not an option, as the content is nothing like a disambiguation page. I have little specific objection to moving the page or perhaps merging its contents elsewhere, except that leaving a redirect at the current title might invite further problems down the road. For that reason, I suppose you can mark me as delete.
Cnilep (
talk)
03:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment by nom. Cnilep makes a point which I might have made and with which I agree.
Romanian Principalities (disambiguation) has no valid redirect target. That pagename needs to go whatever the outcome of this debate.
Narky Blert (
talk)
07:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Without bringing up new reason discussed in the article's talk page and having mostly agreed with the opinion of others here; since there are already much better articles that are covering the subject and anyway the creation of this page was a mistaken concept - reinforced by others - and because of other technical problems raised there and here, the best is to delete.(
KIENGIR (
talk)
15:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC))
reply
- Delete, as per my previous comments on the talk page. This article conflates the notion of "Romanian Principalities" (which is generally a synonym for
Danubian Principalities) with anything the editor thought they could construe for a principality that was also Romanian; other content is editor's idea about articles that we should have, though the content is already covered by articles that we do have, meaning this page aims for content forks, probably POV content forks.
Dahn (
talk)
17:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- 'General note I would advise that
Romanian Principalities we kept as a redirect to
Danubian Principalities, and
United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia as a distinct article from both. The former two are a generic geographical notion; the latter is the actual name in use by the confederal state which also briefly named itself
Principality of Romania, and was succeeded by the
Kingdom of Romania.
Dahn (
talk)
09:32, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- That issue is probably best dealt with by a {{
redirect}} hatnote on the target article.
Narky Blert (
talk)
17:51, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- No objection to that. Im just advising editors not to fold content here into UP of W&M, nor Danubian Principalities into UP of M&W, having noticed that there was some disagreement (and, IMHO, some confusion) about that issue.
Dahn (
talk)
23:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep. Nomination appears to be effectively withdrawn.
(non-admin closure)
Atlantic306 (
talk)
21:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Compulsion (2016 film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not notable. Fails
WP:NFOE and
WP:NFP. Could become a classic.
scope_creep
Talk
19:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep
Delete. No critic reviews on RottenTomatoes, screened at a film festival but seemingly did not win any awards, and the one source currently attached is a review in a publication that doesn't clearly state its editorial practices and may not be RS. Sources added by Nardog clearly demonstrate notability. signed,
Rosguill
talk
20:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC) 05:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Although I can't vouch for the independence and credibility of every one of the sources I just added, Cinematografo is a publication of
Fondazione ente dello spettacolo, established in 1946; Film.it is owned by
GEDI and partners with its sister publication
La Stampa; NonSoloCinema is run by
Cineforum Italiano,
recognized by the Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities; Cinematographe, Sentieri selvaggi, and Quinlan are legally registered journalistic periodicals, for what it's worth. So I don't see how it could possibly fail
WP:GNG/
WP:NFP.
- (The whole reason I created the article was because I was once confused by
another film titled Sadie, but I'm nonetheless surprised by this AfD to be honest.
Analeigh Tipton and
Jakob Cedergren are fairly known actors.)
Nardog (
talk)
05:29, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Three of the references provided indicate that Tipton is working on the film, one describes it as tired and derivative, one is listing and describing who is in the film. The Quinlan ref describes it as Sadie proves a work tired and derivative, lacking a personal look and a real expressive urgency., the cinematographe ref describes it as A quickly forgettable film, entieriselvaggi.it is an interview, and not applicable, Non RS. Film.it is a description of the film in the festival. On top of that it has a 3.6 on IMDB. It is not notable. The other ref was a neutral painting of colours, describing the colours used in the film. Ive no doubt it will become a cult classic. The idea that notable and very famous actors do not star in the most terrible and dud films is nonsense, please take a look at this
List of films considered the worst.
scope_creep
Talk
08:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not going to argue that it's a good film, but aren't the reviews in Quinlan and Il cineocchio enough to meet
WP:GNG? signed,
Rosguill
talk
18:39, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Hi
Rosguill It is definently wide coverage. I would say so.
scope_creep
Talk
20:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sandstein
13:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Jessica Starr (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
With all due respect to the departed soul.
I do not find the subject meeting
WP:ANYBIO or
WP:GNG. All of the coverage available online are about her recent death.
WP:BIO1E and
WP:NOTNEWS also apply.
Hitro
talk
19:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I'm not finding any coverage other than of the suicide, and some of those articles are really about the risks of lasik. Honestly I hope we delete before her family discovers she's got a Wikipedia page, and then discovers that it's been deleted. They don't need that.
valereee (
talk)
19:26, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete — Out of respect more than anything else. This is an easy
one event violation and
Wikipedia is not a newspaper.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
21:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not notable, and her death, while tragic, doesn't change that.
sixtynine
• whaddya want? •
08:15, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Merge or something Makes sense as an example in
LASIK#Risks (which currently doesn't mention suicide at all), but less so as a standalone meterologist bio. Then again,
Dick Fletcher's reference list looks a lot like hers (two morbid, one independent), which shouldn't matter per
WP:OTHERSTUFF, but kind of does. Maybe delete them both?
InedibleHulk
(talk)
08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The incident is notable, but the person is not. I propose that the pertinent details about the incident be transferred to a new article about the incident while this article is deleted.
NoCOBOL (
talk)
08:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I like @
InedibleHulk:'s suggestion; despite the non-notability of the subject itself (meteorologist articles on Wikipedia already corner the market in
peacock content), this is the first time I've ever heard of suicide being a potential factor of LASIK side effects. However, a standalone article about the incident, regardless of subject notability, would fall under
WP:NOTNEWS.
sixtynine
• whaddya want? •
19:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This whole incident violates the not news guidelines. Her death was covered as a news event, although only that because of navel gazing in the news industry. I had never heard of her until she died, and as a Detroit resident have a good sense of major figures in our area. She was not such by any stretch of the imagination.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
07:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:BLP1E.
Accesscrawl (
talk)
04:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:NOTMEMORIAL, but how very, very sad.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
12:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
WJBK or delete - not independently notability, but could be pointed to the channel she was working at at the time of coverage about her --
DannyS712 (
talk)
04:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Merge LASIK risks are indeed now a trending topic. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Maxim1868 (
talk •
contribs)
20:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Without any notability-supporting references added to the article or mentioned in the comments, the "keep" comments here carry little weight, even before discounting the duplicates and SPAs.
RL0919 (
talk)
23:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Global Youth Model United Nations (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
While sounding extremely official, this conference and the organization behind it literally only have a presence in their own web page, press releases and social media - in other words, the film-thin sourcing currently in the article is the best that can be produced. Good luck unearthing anything more substantial; I couldn't. Optimistically, this is
WP:TOOSOON since the first conference hasn't actually taken place yet - maybe it'll pop up in the news then. Realistically, there's no notability at this point. - Previous PROD was removed w/o improvements. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 17:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
17:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah... that's not how this works, mate... --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
08:01, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, I'm not your mate.
BlueD954 (
talk)
11:31, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Keep Notable and will surely gain followers over time. A number of conferences such as Asia Pacific Model United Nations Conference, and Harvard World Model United Nations have articles on wikipedia and we cannot ignore the fact that model united nations is actually a thing now a days. Even UN has ratified it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
39.53.88.137 (
talk)
14:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Demonstrate current notability using references. We don't deal in possible future notability. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Does this Demonstrates notability?
https://www.buzzfeed.com/sarmadiqbal/the-biggest-mun-of-asia-is-set-to-take-place-in-ku-33h8y — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
39.53.88.137 (
talk)
10:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- In-house press release; worthless. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
15:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Promotional blurb written by an organizer of the conference; worthless. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
13:15, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can be restored via
WP:REFUND for the purpose of history-merging with
Draft:Idol goods if somebody really wants to work on that.
Sandstein
13:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Idol goods (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Repeatedly re-created copy of
Draft:Idol goods that is not ready for publishing. I feel a little iffy re-re-G6'ing as uncontroversial housekeeping so I figured I would take it here.
cymru.lass (
talk •
contribs)
16:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete A10 It's a poor translation of
ko:아이돌 굿즈 which probably ought to be a more restrained section of
K-pop or
Korean idol. The translation renders fandom as Pandom in section titles - I'm sure a machine translation wouldn't do that. On the other hand I'd expect a human to remove the "[edit | edit source]" from the section headers. I've seen similar repeats speedied as A10 to the draft, and as G6.
Cabayi (
talk)
17:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- From how I read
WP:A10, it only applies to articles that duplicate a topic already represented on the English wiki, so I'm not sure it could be an A10 of a Korean wiki article.
cymru.lass (
talk •
contribs)
17:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- "as A10 to the draft".
Cabayi (
talk)
12:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Japan-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of South Korea-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
18:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as massive overkill for what should be, at most, two or three sentences in respective idol articles. Redirect doesn't make sense with multiple targets available in enwiki (
Japanese idol,
Korean idol, specific groups, etc). Merge doesn't make sense because no editor should have to spend valuable time dealing with this large amount of detailed and oddly-translated text (e.g. "cheering stick", which English-speaking idol fans would probably call "penlight" or "cyalume").
Bakazaka (
talk)
19:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Move/histmerge it with the draft version at
Draft:Idol goods and see if it ends up an article later on. This is a bit different from what
User:Bakazaka is saying above–I don't think it should be merged in the article space, but there's no reason to delete this article and leave an earlier version of it behind at
Draft:Idol goods.
Dekimasu
よ!
21:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Move/histmerge I agree with the above explanations. Deleting would be an overkill.
Shivkarandholiya12 (
talk)
17:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. The article (created by students as part of the educational assignment simultaneously (not just a translation of) with
ko:아이돌 굿즈) is indeed in need of code/grammar copyediting. It also likely needs a {{
globalize}} as the said students are Korean so the article is written from Korean perspective and doesn't discuss non-Korean markets sufficiently. That said, as the instructor who authorized the students to write on this topic, I think the topic is notable and unless you think this raises to a
WP:TNT level, I think the article should be kept. Unfortunately, the students used mostly Korean souces which are difficult for most of us to verify, and most of them are newspaper-level, but a few are Korean academic papers (
[1],
[2],
[3], plus there is
[4] which contains English word phrase "idol goods", through I don't think the students cite it despite it being a Korean paper) and anyway, a quick search in English language academic books an articles should suffice to note that the concept of idol goods (or perhaps,
idol merchandise) is notable. Consider:
- As such, I stand by my initial assessment that this topic is a notable phenomena. I asked the students to read this AfD for constructive criticism, and I invite you to offer suggestions on how to improve the article (but note the grades are due by Dec 30th the latest, and it is rare to see a student motivated to keep fixing an article after the grading period... for that reason also I strongly object to merging with a draft, it it is still a drafty by New Year, it might as well be deleted because the odds are slim the students will continue the draft process - unless they say otherwise, as I noted I did alert them to this discussion, let's see if they post here). PS. My suggestion to students is to use the three English language sources above, of course. @
Bakazaka,
Dekimasu, and
Shivkarandholiya12: --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
11:19, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I agree that the topic is notable. Independent sources in multiple countries discuss "idol goods" as a cultural and economic category (see also "band merchandise" or
Concert T-shirt). But in my opinion this article rises to a
WP:TNT level, meaning that it would be better to start over with just the title.
Bakazaka (
talk)
17:35, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
Bakazaka: Could you explain why you think this is unsalvagable gibberish, i.e. TNT level? I think it is a decent start with some reliable, (if non-English) references, of course in need of expansion and copyediting for structure and grammar issues. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
11:11, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I did not use the term "unsalvageable gibberish", so I'm not going to explain that. I provided my reasoning in previous comments. It's clear that we have a difference of opinion on an article that your students wrote. There's no need to escalate that into anything else. I'm happy to let others weigh in.
Bakazaka (
talk)
20:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- FWIW, I lost interest in commenting further once it became apparent that to do so would be either doing
Jihye Um's assignment or
Piotrus' marking, which is pretty much my principal objection to helping out a COI or paid editor.
Cabayi (
talk)
20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or draftify I don't believe that it just needs a copyedit. Many portions of the article do not make sense or the point isn't clear and it would take reading all the sources to try to fix it and do a rewrite. Why that should be someone else's problem is beyond me especially in a classroom environment. I think having students contribute to Wikipedia is a great idea but I come across too many articles from students that need major overhaul. IMO that overhaul shouldn't be passed on to the community. There's enough to do. And how did I get here? Because I was looking to do some copyediting today. I did not know what idol goods were before clicking on the article and after reading the article I still am not sure what idol goods are. I also had to do a bunch of searching to just understand what was meant by idol in this context.
PopularOutcast
talk2me!
00:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
(non-admin closure)
CoolSkittle (
talk)
22:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Hunt–Lauda rivalry (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No convincing evidence that this subject is independently notable. I cannot see anything that cannot be achieved in the articles on the drivers and the film.
T
v
x1
14:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
18:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Support There probably was a rivalry as there always is when two people are fighting for a title at the pinnacle of a sport, but to suggest it was anything more than any of the others over time because it was the subject of a movie, then no.
Fecotank (
talk) 04:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Support: if any rivaly deserves an article, it's the Prost–Senna rivaly. As it is, that rivalry works just fine as a subsection of
Prost's article, which makes this article unnecessary.
1.144.111.106 (
talk)
07:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Keep: I cannot see any policy-based argument that supports deletion, and given that there is plenty of coverage of specifically this title in reliable sources (you only need to click a few of the links in the header line at "Find sources:" to see that) I think it easily passes the
notability test. --
DeFacto (
talk).
11:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Keep: There is lots of evidence that this is independently notable as can be seen in the find sources box at the top of this discussion (particularly in books). I see no reason why this article should be deleted, there is nothing in wikipedia polic that says it needs to be deleted (that I'm aware of) and the "Find sources" at the top of this discussion clearly shows the subject is notable.
SSSB (
talk)
11:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Keep: I agree with the reasons given above. Though the article is brief, there is certainly notability to be found from the sources. If anything the article requires expanding. --
Formulaonewiki (
talk)
15:47, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Keep This rivalry has been the subject of a number of documentaries. See, e.g.,
here. It's one of the most prominent rivalries of F1 history and sources for it are very easy to obtain.
FOARP (
talk)
20:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Sandstein
19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Artscape (organisation) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- By way of clarification, just about all of the references I can locate talk about the artists, works and exhibitions. They do not talk about the topic of this article which is the Artscape organization. The article fails because the references mainly fail
WP:ORGIND and
WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
HighKing
++
13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I suspected you didn't have a proper understanding of the criteria for establishing the notability of organizations when you moved this rejected draft into main space. Yes - that is exactly correct. The individual exhibitions may meet the criteria for notability if they meet the criteria, but that notability is not passed onto the organization.
HighKing
++
13:18, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I am pretty sure I do understand
WP:NOTINHERIT (since
I wrote it), and the criteria. One whose last
3 2 AfD noms. were closed as Keep or No consensus might reexamine his or her own understanding of the criteria.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
17:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Hey, well cool that you wrote that, kudos! Since you wrote it, perhaps you can help me understand if I'm misinterpreting it - it appears to support exactly what I've said? Also, you're wrong about the last 3 AfDs - the last 3 AfD noms all returned Delete and of the last 200 AfD noms I've !voted on, 85% agreed with the end result (whereas you're running at 76.4%). But lets try to keep this less personal and assume good faith. Apologies for my less-than-friendly remark earlier.
HighKing
++
18:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Apologies, I corrected my miscount above. You are misinterpreting the essay whenever you cite it as a reason for deletion.
UnitedStatesian (
talk)
15:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Your "miscount" is still wrong. Your re-assertion of my alleged misinterpretation provides no explanation whatsoever.
HighKing
++
17:12, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Well, are you sure about that,
UnitedStatesian? I mean, for instance, a painter such as
Van Gogh is distinctly notable but the venues where he exhbibited his art not necessarily so. Moving on to a contemprary and possibly greater artist, how about
Jeff Koons and the organisation that puts them up? Of the latter I've heard not a pip. (And, yes, on comparative artistic value I'm joking.) -
The Gnome (
talk)
08:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I can see sources in English language books
[7]
[8] without getting into Swedish ones, and can therefore assume that it is notable. And as pointed out already, the rationale for the AfD is faulty, coverage what the organisation do counts.
Hzh (
talk)
15:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment It doesn't in many cases. For example, an organization that provides teachers to underdeveloped regions might well rely on references that discuss the work that happens in those regions. But an organization, say, for large open-air concerts does not gain notability from the publicity surrounding said concerts (especially if there is only a mere byline "Company XXX Organizer" available in the promotional material). That is the case here. For example,
this article about street art merely states "Behind the project is Artscape, the Urban Art Organization" and at the end of the article states "Artscape is an ideal association that last year made Sweden's first international street festival ever.". The reference is mainly discussing the artists and the various pieces - this type of reference does not meet the criteria for establishing notability as it fails
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:CORPDEPTH.
HighKing
++
16:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
09:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Sandstein
13:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Mobile Barracks of High Command (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No sources found and no indication of notability
Mccapra (
talk)
22:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of China-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
01:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep AFD is not cleanup. There are several instances cited of use of this term in Chinese history, showing notability, but the original editor has neglected to properly cite the article. Thus there is no valid, policy-based reason to delete. (s) User:Buckshot06
- Comment Buckshot06 the reason for bringing this to AfD is that it has no sources. If you’ve found sources that’s great. Could you add them in? The reason for nominating this was that I couldn’t find any, but I can’t read Chinese, so if there are Chinese sources I won’t be able to find them.
Mccapra (
talk)
09:56, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep AfD is not cleanup. You can consult a Chinese speaker on WikiProject China in place of nominating for deletion.
Excelse (
talk)
18:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not notable at all.
Sammartinlai (
talk)
06:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Apart from the nom, none of the "keep" or "delete" !votes are policy-based. Relisting to generate more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Randykitty (
talk)
12:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I have found two sources through google and added them (I have not searched JSTOR or other academic databases, so there may well be more sources). Both the sources I found have the exact wording of the lead sentence - as they post-date this article, I think they have probably used Wikipedia as a source for an explanation of the Chinese term 'Xing Yuan', as various Xing Yuan (named by place) are mentioned in the articles. I have also tried searching google for "Xing Yuan", but as it can also be a name, a combination of two words, etc, it is not easy. The term does appear to be important in the history of China in this period (though whether it would make more sense to have the Chinese title Xing Yuan or the English meaning of it, I am not sure). Re the orphan status of this article - the article about the four-star army general mentioned would seem an obvious place to have a link - but that article does not seem to mention his status or title of "Director of Mobile Barracks of the Chairman of the National Government Office at Chungking". That article is not well referenced either, and both articles would benefit from attention from someone who is familiar with modern Chinese history and who can read Chinese. Another possibility for links to this article might be one of the articles linked from
Republic_of_China_(1912–1949)#Military, but again, it needs someone who knows what they are writing about.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
16:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. There's a fair amount of tertiary sources that provide the origin and historical context of this administrative classification, e.g.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12], and much more historical writing about the stories of particular Xing Yuans, most notably the Beiping Xing Yuan, e.g.
[13]. I echo comments above that AFD is not cleanup.
Deryck
C.
19:12, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
Sandstein
19:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Hair Peace Salon (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
While I believe this article is
WP:A7 material I'll start a discussion in respect for the massive amount of work
User:Pr12402 has devoted to it. This article is a massive wall of text, documenting every inconsequential detail of the band's existence which successfully shows that it does not satisfy
WP:NMUSIC. A load of contests they didn't win, album s & EPs which didn't make an impact on the charts. I can't evaluate the Belarussian or Russian sources but, given the obsessive level of detail in the article, I suspect they're not of much consequence either.
Cabayi (
talk)
10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Cabayi (
talk)
10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Belarus-related deletion discussions.
Cabayi (
talk)
10:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - This article might just overwhelm our process here -- a supremely excessive 296 references and most are in other languages. We may need someone who can evaluate the quality of a massive amount of Russian and Belarussian sources. Via Google Translate, I attempted to spot-check a few of the sources that are currently in the article. A few turn out to be fairly in-depth musical journalism pieces, including those currently at footnotes #17, 164, 189. But many others appear to be
WP:ROUTINE listings of gigs, and there are lots and lots of inconsequential social media posts and retail/streaming entries. My admittedly weak spot-checking effort reveals that the band seems to have gotten some press in their country, but their impact on even a small Belarussian rock scene seems fleeting. If the article is kept, it must be severely reduced by a good 90% at least. I bet not even the band's fans have enough patience for this level of anal-retentive detail. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
16:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- As this article is overwhelming it is easy to lose track of the important references that are valuable and demonstrate the reason why this article should exist (and I totally agree that cropping it to a smaller size would be an improvement in quality and readability). I would not say that I have read them all (actually I kept reading them just till I convinced myself deletion would be too hasty). Of these nr. #158 seemed for me to be the most important one not to support deletion as creators of a compilation albom considered their specific song to be one of the best pieces there, which would make a question about deletion a queston of the value of that portal (which is a portal of a radio station Tuzin.fm, which seems to be one of the major evaluators of the hits in Belarus music) . -
Melilac (
talk)
06:45, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - I testify that the discussed article is not a
WP:A7 material, as
Cabayi put a notion without being able to become acquainted with the actual sources. According to the criteria for musicians and ensembles from
WP:NMUSIC, at least the checkboxes #1, #7, #11, #12 are ticked off for the band. Actually, the band got 1st or 2nd places almost in every contest the band participated. This has been initially put into words in phrases like "successfully participated", nonetheless due that objection the text has been slightly expanded with information about actual laureate places, prizes as winners, and contest stages won (that caused an increase in the article size was being objected by
doomsdayer520, although). What it comes to sales charts, speaking to whom it may concern, there were and are no music charts in
Belarus. Given the credit to a high volume of
piracy, followed by the wide spread of the
mp3 format in the
00s, the music in
Belarus, like in other countries of the
CIS, is pirated or just streamed and shared for free via
VK and some other
SNS – until the most recent years the article in not about, there were not many legal options to buy records, while the punishment for illegal downloads was and still pathetic. On top of that, the band distributed and distributes its releases for free, so this objective point in not applicable (of course, there were a single split-album with the Jitters band they kind of merged with on
West Records released in 2008, where no sales were counted in public nevertheless, some participations in CD compilations under the Tuzin.fm,
Euroradio.fm, Budzma Belarusians! umbrella made for sending over radio stations and to preserve the
Belarusian language and
culture with no commercial goals). As the band stated in the interview printed in the volume #98 of the 我爱摇滚乐 (
Chinese: So Rock!) magazine, it’s almost impossible for Belarusian rock bands to live on earnings from the sales of records and performances, even with a large number of fans. Concerning national coverage, the band was non-trivial covered by the biggest general news portals (
tut.by, naviny.by (
BelaPAN),
Euroradio.fm, interfax.by, and more), was the main actor, guest, and performer on shows and programs of almost every TV channel in the country (
Belarus-1, LAD (now is known as
Belarus-2), CTV,
tut.by (online-TV), and more), got broadly covered by thematic musical web-portals (Tuzin.fm, experty.by (now its site is "frozen"), another.by ("frozen"), "Pamyarkovny Guk" (p-guk.org – closed), xlam.by (domain was being sold), LiveSound.by (closed), Ultra-Music.com, and more). Its music was and is in the rotation of every radio station in the republic (I'm having difficulties to proof that notion in words – I suggest just to listen to them within a day) in addition to visiting them on-air ("Stalitsa" of the
NSTRCB,
Unistar, and more). In the time when
Muzykalnaya Gazeta was being published, the band was presented on its pages more than multiple times, stories about the subject of the article were printed in
BelGazeta,
Sovetskaya Belorussiya – Belarus' Segodnya too, to name a few. An internet access was a luxury in
Belarus until the end of
00s and even beyond, so there is some lack of information and valid sources about the early years of the band, while some good sources mentioned above are not online now due stopped paying for web-hosting by owners that caused the inability to put an even higher number of coveted reliable references from them that was not mirrored by the
Wayback Machine facilities at the time. What highlighted
Melilac (the importance of Tuzin.fm sources), it is lightly visible by googling (
https://www.google.com/search?q=Hair+Peace+Salon+site:http://mpby.ru&client=safari&rls=en&ei=FE8NXLunG4SvswG-s7jwAw&start=20&sa=N&ved=0ahUKEwi7gaefoZPfAhWE1ywKHb4ZDj4Q8tMDCGo&biw=1679&bih=865). There are over 30 publications from about 2006 to 2012 (the year when the portal "got scratched" due relocation on new server facilities and changing of user interface), as it may be witnessed, 90% of them are not used in the actual article yet (that is just when digging into one source was kindly recommended to expand upon)! I will strive to elaborate upon that, as well as to put more TV coverage ASAP, mostly on a weekly basis. Please keep that discussion on
the article talk page ongoing. Due to a pretty large amount of sources that have to be diligent converted into references and a lack of
WikiProject Belarus active members, it can't be done overnight. So everyone is welcomed to participate in putting more verified sources and making the article more streamlined itself eventually, as all high profile references will be put there. -
pr12402
- 300 references already and more to come?!?!?
WP:TOOMUCH.
Cabayi (
talk)
22:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - For the folks working on the article, I recommend reading
WP:ROUTINE and
WP:OVERKILL (especially the "Notability bomb" section). Above, I noted that some of the references in the article are legitimate journalistic accounts of the band. That's all the article really needs. But you also have dozens and dozens of "routine" sources listing the band as being present at some event or noting that their song was played somewhere and what not. Most tiny tidbits of info on anybody are not notable just because they were documented somewhere. There may be a New York Times article telling us what John Lennon ate for breakfast on July 11, 1975 because he spoke to a journalist that day, but his English muffin is not a fact that needs to be in an encyclopedia just because there is a source to support it. Your article on this band is an unreadable attempt to promote them by overwhelming the reader with non-notable facts that happen to have sources. At least 90% of the article's text is useless trivia and should be eliminated, along with the sources that support it. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep - This appears to be the first actual vote. Based on my two comments above, the article could be kept because the band has attained some basic notability in their country. But if the article is kept, it must be reduced significantly to eliminate all the non-notable trivia and link-bombing. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
15:39, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It seems worth keeping the page due to their notability in their country, but as has been mentioned, some significant trimming of the sources is required. In the beginning of the 'Break-Up' section of the article there is 35 sources all lined up on a single piece of information. Keep but heavily cut down the sources, at the very least for the sake of readability.
DeniedClub
❯❯❯ talk?
11:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment -
DeniedClub, thank you for the assessment. This big row of 35 sources has been cut to 5. It's done. -
pr12402
-
Comment:. I admit that the article contains insignificant facts. But this is an occasion
to improve and refine the article, and not to delete it. You should rely on such authoritative sources in the field of Belarusian music as "experty.by" or "Muzykalnaya Gazeta". Such sources attach importance to the subject of the article.
Vit Koz (
talk)
07:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
RL0919 (
talk)
17:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Vision Éternel (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Notability not established. There are a lot of citations, but most are to the band's own website, or to other self-published sources. Other citations are to sources published by associated companies such as the band's record label, publisher and recording studio, which are owned by the band's only current member. The book cited is merely a directory, listing the band alongside many others with no analysis (see
Talk:Vision Éternel#Self-published sources for details and evidence). Most if not all of the interviews are from self-published fan sites. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation "biography" appears to have been a simple directory entry. The article has also seen a good deal of attention from a lot of CoI and SPA editors.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
10:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Disclosure: I have previously been
accused of having a CoI with regard to this article, by one of the people who has edited it. The accusation was, of course, baseless.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits
10:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
18:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Inviting user
filelakeshoe for his input as well since he seems to have disagreed with Andy's
last suggestion to delete this article in September 2017.
The article has been improved by several users (including myself) since the above mention suggesting deletion, and many of the issues that Andy has pointed out and assigned templates for have been fixed. There are still things that need fixing, but this is no cause for deletion in my opinion. The article also links to many of its related bands which have been on Wikipedia for quite some time.
Does anyone actually own the book by D'Halleine that Andy makes reference to in the article's talk page? His link in the talk page only shows a preview on Google Books, but there seems to be a
printed paperback edition as well, according to Amazon.
WikiGuruWanaB;
talk to WikiGuruWanaB 7:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - as per nominators reasons. Vanity article created by an editor who claims to be the principal member of the group
[14] and subsequently maintained by a SPA
Lyndaship (
talk)
10:08, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - The nominator is correct. This article is indeed informative with a lot of references to back it up, but it is like a towering skyscraper built on sand. Almost every source backing up a substantive point is self-published from the band's own website or related items. Independent coverage from sources like AllMusic are either dead links or
routine listings of the band's basic
existence. This article is an elaborate self-written biography of a band that must wait for someone else to notice their existence before they qualify for Wikipedia. ---
DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)
18:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This was obviously created by somebody who (wrongly) thought the key to Wikinotability was to get the number of references up as high as possible — but we call that
reference bombing, and don't take kindly to it. Practically right across the board, the sources here are the band's own website and social media profiles, PR content from the band's own record label,
routine directories like discogs.com and last.fm and Google Music and IMDb that don't support notability at all, and non-notable webzines — and they aren't the subject of the only two "reliable sources in theory" that I can see, because PopMatters just tangentially verifies a stray fact about one shortlived member being associated with a different band without mentioning this band at all in the process, and the David D'Halleine book (as I noted above) just contains a directory list of their social networking profiles rather than any substantive editorial content. Nominator is also correct about the "Artists" section of the
CBC Music site — it was a section where artists with music available on the site were able to directly upload their own self-written EPK content about themselves, not a section that represented CBC staff doing journalism, so having had a profile on there is not a notability clincher just because it had "CBC" in the url. (And no, having had an artists profile on that site is not a priori proof that they ever got playlisted by the CBC Music network, so it doesn't automatically clinch the "playlisted by a national radio network" criterion either.) Notability is not extended under
WP:NMUSIC to just any band whose existence can technically be verified on the web — the notability test is the extent to which they can be shown to be the subject of substantive coverage in
reliable sources, but none of the sources here represent any such thing.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:54, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as neither
WP:GNG or
WP:NMUSIC are met, despite the number of citations. Above editors and nominator are correct: the band verifiably exists, but the numerous citations in the article are almost entirely PR/primary/routine. This has already consumed enough editor time, and it can go.
Bakazaka (
talk)
07:15, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --
RoySmith
(talk)
03:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Brig (C++ libraries) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No indication of notability. I'm not sure how exactly notability would be established for this (probably no one is writing news articles about open-source C++ libraries), but the only reference is a primary source.
Jc86035 (
talk)
12:17, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
XOR'easter (
talk)
18:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Unknown library, repo seems to have died with google code, I can't find an alternative anywhere. In fact, I can't find anything about it at all. User seems to be trying to advertise their stuff, including some other "bark" library in their user space.
Isa (
talk)
01:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I didn't even notice that; the author's only 28 edits are to this article and their sandboxes, and almost no one else has ever edited the article. It definitely looks like advertising.
Jc86035 (
talk)
07:37, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
WP:NOTPROMO,
WP:NOTMANUAL,
WP:V,
WP:N, choose any three.
Bakazaka (
talk)
23:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --
RoySmith
(talk)
03:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
List of photographs by John Thomas (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
A
WP:NOT violation; this should be a category on Wikimedia Commons and not an encyclopedia article. None of the photographs appear to be independently notable.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Nothing in either
WP:NOT or
WP:STANDALONE is violated.
- Indeed,
Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists mentions that lists of works are quite acceptable: Chronological lists, including all timelines and lists of works, should be in earliest-to-latest chronological order. and When these elements are titles of works, they retain the original capitalization of the titles.. This list of works is in a sortable table, complies with the above, and it contains valuable text, it should remain on Wikipedia. As for notability, the images do support the reader's understanding of a notable topic, namely early photography, and ordinary life c. 19c, (clothes, facial hair, state of buildings etc). I would defend to the hilt the fact that every photograph in the list is notable, and the collection is also seen as notable by many external sources.
- This list also complies with
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, and in fact encouraged. This MoS states: The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged, particularly when such lists are not already freely available on the internet.
Llywelyn2000 (
talk)
07:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Sheldybett (
talk)
08:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Photography-related deletion discussions.
Sheldybett (
talk)
08:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Wales-related deletion discussions.
Sheldybett (
talk)
08:03, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
08:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Keep A very useful article. A fitting complement to the article on
John Thomas (photographer).
Martinevans123 (
talk)
10:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This appears to be just a random gallery of photographs with nothing noteworthy accompanying them conveying their importance to the subject. Fails
WP:NOTGALLERY.
Ajf773 (
talk)
10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, though these aren't exactly random photos, but are photos in the collection of the National Library of Wales uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. They certainly seem to fail
WP:NOTGALLERY, reproducing a collection in a specific library. Neither is the list particularly useful repeating, as it does, the external links and further reading from
John Thomas (photographer). Anyone wanting to see the shared photos in the National Library of Wales collection can see [
Category:Photographs by John Thomas].
Sionk (
talk)
17:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Not quite so easy to order any of the table subject columns with just a bare list.
Martinevans123 (
talk)
10:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per NOTGALLERY. That isn't to say that a list of his photographs could never be encyclopedic, we would just have to be more selective and include independently sourced material indicating the importance of each photograph. TNT is needed here.
Catrìona (
talk)
13:48, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Although a significant Welsh photographer, I'm afraid NOTGALLERY applies.
Llwyld (
talk)
06:56, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per delete votes above
Spiderone
09:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Question. I read: "The photographs listed here are from a selection of negatives that Thomas sold to Sir Owen Morgan Edwards that are now in the collection of the National Library of Wales." With this in mind, "List" puzzles me. Would it be unfair to retitle this article "Arbitrary collection of photographs by John Thomas"; and if so, why? --
Hoary (
talk)
03:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The original donation by Edwards was of over 3,000 glass negatives. In 1928 it was intended that a complete catalogue would be published. But at the time of Woollen and Crawfords's 1977 book, that had still not been completed. There is a complete card index. There may be other negatives, of course, or even prints, not in the collection, but probably not very many. I believe this list is based on what was available at the time from the 2001 work to digitise the whole collection and make it available online. I think the current list has 2,554 entries?
Martinevans123 (
talk)
12:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per
WP:NOT and apparently lack of notability for the list as such. If anyone believes this content would be welcomed on another project, they can request a copy of the deleted wikicode from an administrator.
RL0919 (
talk)
07:41, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY - this is a directory of all LDS "stakes" (which seems roughly equivalent to Catholic parishes).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
05:29, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Please show how it meets
WP:GNG
Spiderone
09:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Bakazaka (
talk)
08:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- No one has used "I don't like it" as a deletion argument
Spiderone
10:31, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory and this entry is not encyclopedic.
Citrivescence (
talk)
05:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This article is valid encyclopedic topic of use for religious research. The problem is that it is very extensive and should be divided by continents.
Irwin
talk2me
23:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Kirito (
talk •
contribs)
reply
- Delete – After several source searches, the topic does not meet
WP:LISTN, as it has not been discussed as a set or group in reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the topic. Also qualifies for deletion per
WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as Wikipedia is not intended to be a directory of non-notable geographical groupings of an organization.
North America
1000
14:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as violation of policy. Wikipedia is not meant to be a backup site or database clone of the LDS church directory, and
WP:NOTDIRECTORY clearly says that Wikipedia is not for lists of (e.g.) "offices", "store locations", "subdivisions", etc. Readers can find this information at the LDS church site through Google, even without the dozens of external links in this article.
Bakazaka (
talk)
23:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete,
WP:NOTDIRECTORY --
RoySmith
(talk)
03:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Per
WP:SNOW.
(non-admin closure)
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
17:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Dermophis donaldtrumpi (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
See its Talk page, this species isn't even formally registered yet nor formally published. To quote @
Dyanega:: "Until it's formally published, the name has just as much validity as a "scientific name" as Chuck Jones' use of "Speedibus rex" as a "scientific name" in the Roadrunner cartoons. ".
The only sources are newspapers running the same story. I don't think this is sufficiently notable (yet), it's just conjecture of a name made for one scientist's gesture.
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
03:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep Completely non–policy based nomination: whether it's "formally registered" has nothing to do with anything, and by the way we do have an article on
Speedibus rex. Notability abundantly established by independent stories (not "the same story") in Washington Post, Guardian, SF Chronicle, The Hill, USA Today (cited in the article) plus
People,
CNN,
The Independent,
Newsweek,
BBC and many more.
E
Eng
04:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
EEng: The point of the "speddibus rex" part is that this Animal is, as far as it is empirically concerned, essentially an editorial joke fit for the 24 hour news cycle and, until the species is formally published as D. donaldtrumpi itself, completely worthless and this article fraudulent.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
04:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- You don't seem to understand notability. There's nothing to suggest it's a hoax, but even if it is it's a notable hoax.
E
Eng
04:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Well with all due respect EEng, excuse my presumption but it seems from a quick glance of your userpage (which crashed my browser twice I may add), you have not much in the way of impartiality in this particular case. I feel you may be quite eager to see this article preserved even if it were a blatant "nothing-burger" - as a term you likely remember. I have no reason to care either way, but your vote of Speedy Keep suggests a lopsided haste to shut up this nomination. I never intended to call it a hoax per se, though I do believe that at the very least this article is still quite misleading. D. donaldtrumpi is not a species.-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- <rolls eyes> If you knew anything about me you'd know I take my humor wherever I can get it -- see
[15] -- and the fact that Donald Trump is the gift the keeps on giving along those lines is entirely his own doing. Anyway, do you have any policy-based arguments for deletion?
E
Eng
05:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- You may roll your weary eyes until they fall out, but if it is policy you're looking for, here I lay it out:
WP:SPADE. This article is supported by yellow journalistic nonsense and lacks any true scientific support from a database or the like. Until it is formally published as a true species, and there is no 100% guarantee, I see no valid reason for this article's existence. Publish then create.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- <rolls eyes until they fall out> Better luck next time.
E
Eng
05:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Are you being spiteful, or is this article that hilarious for you? The thing isn't even orange (har har har). The only way this article should exist UNTIL the species is registered independently, is if it is plainly and explicitly reported as a gaff by a soapboxing scientist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Sounds like you need to work to change
WP:N. At this point I think you should have the last word.
E
Eng
05:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
EEng. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. It's clearly notable, it's well sourced, and it's accurate based on the best information currently available.
Brad
v🍁
04:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for the same reasons as cited by
E. I would also question the neutrality of the lead para. It implies that the auction to name the species was based on a false premise, and that there may not be a new species to name. The Guardian source says "The scientists who found the 10cm amphibian have agreed to use the name Dermophis donaldtrumpi when they officially publish the discovery in scientific literature." Note when, not if.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
05:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I was going to wait for this ridiculous AfD to close before dealing with that kind of stuff. Statements like "it has yet to be confirmed as a new species" need to be sourced just like anything else, or they'll have to be removed.
E
Eng
05:04, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
RebeccaGreen: "When not if" indeed! *When* this is a real species, the article should exist.--
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:27, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Sigehelmus, can you point to a precedent for that argument? It certainly isn't policy, and I don't recall ever seeing someone argue that at an AfD before.
Brad
v🍁
05:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Bradv, no I don't know of a precedent for this, but what is the purpose of this article if it isn't even a real species? Why is it notable just because some newspapers reported a personal protest/joke/whatever? If so that would make a lot of weekday article stories like "Guy does X silly thing" notable in itself. What "is" D. donaldtrumpi right now?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Sigehelmus, it's an article about a species. The species already exists; we just weren't aware of it before now. Once enough sources write about it, we can write an article because of our
notability guidelines. The idea that it has to be published in an official journal before it is notable appears to be a rule that you just made up.
Brad
v🍁
05:54, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Bradv, I concede I'm not experienced with species articles but surely
WP:RS calls for scholarly sources. Are there any other species sourced only by news articles?-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
05:58, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Sigehelmus,
WP:RS calls for reliable sources, which don't need to be scholarly. In this case there are hundreds of news articles from media all around the world which give us enough information to write an article. All we should do at this point is mention in the article that it has not yet been formally published, which is already mentioned in the first sentence. If it turns out that the species gets recognized by a different name, we would rename the article accordingly.
Brad
v🍁
06:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Bradv Okay, you're right fair enough for now. Let this this be closed....-
~Sıgehelmus♗
(Tøk)
06:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per above. See also
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald L. Trump.
wumbolo
^^^
06:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the species itself is clearly real, and notable because of the coverage of the proposed name, whether or not that becomes its real name.
Pinkbeast (
talk)
09:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the species exists, the only thing missing is the peer review of the name. There isn't any reason for deletion --
Joergens.mi (
talk)
10:46, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the above, meets
WP:GNG.
Semi
Hyper
cube
12:20, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as meets GNG, no valid reason presented for deletion.
Catrìona (
talk)
12:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Sufficient coverage for GNG.
LM2000 (
talk)
13:24, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The species is real and has been confirmed and complies with the GNG as well as the many sources
Wkc19 :) (
talk)
15:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" side does not make clear on which sources, if any, their argumants are based.
Sandstein
19:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Yisrael Ephraim Fischel Sofer (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Draftify This article does not adequately summarize who this is or why they are of encyclopedic relevance, it's not ready for mainspace.
Ethanpet113 (
talk)
05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
12:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
12:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Soft delete I'm not seeing enough coverage for GNG, at least in English, although there could be more written in Hebrew or Yiddish. Delete with no prejudice to recreating if Hebrew/Yiddish/offline sources are found that would give sufficient coverage. Being the rabbi in a town with a few thousand Jewish inhabitants isn't a guarantee of notability imho.
Catrìona (
talk)
10:11, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Its a stub that needs to be expanded. He clearly received abundant coverage in reliable sources (all the while difficult to find English language sources) and the article explains what makes him notable. Strange nomination.
brew
crewer
(yada, yada)
02:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.
Sir Joseph
(talk)
02:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- @
Brewcrewer: Could you perhaps list some of these "reliable sources" that give "abundant coverage"?
Catrìona (
talk)
13:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment being the Chief Rabbi of a town with a current population of 12000 (and presumably a lower population in the 1800s) certainly doesn't inherently convey notability. The only claim of notability in the article would be for writing a notable book, but I find nothing about a book "Afsei Eretz" by this person either. If the keep voters can't link to (or at least describe in more detail) the sources they claim are "clearly" present, this will be deleted. This is not
Chaim Sofer (also known as Hayyim ben Mordecai Ephraim Fischel Sofer), a different Hungarian rabbi with a similar name and similar lifetime (that person died 1886, the AfD subject died 1898).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Closed, wrong forum. I considered fixing the nomination to make it a nomination for the article rather than the talk page, but the article,
FIFA World Cup stadiums, passed
an AfD with a "speedy keep" less than 6 months ago. If anyone wants to re-nominate the article here, they are free to do so. --
Metropolitan90
(talk)
05:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Talk:FIFA World Cup stadiums (
| [[Talk:Talk:FIFA World Cup stadiums|talk]] |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Content has been copied off from every World Cup article, all this information is is basically a
WP:CONTENTFORK from
1930 FIFA World Cup,
1934 FIFA World Cup and so on to current day, We already have all this information across all the World Cup articles. It doesn't make any sense to repeat all that information in one article when you can get exactly the same information on each world cup page.
Govvy (
talk)
02:00, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one "keep" comment has little weight because Google searches and business directories are not considered significant coverage to establish notability.
RL0919 (
talk)
17:10, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Beckhoff group (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:NCORP
Cabayi (
talk)
17:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Cabayi (
talk)
17:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Germany-related deletion discussions.
Cabayi (
talk)
17:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
Google search for "beckhoff automation" gives > 570.000 results
[17] , search for B. and IoT > 180.000
[18] search for Beckhoff and Industry 4.0 well over 50.000
"industry+4.0" .
[19] and
[20] list as competitors
FlexSim and
Omron.
[21] lists Beckhoff among such reputable companies as
Bosch Rexroth,
Sick_AG,
Festo,
Rockwell Automation, etc.. Anyone pretending he hasn't come across Beckhoff in the context in Europe would probably be derided. I'll leave it to the readers of my comment to muse about my impression. --
Kku (
talk)
17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete No in-depth independent coverage. A company may have widely-used products, and be mentioned in many trade publications, but in the absence of independent sources discussing the company itself directly in detail then it is not notable for the purpose of inclusion in this encyclopedia.--
Pontificalibus
09:45, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation.
North America
1000
15:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
B4bonah (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Sole claim to meeting
WP:NMUSIC is "his single 'Dear God' which made up to the charts in Ghana" sourced to an article
[22] which clearly states "This list is in no order", so it's obviously not "the charts".
Cabayi (
talk)
11:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Cabayi (
talk)
11:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.
Cabayi (
talk)
11:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep the issue with the music chart as stated above. Correcting this, I have still maintained the link but changed the grammar to read precisely what the website is talking about, as the song is listed as top 10 Ghanaian songs as of 2017. However, I think when there is an issue like this, you don't need to immediately flag for deletion but rather place your concerns on the Article's Talk page
Talk:B4bonah for discussion. Thank you
Kwamevaughan (
talk)
11:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Kwamevaughan, One journalist's opinion is not "The Charts" which was the article's claim to passing
WP:MUSICBIO.
Cabayi (
talk)
13:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Two relists and commenters still do not agree on whether the coverage is sufficiently independent and significant.
RL0919 (
talk)
06:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Dutch Bros. Coffee (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is an article about an unremarkable coffee retailer. Its references are from Forbes which are expressly mentioned as insufficient to substantiate notability in the
Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria the remaining are of a similar business journal and the companies website itself.
Ethanpet113 (
talk)
04:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Oregon-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
dutchbros.com not independent.
-
First Forbes article not reliable; is "contributor" article.
-
Conscious Branding not significant coverage, brief example in a book about branding.
-
Second Forbes article good source!
-
Portland business journal trade publications are not really good enough for notability, see
WP:ORGIND
-
Small Business Smarts] not significant coverage, brief example in a book about small businesses.
- The
WP:ORGCRITE bar of
significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject
is not met. If we find additional sources, we should reevaluate this.
BenKuykendall (
talk)
04:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. This survived in 2012, but the community is more skeptical about the independence and significance of
WP:NORG coverage now, and two relists have not produced convincing sources.
RL0919 (
talk)
06:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
Henderson Village (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This tourist hotel appears to have gone out of business in 2014, the property was purchased and converted to a wedding venue under a different name and different management. See
[23] and
[24]. As a local wedding venue it almost definitely wouldn't merit an article, and almost zero of the current material would survive, except maybe a few numbers. See no reason to keep this, if the wedding venue has notability someone can recreate it.
Krelnik (
talk)
01:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment As Wikipedia is not a directory, it is irrelevant whether the resort is currently in business or not - what matters is whether it was notable when it was. I do find coverage (articles) in Newspapers.com, both within Georgia and in other states, and those articles mention other articles in magazines (which are not online), and also some awards. If the article is retained, it should be updated with that information and those references, and the date it closed.
RebeccaGreen (
talk)
09:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- I did look in Newspapers.com myself
WP:BEFORE nominating this. I would note that "Henderson Village" matches a number of other things that are not this business. When you go outside Georgia, you get even more false matches - a town in Illinois, a place in Florida and something in North Carolina, none of which relate to this. As an example, there was an unrelated mixed-use development in Alpharetta, Georgia that used this name. When you filter out all those false matches, what I find is a fairly trivial amount of coverage - hotel reviews, travel guides and the like. This is sort of thing that any business might garner, I don't see how it confers notability, but I do confess I've never worked on an article about a hotel or tourist site before so I'm not super-familiar with the notability rules here. --
Krelnik (
talk)
14:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
RL0919 (
talk)
07:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
-
VR Bangers (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Does not meet
WP:NCORP and significant RS coverage not found. Created by
Special:Contributions/LTMajorPayne with a history of what looks like promotional editing. Possible UPE, per unaddressed concerns on creator's Talk page:
[25].
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Seriously? Simply by clicking on the sources cited in the article I find a lot of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources such as
VentureBeat,
CNET and
Vice. Obvious
WP:GNG pass.
feminist (
talk)
03:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Comment "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources" isn't the test for a reference to see if it meets the criteria for establishing notability - take a read of
WP:NCORP, especially
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND. The VentureBeat reference looks to me like they've copied most of the information from the company website including a "statement" from the CEO and contains nothing that I can identify as original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The CNET reference recounts information provided by Daniel Abramovich (the CEO) and fails
WP:ORGIND. The motherboard reference is based on a company announcement and quotations from company sources (dependent coverage), also failing
WP:ORGIND.
HighKing
++
19:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The authors of both the CNET and Motherboard (Vice) articles have provided their own opinion on the service, so it's more than a simple recount of company information. CNET: "Imagine a nice house where you're sitting in a chair and she's doing pretty much everything you can think of." Motherboard: "While it probably would be nice for patients to put on a VR headset and forget they're at a clinic, I had some very practical questions about the process. For example, if you can't see, how do you make sure the semen gets into the cup? Also, how are they going to keep the headset clean? USC Fertility didn't respond to two requests for comment." Same with the
Maxim source cited in the article (which I did not look at when making my first comment): "Is virtual reality porn in a hotel room a good idea? Yes, for the people getting off to it. Not so much for housekeeping. We apologize in advance." A quick Google News search reveals many other RS, including
Engadget and
Digital Trends, both of which include the author's own opinion. I'm sure there is more coverage if I look. And
WP:NCORP is largely based on
WP:GNG, as it should be.
feminist (
talk)
08:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
feminist (
talk)
04:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- — Note to closing admin:
LTMajorPayne (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD.
Curb Safe Charmer (
talk)
08:47, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Note: the article creator and the above "keep" voter,
Special:Contributions/LTMajorPayne, has been indef blocked by ArbCom. --
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Some of this content could be perhaps soft redirected / merged to
VR porn - if we had the article. The company, however, does seem to fail
WP:CORP. Plus there is the issue of undisclosed paid editing. I was told that we will block and ban editors to discourage disruptive behavior even if it prevents them from making some other constructive editor, to drive home the point that disruptive behavior will be punished. Well, I think we should also drive this point home to spammers. Even if a company would be notable (and I am not saying this one is), deletion of their article, if they chose to advertise here through services of an undisclosed paid editor, is following the same logic as banning an editor who could and did create some fine content alongside of making disruptive edits. Just a thought. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
12:05, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.