The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet
WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. The honour listed is not significant and well-known; the article on the program has been deleted here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). The first nomination closed as "procedural keep" due to the behaviour of the nominator. Seven years on, I believe it's a good time to revisit.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:54, 20 January 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.
fails
WP:ARTIST, notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. I don't believe his book passes helps him pass WP:ARTIST either. Not seeing reliable source coverage for this subject, just his own website, some blogs, etc. And yes, one picture that he took appeared in the New York Times, but it does not seem that he is a regular contributor.
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Mysterious. The article mentions
Rosalind Solomon; and as her work interests me, this was the first (minor) aspect of the article that I examined. What I found, or didn't, surprised me. The article currently tells us: For several years in the mid 1980s, he assisted Rosalind Solomon with film development and printing. He also helped Solomon with her gear as she photographed in Washington Square Park and photographed people with AIDS. It presents as a reference "{{cite web|url=http://www.rosalindsolomon.com/biography.htm |title=Rosalind Solomon Bio |publisher=Rosalindsolomon.com |accessdate=January 21, 2012}}".
Here is that web page as archived by the Wayback Machine just eight days earlier (13 January 2012). Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention within it of "thatcher" or of "keats". This factoid goes back to the
very first version of the article (2 December 2010), which told readers: In 1983 he also worked with Arthur Tress, assisting him on his Hospital series,[reference] and for several years in the mid 80's with Rosalind Solomon on her work about AIDS, a relationship that continues today. The reference for the second half of that was "[http://www.rosalindsolomon.com/biography.htm Rosalind Solomon Bio]". I haven't examined the reference for the first half of that sentence and don't propose to do so (life's too short); but
here and
here are the web page of the second reference, as archived by the Wayback Machine on 21 July 2010 and 15 July 2011 respectively. Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention of "thatcher" or of "keats" in either of these archived versions. The assertion that Keats helped Solomon may be true, but the "reference" for it -- both as supplied by
Jgrahame (first version of the article) and as confirmed (
here) by
Ohconfucius -- appears to be fictional. (Or have I misunderstood something? I'd be most interested in comments on this by Jgrahame and Ohconfucius.) --
Hoary (
talk)
09:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
More weirdness. I find that this article exerts a horrible fascination. OK, I give in: let's continue, and consider Keats' relationship with
Arthur Tress, as mentioned above. The reader is told: In 1983 he also worked with Arthur Tress, assisting him on his Hospital series; and this cites as a source {{cite web|url=http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/previous_results.asp?Exhib_ID=44 |title=Corcoran Gallery of Art |publisher=Corcoran.org |accessdate=January 21, 2012}}. Another page that's now dead, but it lives on at the Wayback Machine. On 21 January 2012,
Ohconfuciusstated that it was retrieved on 21 January 2012.
Here is what Wayback retrieved on 7 December 2011. Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention within it of "thatcher" or of "keats". ¶ Perhaps Jgrahame's idea of sourcing is (1) to find something on the web that mentions at least one entity of the proposition that's being sourced, and (2) to add this in order to impart a certain aura of dignity to the paragraph in question. But in what sense Ohconfucius could have confirmed all this, I don't know. ¶ Regardless of what they actually say, a lot of the "references" are to the biographee. Among the others, neither of the two I checked says what it's presented as saying. I therefore can't trust any of this stuff. Therefore, delete. (Pity, because the cover of
one of his books looks interesting.) --
Hoary (
talk)
12:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Hoary: You certainly raise a lot of legitimate issues with the article. There is only two possibilities, either the information is false or it is original research. And I agree that a number of the sources are completely irrelevant as if they were added to the article to make it look like there was more sourcing than actually exists.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:03, 23 January 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.
Note–I'm not !voting, since I'm not a neutral party. I've been subscribing to and financially supporting (in a very small way) Woodworth's The Match! since the mid-70s. I'd prefer to see this entry remain on WP, but the only online references I can find are on anarchy-related blogs, one local-press YouTube, and echoes and reflections of the WP article at issue here. If this article survives, the redirect made at
The Match! should point here rather than to a list with very little context.
— jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Woodworth, whose magazine I too read and support, has been a significant figure in American anarchism in the last 30 years. (Not
black bloc-style "anarchism", but anarchism among people with brains.) While his interview in Anarchist Voices is not a reliable source, historian
Paul Avrich's page-long introduction to the interview is an RS and should help establish Woodworth's notability. Woodworth was a prominent activist in
American Atheists during the 1970s and 1980s. He is also notoriously computer-averse and prints his magazine by
linotype. Between that and the facts that American anarchism of the late 20th/early 21st centuries was eclipsed by the black bloc and most materials about American Atheists are of pre-internet vintage, Google will not help establish Woodworth's notability (although I did find some things, like a paragraph about him in
this article about the counter-culture in Arizona and his
pamphlet about anarchism at
Dana Ward's
Anarchy Archives). —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: If you both read the magazine, but are not aware of independent references discussing the writer in a meaningful way, how likely is it that the subject will be considered notable from a Wikipedia perspective? --
Rpclod (
talk)
02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I cited an independent reference,
Paul Avrich's Anarchist Voices. Contemporary political movements outside the mainstream, especially those that operate "off the grid", are not covered in sources considered reliable on Wikipedia. (Initially I started that sentence with "Unfortunately", but I don't think it's unfortunate that nobody associated with anarchism has blown up any buildings or assassinated any political or business leaders in recent decades.) I don't have access this weekend to a quality library, but I think I've given some leads that an interested editor could pursue. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete People are not shown to be notable based on their own publications, but based on works created by others about them. We lack the latter on Woodworth.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge There seems to be enough coverage to justify an article either on Woodworth or on
The Match!, though I'm not sure there's enough for both. I see more coverage of the magazine on Google Book Search than I do on Woodworth.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:55, 21 January 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.
No sign of notability at all, does not satisfy
WP:GNG or more importantly
WP:NCORP. Appears to just be a local church with an article, almost entirely unsourced or primary sources. No hint of any non-trivial mention in google or google news search. Was tagged for notability in November, no indication that any support is forthcoming or exists at all. Not fit for merging into
Hodgkins, Illinois because it is just a local church of no particular significance. Churches do not get an article merely because they exist.
—DIYeditor (
talk)
23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not seem to be notable. Though a little over a hundred years old, there doesn't seem to be any notability claim such as being in a historic building or extensive news coverage.
331dot (
talk)
09:59, 21 January 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.
An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable charity and social network. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is mostly self-promotions and executive quotes. Article is cited to passing mentions, routine news,
WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account currently indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing; pls see
Special:Contributions/Bigredlighthouse.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The original author being blocked for promotion would not be an ongoing issue if the subject was notable and other editors had developed the article since its creation but, checking the history, I see that nobody else seems to care about this subject. The article is very close to being an orphan. The charity has only 8 alleged staff. Its website seems to suggest that its only activity is the operation of a very small specialist online social network. Even if we might be inclined to give a charity more benefit of the doubt than a for-profit company, this is not notable. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
01:02, 21 January 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.
An indiscriminate collection of information and unencyclopedic categorisation. The honour is minor and does not confer presumed notability on its recipients. Significant and independent RS coverage not found. Does not meet
WP:LISTN.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
LISTN isn't relevant here because here the list is an actual thing outside of our content that this article is about (like
Nixon's Enemies List, or even more on point as another annual list published in a magazine,
People (magazine)#100 Most Beautiful People). We should just go straight to GNG, and should expect secondary source coverage, not just the magazine itself for sourcing. If it is not independently notable, then this should be redirected to
Inc. (magazine) where it may merit a mention but not a wholesale reproduction of their lists year after year. Copying their lists would also raise copyright concerns as their compilation is not factual but editorial and creative. postdlf (talk)
15:01, 21 January 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.
No evidence supporting that this collection of courses is notable. Appears to be a vanity article for the University of Pécs Cheers,
1292simon (
talk)
21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the lead is "This article considers Business Degree Programs in English at the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of Pécs", which is clearly a different topic from the title of the article, and not a notable stand-alone topic.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:57, 21 January 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.
DeleteNo Opinion The entire article is copy-and-pasted from
[1].–
dlthewave☎ 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Edit: Change to No Opinion. There's a decent amount of content left after removing the copyvio and efforts are being made to build up the article. I'll leave it to others to determine notability. –
dlthewave☎17:17, 14 January 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.
WP:TOOSOON. Only notable work is on Party Over Here, and some alleged writing on Mad TV. Comedy Bang Bang only a handful of episodes among hundreds released. No significant coverage articles to meet
WP:GNG; the only two references provided are a profile from Upright Citizens Brigade (comedy group) (primary source) and a passing mention in a cast announcement.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
13:13, 6 January 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.
This doesn't meet the notability standards, either
in general or
supplemental, for coverage in a stand-alone article or even, arguably, for mentioning in the type article's accidents-and-incidents section. The engines flamed out due to bad maintenance, the pilots restarted one, they landed. There was no hull loss, no fatalities or even injuries, and aside from "you screwed up the maintenance, here's a rule to Do It Better", there were no significant changes to procedures or regulations as a result of the incident. It was a close one, but
close doesn't count. Note that in 2011 a PROD was declined on the basis of "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" - but
a search doesn't seem to show it; there's plenty of
routine coverage of the "this incident happened; here's how; here's what you can do to avoid making the same mistakes, and here's what you can do if your mechanic didn't watch the previous bit" type, and the only book coverage that would indicate "beyond the routine" is a self-published, vaguely
fringey title or two.
(edit: It's also worth noting, or at least disclosing, that the article was created by a long-since site-banned editor who was (and is, as he's one of our most persistent sockpuppeteers) notorious for pushing non-notable aircraft accidents into every possible article.)
Comment I recall this incident because at the time I was visiting my parents in South Florida. This incident is certainly more noteworthy than
Northwest Airlines Flight 5 which also has a Florida connection. Usually I am in favor of delete, but for this article I'm on the fence as of now.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - A major airliner losing thrust in all engines is a very rare and notable event regardless of why.
British Airways Flight 9's engines flamed out simply because the pilots weren't properly informed where volcanic ash was and that flight had zero fatalities or injuries and no haul loss. While I believe the nom made a good-faith effort to confirm the previous PROD-removal rationale, "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" but I've learned over the years searching with simply an article title isn't always efficient. Firstly in 1993, there was a huge amount of coverage from the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post and UPI and many others (these here are just samples).
[2][3][4] with the full NTSB report in 1984.
[5] Secondly, very in-depth coverage continued for decades, like that of the 2017 book Behind Human Error (authors include
Sidney Dekker).
[6] Other in-depth coverage include the the 2008 book Is it Safe?: Why Flying Commercial Airliners is Still a Risky Business, and what Can be Done about it[7] and the 2008 book 35 Miles from Shore: The Ditching and Rescue of ALM Flight 980 (some pages missing from this preview)
[8].--
Oakshade (
talk)
04:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The search was done by the flight number, and the sources you mention above are exactly the sort of
routine coverage any incident like this produces. Furthermore, Is It Safe? is a
self-published book and thus not a
reliable source (and is also exactly the one I mentioned in the nom as 'self-published with a conspiritorial tone'). I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, as it's an interesting incident, but I have yet to see anything to indicate it's a Wikinotable one. -
The BushrangerOne ping only07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:ROUTINE coverage is "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" and of course the coverage that is decades later - or even just after the incident happened - is nothing of a sort. The Wikinotable is of being the in-depth coverage by reliable sources that spreads over decades thus easily passing
WP:GNG. Even if you exclude that one book out of all the coverage, this still is easily Wikinoable.--
Oakshade (
talk)
07:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Does being a 1983 mechanical failure suddenly mean this did not receive in-depth coverage spanning decades thus passing WP:GNG not to mention there was not a total engine failure of a major jetliner? --
Oakshade (
talk)
22:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The near-disaster has also been discussed in Neil Johnston; Nick McDonald (2017).
Aviation Psychology in Practice. Routledge. pp. 109–113.
ISBN978-1840141337. (first published 1994) where it says "As a result of the Miami incident, there has been a regulatory change in the US to prevent such an accident from occurring again." The type of maintenance procedures required at the time are now prohibited. This meets
WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles #3 and
WP:GNG with continuing coverage as well as very extensive press reporting at the time. The nomination is misconceived.
Thincat (
talk)
12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - although
WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and shouldn't really be used in AFDs, the article still passes those requirements. More importantly it passes
WP:GNG and there are plenty of other accepted similar articles.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
21:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Even though it's clear there's a consensus this is notable, and that's more than fine, I wish people would stop saying "it's [only] an essay!". Lots of the SNGs are
only essays (as is
WP:ATA for that matter). The fact it's only an essay isn't relevant when it's being used as a shortcut to typing out three paragraphs of "this is what the consensus on the subject is" every time it comes up. -
The BushrangerOne ping only21:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
The Bushranger I did not mean to imply that
WP:AIRCRASH should be disregarded, quite the opposite I was stating that the article in question fits the criteria set out in
WP:AIRCRASH. However the ultimate aim is
WP:GNG, and in it's purpose as an essay
WP:AIRCRASH and other's are suppose to be helpfully paths twords concurrences, not the end all be all.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
00:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as not noteworthy, comes under "bad day at the office" scenario, nobody hurt, kick the tires and life moves on like hundreds of other non-noteworthy incidents that happen every day.
MilborneOne (
talk)
23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Do you know of hundreds of other major jetliner passenger flights that all engines flamed out? Are you aware of such a catastrophic failure occurring hundreds of times a day? Just like
Air Canada Flight 143 or
British Airways Flight 9 in which there was nobody hurt, this is far beyond a "bad day at the office." Most people's "bad day at the office" aren't significantly written about decades later by reliable sources and pass
WP:GNG. --
Oakshade (
talk)
02:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
All references are to two NTSB reports. NTSB responds to many incidents. An NTSB report doesn't make the underlying incident notable.--
Rpclod (
talk)
17:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This incident started with an engine shutdown due to falling oil pressure, followed by a double engine failure, meaning this three-engine aircraft become a glider until the crew managed to restart the engine they had shut down. That engine failed after the aircraft landed. The unusual circumstances are irrelevant. That the aircraft did not crash is irrelevant. If the incident received some write-ups in the news and was then forgotten about, I would be !voting delete, but this demonstrably passes the General Notability Guidelines, as there has been significant coverage - not passing mentions - of the subject, with analysis, in several books decades after the event.
YSSYguy (
talk)
10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep gets in-depth coverage in academic sources from reputable sources such as Routledge as recently as 2017.
[9] A look at other Google Books hits shows continuing coverage in the decades since the incident, meaning this passes the
WP:GNG. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - As many editors have stated above, this incident attracted the attention of many journalists and authors in the years following. In addition, the flight crew each received an award from ALPA. These are not given out for anything less than outstanding airmanship.
Mjroots (
talk)
07:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - On the surface this is an easy delete as a non notable event. Additional digging reveals lots of substantial coverage long after the incident. -
Samf4u (
talk)
18:45, 26 January 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.
Keep broadcast on NZ 2nd national TV station and on Australia national TV so there are likely to be sources if only offline such as this
here which is only available in NZ libraries. They also made a third series in 2014 which is detailed
here This primary source shows it was screened in Australia
here , this source shows national TV in NZ
here Reviews are probably offline or paywalled
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
DeleteKeep but needs serious improvement. Per Nate, it aired on a national TV network and we can prove it exists and is not a hoax, the only question seems to be the substance of sourcing.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
TenPoundHammer - thanks for the ping. I was evaluating two AfDs simultaneously when I wrote this and must have been scanning the incorrect tab. You're correct; I've modified my !vote accordingly.
Chetsford (
talk)
21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: The source I first added can only be viewed in NZ libraries and is directly about the series so you cannot say it is a passing mention as you can't see it , it is only available offline, the source about the third series is an article directly about it and is therefore significant content. Adding references to the article can also be done by the nominator and is as much up to them as anyone else and sources are included in every discussion.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
13:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Winning "Achievement in Sound Design in General Television" in the Qantas Film and Television Awards 2008 does not show notability.
WP:TVSHOW states:
Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market.
In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program might be notable enough for inclusion if it played a solidly sourceable role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage.
Reliable sources do not need to be accessible online (although that may be more useful to Wikipedia users), so bibliographic cites to offline authoritative references would suffice. However reliable sources are needed to support notability.--
Rpclod (
talk)
03:25, 21 January 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.
Military accidents are generally non-notable regardless of how many are killed. Notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties, extensive infrastructure damage, changes to legislation or operational doctrine, etc. etc., or anything that could be construed as notable in it's own right, such as notable passengers
WP:NOTNEWS,
WP:GNG and as a guide:
WP:AIRCRASHPetebutt (
talk)
17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Which of our policies says "notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties" - this easily meets GNG and you should have checked before nominating - the fact that only military personnel were killed is not a valid grounds for nomination, neither is your personal opinion that civilian deaths are more notable, and I suggest you withdraw this ill-conceived nomination:
cnnnbcchicago tribunestars and stripesSeraphWiki (
talk)
18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, not notable for a separate article; unfortunately, a fairly common occurrence. Agree with MilborneOne as to where is should be mentioned in a separate article.
Kierzek (
talk)
18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It seems any incident where an "Israeli civilian" is killed or even just targeted is worthy of a standalone article (despite repeated efforts to have these articles merged to lists during AfDs), but an incident where 9 members of the United States military lose their lives is non-notable and "a fairly common occurrence". It's shameful, if not surprising.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, its not a valid policy grounds for deletion. The correct policy is
WP:NOTNEWS and at least some of these articles have been challenged under that policy and closed keep, as well as many other minor "terrorist attacks" or "attempted attacks" throghout the world. Invariably, the AfD discussion closes keep. These attacks are actually more common than military plane or helicopter crashes and nine deaths is a high number for a single crash. There is no policy based justification to keep every terrorist attack article and delete articles about military accidents. The lives of members of the United States military are just as valuable as civilian lives.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Still dont get the relevance of terrorist attacks, this is about a military aircraft crash during training I dont see any terrorist involvement. I also dont see the fact that they were United States military involved which has no relevance to it being noteworthy.
MilborneOne (
talk)
19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you for stating that in your own words, because it gets to the heart of the problem with how this policy is applied, the policy does not turn on whether there is "terrorist involvement" or whether deaths of U.S. military has "relevance to it being noteworthy" - I reviewed and accepted the article through AfC based on my knowledge of previous AfDs involved the policyWP:NOTNEWS. The relevant part of the policy in these discussions is whether the occurrence is "routine". In August 2017 there had been 14 non-combat aviation crashes that year
[10] - there were more terrorist attacks in any given month of 2017. Editorial POV that terrorist attacks are more inherently notable than United States military deaths in plane crashes has absolutely no policy-based justificationSeraphWiki (
talk)
19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Nope you have lost me and I dont know where this "routine" stuff comes from or why you are comparing military aircraft training accidents with Terrorist attacks or any other disimilar subject, the point is the accident noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article on its own merits. It clearly isnt, we dont compare "notability" between unrelated subjects. Most of the subjects you mention I fail to get the connection as far as I know no Israeli civilians were involved or even terrorists, it was just an accident during a training flight. Military training is risky stuff. Not sure what accidents in August 2017 have to do with it, the date or time of year is not relevant, nationality of the victims is not relevant. Being military is relevant as civilian aircraft dont normally fly through the mountains in the dark at low level using night vision equipment. A large civilian aircraft that flies into a mountain with fatalties would be noteworthy.
MilborneOne (
talk)
21:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I am sorry to have to say this but if you are not familiar with the policy involved then you should not be supporting deletion of an article, especially as an admin. The policy involved is
WP:NOTNEWS - it is the same for military plane crashes and terrorist attacks (in Israel or elsewhere). The policy says For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia and this is the point that is most often discussed at AfD. The number of military plane crashes per year relative to the number of terrorist attacks is relevant, as anyone who has previously participated in these AfDs would be aware of, because a military plane crash is not "routine news" - that is why I decided to accept the draft. Otherwise this topic easily passes
WP:GNG and I don't think there is any policy-based justification to support deletion here.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well clearly we are not on the same wavelength but thanks for for your arguments using NOTNEWS as it clearly calls for deletion as military aircraft crashes during training comes under the "routine news" and has no persistance. (And please dont comment on the competence of others it is not clever)
MilborneOne (
talk)
22:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
For example the
2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash was recreated after deletion and during the second deletion discussion many editors voted to keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash. We have many other similar articles - so many that there is a navbox for them: {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015}} These nominations are perennial and there is no consensus for deletion of these articles, it should really be clarified that nominations based on the
WP:AIRCRASHessay - are starting to be disruptive because it is a waste of the community's time to go over the same issues everytime. Time and time again these articles have been nominated as NOTNEWS and the AfDs have closed keep or no consensus for deletion.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
00:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Additionally
MilborneOne I would very much appreciate it if you would willingly strike your comment that "it was just an accident during a training flight." Nine members of the United States military died in that accident and you are right, it does not seem like we are on the same wavelength about that. This is not the first time I have wondered if editors are simply unaware that these discussions may be read by persons unfamiliar with "Wikispeak" - family members, or other service members, and what it would sound like to them = "just an accident" "routine news" "no relevance to it being noteworthy"... I hope these views don't reflect the views of most of the trusted members of community, but all I can say is they certainly don't reflect mine.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets GNG. Has LASTING coverage, e.g. -
[11][12][13]. AIRCRASH is a good essay - but military crashes of large aircraft with many crew/passengers are sometimes not pigeonholed to the criteria there.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Lasting" coverage is not beyond either incidental mentions of "this happened in the past" and/or
WP:PRIMARY sources which do not confer notability. It is long-standing consensus that military aircraft accidents are held to a higher bar than other aircraft crashes. This was tragic, but it does not rise to the standard that is held for these kind of accidents. As for the
WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - there are, indeed, many other articles on non-notable crashes that should be deleted or merged, but their existiance does not mean we cannot delete articles on non-notasble subjects. -
The BushrangerOne ping only01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply if there have already been AfDs that have closed keep or no consensus to delete. It is not a long-standing consensus that military aircraft are held to a higher bar- this issue has already been discussed and resolved by countless previous AfDs about military aviation accidents which have closed keep or no consensus, at least one nomiated by the same nominator with
User:MilborneOne commenting there also military aircraft accidents tend not to be notable:
Not ok - completely unacceptable to use AfD to circumvent the community's notability guidelines, including
WP:GNG to impose a project-specific guideline that has not been approved by the community. If you guys want to apply this, do it the right way and see whether there is actually a consensus for a new notability guideline. Until then, these nominations should stop. This has been discussed by the community multiple times, over a period of years. Nominating articles for deletion based on
WP:AIRCRASH guidelines (like whether any of the passengers were "notable" as the nom. himself said) is at this point as disruptive as nominating because you
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It's not DONTLIKEIT to point out that this has been going on for at least eight years and that many editors in the community don't agree that military aviation accidents are less notable than other types of aviation accidents. If Wikiproject Aviation wants to have a community discussion about a new NAVIATION that's good, I support that, we probably need it. One of the things that will most likely be discussed is this military aviation accident issue - an essay is written by one person, it is not a guideline, it is not a policy, it has not gone through the same process or community discussion required for guidelines or policies and no editor is required to follow its recommendations to keep their work from being deleted.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
09:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Bushranger's !vote summarizes the majority of my views on Wikipedia's problem with tragic news stories; his "this happened in the past" comment where editors fail or simply ignore what a passing mention applies not only to this article but to dozens of others with the same issues. Sure,
other crap exists, but that is more of a reflection of some (too many) editors falling into the dark and dreary clutches of
recentism even though they should know better.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment If the application of NOTNEWS is this inconsistent we would be better off with more specific guidelines - the practice is that we keep articles like
2016 Jerusalem shooting attack - no one who died in this incident was notable and the casualty figure was lower - but this article is kept because it is defended by Pro-Israel editors and we delete articles where members of the US military died (nine in this case, a high number for an aviation accident) because very few editors turn up to support it.
Instead of placing that burden on editors to participate in multiple long, repetitive AfDs it is past time to attempt to hammer out a real consensus about this policy. Multiple AfD discussion about NOTNEWS have closed no consensus - at this point the only standard for whether an article is kept is whether enough editors show up to force a no consensus close.
Notability can not be inherited from notability of the passengers and the nominator deserves a trout.
We need a standard policy that reflects community consensus which editors and reviewers can apply before wasting their time on creating articles and repetitive, controversial AfDs that are difficult to close. OTHERSTUFF exists is no excuse for this, its getting to a point where it is both disruptive and a drain on the community's resources.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
19:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing that out. I shall re-nominate it forthwith as it clearly fails all the criteria used to nominate this article--
Petebutt (
talk)
10:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There are enough sources for this accident that it passes notability - notability is based on sources. It was covered in multiple news stories at the time, and has since been covered in books also
[14][15] so neither
WP:GNG nor
WP:NOTNEWS are valid grounds for deletion. Being a military accident is certainly not valid grounds to nominate an article for deletion without a
WP:BEFORE check.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
23:10, 18 January 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.
Keep. I have added a source that does use the term (and, in fact, is a 900+ page book titled "The Mid-South and Its Builders: Being the Story of the Development and a Forecast of the Future of the Richest Agricultural Region in the World"). A quick Google Books search returns tens of thousand of books discussing the region by name, including many focused entirely on it (e.g., Eugene R. Kuhne, A Guide to the Fishes of Tennessee and the Mid-south (1939); Mississippi State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Temperatures and Cotton Planting in the Mid-South (1964); Ronald Register, Stanley Hyland, Black social institutions in the Mid-South: a dialogue between Demitri Shimkin and Nkosi Ajanaku (1978); Arlo I. Smith, A Guide to Wildflowers of the Mid-South: West Tennessee Into Central Arkansas and South Through Alabama and Into East Texas (1979); James R. Veteto, Edward M. Maclin, The Slaw and the Slow Cooked: Culture and Barbecue in the Mid-South (2012)).
bd2412T21:54, 20 January 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 subject of this completely unsourced BLP is non notable- a before search showed nothing. He is the founder of SCAD, a NGO which may be notable, but he certainly is not.
jcc (
tea and biscuits)
21:14, 20 January 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.
Comment: His article on Urdu Wikipedia (
ur:تنویر سپرا) was unlinked in Wikidata, I have linked to it and added an {{expand language}} tag to the article here. I have added his name as an alternative search term above. There is a fair amount of hits, but I don't speak Urdu, and it's one of the languages, where I feel uncomfortable judging sources via Google Translate. What was nom's findings when they performed
WP:BEFORE litra B no.6: "Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet"? SamSailor09:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Sam Sailor: The bio on Urdu Wikipedia doesn't cite any RS, therefore the notability of the subject on that edition of Wikipedia could be questioned as well. @
Störm: Quick search doesn't show anything but unfortunately we cannot depend on Google. Urdu sources including major Urdu language newspapers do not always show up in Google search results. No idea why therefore I won't be able to verify the notability, except a column in a Pakistani
Daily Nawa-i-Waqt which noted the subject as a now deceased working poet from Jhelum. --
Saqib (
talk)
09:42, 16 January 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.
Delete. An offensive lineman who started one season (2017) at Va. Tech. and has not received the kind of "significant" coverage that is needed to pass the
WP:GNG bar. Nor has he received any major awards of the type required to qualify under
WP:NCOLLATH.
Cbl62 (
talk)
21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I disagree that college football players are "rarely" notable--some are and many are not. However, college offensive linemen are almost always not notable. Every other position at least generates statistics that can be measured, but offensive linemen only get bruises. There is no reason that I can see to make an exception here. Fails
WP:GNG.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:48, 21 January 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.
Does not meet the requirements of
WP:NSOFT, and no significant Google search returns can be found. No coverage found in any independent sources. Only reference in article is to the software's own blog.
Nick Moyes (
talk)
10:58, 13 January 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.
Merge to
Earl Shilton. If it is decided that this article is too long for a merge, could we start an article on the history of Earl Shilton and insert the information there?
Vorbee (
talk)
11:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The main article for this place is over 56K and tagged as {{too long}} with {{too many sections}} and so merger would make matters worse. The topic is notable and good sources are provided. The nomination is absurd and false and so should be speedily closed.
Andrew D. (
talk)
20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge with the article on
Earl Shilton, which also needs to be seriously edited. Both these articles lack an encyclopedic tone, and ramble with little evidence of sourcing and no consideration of notability guidelines or what encyclopedic articles are supposed to cover. There is no reason an article on a place of 10,000 people should be so long and rambling.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as
History of Earl Shilton, possibly pruned. The fact that the village has a local history published by a mainstream publisher like Pan means that this is an exceptional case, where a separate article is justified. This looks like a significant case study. It needs to be pruned: details of the expenses incurred by Leicester Corporation on entertainment are too detailed, though the total expenditure might be appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Merge There seems to be a perfectly respectable article in there struggling to get out. We should help it do so rather than smother it at birth. I agree with Andrew Davidson re sources and notability and Peterkingiron re pruning. I have put this (pruning) on my 'to do' list, along with the main article.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Happy for this to kept and worked on if it helps this to be closed - a possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. This is clearly not going to end with deletion - I don't really think it needed to be relisted. --
Michig (
talk)
20:59, 20 January 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.
Keep. Were a fairly big indie band back in the 1990s. A couple of sources easily found and added. The band name and their only album released at their peak being called 'Submarine' makes Googling difficult, but a band that recorded two Peel sessions is going to be notable enough for inclusion. --
Michig (
talk)
10:10, 13 January 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.
Garden variety "X in popular culture" article cataloging even the most trivial mentions of Los Angeles. No sourcing, no valid content, just a list of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)08:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It might be better with the more prominent examples (by whatever standard) converted to prose, but it's a legitimate subject for a page. The items are bluelinked, and the basic claim "this piece of media portrays LA" is straightforward enough that it can be sourced by the linked articles. (I mean, the source for "Blade Runner is set in LA" is Blade Runner itself.) So, it's not an article anyone should be proud of, but it doesn't merit deletion, either. I made a start on cleaning it up.
XOR'easter (
talk)
21:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand. There is a lot more that can be said about the way L.A. is shown in popular culture. First of all, that it is often used due its distinctive landmarks, culture, and urban concentration.
- WPGA2345 - ☛05:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think certain information on popular culture in Los Angeles is notable, while some of the
irrelevant topics can be removed by discussions, and some of the significant footnote topics can be expanded by citing the sources at any time.
SA 13 Bro (
talk)
01:15, 24 January 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. Policy-based arguments are solidly for delete. The canvassed views expressed here do not address the core issue of lack of independent sources to substantiate notability. Guy (
Help!)
10:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Author is publicising their own software package without any evidence of notability. Two of the three sources cited are self authored and the third behind a paywall.
Cabayi (
talk)
08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep The article describes mechanical simulation software that has served Wikipedia users very well by providing animated illustrations of mechanical devices on many different pages. The article documents the existence of this tool, which is appropriate and desirable. It does not advocate for or promote its use. The software is notable in that it is a lean effective simulation tool that is available at low cost. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to document software simulation tools like
MeKin2D and
CATIA, just like it documents other products such as the
Ford Mustang and
Cabbage Patch Kids.
Prof McCarthy (
talk)
00:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The simulation of the mechanisms developed by the author is very useful for teaching and understanding by the students of the principle of many mechanisms functioning. The program is useful both for didactic and research purposes, especially in the development of new mechanisms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.180.74.190 (
talk)
05:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Regrettably
Cabayi is trying to invalidate any favorable vote cast in this matter. In turn I would like to call the attention upon the fact that, according to his/her Wikipedia contributions, the only negative voter so far does not have sufficient expertise in the subject of
MeKin2D. In my view, Wikipedia rule changes are stringently necessary in order to clear more easily disputes like this present one:
There should be some rule changing regarding the deletion of articles, because self serving Wikipedia edits cannot be entirely eliminated. I am signaling a case of self-promoting by Wikipedia itself: Whoever made that
Disruptive Innovation entry, placed Wikipedia in the academia category (which is false) just to put Wikipedia on top of the list -- and I could iterate 3 more case of self promoting articles I encountered in the last two months only!
(1) With certain exceptions, new articles should be allowed a given number of months to mature before they are proposed for deletion. Better yet, articles (new or old) should be reviewed for deletion periodically, based on their low traffic.
(2) Voting in an article-deletion case should NOT be permitted to unregistered users.
(3) Users known to have added content to articles of the same categories as the article proposed for deletion should be invited automatically to cast their vote. In this respect the following features should be implemented by Wikipedia developers:
(4) The edits of registered users should be metered and used to build a database of users' expertise. An expertise rank should be easily retrievable with user's name, with the possibility of displaying it on the user page.
One can assess an article's worth without having significant experience in the topic area. That does not automatically invalidate the oppose itself. The simulations are very good; the point still stands that the majority of the newly introduced sources are behind a paywall and the others are self-authored. --
Cadillac000 (
talk)
22:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep in mind this Wikipedia rule on notabability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." And then this: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I will also add that pointing out other self-promoting articles or other articles without notability is not an argument that this article qualifies as notable. -
Rectorsquid (
talk)
19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Dear Simiprof, I had never heard about this software until you linked to my page in an attempt to get me to vote to keep your Wikipedia page from being deleted. There are many features in many software packages that are the same. That does not make them notable. On Wikipedia, notability is determined by citations, not from being similar. for instance, I have a blue car and others have blue cars. That does not mean my blue car is notable, it means that some cars are blue. For the record, the only software package I consulted for idea for the Linkage software was Corel Draw and only to get idea on how to make it work like an illustration program, not a typical CAD program. I wish to be left out of your Wikipedia conflict. Feel free to delete or obfuscate and references to my software if you think that I am trying to gain notability through this conflict. -
Rectorsquid (
talk)
20:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: All "keep" opinions are by IPs or accounts blocked for socking. We need experienced contributor input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't find evidence in
reliable sources that this software has been widely adopted.
Two hits on Google Scholar, with one citation between them — that's simply not enough to go on. We cannot write articles without independent sources that indicate the significance of the subject matter.
Those sources might well exist in the future, but they don't exist now. None of the paywalled references written by people other than Simionescu concern this software in particular. Contrast this situation with, for example,
PyMC3, a scientific software package that was AfD'ed not too long ago. In that case, there were book chapters written about the software, and plenty of scientific papers that used it.
Delete It is clear that this article is intended to help this software gain notability, not to reflect any existing notability. I have been working on software to do similar functions for the last 15 years and have researched what software already exists as a means of determining what is common in this area. I have never heard of or seen a reference to this software before being dragged into this conflict.
Rectorsquid (
talk)
20:10, 24 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This bio was last year deleted via AfD but re-created. The notability of the subject is very similar to that of
Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari - the latter is on the verge of deletion. The subject has not notability by its own, and sourcing is in passing and routine coverage, which means no in-depth coverage. The subject is not a elected politician thus fails WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't have a notable career either.
Saqib (
talk)
07:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@Ominictionary : "Rotary Ambassador and former UN Ambassador for Polio Eradication" are quasi diplomatic posts but diplomacy and diplomats and politics are inherently and inseparably linked. But, frankly, I wasn't aware of [[WP:DIPLOMAT]] (I never used it before) and was using the other. Thanks to you.
Quis separabit?07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep or Redirect: Before creating this article I had thought a lot about this article's notibility but after some research I thought that the article worths creating. She get notibility for her activism of Polio eradication. She has worked in
United Nation also. There is a high possibility for her holding any goverment office which has been mentioned in the article with citation. So I think the article meets notibility and important to mention that this article is mostly based on secondary source and lastly, it doesn't matter the article meets
WP:Politician or not because she is not a polititian but a health activist.
Ominictionary (
talk)
07:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
First thing first, you didn't specify where to redirect this incase if it kept. Working for UN or any other top organisation doesn't makes one notable. Second thing, she doesn't hold any major public (or gov) office. --
Saqib (
talk)
07:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Saqib, Thanks for reminding me that I didn't mention about where it should redirected, maybe it could be redirected in
Zardari family and secondly a question to you, is it necessary for a activist to hold a public office?? I am not getting why many are are treating her as politician when she is yet to be it??? She is an activist who has get signinificant coverage from secondary source and also has a possibility of holding a public office soon as genaral election in Pakistan is coming closer and I think she gets significent secondary coverage for her activism. So the article is worth to keep. Bests
Ominictionary (
talk)
08:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I cant see her getting significant coverage, as you claim. She is only getting passing mentions in news releases and no-indepth coverage. Her social activism career is not notable as of now. You said "high possibility of holding a public office soon as genaral election in Pakistan is coming closer ". So my answer would be when and If she in future hold a public office, she would get a bio, but
WP:NotJustYet. Thank you. --
Saqib (
talk)
08:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Saqib, I have also some doubt about her career's notibility that is why I suggested Redirect also. But I think she has got significiant coverage. I do beleive that the article's most of the reference are significiant and not passing except ref 1, 2, 5. Plz check the article refernce properly. Most of this coverage she got in her own right and some of them are depth coverage too. You could hold ref 4 as example. Thanks
Ominictionary (
talk)
Comment:- I don't think it would be proper to delete this article right now, when it has been confirmed that she will participate in this year election.
[17] It is hard to think that she will not win this election. As PPP has a strong hold in Sindhi and she also carry "Bhutto" name. So, there is a high possibility that she will soon hold a public office. Now, if we delete this article now, there is a possibility that we need to make this again. That's why I will suggest again not to delete this article.
Ominictionary (
talk)
16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Are you serious? I don't think this is a valid reason to keep this article for the very reason Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, general election are to be held in July 2018 - after half a year from now so no reason to hold this article and wait for her to win the election. In Fact there is no guarantee she will win. If and when she win, I assure you an article would be created in due time. Furthermore, please avoid repeating keep vote.--
Saqib (
talk)
16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Dear
Saqib, I am completely serious about my word. For ur kind information I had made a comment with a reason which I beleive to be valid for keeping this article and hadn't voted. As far as I know there is a
WP:PRESERVE policy in wikipedia. In which basees wikipedia hadn't deleted
Barron Trump's article entirely instead give a redirect. I think same applies here too. Thanks.
Ominictionary (
talk)
19:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Störm:, then you should vote for redirect rather than delete and also important to mention that she is a member of Zardari family as Pakistan is a patriarch country.
Ominictionary (
talk)
16:52, 26 January 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.
I could not identify any independent reliable source, in Thai or English, that provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Best I could find was her being nominated for a best stuntwoman award in 2011.
[18] While the article creator has made effort to also create the relevant film articles for context, most of them hardly seem notable either.
Paul_012 (
talk)
06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Here is the most reliable source: "
a ray of light in the dark kingdom" (
Nikolay Dobrolyubov). Do you know whom this phrase refers to? Prapimporn Karnchanda, of course. The watchers and critics are unanimous in the opinion that
BloodMonkey is a rotten film. But Pim is the only delightful character in this tedious movie:
@
Paul 012: First and foremost, thanks for your information concerning Thai sources. It is a regrettable fact that my favourite character in the above-mentioned film is not a
celebrity in Thailand. I do not have any problem with your proposed deletion if only because we have got 7 additional Prapimporns Karnchandas in other Wikipedias. To speak the truth, I'd like to have 10 Prapimporns at least. For "happiness is not in money beautiful women, but in shopping their amount" (
Marilyn Monroe). But it isn't a problem. It's easy to increase the amount of Prapimporns Kanjundas in Wikipedia just as
Carly Jepsen is the creator of numerous
Angguns (
als:Anggun,
cs:Anggun,
uz:Anggun etc.). We can follow
Carly Jepsen's example and launch a new WikiProject, viz. "Kanjunda Translations." I've
already explained (
pl:User Talk:Warszawiak22#Egzotyka Wschodu) the reason for my creating WP articles about the actress under discussion. After I had finished watching
BloodMonkey I wanted to learn something about the exotic actress playing the part of Chenne. For this purpose I addressed myself to the corresponding article in WP and was surprised at the fact that the Asian actress
was not even mentioned there. This lack of information in Wikipedia compelled me to begin searching the Web. At last, I created a stub and expounded information obtained by me. Isn't it
WP:AGF? I do not have any connections and interest to do any advertising. Besides, it makes no matter to me that my English Kanjunda has been proposed for deletion here. Enwiki is not the sole Wikipedia which our exotic "girl of Jungla Jean" can live in. We've already endowed her with
multiple citizenship in several Wikipedias and nobody drives her away (in contrast to English Wikipedians). --
Janggun Dungan (
talk)
14:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
We'll create these departments of our new WikiProject when we have time. We can also invent other departments, e.g. the Department of
Indologie (
id:Prapimporn Karnchanda).
But the most interesting section of our brilliant WikiProject might be Prapimporn Karnchanda in the
Amharic alphabet.
Wikipedia:Be bold! In accordance with this rule, there will be a great deal (
harem) of Prapimporns Karnchandas in Wikipedia with the consequence that it is too late to remove our exotic "girl of Jungla Jean" from our free (!)
encyclopaedia. --
Janggun Dungan (
talk)`
This is patently false. As I stated in the nomination, there is zero coverage in Thai, save for that single non-notable award nomination. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentLeaning to delete Please keep in mind that per
general notability guideline, this person still needs significant coverage to assume her notability. I don't agree with comments that she has plenty of coverage in Thai, because sources barely cover her biography and such. --
Horus (
talk)
03:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Horus: Judging from
Paul_012's remarks,
FloridaArmy is mistaken when he says: "Plenty of coverage in Thai." In addition, he uses a strange (strictly speaking, inappropriate) word, namely: "notoriety." But he's right in saying "(the woman's notability stems) from a series of major films." Prapimporn's significant roles in notable films (
BloodMonkey a. "The Lady") are enough to establish her notability. --
Janggun Dungan (
talk)
11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Why are you still confused? She might played in
notable films, so what? This article is barely a biography, just a list of her work. You should better find the source covering about her life in detail, or I'm not convinced that she's notable. --
Horus (
talk)
13:23, 21 January 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.
Don't see how this company can possibly be notable. Submit Express might have received some awards and press in the early 2000's but nothing recently. Is this company even still around?
Fightforsocialjustice (
talk)
20:49, 20 January 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.
Keep- more citations have been added and a quick google search will show more sources available to expand article and show that subject passes GNG.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
04:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
These references do not meet the requirements of
WP:NACTOR. They demonstrate that the subject is an actor, but not that the subject is notable. Anyone with minimal exposure to the acting profession is likely to have at least this much coverage. Plus I note that the same article is listed several times but appearing differently, which is inappropriate.--
Rpclod (
talk)
13:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The source,
The Daily Star which is the largest circulated English language newspaper in Bangladesh, describes her as an accomplished actress and a charming TV show host. Does not seem like minimal exposure. The multiple citation to the same source was result of the article creator using a odd article name. English is not the actors native language and as a result more sources are available in Bengali languages. Try searching using সাবেরি আলম. An example
1 of the sources available in Bengali which demonstrate notability.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
06:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It comes down to the question of significant coverage. The first two sources are the deepest. The remaining sources are not deep individually, but each contributes an important bit of encyclopedic information - a television program or film she was in, an award won. Reasonable people could argue it either way. Now she's often playing the mother in remakes of programs in which 25-35 years ago she played the love interest. Because the nomination appears to have been made in bad faith, and because the peak of her career was in pre-internet, non-English, third-world TV, for which sources are difficult to access, I'm inclined to cut the subject more slack than I might otherwise. Rpclod is correct that it isn't obvious whether her significant roles have been in notable television shows, but that probably says more about Wikipedia's abysmal coverage of Bangladeshi TV rather than about how much has been written about TV there. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
21:19, 22 January 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.
This album I'm uncertain on. While the sources in the page do show that the album was once named Shade of Black then Courtesy Curtis during development, I have not been able to access the myspace post that says the album was renamed to The Killa Chronicles. There is a possibility that the album was once again renamed to
Crime Pays (Cam'ron album) but I can't find anything linking the two except for a
YouTube video which I know is not reliable. Outside of the YouTube video, I have not found a reliable source that shows there is a Cam'ron album named The Killa Chronicles. So, should this article be merged and redirected to Crime Pays? Or should it be deleted?.
MrLinkinPark333 (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and possibly describe elsewhere. Like the nominator, I see some confusing sources on this item's relationship to
Crime Pays (Cam'ron album). That album's article can explain its development through different titles and false starts, if
notable and backed up with reliable sources. Regardless, this item may not even exist and if it does, it has remained unreleased for 11 years. Does not qualify for its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)22:17, 25 January 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.
Fails
WP:NCORP. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Topic was deleted at AfD previously:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modoka. Author has continuously recreated the article different names
Modoka and
Modoka Studios without ever establishing notability. The article's references consist of a GameSpot database page with no information about the company, a GameFAQs page (unreliable source) and 2 primary sources directly from the company's website. A
reliable video game web source search for ""Modoka Studios" yields a pitiful 10 results, none of which cover the company in any depth.
The1337gamer (
talk)
19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the draft was moved to main by the author after an AfC submission was rightly declined due to lack of notability. I see no
admissible coverage in independent reliable sources.
Rentier (
talk)
21:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete this article. And the redirect
Modoka Studios as well. This company really is not notable, at all, there are a few mentions I see on the internet and what has been discussed above, but nothing in depth or substantial, therefore the article does not meet the policy requirements.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
23:33, 20 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep - On top of the sources already in the article, death threats Dean received in 2015 which resulted in her fleeing Pakistan were very widely covered, see for instance
here in Dawn.
Smmurphy(
Talk)23:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG. There are multiple documents which state that she was the primary reviewer and textbook author on a revision to the national curriculum to remove hate speech and add gender diversity. Controversy erupted over her changes, which attempted to secularize the primary school textbooks and she was forced to leave the country.
[19],
IJT organizes APC over proposed changes in curriculum,
[20],
[21],
[22]SusunW (
talk)
15:04, 22 January 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.
Delete Agree wih JPL. Boosterism now seems to be in full swing for just about every group. WP is drifting toward being a directory of humanity.
Agricola44 (
talk)
16:15, 21 January 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.
Inadequately sourced article about a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim that passes
WP:NPOL -- a person has to win election and thereby hold a notable office to get an article because politics per se -- but there's no strong or well-sourced claim of preexisting notability present here otherwise. The only sources are his own deadlinked website and the website of another directly affiliated organization (both
primary sources that would be acceptable for verification of facts but not as support for a notability claim), and a namecheck of his existence in a book that isn't about him and is being cited only to support the fact that he was a closeted gay man. This was created in 2005, a time when our standards for notability and sourceability were much looser than they are now -- but under 2018 standards, he doesn't have a valid notability claim under any SNG, or solid enough sourcing to pass
WP:GNG in lieu.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Dowson is not only an unsuccessful candidate, but a trounced one. When someone gets less than 300 votes to the winners 10,000+ votes, they are not even remotely close to being notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Dowson's significance is not in being a political candidate but in being the leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement from the 1940s to 1970s and also due to the Dowson v RCMP court case.
Nixon Now (
talk)
19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The leader of the entire Trotskyist movement? Not what the article says; it just ascribes him the leadership of one relatively minor Trotskyist group that's notable only as one of several forerunners of the merged
League for Socialist Action, and wouldn't even independently pass
WP:ORG in its own right for a separate article as a group. So no, we would need a lot more sourcing than this before we could deem him notable for that. And Dowson v RCMP might qualify for an article about the case, in the vein of
Egan v Canada or
Delgamuukw v British Columbia, but it's also not enough to earn him a standalone biography separate from that in the absence of much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Not the entire Trotskyist movement, the entire Canadian Trotskyist movement. I've added sources, in any case, and will continue to do so. It would be helpful if you did so as well. Dowson's name comes up a lot in Google Books.
Nixon Now (
talk)
22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Two groups merged in 1960, the Socialist Education League and the Socialist Information Centre. If you read the Tate book (which does much more than a "name check" of Dowson), it's clear Dowson was considered the national leader even before the formal merger. In any case, Dowson was leader of the LSA from 1960 until 1974 so even if you want to quibble about the 1950s it is clear he was leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement in the 1960s.
Nixon Now (
talk)
22:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as the article has been improved with references added, and because the subject was the leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement, which seems to me to be a reasonable claim to significance. In short, the article meets the policy requirements for inclusion
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
23:37, 20 January 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.
While there is some additional media coverage such as
this, in total it's not enough to meet
WP:CORP. The article itself is blatantly promotional and would need a thorough rewriting to become encyclopedic even if better sources could be found.
Huon (
talk)
17:42, 20 January 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.
It might be that there are sources in Chinese, but I could find zero coverage which even shows this person (or perhaps a character from folklore) existed.
Onel5969TT me15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep and Move to
Lin Daoqian(edited per below) I appreciate the nominator does not speak Chinese, however even the
Chinese Wikipedia article has four sources, and there are more available via Google. I will not go into detail because my Chinese is not good enough to do so. However this is enough to meet the requirements of
WP:V and there is thus no deletion reason.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
23:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep but move to
Lin Daoqian - I find few modern English references to Vintoquián (most use the form Vintoquian) in Google Books, there are however numerous reference to Lin Daoqian (a few to the Wade-Giles spelling of Lin Tao-ch'ien -
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27][28],
[29],
[30]. Vintoquian appears to be more favoured in older English and European (French and Spanish) sources -
[31],
[32],
[33], but current usage would suggest that Lin Daoqian should be used. The lack of sources for Vintoquián appear to have led to a mistaken belief that there are few sources for the person and therefore not notable, when there are more sources under different names.
Hzh (
talk)
14:40, 21 January 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.
Delete both, for the reasons stated above and also on the basis of notability. The show claims to be affiliated to a large number of stations. I don't know if this means the same thing as syndicated as per the notability criteria for radio shows but the linked sources do not mention it. I searched about half but could not find any mention of this show on their websites.Ther are no independent sources and this subject fails GNG.
Domdeparis (
talk)
19:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep both. Cranked Up Live is a rock radio show that has now ended, but does not need to be removed from history due to that fact. Cranked Up Country is a current, syndicated radio show on FM, AM, and internet radio stations. KBIM 94.9 The Country Giant has the logo on their main page.
BradleyH1 (
talk) 19:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Note to closing admin: BradleyH1 is the creator of both articles. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)13:36, 24 January 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.
Dear Wikipedians, Indeed, I have probably misunderstood something about the user pages. I have already a user page on the french side of wikipedia, and I was confused about why it is distinct from the page you want to delete. I did not know how to (or even whether I should) redirect. Sorry about the confusion.
Lewisiscrazy (
talk)
15:04, 20 January 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.
NN pub. Fails GNG. A quick search didn't find significant sources outside of tourist and pub listing websites. There's passing mentions in a few books. Widefox;
talk14:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep We have had this sort of AfD many times before. The relevant policy is
WP:GEOFEAT, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable."
Edwardx (
talk)
14:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:GEOFEAT guideline has "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" . I didn't find any. (Grade II listed doesn't add up to much, which is the only source we have, II* or I is more like it). "Also, Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable" is also applicable. The G II listing is run-of-the-mill too. Is there a link for presumed notability of G II? and even then, if there's no sources and we only know it's build mid 1800 then
WP:PERMASTUB and we may as well redirect to the list
List of pubs in London. Widefox;
talk15:50, 20 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentFloridaArmy, that Variety reference actually fails
WP:RS since the journalist states he is merely repeating unattributed gossip - "Three Point Capital, which is providing debt financing for the boxing movie “Tiger,” is expanding by hiring Eric Fischer to open offices in Ohio and Kentucky, Variety has learned exclusively.". Leavng that aside, the reference relies entirely on quotations from an exec VP and the final paragraph is standard information and description provided by the company which can be also found in various forms in other announcements and even on their website. Reference fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
HighKing++ 19:31, 21 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Article needs updating, but there were numerous sources provided in the first deletion nomination (many unfortunately now suffering from linkrot), and seems a notable magazine of its time.
Greenman (
talk)
10:28, 13 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online14:04, 13 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The social services programme of a major denomination, even in a Muslim majority country should be reliable. If a source was a RS when the article was created or edited, it does not cease to be one because it has become a deadlink, perhaps due to having migrated to a new web-host.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is fine (UCA is a reliable source for the purposes of notability and verification), the issue is that it's actually coverage about the diocese and not the group: this appears to be a diocesan level charity, not a national one from what I can tell. I'd be happy to change my !vote if someone point out to me otherwise.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
22:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. local organization with no national significance. The references are either mentions, are incidental short case studies within a general article DGG (
talk )
05:44, 22 January 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.
This article is a stub. The only citations appear to be to an unpublished thesis dissertation (by KJ Wade), with a link that no longer functions, and a very general description of allergy symptoms that does not specifically address cross-reactivity between milk allergy and soy allergy. I will say in fairness that this article does garner about 400 views a month, and that an internet search on the title yields numerous website presentations/discussions on milk soy protein intolerance, abbreviated as MSPI. A better article would get rid of the food lists and the symptom lists and focus on evidence for prevalence of dual allergy, and whether that is based on cross-reactivity of milk and soy proteins. However, I did not find MEDRS quality research on either of these avenues. Kattan JD (2011)
PMID21453810 is the best possible citation. As an alternative I have added content to
Milk allergy and to
Soy allergy, touching on the evidence for cross-reactivity, citing Kattan. Can this article become a redirect?
David notMD (
talk)
01:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments (1) The citation to the dissertation would still be valid without the link; it can always be cited as a printed document, so the link is just for convenience. (2) If kept, the article ought to be renamed; I figured it was talking about intolerance of protein in soy milk, not intolerance of protein in milk and in soy products.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
As the nominator, I am comfortable with this becoming a redirect to the section within the Milk allergy article that deals with cross-reactivity to soy. In answer to Nyttend's comment - No, the concept really is that people, especially infants and young children, who manifest an allergy to milk will also be allergic to soy. Kattan estimated 2-3% of infants will have cow's milk allergy and 10% of those also soy.
David notMD (
talk)
02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The latter. "Soy milk" is a soy product which contains no cow's milk. People can have allergic responses to that. But the article in question is about being allergic to cow's milk proteins AND soy proteins.
David notMD (
talk)
11:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
That's what I thought. If kept, the article ought to be renamed, because it looks like it's talking about intolerance of "milk soy" protein.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
To Nyttend: I suppose "Milk and soy protein intolerance" would be clearer and still be the acronym MSPI, but internet searches find many users of "Milk soy protein intolerance" and none of those are about soy milk protein intolerance. The "and" is understood.
David notMD (
talk)
12:44, 21 January 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.
Contested PROD. Looks like partial course notes for a lecture, but is a meaningless typesetting exercise, not an explanation of its putative topic. Original contributor hasn't been seen since creating this in 2013. Wikipedia is not a textbook and it's not clear the treatment of the subjects started here could ever be completed as a reasonable encyclopedia article.
Wtshymanski (
talk)
00:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see how merging this into
Induction motors is practical. The level of detail here is way beyond what that article contains; anything here would be totally out of place. And, it would take a serious subject matter expert to do anything useful. I have a background in electrical engineering; I get the gist of what this is talking about, but the details of the math are way beyond me. --
RoySmith(talk)02:52, 28 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Peter Tabori was one of the architecturally well known group working in Camden 1950s to 1970s - internationally reported for the high-density low-rise estates. I would urge retention! —
Saltmarshtalk19:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well — I have added another reference which I hope supplies enough to retain this stub. I'm not an architectural historian, we might hope that some more knowledgeable editors might expand it and add articles relating to Camden's departure from the high-rise estates of the early 60s. —
Saltmarshtalk12:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You need not know anything about the architecture of Camden, although it helps a bit. It's all about searching and assessing sources. I found 4 below.
198.58.168.40 (
talk)
08:40, 21 January 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.
Well, this translation is available for purchase, circulating among Silesian-speakers and used for prayer and devotional reading. Do you suggest that this book does not exist?
Hyrdlak (
talk)
10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlakreply
I added 5 references to press articles and a youtube film devoted to this translation. Is it sufficient? There are many more pieces of news on this translation easily available online. Next time, when proposing to delete an article, please, check up the facts, instead of just saying 'I didn't find any news not related to publisher itself'.
Hyrdlak (
talk)
10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlakreply
Delete the article is about a specific self-published translation from 2017, not about the general concept of translations of the Bible into a Silesian language. The references (both in the article and that I could find on Google search) are mostly announcements of the pre-sale.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
05:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Repurpose to Bible translations in Silesian -- we do not have an article. It appears this might be the only actual translation--there is also an adaptation [
[34]]. This seems a little unsual to me, and would need confirmation, but , acording to our article on the
Silesian language, the usual liturgical language there is Polish DGG (
talk )
18:47, 23 January 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.
An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage to meet
WP:NCORP /
WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Article sources to routine finding news, passing mentions,
WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability.
The one source that may look impressive (The New York Times) is based on an interview surrounding launch publicity, as in: "'This is one of the best times to be launching this site,” Mr. Lin said. “Renters know this is a renter’s market (...). So the stars have aligned for this to take off.' " The article also includes: "Whether RentHop is a workable business remains to be seen" suggesting it's
WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry; the company has not achieved anything significant just yet.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a highly promotional article with insufficient reliable sources and no redeeming value. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DocumentError (
talk •
contribs) 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable tech company. Fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:CORPDEPTH, as the article suffers from a lack of in-depth coverage. The article's sources are limited to trivial mentions or to press releases concerning business. Does the company produce products? Yes. Does this equate to encyclopedic value when considering
What Wikipedia is not? No.
SamHolt6 (
talk)
05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have added a
Montreal Gazette reference (
[35]) about the early days of the company and a
Le Journal de Montréal reference about the AMTEK acquisition (
[36]). Of the other sources in the article, the TCT Mag one appears to be reliable+in-depth.
Le Soleil is a major daily newspaper, and the article is focused on Creaform. The 3DPrinting Industry pieces appear to be reliable, and not just routine. The 3DPrint.com source seems OK too. I'm not sure about the other sources, some of them might be press releases. Coverage in three daily papers + a bunch of specialty trade publications should be enough for
WP:CORPDEPTH. -
Mparrault (
talk)
00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete References that are extensively based and rely on interviews with company officers, press releases, company announcements, etc, without intellectually independent analysis and/or opinion fail the criteria for establishing notability. The references that I can find fail the criteria. For example, Mparrault above says that the TCT Mag reference appears to be reliable+in-depth - sure, but its based on
a company press release and contains no additional data/information or intellectually independent analysis or opinion. "Coverage" in reliable sources is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The coverage must be intellectually independent - otherwise all we're really doing is acknowledging that the company has a functioning marketing department and/or lazy churnalism. Topic fails GNG, references fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
HighKing++ 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
HighKing, the strongest references are the ones in the daily newspapers, none of which you discussed.
WP:ORGIND is about whether the source is independent of the company - content does not need to be "intellectually independent", and there is no mention that analysis is needed. Not all of the daily newspaper articles are just re-released press releases. -
Mparrault (
talk)
14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Mparrault I'll explain. I didn't discuss the newspaper references because they are clearly based on company announcements and interviews and therefore fail CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Contrary to what you say, sources to meet the criteria for notability must be intellectually independent and references that are extensively based on company announcements or other PRIMARY material fail those criteria. "Independent sources" does not simply mean sources that are independent at a corporate level in that the publisher is not dependent on the company, it goes further to mean sources that are not influenced by the company and that the article is not simply regurgitating company blurb. Some articles might paraphrase the announcement but without independent analysis or opinion are still considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability. "Intellectually independent" simply incorporates that idea.
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND specifically deal with those issues. I have looked at the newspaper articles and they are based on company announcements and interviews and therefore extensively rely on PRIMARY sources. If you like, post the specific link to article below here that you believe meet the criteria and I will provide you with a detailed explanation (based on my opinon) for each.
HighKing++ 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Going through the better sources:
1.
[37] A Montreal Gazette article in considerable depth about the company. Definitely a very positive article, although the article does note that "the partners were finding it difficult to pierce the lucrative U.S. market". There are a lot of quotes from the company CEO, but there is also a lot of other content too. and it is not written by the company.
2.
[38] An in-depth Globe and Mail article about Creaform's Indian operations. Again, very positive, but not written by the company directly or indirectly.
3.
[39] An article in
The Engineer, a 162-year old trade magazine, in some depth, not based on a press release. Generally positive, but not entirely so (e.g. "For a fledgling business to invest heavily in such a new technology was a gamble but it turned out to be an inspired decision")
4.
[40] A Journal de Montreal article about Creaform's sale to AMETEK. Rather short, with many details not in the relevant press release announcing the transaction. There are a number of other stories also about this acquisition, with similar but not identical content (e.g.
[41])
5.
[42] A La Soleil article about Creaform acquiring Gencad. Fairly short, but does not appear to be based on a press release (this
press release does not have many of the details in the article)
In my opinion, 1, 2, 3 easily pass
WP:ORGIND. 5 and 6 might be considered "substantially based on a press release", although there is content there not in the relevant press releases. Some of the other sources might be OK too. -
Mparrault (
talk)
19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a corporate brochure on a non notable company, detailing its "Corporate structure" and "Products and services". Wikipedia is not a catalog of nn business or a free means of promotion. The sources above are local, not meeting
WP:AUD, or routine corporate news, not meeting
WP:CORPDEPTH. Does one of them call the company a "fledgling business"? This screams
WP:TOOSOON, i.e. the company is not yet notable.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:26, 27 January 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.
This company appears to be defunct, but its demise was not notable enough to get press coverage. The sourcing is largely PR about funding and corporate renames, rather than being about their product. The funding wasn't significant enough to suggest notability.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
06:54, 20 January 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.
Keep Unlike the nominator, sourcing has been found. Meets
WP:ARTIST. References added to article, too!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The state of the article is not a sign of the subject's notability (see
WP:ARTN). The subject is the the co-author of two books (ISBN 0321534468 and ISBN 0321967054), a lecturer in software testing and development, and has published many articles. She easily meets
WP:AUTHOR no. 1, 2 and 3.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
06:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The article has been improved and secondary sources now support what I claimed, vis, that she is "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert". Once again this is a case of an AfD being done based on the state of the article, which I stated was against WP:N, and the nom did not perform
WP:BEFORE, and at least two of those discussing the subject did not bother to investigate whether the subject was or was not notable.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
That is a curious stement to make. Do you have evidence to back up your assertions about what people did or did not do to investigate notability? I would assume that given
WP:AGF, evidence would be required to make such an assertion. If you are including me in this veiled comment, that I can reassure you that you are wholly wrong. VelellaVelella Talk 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
None other than that they did not find the evidence that is obvious by searching. I'm sorry you think I'm wholly wrong. What did you do try to to prove that Gregory fails any notability criteria? You responded to my statement that she co-authored two books. You clearly didn't find the content that was added to the article. I was about to add similar, but only had time to comment when I responded here. People not doing BEFORE is becoming a greater problem with AfDs. When the nominators make statements like "non-trivial sourcing to support inclusion" it's clear they're basing the AfD on the contents of the article, not a search. So, sorry if I have tainted your character by claiming you didn't search for sources. Feel free to clear your name by indicating the searches you did.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Your apology reluctantly accepted. This is no beauty contest, I don't have to prove anything and I am perfectly content that both my name and reputation are unaffected by this slightly weird discussion. I do however, have concerns about what might, to an uninvolved observer, seem like the application of undue pressure through malformed arguments. I will assume good faith and premptively accept that you have no other vested interest here. VelellaVelella Talk 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know what people will think about your malformed arguments. Perhaps any uninvloved observers can let one of us know. I'd be happy to clear the air for them. Seriously though Velella, I don't believe you. A assume good faith, but when you can't find sources that are clearly present, and you won't explain how you missed them, I can only concluded that you didn't bother to look in the same place that other editors who found those references found them.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I supported prodding and AfD, prior to recent expansion (see this version
[43]). Notwithstanding the subject's place in the agile testing community, I'm still dubious, especially given the lack of significant in-depth coverage about her. Many of the sources offered are press releases and announcements of lectures and seminars
[44],
[45],
[46]. A separate concern is the increasingly promotional tone the article has taken during its expansion--the article's creator hasn't responded to questions about conflict of interest.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
07:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - co-authoring two books does NOT meet the requirements of
WP:AUTHOR and having struggled through the mass of references, I have to agree with the analysis of the firts IP written comment. The style of writing and the organisation of the article also makes it very difficult to be clear where notabilituy is supposed to lie. I don't believe that this is worth saving and
WP:TNT is, I believe the best approach on the off chance that some other editor may make a more cogent and convincing article at a later date. VelellaVelella Talk 08:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This article was started as Janet Gregory is considered by many to be notable as a coach/trainer/speaker on Agile software development and testing. In addition to having co-authored two important books on agile software testing, she has authored several articles, worked with other notable agile software development figures like
Robert C. Martin,
Ron Jeffries and
Kevlin Henney (who all have Wikipedia articles) and is a keynote speaker at many well known Agile and Testing conferences around the world. I've added some external links to interviews
User:Mlvandijk
OK, I get that. But please could someone constructively explain how to show notability without being considered an 'advert'. Am really just trying to understand. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mlvandijk (
talk •
contribs)
05:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Get away from it. This is an excellent example of an article created by a new user, who notwithstanding your denial, appears to have some sort of association with the subject. Uninvolved parties don't usually create this kind of article, nor have so much interest invested in their outcome. If the article is kept, a thorough copy edit will remove the bulk of it for unacceptable sources and promotional tone.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
13:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Walter Görlitz, a bit of AGF please--don't do the "hiding" thing; it's the kind of low blow that backfires. This is an AfD and spirited discussions are fine, but really. (The IP editor has nothing to hide but their identity; their long career of edits here speak to their character and love for the project well enough.)
Mlvandijk, I haven't looked at the article yet but I want to tell you that someone being interviewed does not notability make ("Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is a kind of original research); secondary sources do that. Thank you,
Drmies (
talk)
16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reminder. Here's one for you @
Drmies: Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is essentially what
WP:GNG says. Specifically, if the topic is directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Granted, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so if it's a one-column interview, it doesn't help to meet GNG. If that interview was the only thing the subject had going, then that too would not help the subject to meet GNG. However, it's another point toward meeting GNG.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
18:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not with you on that. Certainly an interview provides a good reason for looking more carefully, but interviews aren't in the GNG for good reasons, I think. If an interview comes with coverage (discussion), that's a different matter.
Drmies (
talk)
18:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It's an advert, and I may yet tag it as such. It's also a lack of good faith to accuse editors of hastily bringing this to AfD, when the sources are pretty uniformly awful. I've stated as much, but to focus on the pivotal claims, "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert", here are the references:
[47] and
[48]; a press release with the phrase "Janet's programming background is a definite plus," and a blog. If that's the best we can find,
Comment. I would have considered speedy deleting this as it was clearly intended to be promotional, but in view of the fact that a lot of work has been done to find sources, I'm content to let it remain, subject to cleanup.
Deb (
talk)
14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Quotes supporting notability, like a major contributor to the North American agile testing community seem to come from websites. Her books do not seem to be widely-held, e.g. the More Agile Testing is ~100 (WorldCat). Seems to have been written by a SPA, who is trying to promote Gregory and her authorship partner Lisa Crispin.
Agricola44 (
talk)
Keep. I frequently hear references to Gregory's first book in the industry and I'd like for us to have a chance to find good published references that reflect this.
Faught (
talk)
15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Two comments, it actually is a valid argument as the editor in question is a contributor to several software testing discussion groups. In specific, subjects such as
Cem Kaner,
James Bach and other important writers in the software testing world reference her work in their own publications, and certainly in these discussion groups. However, those discussion groups do not meet RS so I can see why they were not provided. However, she is a recognized expert. This is also the point being made by The second comment is who is this anon and what cards does the anon have that they are not willing to share by remaining anonymous? And that was assuming good faith about the editor. I don't really see why an editor in Old Lyme, Connecticut who is as prolific as this editor needs to remain anonymous other than a few.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Articles on Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin were started as their book "Agile Testing" is mentioned under Further reading on the
Agile testing page but neither author had an entry on Wikipedia. Before starting the articles notability criteria were reviewed and concluded they were eligable: 1. their identities are verified on VIAF/Library of Congress/etc (see wikidata) 2. They have written books and multiple articles, either together, separately, and/or with other people in the industry with several different publishing houses / industry magazines, which provides multiple reliable sources. In addition, they are frequent keynote speakers at industry conferences. Reliable source of this are publications by Springer on XP Universe conferences which includes the.
There is no conflict of interest: I do not know either author personally or professionally, am not getting paid to write this (did spend a lot of spare time trying to improve the article; which is why I'd hate to see it deleted), nor does my employer have any link to subjects of articles (we sell their book, along with millions of other products). Unreliable sources have been removed and "promotional" content has been removed/rewritten (with help of others on this page: Thank you!). Interviews have been added as source (but content of interviews has not been added to page)
If I find additional reliable sources, they will be listed here/added to wikidata rather than added directly to the article. For instance:
The "Agile testing" book is cited in other publications (see google books among others) - for instance in "Developer testing" </ref>[1]
Comment. I'm not so much concerned about COI here as the lack of demonstrated notability. For example, Walter Görlitz has answered criticism of testimonial with more testimonial and Mlvandijk observes the Agile Testing book is used and cited, which is true of the "average book". So far, most of the "keep" reasoning seems to be subjective. We do have more quantitative and objective conventions for cases like this, which is how often publications/books are cited, how many libraries hold copies, etc. I looked again and WorldCat shows
261 holdings for the Agile Testing book, which will be a decade old next year. This would be a good statistic for an esoteric/obscure area, but for a very popular, high-visibility topic like programming, it seems pretty average. (For reference, lots of other books in the very same area show double these numbers, e.g.
Watkins' agile testing book at >500 or
Lewis et al. testing at ~500.) I'm certainly not saying Gregory hasn't contributed, but, in the end, we seem to have websites selling her products and blogs that call her a major contributor to the North American agile testing community and an industry expert rather than authoritative RS and/or quantitative metrics saying these things.
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Speaking at a conference is completely irrelevant to an AfD like this because it is part and parcel of what they all do. It doesn't distinguish her in any way. Sorry.
Agricola44 (
talk)
14:56, 27 January 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.
Subject fails NATHLETE as a sports promoter. Subject fails GNG - no RS in article and a BEFORE search only finds articles in reference to her recent, failed candidacy to the Fort Worth city council (and it's not even clear if it's the same Jennifer Trevino).
Chetsford (
talk)
05:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The coverage is either her promoting her events or consists of passing mentions. There's nothing to show that
WP:GNG, or any other notability criteria, is met. Claims like she "will be the first female to host an Amateur MMA event in San Antonio" are both unsourced and fail to show notability even if true.
Papaursa (
talk)
15:38, 20 January 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.
Article on a small, Icelandic animation company which has produced two small features and three shorts. One reference which is of questionable RS. A BEFORE search fails to identify anything further. Article has had an unresolved notability tag on it for the last seven years.
Chetsford (
talk)
05:22, 20 January 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.
Delete because the entire article is sourced only to a Marvel comic, and I don't think independent reliable sources can be found to support the article. If I removed the unsourced information the article would be completely blank. And we have an article about real
Humans already. Also
Marvel Wikia has an article that looks very similar.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
09:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep There are numerous sources out there which cover this stuff, including the following.
Imperfect articles are welcome and
AfD is still not cleanup.
Yes I understand, but do you have any of those sources to confirm they are relevant, and if so do any of them have information on Homo Sapiens (as defined my Marvel) that could be used here? I know lots of reliable sources cover the 'Marvel Universe' but as far as I know they are mostly focused on the characters and specific commentary on the best story arcs. I know this article accurately represents what is in the comics, but can that be verified as required by Wikipedia policy? If so I will change my recommendation.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
14:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
These sources are all relevant. For example, they say things like "The Atlanteans are a genetic offshoot of mainstream Homo sapiens called Homo mermanus, who ..."; "it was revealed that the Inhumans were descended from the apelike species that would evolve into Homo sapiens..."; "the depiction of anti-mutant hysteria among homo-sapiens in the Marvel Universe was reaching..."; "her powers reorder the universe into a world where homo-superiors reign over homo-sapiens". As mutants and rival strains of humanity are a significant theme in Marvel titles like X-Men and Inhumans, you'd expect such compendious works to cover this topic and so they do.
Andrew D. (
talk)
10:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not convinced, unless there is an actual section focused on this subject in one of these works, I can't see how it has wider relevance. Also the more detailed Marvel Wikia already has this article so it's not like it's being lost.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
12:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the article is fancruft in-universe unreferenced essay, it adds no encyclopedic value to Wikipedia, and adding a list of sources of general publications about Marvel Comics has absolutely no relevance to the precise subject matter.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Most sources will be primary and seem to be describing distinct units. This seems to be case where the individual elements may be notable, but don't seem to be as a collective. --
Killer Moff (
talk) 14:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)--
Killer Moff (
talk)
14:56, 22 January 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.
He may possibly be notable, but this is a advertisement full of puffery. Rating in lists are put in the lead, Oxford University where he attended but did not take a degree much less prestigious school from which he actually graduated. Basic bio details like dates and place of birth are ignored,. Most of the article describes his firm, which has a separate article that would do well enough just to link to, . Enthusiastic "reviews" are taken from blogs, not reliable sources. The preface to the book itself is quoted to say how good it is.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looks like a nice little park, but just not notable. Other than the city website, no sources. A ***
WP:BEFORE*** search came up with absolutely nothing that establishes notability.
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:54, 20 January 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.
Why isn't
Medical consensus a list of things all doctors agree on? Why isn't
Scientific consensus a list of all the scientific facts that a have universal consensus? We have no article listing everything physicists mostly all agree on. No article on historical consensus. Yet when it comes to this one field, the dismal science, there is a need for an article touting a handful of highly political, divisive hot-button issues that supposedly, economists "all" agree on. This entire concept stinks: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. It is not "normal". No other field has this defensive need to tout such a list of consensus positions.
The reason is that politics and economics are inseparable, and every bit of this is highly controversial. Any claim that any economics question is settled and resolved is shameless propaganda. Various assertions in this article can be moved to whatever article they might be relevant to, if they haven't already, but what we have here is a
WP:POVFORK and
WP:COATRACK.
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Although superficially garnished with many sources, this is classic synthesis and original research with arbitrary percentages from nowhere –
Ammarpad (
talk)
07:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Can you be specific as to what this content would be? If it's just another list of "things the other side is wrong about" then it's not encyclopedic. What else would there be? --
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
18:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I believe that, you being the original claimant, the onus is on you: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. Can you be specific as to what this POV is?
JorgeLaArdilla (
talk)
08:47, 28 January 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 merge to
Heriot-Watt University. While I might wish for a bit more explicit consensus on the merge target there appears to be a solid consensus favoring a merge and the only target mention is
Heriot-Watt University. Also a quick reminder that only material that is properly sourced or completely uncontroversial should be merged per WP:V and WP:CITE. It's time to close this and move on.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
19:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The program does not establish why it itself is notable separately from the universities that are offering it (e.g. we do not have a have an article about a Harvard MBA specifically, rather an article about the degree generally and then one about Harvard Business School). The given sources appear to largely target the universities themselves and those that discuss the program are written by a professor at one of the schools that issues the degree or are just program rankings.
Mifter (
talk)
04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I would personally merge the what notable information exists into the parent university articles until such time as the degree program establishes it itself is notable outside just its parent organizations (
WP:NOTINHERITED).
Mifter (
talk)
17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi Lourdes, as I mentioned in the nom I believe this is different because something like a
Master of Business Administration (MBA) as a degree program is independently notable with the degree itself getting high levels of coverage in reliable third party sources and is offered by a very large number (hundreds) of universities whereas this program is only offered by this single consortium of universities (that I can see) and it is a single, unique program (If any university creates a unique new degree program independently or as part of a consortium it does not automatically deserve an article until that degree program is itself sufficiently notable.). If any part of the degree program is notable I would argue it should be merged into the articles for the university's offering it until there is sufficient coverage to establish that this unique program is independently notable. Similarly a
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology is also offered widely, though our article on it could use work and it needs more sources. Finally, after looking at the linked article, I would argue that
M. Tech Clinical engineering might suffer from the same issues that this article does as it is appears to be a unique program offered by a single consortium but I am still looking at it. In sum, something like a MBA as a degree program independently passes our GNG due to its heavy coverage as a general degree while this degree program with its primary distinguishing factor being that it is offered by a consortium of universities does not appear to satisfy notability just as a degree program.
Mifter (
talk)
17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Ok. I understand your viewpoint. I would have preferred that before this Afd, a merge discussion could have been initiated on the article's talk page as an alternative to deletion. But now that this is here, in my opinion, as the EU has withdrawn its support to the program (www.mspme.org) and as the actual MSPME degree is offered by only
Heriot-Watt University, we could Merge the main contents to the HW Univ page. If you agree, you could consider withdrawing this nom and we could both then be bold and start a discussion on the article's talk page to merge the article, and finish it up boldly post consensus. What do you think? Thanks, Lourdes21:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi Lourdes, I just saw this note and agree that a merger would likely be the best outcome. I'd like to think about how to best proceed for a short while and will followup soon after giving it some thought. Best,
Mifter (
talk)
17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi Mifter. There are other pages with erasmus mundus programs:
Hi Nkalyvio. Thank you for the links and information and
welcome to Wikipedia! After looking at them though, I am not sure how they are directly relevant to this article's notability.
That we have other articles that may be similar does not establish why this specific degree program is sufficiently notable to have its own article as
notability is determined on a case-by-case basis and is
not inherited. Further, Stanford Online is not a degree program, it appears to be an online version of the University and
International Master of Science in Rural Development does not cite any sources and itself may not be notable enough for inclusion though that is beyond the scope of the discussion here. I'd be happy to discuss further should you have any questions. Best,
Mifter (
talk)
17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi
Mifter. Just wanted to leave a gentle reminder ping to consider the Merge suggestion I had given above, to enable this Afd to reach a consensus (or get re-listed again, if you don't agree). Warmly, Lourdes12:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lourdes. Thanks for the note, I was out and didn't have a chance to check in on Wikipedia for a few days. I'm happy to merge the article (in fact it would be my preferred outcome as I mention above), but am wondering your thoughts about how we should proceed. We could let the AfD run its course and have an uninvolved admin/editor close it as merge, have someone close it now as merge, or withdraw and open another discussion to discuss the merger. I believe the third option would be redundant considering we appear to have an emerging consensus here towards merge and would be fine with the other options. Also, if you see another path forward, I'm happy to hear it, my goal is to resolve this as smoothly as possible while trying to avoid being overly
bureaucratic. Best,
Mifter (
talk)
22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Mifter. We'll let the Afd proceed and once this closes (hopefully as a merge result), we can then proceed to the respective articles and conduct the actual merge. Lourdes01:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge following the consensus rationale emerging above: Best to conclude this AfD and allow the merger proposal to be carried through.
AllyD (
talk)
08:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Administrator Comment There appears to be a consensus favoring some sort of merge. However I am not altogether clear as to what article(s) are to be on the receiving end of the merge. Once that is settled I will be happy close this discussion. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There are quite a few
Otr500. If you check the article, you'll find sources like
this. The main
University source also gives good details. As I have already mentioned above in my reply to Mifter, it seems that the European sponsorship has come to an end, which is confirmed by the primary website
http://www.mspme.org/, which also mentions that it's only the Heriot-Watt university which gives a new renamed "Master of Science in Strategic Project Management" certification from hereon. Thanks, Lourdes05:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I see there are primary sources and my comments were "just" that merging to "Heriot-Watt University" should be sourced in that article as the entire Programme structure section, that already includes 'Master of Science in Strategic Project Management", is currently unsourced.
Otr500 (
talk)
08:49, 21 January 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.
Delete. While it's true that NMEDIA accepts duly licensed radio stations as notable, what we don't have in this article is
properly sourced verification that this station is properly licensed. We don't extend that presumption of notability just because a radio station is nominally verifiable as existing, because pirate radio stations and unlicensed Part 15 and carrier current and closed circuit radio stations exist too — the presumption of notability is extended only when we can properly
verify that the station actually has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority. But no such verification is present here. NMEDIA explicitly states that the base notability conditions for radio stations have to be properly sourced for the NMEDIA pass to be given — we delete radio stations if we can't properly verify that they actually satisfy all three of the core requirements.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
That's just a directory list of stations that exist, not a database record of their licensing statuses. All that list proves is that the NTC is aware that the station exists, in exactly the same way that Industry Canada and the FCC are always aware of all low-power VFs and pirate radio operations in their respective countries whether they have licenses or not — it doesn't prove that the NTC has given them a license to operate.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable and independent source to verify
WP:NRVof its nobility
WP:GNG. Listed sources in the page do not able to provide Wikipedia verification guidelines to meet well "source".
CASSIOPEIA (
talk)
20:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The NTC link did something; prove that this station is 300 watts, not the 1,000 claimed in the article. That means it barely covers the campus area and maybe most of Dumaguete, and nowhere else. As it is, this is a university radio station that's comparable to
carrier current stations, which means it doesn't have much range, few sources and little notability off-campus. Nate•(
chatter)09:19, 20 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am singularly unimpressed by the rational of the sole Keep !vote. However given there is only one favoring deletion I'd like to get some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk)
01:53, 20 January 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 while conceding that the criteria for inclusion needs to be beefed up and better defined. There does not appear to be a sense that this deficiency is enough to justify deletion. See also WP:FIXIT.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
03:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This article only sources one of these on the list and I'm not even sure you can even consider that sourced country totalitarian (not saying Venezuela isn't a dictatorship though). The problem is that it violates
WP:NPOV and there are no other sources. Yes, some of them may seem obvious but others are a matter of opinion and we shouldn't just label countries as "totalitarian" unless used with caution which this article fails to do. I requested this be deleted before but the deletion template was removed. I am still not seeing why this page should continue to be on Wikipedia so I am requesting its deletion on accounts of violating
WP:NPOV,
WP:V and
WP:AD. The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk)06:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
'Keep':altought this article has some inconsitencies ,i oppose the deletion,because as the article says in one topic "this list is incomplete" .
So if its incomplete ,Fully scrapping this article isn't the best way to solving the errors in the article.
Gregorius Deretius 09:26 12 january 2018(UTC)
Delete. I do not believe that there are any objective enough criteria by which Wikipedia can label a regime as totalitarian or not in its own voice.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
10:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't doubt that there are many sources that provide lists of totalitarian countries, but do they agree on any objective criteria for saying that they are totalitarian? Within any article about an individual regime we can discuss, using
WP:DUE, how totalitarian it is or was based on the reliable source coverage, but inclusion on a list is a binary thing, so requires Wikipedia to make its own judgement as to whether a regime is/was totalitarian or not. I have still not seen any objective criteria by which we can make that judgement.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sources disagree on everything. But your are right that criteria for the list should be included. By the rules this list should include all countries described in reliable secondary RS as "totalitarian" during a certain period of their existence. There is obviously an agreement of RS that USSR, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were totalitarian countries. Looking at the books above, one can see a number of additional specific examples, such as
Democratic Kampuchea (arguably even a more "totalitarian" country than others), etc. There is no problem to include them with in-line references.
My very best wishes (
talk)
22:33, 14 January 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.
No evidence of notability, an early inhabitant of a smallish village who is mentioned as such in some books, without further indications of any notability. A non notable rapper as a 5th generation descendant is not really a reason to keep this either. Fails
WP:BIOFram (
talk)
10:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The thing about the rapper may not be notable but the article itself would be considered notable due to its coverage outside of Wikipedia.
Pokemon879 (
talk) 3:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Pokemon879 -
Notability has nothing to do with the article itself. It has to do with the article subject, or what you're writing the article about. The statement you cited here means that (if applied correctly), there are no edits that anyone can make to an article on Wikipedia that will make that person notable. It has nothing to do with how well-written or how "good" the article is. Notability is established by the availability of independent reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth - sites that are outside Wikipedia determine this. I just wanted to add a comment to help clear any confusion here before you continue down this path and with the wrong interpretation of this process and these guidelines in-mind; AFD and notability is a process and guideline that new users typically don't understand until they gain some experience and tenure on Wikipedia. You're welcome to message me if you have any questions or need any help - I'll be happy to do so.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It also cites 2 books (obviously you didn't read the references). If you google something as simple as "W.C Clark Puxico" several things will come up. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pokemon879 (
talk •
contribs)
00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete There are primary sources such as death certificates which might be interesting to descendants, but are not the
reliable secondary sources with significant coverage needed to satisfy
WP:BIO. Then there is a directory listing that says he bred swine, and passing references as one of several early residents of a place. These, too, are not the significant coverage needed to satisfy
WP:BIO and serve as the bases of an article. Being someone's ancestor is inadequate per
WP:NOT.Instagram and the like are not
reliable sources. Descendants might wish to create an entry at Ancestry.com.
Edison (
talk)
03:54, 20 January 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.
Provisional Keep, they've been involved in a couple of instances of idiocy in the past few months that have dominated the days' news. In lieu of an obvious redirect target, I think we should keep this article, at least for the time being, to see whether anything else comes from them. If they fizzle and don't do anything again, then we can revisit and delete this in a few months time.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:37, 6 January 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.
Delete No indications of notability, no references. Impressive catalog of movies but notability isn't inheritied and we need independent sources. Fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 19:58, 21 January 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.
Seems to have lack of notability (
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG) as also verifiability (WP:V). Article is poorly sourced and based largely on the organization's website. It has been tagged for this issue since June 2009. There are some independent sources but they are they are insufficient.
This reference is about a single event which linked to the Global Exchange by stating that thse two activists are associated with the Global Exchange, not that it was action by the Global Exchange itself.
The WTO mentions Global Exchange directly; however, as an alone it is not enough.
That source seems to mention the Global Exchange but it is not probably a depth coverage. Search by the term "Global Exchange" gives a lot of results but most of them are not related to this organization. I was not able to find a significant sources by more specific searches. These sources may exists, of course, but at the moment I am not convinced.
Beagel (
talk)
13:45, 12 January 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.
Procedural Keep nominator has not done WP:BEFORE it seems. Someone has tagged the article with "unreliable source", but as far as I can see, this has not been explained on the talk page, where editors could help improve the article. Please also consider WP:ATD.
Egaoblai (
talk)
11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I was the one who tagged it with the unreliable sources tag. Rana 2004 is not a reliable source as publications from Diamond Pocket books are not considered reliable historical books, and Sarbeshwar Sahoo is not a historian and the book is not historically reliable.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Was this brought up to the people who created the article? Is there a previous discussion about why these sources aren't reliable?
Egaoblai (
talk)
22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep I think that the article can be sourced, e.g.:
[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59].... However, most of these basically say he was a Bhil (Bhils) chief who commanded a body of men in the rear during the 1576 battle. However, there also seems to be a modern day state award named for him (e.g. - some bestowals:
[60][61][62] - which this seems to be a description of
Rana Punja Award.
Icewhiz (
talk)
23:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@Icewhiz I know the article is mentioned in reliable sources, but as you mentioned all of them only mention his part in the Battle of Haldighati and nothing about his background, or that he participated in any other battles.
mewariindia.com is not a reliable source as a) It is not a historically reliable website and b) It is not an official government site. I could not find any official goverment site of Mewar but I did found the official government site of Rajasthan, the province in which mewar is. See
rajasthan.gov.in. I would recommend its redirection to the
Battle of Haldighati.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
08:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I was responding to the claim this is backed up by Diamond books. It does seem that he is highlighted in modern times as a
Dalit of note (see -
Class action, Times of IndiaHis organisation, Dalit Adivasi Evam Ghumantu Adhikar Abhiyan (Dagar), founded in 2006, chronicles and highlights Dalit contributions to history: Bhilu Rana Punja's role in rescuing Rana Pratap in the 1576 battle of Haldighati and Keerat Bari's part in saving Prince Udai Singh's life. For him, empowerment is also about locating your place in society.) and there is a modern day award -
coverage of award bestowal by Udaipur Times. I'm assuming Udaipur Times is reliable enough for stating that an award has been bestowed. Without this modern use of this well documented footnote - I probably would've been neutral / weak delete. But what we have is a very well documented footnote/mention + modern use of this footnote in a different context.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The article is sourced, but wherever Rana Punja is mentioned, he is only mentioned with the Battle of Haldighati, as we cannot find any other reliable sources which mention something else about him, I think it should be redirected. All the sources I've found uptill now only say that he was a commander of 400 bhil archers in the rear in the Battle of Haldighati and saved Maharana Pratap's life in that battle and awards have been commemorated in his name. With only this much content about him, I don't think that the notability of this induvidual article is established.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've added a couple sources, I'm not sure if they've been brought up already, but an article about a birthday celebration gives a small amount of detail on his life, including stating he held the title "king" of Bhomat, although I think perhaps the article is overselling a chieftancy.(Goswami, Vajrasar.
Birth Anniversary of Rana Punja celebrated at Moti Magri Smarak, Udaiput Times, October 5, 2012)
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I am still in favour of redirection to Battle of Haldighati. The information you gave comes from a site and it can give inaccurate or honorary traditional information. All reliable sources only list him as a Bheel Chieftain of Merpur who fought in a battle. As for Rana 2004 by Bhawan Singh Rana, the book is not a reliable source as discussed many times before in talk pages as well.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
At the moment notability does not matter as much as the content we can take out from the reliable sources. Seeing the minimal amount of content that does not tell us anything about him except his chieftainship and participation in the battle, I agree with redirection to
Battle of Haldighati or as an alternative, this article can be merged into either
Bhil people or the
Battle of Haldighati. --
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
13:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Battle of Haldighati for lack of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Should such sources present themselves (of which I'm not convinced) the article could be restored. The sources presented at this AfD are insufficient / passing mentions, so a redirect to the battle is appropriate, as typically done in
WP:BIO1E situations.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:00, 26 January 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. There's clear agreement here that these are not appropriate encyclopedia articles, but would be valuable in another setting. As somebody has already moved them to
wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek grammar tables, I'm just going to delete them here. I also added a note on the talk (discussion?) page there to give some more history. I'm not an expert on the licensing/copyright issues around transwikification; if there's anything else I should do, please ping me. --
RoySmith(talk)20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I thought that transliteration of the Greek words might be valuable for some readers, so I created an alternative version of
Ancient Greek grammar (tables) with transliteration. The tables had to be displayed on three separate pages because the generation of transliteration (via
Module:Ancient Greek) for all the terms in the tables was too expensive, in Lua memory or processing time, I don't remember which. There are a number of ways that I could see to fix that problem, so that the tables with transliteration could be displayed on one page, but it would be time-consuming.
Ship all four articles off to Wiktionary if the markup works there (or can be easily modified to do so). This isn't content for the Wikipedia mainspace but hopefully we can find somewhere to put it as it looks very valuable to experts in this area (though with no knowledge of the subject area, I could be wrong). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e)01:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Ideally, an article shouldn't consist solely of tables (just as a list article sholdn't just consist in a bare list), but it's a step in the right direction. It's possible to build prose text around those table, explaining the patterns observed and relating their prior history and subsequent development: Ancient Greek is a damn well studied language, so there's no question there won't be sources for that. Just noting further that this article doesn't duplicate
Ancient Greek grammar as it's more specific and has a different focus. Also, articles like this are a pretty standard feature of wikipedia: see
Spanish conjugation for one that is more or less at the same stage of development, and
Latin conjugation for one that has a bit more prose around the table skeleton. –
Uanfala (talk)02:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Erutuon, I meant to nominate all the four articles for deletion. It was just that I did not (and still do not) know how to submit a multiple nomination using
TW. I will nominate the other three for deletion if this one is deleted. By the way, these are very well-made tables, and I can tell how useful they are for Ancient Greek learners. I would love to see them flourish on
our sister website.
Professorjohnas (
talk)
18:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOT, this isn't an encyclopedia article (or a list etc) and has no hope of ever becoming one. Somebody has already moved the content to Wiktionary as
wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek grammar tables, the edit histories of the four pages here don't have anything in them so we don't need to keep those but I suggest somebody find the original source of this text and copy over the edit history to avoid Wiktionary breaching copyright. Hut 8.518:39, 28 January 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.
Not enough. They are either namechecks or trivial announcements which they do as a director of X institute. No source discuss themselves personally.
Störm(talk)09:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Many books, but WorldCat shows all single-digit or low double-digit (e.g. 20s) holdings. This is below the conventions for PROF.
Agricola44 (
talk)
19:17, 18 January 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 article lacks even one reliable source. It has been tagged with this problem for five years. IMDb only demonstrates that the person existed, and even at that at times is allged to have errors and is not a reliable source. My search for sources only showed as an additional real source Find A Grave, but that is not a reliable source either. There is no indication that any of Palange's roles meet the guideline of being significant roles in notable productions. There seems to have been an attempt to create articles on everyone credited in Hollywood film productions from 1920-1950 or maybe more years. This is just not the intended scope of notability for Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google Books has hundreds of results, showing Palange as among the principal cast of several films. --
Michig (
talk) 21:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC) A search of British newspapers from the first half of the 20th century shows her in significant roles in Speed to Burn, Road Demon, Winner Take All, Caught in the Act (starring role), Song of the City, and Little Miss Roughneck. --
Michig (
talk)
21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
GNG and
NACTOR (#1); "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.". I used Google, Google books, and even Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb and Find-Grave. Just raw data, and mention of a name that leads to bit-parts do not advance
notability. Someone would have to actually show me the links that support Has had significant roles for actual notability, as I just don't see them, nor anything reliable to ever expand this past a 23 wordpseudo-biagraphy. The movies listed on the article and above:
4)-
The Grapes of Wrath (film) (1940)) : Uncredited and almost nonexistent (Woman in Camp) and the subject is listed number 73 out of 77 in the cast.
5)-
Speed to Burn (1938) (not listed in the article): Minor part playing Mama Gambini (as Ines Palange), listed at the bottom but at least not in the extra cast section,
6) Caught in the Act (1941) stars Henry Armetta, Iris Meredith, and Robert Baldwin. Ines is the stars wife and not significant role (at least #5 now) and was certainly not a "staring roll" as suggested above,
7)-
Road Demon (1938), Minor roll and #11 on the cast list,
9)-
Little Miss Roughneck (1938): Minor role (Mercedes Orozco), #6 on the cast list.
I could keep going on but all the rest are the same and most of the movies with Wikipedia coverage have one reference supported by IMDb usually used as a reference.
Otr500 (
talk)
16:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
So you think actors in films listed 5, 6, and 7 in the cast list only had 'minor roles'? Like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader were some sort of minor characters in Star Wars? I've searched newspaper articles from the era she was appearing in films, which is a better guide that Rotten Tomatoes for that era. --
Michig (
talk)
17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Rotten Tomatoes sucks but I do not consider #5, #6, #7 to be "significant" for notability but am open to considering RS's. I have a very sensible idea: put the links, that two other editors couldn't find with no reason to lie, here if not in the article. I like all things history, but unlike some editors, I subscribe to following policies and guidelines. I consider any role, that doesn't have some notability (significant roles as identified by reliable sources), not leading roles or close supporting, to be minor for notability. If there is not some point or gauge then all members of the cast not uncredited would be considered "significant" and that is just not what consensus has shown. You listed the subject as having a "starring role" (headlining) in Caught in the Act so this must be a different film. I don't need "hundreds" but certainly more reliable sources than provided or that can be easily found.
Otr500 (
talk)
17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- per thorough analysis by User:Otr500. This does not meet
WP:NACTOR for lack of significant coverage of the subject's career. The number of hits and such do not count in deletion discussions.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I had hoped to be able to expand and
WP:PRESERVE this article about an actress whose Hollywood career started when she was ~40 and lasted for almost 30 years. But I can't. Yes, Google Books has hundreds of results, but if we consider that Palange had ~100 film roles in her career, it should not surprise us, and AFAICT none of her roles were starring roles. Her role as Mrs. Camonte in the 1932 film Scarface is in the current version mentioned as the role, for which she was best known; but Mrs. Camonte is merely the mother of
Paul Muni's character Antonio "Tony" Camonte, and I do not see Palange getting much more than trivial mentions for her role. So, she fails the SSG
WP:NACTOR so far. Could she pass
WP:BASIC? She perhaps could given the length of her career, but I can't find sources online that support she does. Delete per
WP:DEL8. SamSailor15:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. American sources are likely to be the best bets here, but from British newspapers of the time: Prescot Reporter, and St. Helens General Advertiser (5 May 1939): "Those lovable Gambinis, who made their screen debuts as a family in Speed to Burn, are due for a riotous return enagagement in...Road Demon, 20th Century Fox's motor racing melodrama. There is Papa Gambini, played by the inimitable Henry Armetta, and Mama Gambini, played by Inez Palange and the kids.", Faversham Times and Mercury and North-East Kent Journal (26 August 1939) about Winner Takes All: "Also prominent in the cast is the famous Gambini family, headed again by the inimitable Henry Armetta and including Inez Palange...", Forfar Despatch (3 August 1939): "Road Demon is a motor racing melodrama featuring the Gambini family, with Henry Armetta as Papa and Inez Palange as Mama.", Milngavie and Bearsden Herald (20 September 1941) "Caught in the Act, starring Henry Armetta, Iris Meredith, and Inez Palange." (no other cast members mentioned). --
Michig (
talk)
16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep even if her performance in the classic original and influential
Scarface movie isn't enough, and TCM has one of the famous scenes posted on their website, her roles as a singer and comedian in the duo Les Iris Palange is part of Library of Congress' Victor recording collection. This further establishes her historical significance. Her experiences as an immigrant are noted in a book about Italian immigrants to the U.S. Obviously, we are limited as to sources easily availavle online for performers from earlier eras but she had a significant role in a major and influential film and went on to have many other credites parts in other films. She's no Sophia Loren but her roles and signifance are worth noting and expanding as more details become available.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the book and press sources identified earlier,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Lavender Country. I'm not sure that page protection is needed at this point. Just point to this discussion and revert any attempts to re-create the article. If, at that point, it becomes an issue it can be requested.
Killiondude (
talk)
04:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NMUSIC, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases" — but this offers and sources no reason whatsoever why he would need or qualify for a standalone biography separate from the band article. Of the three sources here, two are about the band rather than him, and while the third is more than trivially about him, it still addresses him in the context of the band rather than addressing any plausible notability claim independent of the band — so none of them actually support a credible reason why Haggerty and his band would need to have two separate articles. Normally I would just have redirected this, but this is now the third attempt since last June to make a standalone BLP of Haggerty happen without actually offering a reason why he would need a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the band, so I think it's time for a larger set of eyes to weigh in on this.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:30, 5 January 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.
Renominating for deletion, as the sole "keep" vote in the last AfD did not actually read my nomination, where I said that Jimquisition is not considered proof of notability per
WP:VG/S. Therefore it still fails
WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)23:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep please note, there was only one vote on the previous AfD, probably due to the 50+ Gaming AfDs ongoing. Disagreeing with the rational of a user is not usually a reason for re-listing. But anyway, there are two unquestionable RS; plus
Tech Raptor,
Voletic.com and
Twinfinite,
The Escapist,
PC Games (Germany) all have articles on the game, due to it's poor port, and general poorness.
Lee Vilenski(
talk)
18:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
A game needs more than 2 RS to pass
WP:GNG and the Kotaku one isn't a substantial mention. None of those you mentioned are RS. They are all unreliable sources and the Escapist one is a random forum post by a random user. In any case, it wasn't relisted because I disagreed with the rationale, but because there was no consensus.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)03:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete: Eurogamer has written
twoarticles about it, and Kotaku published
one. (other sources mentioned above is not considered to be reliable according to
WP:VG/RS) Mostly about the ethics of PlayStation Store promoting terrible games rather than talking about the game itself, so I don't think that these sources can justify the game's notability. We could probably merge this to
PlayStation Store regarding
quality control issues as well, but I don't see this as necessary given the weak coverage.
AdrianGamer (
talk)
09:42, 23 January 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 sourcing has been discussed in depth and its clear that notability is not established. Tip to Leitmotiv, attacking other editors rather than finding better sources is a) a waste of time and b) likely to get your opinion given less weight as you are clearly not arguing from a policy perspective.
SpartazHumbug!09:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No discussion in detail in any reliable sources. The fact that it was listed in a now extinct notable price guide does not show notability in the slightest. Notable does not equate with reliable and existence, which is not disputed, does not equate with notability. All sources on article and all that I've found have no even vague indication of reliability. Most are blogs, some are Wikis. Fails
GNG by a mile.
John from Idegon (
talk)
05:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Disagree, and I vote to Keep as the article's creator. You overstate your case when you claim there are no reliable secondary sources, and flat out lie, when you suggest nothing is discussed in detail. I doubt you've read the Scrye magazine, and yes, I call your bluff.
Scrye is a reliable guide and personally, I prefer it to the competition of
InQuest. Just because a magazine got put out of business by the internet, doesn't make it less reliable; that's nonsense talk and you're really reaching with that argument. Your flawed logic could be applied to any scientific magazine or newspaper that was rendered obsolete by the internet as proof that it is no longer valid. Sorry, facts don't become invalid just because a company stopped producing a product. The fact remains, Scrye was a relatively prominent publication and is both notable and reliable, and works as a secondary source for this article, as well as InQuest, should I choose to go through my copies of that for source material.
Furthermore, there is no wiki source in the reference section. I assume, you're referring to SF-Encyclopedia? That's has exactly three editors (which I see is prerequisite for being a reliable secondary source) and is the online version of the book in its third edition. You don't need just secondary sources to confirm the existence of something, but they can be used to flesh out the details a bit in a supplementary way (there are two primary sources in the article), the remaining are secondary sources of varying quality, but all of them are used to note different aspects of the card game. InMint.com, sells the game, but it also describes the premise, for which I borrowed a few things. The full paragraph is this:
"In the Rifts Collectible Card Game, mankind, once dominant, now must struggle for survival against dire adversaries both human and inhuman. Set approximately 300 years in the future, Rifts Earth is a planet beset by dimensional anomalies, called rifts, through which aliens, demons, and magical forces have invaded our world."
So, more hyperbole coming from you, disproven. The CCGGamez.com site has 5 paragraphs that I could copy here, but won't... nah, I think I will to directly show you haven't bothered to review the sources in any substantial way, and have mislead everyone in your case against the article:
"The world of RIFTS, as introduced 18 years ago in the role-playing game of that name, is marked by two factors: danger and diversity. Earth has become crisscrossed with key lines of magical power and pockmarked by gates into other dimensions. Demons, vampires and dinosaurs stalk the land while the Earthlings themselves, dabbling in hand-me-down science and newfound sorcery, have formed into factions engaged in constant warfare.
In the new RIFTS Collectible Card Game, players lead these factions to take over what's left of North America. Each player starts with one of nine faction cards, a deck (the size of which is dictated by the faction) and a hand (likewise). Most cards in the hand are drawn at random from the deck, but some are chosen before the game begins.
Some cards can generate resources. On each turn each player "rotates" cards to play other cards from their hand, with certain restrictions. "Base" cards, representing cities and other large installations, can only be played using resources generated by a faction card. Other cards can require resources with a specific attribute; for instance, a factional restriction such as "2 Pecos" means the resources must be generated by cards with the "Pecos Empire" attribute (so only the Pecos Empire or its allies can use it). Other limitations such as "Tech" "Magic" or "Techno-Wizard" prevent all-magic factions from controlling armies of giant robots unless they have some source of technological resources.
One type of card, the Unit, is rated for Attack, Counter-Attack and Damage Capacity as well as special abilities (almost all units have them). During the combat phase, a player can order Units to attack another player. When this is done, the defender takes damage equal to the attacking units' Attack, while the attacking units take damage equal to the defenders' Counter-Attack. Counter-Attack points equal to an attacking units Damage Capacity kill that unit, whereas Attack points kill defending Units or Bases or can be "Decked" meaning the defender discards that many cards from their deck or hand.
When a player's deck runs out of cards they are out of the game. The last player standing wins."
The owner of that site, has clearly played the game, or digested the instruction booklet.
I didn't say Scrye wasn't a reliable source, only that notability does not equate with reliability. It appears that it, alone, may be the only reliable source you've got. However, and admittedly, I cannot check it, when the title of the article is "Scrye Price Guides: RIFTS", there doesn't seem like there's much chance of a discussion in detail, which is a requirement of sources for notability. And as best I can tell from your
TLDR comment above, you clearly lack an understanding of
WP:RS, as your recent (reverted) edit at
WP:N also attests to. I'm also going to ping
Diannaa to this conversation to look over your comment with an eye to copyright violation here.
John from Idegon (
talk)
08:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You're backpeddling now. Go and review the 10 sources at the article, none of which are "blogs", nor "Wikis" and many, if not all, are reliable if you really poke your nose into them. Only then, come back with some legitimate arguments. Also, just because poor you, can't review any given article that's not online, doesn't mean it's not notable. Like I said, I could cite more of these non-readable issues if you desire. As for your TLDR comment, well that just shows you're failing at your job here and I expect more, since you were the one nominating this for discussion. The fact that I did write so much that your eyes just glossed over is probably proof you've given up, or that there's plenty of content worth citing. I suspect I understand WP:RS more than you do, if this thread is any indication.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
OK, I just looked over the sources. I'm a gamer but not a CCG person (well not after 1994). I can't find any source that is more than either promotional text from the publisher (
http://archive.li/9xZrf) or just a list of cards. The very very small number of reviews and the really poor rating on BGG makes me suspect the game isn't notable (that isn't a
WP:N argument, but great rating and large number of reviews would make me suspect there are good sources out there). Now if the Scrye article(s?) has some depth, that would be great. Do you have a hardcopy of the article you could scan and post somewhere so we can take a look at it? But even if that article is solid, one article isn't going to be over the bar--WP:N requires multiple sources. And card lists and the like just don't count for much.
Hobit (
talk)
21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well thanks for looking over the sources, you can see they're not blogs or wikis, huh? That pissed me off with that ignorant false claim. While the link you supplied is promotional, in some sense, it is promotional for the RPG book, not the card game. The card game was defunct at the time he wrote that. Though I feel you're exaggerating your critique here. There is only 1 list article and 1 so-called "promotional" site. That still leaves other sources. Sorry I don't have access to a scanner, but that's probably an investment coming down the road. As for a game being notable, that's really in the eye of the beholder. If I have reliable secondary sources one of the requirements for keeping an article around, it seems I've done my part to make an appropriate article. Btw, I'm adding another source as I've found more material from a book I've recently purchased. Any comment on the Youtube source?
Leitmotiv (
talk)
19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Could you point out what you think are the best 2 or 3 sources? Everything I'm seeing is either just a card list or not independent. But I'm willing to admit I might be missing something. Thanks.
Hobit (
talk)
20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'm rewriting my original response. If you can't figure out what the best 2 or 3 sources are, then maybe you shouldn't be the one reviewing the sources. It's pretty clear what the best sources are. But what makes this article great is that all the sources working together has made an article like this. It's a solid three paragraphs with another smaller fourth paragraph. I feel I could break down some of the flaws in the second sentence of your reply, but I deleted it feeling that we're going in circles and that maybe you aren't reviewing the sources properly in conjunction with what they're citing in the article.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. The problem is I'm not seeing any good sources. I asked in the hopes I missed something (I looked at all the ones on-line in the article and didn't see anything that was independent and had depth.). If you can't or won't identify any in the article and can't or won't add anything about anything not in the article, I think I've reached the point that I can't find a reason to keep the article. Sorry.
Hobit (
talk)
20:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Take a real close look then, rather than a glance. Scrye Magazine and a Book are good and dedicated sources on this very topic, there you got it out of me. But it shows that I don't feel you're really trying very hard. They're good sources and I think you should admit that.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I can't find anything about the Scrye article anywhere. You apparently have it, but lack a scanner (or a camera?) to get a copy out and you've not described the coverage. The book doesn't appear to have significant coverage of the game (it mentions it a lot, but no details that I can find).
Hobit (
talk)
22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Just because you can't read something personally, doesn't mean it's not valuable or lacks content. Sorry, that's a fallacy. But yes, both have content regarding the article. Neither are fully available online, the book only in part, so I'm not sure how you can say you reviewed them. Addendum: If you look at the index it shows Rifts being mentioned on no less than 8 pages. I bought the book recently and I've applied it to a few articles I've edited and created, and plan on using this book much more. Addendum 2: I think it's funny that you say I haven't described the coverage. I created the article with inline citations! Have you read the article? As I said above, I could use these sources overlapping existing citations, but I didn't see the point. Do you want me to do that?
Leitmotiv (
talk)
22:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Just to be formal (I commented above at length) delete. The topic doesn't meet WP:N with any of the sources in the article that I can access nor do I have confidence that the sources off line have any more detail.
Hobit (
talk) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC) -- Correction--merge to
Rifts (role-playing_game). Probably just a paragraph, but it can easily fit under "Spinoffs and alternate editions" in that article.
Hobit (
talk)
20:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I've looked at every source in the article that is on-line. You have the only non on-line source but have refused to provide it or describe it in any meaningful detail. My sense is you have no leg to stand on and so resort to insults. It has certainly made me not wish to engage, but I don't care to be bullied, so here I am. This doesn't meet WP:N and you have no evidence it does.
Hobit (
talk)
06:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Refused? That's not putting it honestly. You asked if I could provide material and I said I didn't have the means. I've also stated I made inline citations for the content they provide, but that seems to be lost on you, as well as your answer to my question if I should cite other stuff that overlapped in those sources. I may have come on strong, because the dude who started this discussion lied up front and it pissed me off. I may have insulted you because objectivity has left you. You state I haven't supplied evidence - ignoring the two secondary sources cited in the damn article. Somehow you think your lack of access is proof positive that they don't qualify. That's nonsense. They're bonafide secondary sources no matter how you personally want to spin it.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
07:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm to understand you don't own a cell phone with a camera? And that in addition you are unable to provide a summary of the article in your own words? No on-line source that meets
WP:N exists and at this point I'm unwilling to take you at your word that the off-line source has anything more (though again, a scan good picture or a fairly detailed summary would help). I lean toward inclusion here. But there just aren't sources.
Hobit (
talk)
13:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Your argument is ridiculous. You don't seem to listen or answer my question (maybe I can return the favor?), which in turn would answer the one you're asking now. I've provided in line citation for the sources that essentially summarize parts of the articles. I'll ask again though: do I need to cite the the overlap with the other articles to show what they cover?
Leitmotiv (
talk)
21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No, but you could provide the three best sources that count toward WP:N. And if you cite an off-line source, you could provide a brief summary of what that source covers. This is a standard thing at AfD. As far as I can tell, there are no independent sources that cover the topic in any depth.
Hobit (
talk)
15:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I believe I've read everything. I will admit I find the hostility hard to read through, so maybe I missed something. Again, could you list the three best sources? And if you list an off-line source, could you either take a picture of it or briefly describe it?
Hobit (
talk)
21:25, 26 January 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.
Didn't speedy the biography for the claimed position of President of a Nigerian association. Had to remove copy-vio material from the article. Couldn't find any
reliable sources that could assist the subject in passing the
GNG/
BIO thresholds. Lourdes15:13, 12 January 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.
At first glance, it looked like there was coverage, but most of the sources are mere mentions of the person or confirmation that he belongs to a group etc. In the end, it's a puff piece without significant coverage of the subject by reliable third-party sources. Would not oppose a redirect to his company article per
WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOMENiteshift36 (
talk)
17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
1) No, there hasn't been an AfD discussion. 2) The notability of his company isn't the subject of discussion. This is about the notability of the individual. Being the CEO of a notable company doesn't give you a free pass to notability.
Niteshift36 (
talk)
19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Most of the sources aren't independent at all. I do not believe that the Who's Who entries are evidence of notability, as I believe these particular publications include all senior executives of all companies over a certain size. The Marquis Who's Who, in particular, allows subjects to submit their own biographies and boasts of having over 1.5M biographies.
Pburka (
talk)
01:43, 13 January 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.
Actor whose only significant film/television role seems to be a recurring minor character, no indication of meeting
WP:NACTOR. PROD removed by
User:Waledemz(who was not the article creator) without comment after adding unsourced claims abour theatre roles and a program called Ajalangers (which returns no results on Google).
Of note: Waledemz's username matches a stage nickname used by Demehin, claims to be Demehin on their talk page, and has twice tried to create articles about Demehin in the past. RA0808talkcontribs17:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC); edited 15:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
If Demehin is so well known, why were both the article creator and Waledemz seemingly having as much difficulty as I did locating "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as required by
WP:GNG)? RA0808talkcontribs21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC); edited 21:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Neither of those are examples of significant coverage. Revolvy is a Wikipedia fork and is not a reliable source per
WP:FORK, and even if it were reliable Demehin is only given a trivial mention in a cast list. The Irokotv link also only gives a trivial mention in a cast list.
WP:N requires significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." RA0808talkcontribs22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It is not the main topic, and it is not a trivial feature either.
Plus, you requested citation for "Adewale has played several roles in stage plays including OLD MOYO (GCK) 2001 , AJAGBE (Divine Assembly) 2009, OBA (Divine Assembly) 2010 amongst others." The events were obviously not publicized on the internet, because the internet had not gained much grounds in Nigeria at that time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davioseki (
talk •
contribs)
22:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia tends to be cagey about YouTube as a source, but even if it was taken as a reliable source (which I would ask others to weigh in on), it still is one source that is about what seems to be his only significant provable role. As for the stage plays, sources do not have to be on the Internet. If they were notable productions were there not newspaper articles written about them? RA0808talkcontribs19:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"Nomination is flawed":
HandsomeBoy You could state which sections of
WP:NACTOR that this page fails. And I am aware of what
WP:COI discourages. I have no relationship with the owner of this profile, and haven't received payments for my edits here or elsewhere.
I visited the page to learn more, and saw the nomination for deletion. I suggest it should be improved rather than deleted.
Visit
Wikipedia:Autobiography. Note 'If you have been published elsewhere on a topic, "we welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wikipedia readers' knowledge." Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted.'
Page was not created to cause an excessive hype about the personality, or for reasons of self promotion. Else, you who have nominated should point such places out that spell excessive praises on the profile.
Also, acting records (especially for stage plays) as at 2009 in Nigeria, are rarely found on the internet. But just because they are not on the internet doesn't mean they never occurred, does it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davioseki (
talk •
contribs)
20:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I was referring to the article creator, whom I already explained why the article wasn't notable on my
talkpage. But since you replied me, the reason the article fails NACTOR is that he has not had main roles in multiple notable films; neither has he been nominated or won an award in a notable film ceremony. Awards like
AMAA,
Best of Nollywood Awards and
Nigeria Entertainment Awards have been existing before 2010, if he or any of his works were notable, they would have at least gotten a nomination. Secondly, the short films you claimed he acted in are of questionable notability. For a film to be notable, we need a
reliable source to talk about it, either online or in print. The only notable film he has acted in is Jenifa's Diaries, and it was a minor role. NACTOR talks only about significant roles, not minor. Don't waste your time, this article will definitely get deleted.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
•"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
Article does not seem to fail this.
• "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.
Article does not seem to fail this either...
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
The sources requested here have been provided. Person in article is featured in a YouTube video which has over 200,000 views, and has been watched by thousands of fans on Jenifa's diary.
• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
HandsomeBoy (
talk) you should also read under additional requirements on NACTOR: I'll quote;
"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
"A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using
for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion."
I hope you see that this nomination for deletion deletion has been flawed all along.
Person in article does not require any awards to qualify for a space on Wikipedia. Plus, the role of
Adewale Demehin in
Jenifa's Diary cannot be passed as insignificant.
Keep
Below are the requirements for an article to be deleted, and after reading through, the article, fortunately passes all of them, and as such, should not be deleted.
Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
Content does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion...
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
Person in this article does not breach the Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.
Redundant or otherwise useless templates
Categories representing overcategorization
Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policyAny other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
Comment: For the sake of easing the reading for other editor's viewing this discussion... let's review what sources we have so far related to Demehin in relation to
WP:GNG as of the 16:04, 19 January 2018 revision. We have:
Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
A
behind the scenes video from Jenifa's Diary including interview segments with Demehin produced and posted to YouTube by SceneOne, the show's production company
Significant coverage Y, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
The
About Us page for Mercy Upon Mercy, an organization founded by Demehin and his wife, that lists him as Co-Founder with no other information.
Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
A brief (three line)
blog post from Mercy Upon Mercy about a trip led by Demehin and his wife to an old folk's home
Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
The
About Us page for Kr8tvt Solutions, a web design company founded by Demehin.
Significant coverage Y, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
An
article about Demehin on BooshBingBang, a blog run by a Nigerian expat in the UK (interestingly enough, the web design for the blog was done by Demehin's company Kr8tvt).
Significant coverage Y, reliable source N, independent of subject Not sure
Just a reminder. An article does not need to meet all the requirements to appear on Wikipedia especially as stated under NACTOR.
Eitherway. I still stand my ground that this article only needs improvement, rather than deletion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davioseki (
talk •
contribs)
20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Ademiyan does not meet any of the three specifications of
WP:NACTOR, he is not notable, not only by Wikipedia guidelines but also from the dictionary definition of notability. He is currently a nobody in Nollywood. This is not about lack of sources, this is about reality.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Agreed with HandsomeBoy.
WP:BIO says that if a subject does not meet the NACTOR criteria they may still be notable under
WP:GNG. Demehin's lack of multiple significant roles means he does not meet NACTOR and, as I showed above, he does not meet GNG requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise, per
WP:FAILN, non-notable topics without plausible merge targets are generally deleted. RA0808talkcontribs00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Handsomeboy, just because an actor is a "nobody" to you, does not make them a "nobody in Nollywood." Neither does it make the article useless to Wikipedia. Clearly I have searched for and provided enough links to show how others may be interested in this person.
WP:SCNR clearly states,
"...An article like this, however short it may be, does serve Wikipedia’s ultimate purpose. This article is useful. In other words, if a topic has received coverage (i.e. is noticed) in independent, reliable, and verifiable source/s, however big or small, significant or insignificant the coverage may be, the topic could be considered to be notable, i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice, and thus Wikipedia may have a stand-alone article on that topic..."
RA0808, fortunately for the article, you would be wrong to say that the article does not meet the significant coverage in independent, reliable and verifiable sources, and as such, should not be on Wikipedia.
Take a look at
WP:BLP1E and take note that, even if Adewale Demehin was mentioned in only one notable event, the Jenifa's Diary, yet, the page still deserves a stand alone page on Wikipedia.
Was the subject mentioned in one notable event with significant coverage? Yes, the Jenifa's Diary.
Was there a detailed coverage on the subject? Yes, the SceneOne TV YouTube channel.
Davioseki (
talk)
09:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Davi'O, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this topic but this is simply grasping. To begin:
WP:SCNR is an essay, as it clearly states at the top. Essays are not the same as guidelines or policies, and in fact have no official status on Wikipedia (see
WP:ESSAY). Even if it was, Demehin does not even meet the criteria given in SCNR of "coverage... in independent, reliable, and verifiable source/s" since it is questionable the BooshBingBang can be considered independent and all other sources are directly connected to Demehin (and thus not independent). Even SCNR - again, which has no official status since it is an essay - requires that a source be both independent and reliable.
SceneOne distribution are the production company for Jenifa's Dairy, owned by
Funke Akindele, how can you use them as a source to show significant coverage for an actor that they employ? The interview can never be independent! I'm done spending time on this pointless discussion, something I should dedicate to improving articles on genuinely notable topics. Your persistence and refusal to learn will not make you contribute constructively and enjoy Wikipedia.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
00:44, 22 January 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.
This page lacks any reliable sources. What we have here are sources that aim to be comprehensive databases listing everyone involved in acting with no regard for impact, and which due to various issues have been judges by the Wikipedia community to not meet the criteria of reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable sources, which we have lacking here. There is no clear evidence that any of his roles ever fit the description of a substantial role in a notable production. His film roles seem to have been minor and forgettable, and it is not clear any of his stage roles were even in productions that were notable. My google search for sources turned up absolutely nothing that was close to a notable source. It did near the start give me a hit for Bill Cosby, showing that entering the term William Black and actor into google get some interesting results. I also learned there have been other actors who went by both William Black and Bill Black, so if this article is kept, it may well need to be moved to William Black (actor born 1871).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as the original creator of the article. Frankly, I don't understand the policy rationale under which this is nominated, since I believe the subject passes the notability requirements for an actor, and the nominator didn't actually provide a policy-based reason for deletion. IBDb is, as MarnetteD says, not a user-generated database such as IMDb, it is owned, compiled and run by The Broadway League -- the official national trade association for Broadway theater. I have had occasion to correct credits in the database, and in my discussions with them, I was required to provide proof of the change I wanted to make in the form of references such as printed programs and other reliable sources. Their information is based on their archives of Broadway productions and other reliable research materials.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment none of the above have demonstrated that the broadway database in any way limits its coverage to people who are involved in significant roles in notable productions, which is what would be needed to show that it is a source that adds towards notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You seem to be confusing notability as an article-level standard with an entry-level standard, just as you did when you mass-removed multiple entries from the articles of notable actors such as
Gilbert Roland,
ZaSu Pitts,
Leon Ames and others.
[64] It's quite possible for the career of a notable actor to consist in large part of non-notable roles, especially during the studio era, when most actors were essentially indentured servants who were required to do whatever the studio bosses told them to do.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
14:45, 20 January 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.
^Alexander Tarlinder (2017). Developer Testing: Building Quality into Software. Addison-Wesley.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A BLP that lacks sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Does not meet
WP:NMODEL and significant RS coverage not found. The honour listed is not significant and well-known; the article on the program has been deleted here:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Playboy Cyber Club (2nd nomination). The first nomination closed as "procedural keep" due to the behaviour of the nominator. Seven years on, I believe it's a good time to revisit.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:54, 20 January 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.
fails
WP:ARTIST, notability is
WP:NOTINHERITED from his father. I don't believe his book passes helps him pass WP:ARTIST either. Not seeing reliable source coverage for this subject, just his own website, some blogs, etc. And yes, one picture that he took appeared in the New York Times, but it does not seem that he is a regular contributor.
Rusf10 (
talk)
23:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Mysterious. The article mentions
Rosalind Solomon; and as her work interests me, this was the first (minor) aspect of the article that I examined. What I found, or didn't, surprised me. The article currently tells us: For several years in the mid 1980s, he assisted Rosalind Solomon with film development and printing. He also helped Solomon with her gear as she photographed in Washington Square Park and photographed people with AIDS. It presents as a reference "{{cite web|url=http://www.rosalindsolomon.com/biography.htm |title=Rosalind Solomon Bio |publisher=Rosalindsolomon.com |accessdate=January 21, 2012}}".
Here is that web page as archived by the Wayback Machine just eight days earlier (13 January 2012). Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention within it of "thatcher" or of "keats". This factoid goes back to the
very first version of the article (2 December 2010), which told readers: In 1983 he also worked with Arthur Tress, assisting him on his Hospital series,[reference] and for several years in the mid 80's with Rosalind Solomon on her work about AIDS, a relationship that continues today. The reference for the second half of that was "[http://www.rosalindsolomon.com/biography.htm Rosalind Solomon Bio]". I haven't examined the reference for the first half of that sentence and don't propose to do so (life's too short); but
here and
here are the web page of the second reference, as archived by the Wayback Machine on 21 July 2010 and 15 July 2011 respectively. Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention of "thatcher" or of "keats" in either of these archived versions. The assertion that Keats helped Solomon may be true, but the "reference" for it -- both as supplied by
Jgrahame (first version of the article) and as confirmed (
here) by
Ohconfucius -- appears to be fictional. (Or have I misunderstood something? I'd be most interested in comments on this by Jgrahame and Ohconfucius.) --
Hoary (
talk)
09:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
More weirdness. I find that this article exerts a horrible fascination. OK, I give in: let's continue, and consider Keats' relationship with
Arthur Tress, as mentioned above. The reader is told: In 1983 he also worked with Arthur Tress, assisting him on his Hospital series; and this cites as a source {{cite web|url=http://www.corcoran.org/exhibitions/previous_results.asp?Exhib_ID=44 |title=Corcoran Gallery of Art |publisher=Corcoran.org |accessdate=January 21, 2012}}. Another page that's now dead, but it lives on at the Wayback Machine. On 21 January 2012,
Ohconfuciusstated that it was retrieved on 21 January 2012.
Here is what Wayback retrieved on 7 December 2011. Ctrl-F in my browser shows no mention within it of "thatcher" or of "keats". ¶ Perhaps Jgrahame's idea of sourcing is (1) to find something on the web that mentions at least one entity of the proposition that's being sourced, and (2) to add this in order to impart a certain aura of dignity to the paragraph in question. But in what sense Ohconfucius could have confirmed all this, I don't know. ¶ Regardless of what they actually say, a lot of the "references" are to the biographee. Among the others, neither of the two I checked says what it's presented as saying. I therefore can't trust any of this stuff. Therefore, delete. (Pity, because the cover of
one of his books looks interesting.) --
Hoary (
talk)
12:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Hoary: You certainly raise a lot of legitimate issues with the article. There is only two possibilities, either the information is false or it is original research. And I agree that a number of the sources are completely irrelevant as if they were added to the article to make it look like there was more sourcing than actually exists.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
02:03, 23 January 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.
Note–I'm not !voting, since I'm not a neutral party. I've been subscribing to and financially supporting (in a very small way) Woodworth's The Match! since the mid-70s. I'd prefer to see this entry remain on WP, but the only online references I can find are on anarchy-related blogs, one local-press YouTube, and echoes and reflections of the WP article at issue here. If this article survives, the redirect made at
The Match! should point here rather than to a list with very little context.
— jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)00:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak keep Woodworth, whose magazine I too read and support, has been a significant figure in American anarchism in the last 30 years. (Not
black bloc-style "anarchism", but anarchism among people with brains.) While his interview in Anarchist Voices is not a reliable source, historian
Paul Avrich's page-long introduction to the interview is an RS and should help establish Woodworth's notability. Woodworth was a prominent activist in
American Atheists during the 1970s and 1980s. He is also notoriously computer-averse and prints his magazine by
linotype. Between that and the facts that American anarchism of the late 20th/early 21st centuries was eclipsed by the black bloc and most materials about American Atheists are of pre-internet vintage, Google will not help establish Woodworth's notability (although I did find some things, like a paragraph about him in
this article about the counter-culture in Arizona and his
pamphlet about anarchism at
Dana Ward's
Anarchy Archives). —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk01:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: If you both read the magazine, but are not aware of independent references discussing the writer in a meaningful way, how likely is it that the subject will be considered notable from a Wikipedia perspective? --
Rpclod (
talk)
02:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I cited an independent reference,
Paul Avrich's Anarchist Voices. Contemporary political movements outside the mainstream, especially those that operate "off the grid", are not covered in sources considered reliable on Wikipedia. (Initially I started that sentence with "Unfortunately", but I don't think it's unfortunate that nobody associated with anarchism has blown up any buildings or assassinated any political or business leaders in recent decades.) I don't have access this weekend to a quality library, but I think I've given some leads that an interested editor could pursue. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk03:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete People are not shown to be notable based on their own publications, but based on works created by others about them. We lack the latter on Woodworth.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge There seems to be enough coverage to justify an article either on Woodworth or on
The Match!, though I'm not sure there's enough for both. I see more coverage of the magazine on Google Book Search than I do on Woodworth.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:55, 21 January 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.
No sign of notability at all, does not satisfy
WP:GNG or more importantly
WP:NCORP. Appears to just be a local church with an article, almost entirely unsourced or primary sources. No hint of any non-trivial mention in google or google news search. Was tagged for notability in November, no indication that any support is forthcoming or exists at all. Not fit for merging into
Hodgkins, Illinois because it is just a local church of no particular significance. Churches do not get an article merely because they exist.
—DIYeditor (
talk)
23:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not seem to be notable. Though a little over a hundred years old, there doesn't seem to be any notability claim such as being in a historic building or extensive news coverage.
331dot (
talk)
09:59, 21 January 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.
An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable charity and social network. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is mostly self-promotions and executive quotes. Article is cited to passing mentions, routine news,
WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability. Created by an account currently indef blocked for undisclosed paid editing; pls see
Special:Contributions/Bigredlighthouse.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:13, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The original author being blocked for promotion would not be an ongoing issue if the subject was notable and other editors had developed the article since its creation but, checking the history, I see that nobody else seems to care about this subject. The article is very close to being an orphan. The charity has only 8 alleged staff. Its website seems to suggest that its only activity is the operation of a very small specialist online social network. Even if we might be inclined to give a charity more benefit of the doubt than a for-profit company, this is not notable. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
01:02, 21 January 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.
An indiscriminate collection of information and unencyclopedic categorisation. The honour is minor and does not confer presumed notability on its recipients. Significant and independent RS coverage not found. Does not meet
WP:LISTN.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
22:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
LISTN isn't relevant here because here the list is an actual thing outside of our content that this article is about (like
Nixon's Enemies List, or even more on point as another annual list published in a magazine,
People (magazine)#100 Most Beautiful People). We should just go straight to GNG, and should expect secondary source coverage, not just the magazine itself for sourcing. If it is not independently notable, then this should be redirected to
Inc. (magazine) where it may merit a mention but not a wholesale reproduction of their lists year after year. Copying their lists would also raise copyright concerns as their compilation is not factual but editorial and creative. postdlf (talk)
15:01, 21 January 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.
No evidence supporting that this collection of courses is notable. Appears to be a vanity article for the University of Pécs Cheers,
1292simon (
talk)
21:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the lead is "This article considers Business Degree Programs in English at the Faculty of Business and Economics of the University of Pécs", which is clearly a different topic from the title of the article, and not a notable stand-alone topic.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
04:57, 21 January 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.
DeleteNo Opinion The entire article is copy-and-pasted from
[1].–
dlthewave☎ 21:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Edit: Change to No Opinion. There's a decent amount of content left after removing the copyvio and efforts are being made to build up the article. I'll leave it to others to determine notability. –
dlthewave☎17:17, 14 January 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.
WP:TOOSOON. Only notable work is on Party Over Here, and some alleged writing on Mad TV. Comedy Bang Bang only a handful of episodes among hundreds released. No significant coverage articles to meet
WP:GNG; the only two references provided are a profile from Upright Citizens Brigade (comedy group) (primary source) and a passing mention in a cast announcement.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
13:13, 6 January 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.
This doesn't meet the notability standards, either
in general or
supplemental, for coverage in a stand-alone article or even, arguably, for mentioning in the type article's accidents-and-incidents section. The engines flamed out due to bad maintenance, the pilots restarted one, they landed. There was no hull loss, no fatalities or even injuries, and aside from "you screwed up the maintenance, here's a rule to Do It Better", there were no significant changes to procedures or regulations as a result of the incident. It was a close one, but
close doesn't count. Note that in 2011 a PROD was declined on the basis of "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" - but
a search doesn't seem to show it; there's plenty of
routine coverage of the "this incident happened; here's how; here's what you can do to avoid making the same mistakes, and here's what you can do if your mechanic didn't watch the previous bit" type, and the only book coverage that would indicate "beyond the routine" is a self-published, vaguely
fringey title or two.
(edit: It's also worth noting, or at least disclosing, that the article was created by a long-since site-banned editor who was (and is, as he's one of our most persistent sockpuppeteers) notorious for pushing non-notable aircraft accidents into every possible article.)
Comment I recall this incident because at the time I was visiting my parents in South Florida. This incident is certainly more noteworthy than
Northwest Airlines Flight 5 which also has a Florida connection. Usually I am in favor of delete, but for this article I'm on the fence as of now.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?02:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - A major airliner losing thrust in all engines is a very rare and notable event regardless of why.
British Airways Flight 9's engines flamed out simply because the pilots weren't properly informed where volcanic ash was and that flight had zero fatalities or injuries and no haul loss. While I believe the nom made a good-faith effort to confirm the previous PROD-removal rationale, "incident has received wide and in-depth coverage up to the present day" but I've learned over the years searching with simply an article title isn't always efficient. Firstly in 1993, there was a huge amount of coverage from the likes of the New York Times, the Washington Post and UPI and many others (these here are just samples).
[2][3][4] with the full NTSB report in 1984.
[5] Secondly, very in-depth coverage continued for decades, like that of the 2017 book Behind Human Error (authors include
Sidney Dekker).
[6] Other in-depth coverage include the the 2008 book Is it Safe?: Why Flying Commercial Airliners is Still a Risky Business, and what Can be Done about it[7] and the 2008 book 35 Miles from Shore: The Ditching and Rescue of ALM Flight 980 (some pages missing from this preview)
[8].--
Oakshade (
talk)
04:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The search was done by the flight number, and the sources you mention above are exactly the sort of
routine coverage any incident like this produces. Furthermore, Is It Safe? is a
self-published book and thus not a
reliable source (and is also exactly the one I mentioned in the nom as 'self-published with a conspiritorial tone'). I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, as it's an interesting incident, but I have yet to see anything to indicate it's a Wikinotable one. -
The BushrangerOne ping only07:26, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:ROUTINE coverage is "such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" and of course the coverage that is decades later - or even just after the incident happened - is nothing of a sort. The Wikinotable is of being the in-depth coverage by reliable sources that spreads over decades thus easily passing
WP:GNG. Even if you exclude that one book out of all the coverage, this still is easily Wikinoable.--
Oakshade (
talk)
07:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Does being a 1983 mechanical failure suddenly mean this did not receive in-depth coverage spanning decades thus passing WP:GNG not to mention there was not a total engine failure of a major jetliner? --
Oakshade (
talk)
22:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The near-disaster has also been discussed in Neil Johnston; Nick McDonald (2017).
Aviation Psychology in Practice. Routledge. pp. 109–113.
ISBN978-1840141337. (first published 1994) where it says "As a result of the Miami incident, there has been a regulatory change in the US to prevent such an accident from occurring again." The type of maintenance procedures required at the time are now prohibited. This meets
WP:AIRCRASH#Aircraft articles #3 and
WP:GNG with continuing coverage as well as very extensive press reporting at the time. The nomination is misconceived.
Thincat (
talk)
12:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - although
WP:AIRCRASH is an essay and shouldn't really be used in AFDs, the article still passes those requirements. More importantly it passes
WP:GNG and there are plenty of other accepted similar articles.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
21:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Even though it's clear there's a consensus this is notable, and that's more than fine, I wish people would stop saying "it's [only] an essay!". Lots of the SNGs are
only essays (as is
WP:ATA for that matter). The fact it's only an essay isn't relevant when it's being used as a shortcut to typing out three paragraphs of "this is what the consensus on the subject is" every time it comes up. -
The BushrangerOne ping only21:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
The Bushranger I did not mean to imply that
WP:AIRCRASH should be disregarded, quite the opposite I was stating that the article in question fits the criteria set out in
WP:AIRCRASH. However the ultimate aim is
WP:GNG, and in it's purpose as an essay
WP:AIRCRASH and other's are suppose to be helpfully paths twords concurrences, not the end all be all.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
00:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as not noteworthy, comes under "bad day at the office" scenario, nobody hurt, kick the tires and life moves on like hundreds of other non-noteworthy incidents that happen every day.
MilborneOne (
talk)
23:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Do you know of hundreds of other major jetliner passenger flights that all engines flamed out? Are you aware of such a catastrophic failure occurring hundreds of times a day? Just like
Air Canada Flight 143 or
British Airways Flight 9 in which there was nobody hurt, this is far beyond a "bad day at the office." Most people's "bad day at the office" aren't significantly written about decades later by reliable sources and pass
WP:GNG. --
Oakshade (
talk)
02:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
All references are to two NTSB reports. NTSB responds to many incidents. An NTSB report doesn't make the underlying incident notable.--
Rpclod (
talk)
17:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This incident started with an engine shutdown due to falling oil pressure, followed by a double engine failure, meaning this three-engine aircraft become a glider until the crew managed to restart the engine they had shut down. That engine failed after the aircraft landed. The unusual circumstances are irrelevant. That the aircraft did not crash is irrelevant. If the incident received some write-ups in the news and was then forgotten about, I would be !voting delete, but this demonstrably passes the General Notability Guidelines, as there has been significant coverage - not passing mentions - of the subject, with analysis, in several books decades after the event.
YSSYguy (
talk)
10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep gets in-depth coverage in academic sources from reputable sources such as Routledge as recently as 2017.
[9] A look at other Google Books hits shows continuing coverage in the decades since the incident, meaning this passes the
WP:GNG. ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions22:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - As many editors have stated above, this incident attracted the attention of many journalists and authors in the years following. In addition, the flight crew each received an award from ALPA. These are not given out for anything less than outstanding airmanship.
Mjroots (
talk)
07:57, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - On the surface this is an easy delete as a non notable event. Additional digging reveals lots of substantial coverage long after the incident. -
Samf4u (
talk)
18:45, 26 January 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.
Keep broadcast on NZ 2nd national TV station and on Australia national TV so there are likely to be sources if only offline such as this
here which is only available in NZ libraries. They also made a third series in 2014 which is detailed
here This primary source shows it was screened in Australia
here , this source shows national TV in NZ
here Reviews are probably offline or paywalled
Atlantic306 (
talk)
18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
DeleteKeep but needs serious improvement. Per Nate, it aired on a national TV network and we can prove it exists and is not a hoax, the only question seems to be the substance of sourcing.
Chetsford (
talk)
07:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
TenPoundHammer - thanks for the ping. I was evaluating two AfDs simultaneously when I wrote this and must have been scanning the incorrect tab. You're correct; I've modified my !vote accordingly.
Chetsford (
talk)
21:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: The source I first added can only be viewed in NZ libraries and is directly about the series so you cannot say it is a passing mention as you can't see it , it is only available offline, the source about the third series is an article directly about it and is therefore significant content. Adding references to the article can also be done by the nominator and is as much up to them as anyone else and sources are included in every discussion.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
13:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Winning "Achievement in Sound Design in General Television" in the Qantas Film and Television Awards 2008 does not show notability.
WP:TVSHOW states:
Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience. It is far less likely to be notable if it airs in only one local media market.
In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. For instance, a purely local talk radio program might be notable enough for inclusion if it played a solidly sourceable role in exposing a major political scandal, and a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage.
Reliable sources do not need to be accessible online (although that may be more useful to Wikipedia users), so bibliographic cites to offline authoritative references would suffice. However reliable sources are needed to support notability.--
Rpclod (
talk)
03:25, 21 January 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.
Military accidents are generally non-notable regardless of how many are killed. Notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties, extensive infrastructure damage, changes to legislation or operational doctrine, etc. etc., or anything that could be construed as notable in it's own right, such as notable passengers
WP:NOTNEWS,
WP:GNG and as a guide:
WP:AIRCRASHPetebutt (
talk)
17:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Which of our policies says "notability can be conferred if there are civilian casualties" - this easily meets GNG and you should have checked before nominating - the fact that only military personnel were killed is not a valid grounds for nomination, neither is your personal opinion that civilian deaths are more notable, and I suggest you withdraw this ill-conceived nomination:
cnnnbcchicago tribunestars and stripesSeraphWiki (
talk)
18:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, not notable for a separate article; unfortunately, a fairly common occurrence. Agree with MilborneOne as to where is should be mentioned in a separate article.
Kierzek (
talk)
18:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It seems any incident where an "Israeli civilian" is killed or even just targeted is worthy of a standalone article (despite repeated efforts to have these articles merged to lists during AfDs), but an incident where 9 members of the United States military lose their lives is non-notable and "a fairly common occurrence". It's shameful, if not surprising.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
19:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, its not a valid policy grounds for deletion. The correct policy is
WP:NOTNEWS and at least some of these articles have been challenged under that policy and closed keep, as well as many other minor "terrorist attacks" or "attempted attacks" throghout the world. Invariably, the AfD discussion closes keep. These attacks are actually more common than military plane or helicopter crashes and nine deaths is a high number for a single crash. There is no policy based justification to keep every terrorist attack article and delete articles about military accidents. The lives of members of the United States military are just as valuable as civilian lives.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
19:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Still dont get the relevance of terrorist attacks, this is about a military aircraft crash during training I dont see any terrorist involvement. I also dont see the fact that they were United States military involved which has no relevance to it being noteworthy.
MilborneOne (
talk)
19:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thank you for stating that in your own words, because it gets to the heart of the problem with how this policy is applied, the policy does not turn on whether there is "terrorist involvement" or whether deaths of U.S. military has "relevance to it being noteworthy" - I reviewed and accepted the article through AfC based on my knowledge of previous AfDs involved the policyWP:NOTNEWS. The relevant part of the policy in these discussions is whether the occurrence is "routine". In August 2017 there had been 14 non-combat aviation crashes that year
[10] - there were more terrorist attacks in any given month of 2017. Editorial POV that terrorist attacks are more inherently notable than United States military deaths in plane crashes has absolutely no policy-based justificationSeraphWiki (
talk)
19:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Nope you have lost me and I dont know where this "routine" stuff comes from or why you are comparing military aircraft training accidents with Terrorist attacks or any other disimilar subject, the point is the accident noteworthy enough for a stand-alone article on its own merits. It clearly isnt, we dont compare "notability" between unrelated subjects. Most of the subjects you mention I fail to get the connection as far as I know no Israeli civilians were involved or even terrorists, it was just an accident during a training flight. Military training is risky stuff. Not sure what accidents in August 2017 have to do with it, the date or time of year is not relevant, nationality of the victims is not relevant. Being military is relevant as civilian aircraft dont normally fly through the mountains in the dark at low level using night vision equipment. A large civilian aircraft that flies into a mountain with fatalties would be noteworthy.
MilborneOne (
talk)
21:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I am sorry to have to say this but if you are not familiar with the policy involved then you should not be supporting deletion of an article, especially as an admin. The policy involved is
WP:NOTNEWS - it is the same for military plane crashes and terrorist attacks (in Israel or elsewhere). The policy says For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia and this is the point that is most often discussed at AfD. The number of military plane crashes per year relative to the number of terrorist attacks is relevant, as anyone who has previously participated in these AfDs would be aware of, because a military plane crash is not "routine news" - that is why I decided to accept the draft. Otherwise this topic easily passes
WP:GNG and I don't think there is any policy-based justification to support deletion here.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
22:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well clearly we are not on the same wavelength but thanks for for your arguments using NOTNEWS as it clearly calls for deletion as military aircraft crashes during training comes under the "routine news" and has no persistance. (And please dont comment on the competence of others it is not clever)
MilborneOne (
talk)
22:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
For example the
2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash was recreated after deletion and during the second deletion discussion many editors voted to keep
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 IAF Sikorsky CH-53 crash. We have many other similar articles - so many that there is a navbox for them: {{Aviation accidents and incidents in 2015}} These nominations are perennial and there is no consensus for deletion of these articles, it should really be clarified that nominations based on the
WP:AIRCRASHessay - are starting to be disruptive because it is a waste of the community's time to go over the same issues everytime. Time and time again these articles have been nominated as NOTNEWS and the AfDs have closed keep or no consensus for deletion.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
00:19, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Additionally
MilborneOne I would very much appreciate it if you would willingly strike your comment that "it was just an accident during a training flight." Nine members of the United States military died in that accident and you are right, it does not seem like we are on the same wavelength about that. This is not the first time I have wondered if editors are simply unaware that these discussions may be read by persons unfamiliar with "Wikispeak" - family members, or other service members, and what it would sound like to them = "just an accident" "routine news" "no relevance to it being noteworthy"... I hope these views don't reflect the views of most of the trusted members of community, but all I can say is they certainly don't reflect mine.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
01:07, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Meets GNG. Has LASTING coverage, e.g. -
[11][12][13]. AIRCRASH is a good essay - but military crashes of large aircraft with many crew/passengers are sometimes not pigeonholed to the criteria there.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. "Lasting" coverage is not beyond either incidental mentions of "this happened in the past" and/or
WP:PRIMARY sources which do not confer notability. It is long-standing consensus that military aircraft accidents are held to a higher bar than other aircraft crashes. This was tragic, but it does not rise to the standard that is held for these kind of accidents. As for the
WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments - there are, indeed, many other articles on non-notable crashes that should be deleted or merged, but their existiance does not mean we cannot delete articles on non-notasble subjects. -
The BushrangerOne ping only01:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
KeepWP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't apply if there have already been AfDs that have closed keep or no consensus to delete. It is not a long-standing consensus that military aircraft are held to a higher bar- this issue has already been discussed and resolved by countless previous AfDs about military aviation accidents which have closed keep or no consensus, at least one nomiated by the same nominator with
User:MilborneOne commenting there also military aircraft accidents tend not to be notable:
Not ok - completely unacceptable to use AfD to circumvent the community's notability guidelines, including
WP:GNG to impose a project-specific guideline that has not been approved by the community. If you guys want to apply this, do it the right way and see whether there is actually a consensus for a new notability guideline. Until then, these nominations should stop. This has been discussed by the community multiple times, over a period of years. Nominating articles for deletion based on
WP:AIRCRASH guidelines (like whether any of the passengers were "notable" as the nom. himself said) is at this point as disruptive as nominating because you
WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
02:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It's not DONTLIKEIT to point out that this has been going on for at least eight years and that many editors in the community don't agree that military aviation accidents are less notable than other types of aviation accidents. If Wikiproject Aviation wants to have a community discussion about a new NAVIATION that's good, I support that, we probably need it. One of the things that will most likely be discussed is this military aviation accident issue - an essay is written by one person, it is not a guideline, it is not a policy, it has not gone through the same process or community discussion required for guidelines or policies and no editor is required to follow its recommendations to keep their work from being deleted.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
09:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Bushranger's !vote summarizes the majority of my views on Wikipedia's problem with tragic news stories; his "this happened in the past" comment where editors fail or simply ignore what a passing mention applies not only to this article but to dozens of others with the same issues. Sure,
other crap exists, but that is more of a reflection of some (too many) editors falling into the dark and dreary clutches of
recentism even though they should know better.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
17:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment If the application of NOTNEWS is this inconsistent we would be better off with more specific guidelines - the practice is that we keep articles like
2016 Jerusalem shooting attack - no one who died in this incident was notable and the casualty figure was lower - but this article is kept because it is defended by Pro-Israel editors and we delete articles where members of the US military died (nine in this case, a high number for an aviation accident) because very few editors turn up to support it.
Instead of placing that burden on editors to participate in multiple long, repetitive AfDs it is past time to attempt to hammer out a real consensus about this policy. Multiple AfD discussion about NOTNEWS have closed no consensus - at this point the only standard for whether an article is kept is whether enough editors show up to force a no consensus close.
Notability can not be inherited from notability of the passengers and the nominator deserves a trout.
We need a standard policy that reflects community consensus which editors and reviewers can apply before wasting their time on creating articles and repetitive, controversial AfDs that are difficult to close. OTHERSTUFF exists is no excuse for this, its getting to a point where it is both disruptive and a drain on the community's resources.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
19:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for pointing that out. I shall re-nominate it forthwith as it clearly fails all the criteria used to nominate this article--
Petebutt (
talk)
10:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There are enough sources for this accident that it passes notability - notability is based on sources. It was covered in multiple news stories at the time, and has since been covered in books also
[14][15] so neither
WP:GNG nor
WP:NOTNEWS are valid grounds for deletion. Being a military accident is certainly not valid grounds to nominate an article for deletion without a
WP:BEFORE check.
SeraphWiki (
talk)
23:10, 18 January 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.
Keep. I have added a source that does use the term (and, in fact, is a 900+ page book titled "The Mid-South and Its Builders: Being the Story of the Development and a Forecast of the Future of the Richest Agricultural Region in the World"). A quick Google Books search returns tens of thousand of books discussing the region by name, including many focused entirely on it (e.g., Eugene R. Kuhne, A Guide to the Fishes of Tennessee and the Mid-south (1939); Mississippi State University Agricultural Experiment Station, Soil Temperatures and Cotton Planting in the Mid-South (1964); Ronald Register, Stanley Hyland, Black social institutions in the Mid-South: a dialogue between Demitri Shimkin and Nkosi Ajanaku (1978); Arlo I. Smith, A Guide to Wildflowers of the Mid-South: West Tennessee Into Central Arkansas and South Through Alabama and Into East Texas (1979); James R. Veteto, Edward M. Maclin, The Slaw and the Slow Cooked: Culture and Barbecue in the Mid-South (2012)).
bd2412T21:54, 20 January 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 subject of this completely unsourced BLP is non notable- a before search showed nothing. He is the founder of SCAD, a NGO which may be notable, but he certainly is not.
jcc (
tea and biscuits)
21:14, 20 January 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.
Comment: His article on Urdu Wikipedia (
ur:تنویر سپرا) was unlinked in Wikidata, I have linked to it and added an {{expand language}} tag to the article here. I have added his name as an alternative search term above. There is a fair amount of hits, but I don't speak Urdu, and it's one of the languages, where I feel uncomfortable judging sources via Google Translate. What was nom's findings when they performed
WP:BEFORE litra B no.6: "Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet"? SamSailor09:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Sam Sailor: The bio on Urdu Wikipedia doesn't cite any RS, therefore the notability of the subject on that edition of Wikipedia could be questioned as well. @
Störm: Quick search doesn't show anything but unfortunately we cannot depend on Google. Urdu sources including major Urdu language newspapers do not always show up in Google search results. No idea why therefore I won't be able to verify the notability, except a column in a Pakistani
Daily Nawa-i-Waqt which noted the subject as a now deceased working poet from Jhelum. --
Saqib (
talk)
09:42, 16 January 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.
Delete. An offensive lineman who started one season (2017) at Va. Tech. and has not received the kind of "significant" coverage that is needed to pass the
WP:GNG bar. Nor has he received any major awards of the type required to qualify under
WP:NCOLLATH.
Cbl62 (
talk)
21:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I disagree that college football players are "rarely" notable--some are and many are not. However, college offensive linemen are almost always not notable. Every other position at least generates statistics that can be measured, but offensive linemen only get bruises. There is no reason that I can see to make an exception here. Fails
WP:GNG.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
15:48, 21 January 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.
Does not meet the requirements of
WP:NSOFT, and no significant Google search returns can be found. No coverage found in any independent sources. Only reference in article is to the software's own blog.
Nick Moyes (
talk)
10:58, 13 January 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.
Merge to
Earl Shilton. If it is decided that this article is too long for a merge, could we start an article on the history of Earl Shilton and insert the information there?
Vorbee (
talk)
11:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The main article for this place is over 56K and tagged as {{too long}} with {{too many sections}} and so merger would make matters worse. The topic is notable and good sources are provided. The nomination is absurd and false and so should be speedily closed.
Andrew D. (
talk)
20:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge with the article on
Earl Shilton, which also needs to be seriously edited. Both these articles lack an encyclopedic tone, and ramble with little evidence of sourcing and no consideration of notability guidelines or what encyclopedic articles are supposed to cover. There is no reason an article on a place of 10,000 people should be so long and rambling.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as
History of Earl Shilton, possibly pruned. The fact that the village has a local history published by a mainstream publisher like Pan means that this is an exceptional case, where a separate article is justified. This looks like a significant case study. It needs to be pruned: details of the expenses incurred by Leicester Corporation on entertainment are too detailed, though the total expenditure might be appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Merge There seems to be a perfectly respectable article in there struggling to get out. We should help it do so rather than smother it at birth. I agree with Andrew Davidson re sources and notability and Peterkingiron re pruning. I have put this (pruning) on my 'to do' list, along with the main article.
Gog the Mild (
talk)
16:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Happy for this to kept and worked on if it helps this to be closed - a possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page. This is clearly not going to end with deletion - I don't really think it needed to be relisted. --
Michig (
talk)
20:59, 20 January 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.
Keep. Were a fairly big indie band back in the 1990s. A couple of sources easily found and added. The band name and their only album released at their peak being called 'Submarine' makes Googling difficult, but a band that recorded two Peel sessions is going to be notable enough for inclusion. --
Michig (
talk)
10:10, 13 January 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.
Garden variety "X in popular culture" article cataloging even the most trivial mentions of Los Angeles. No sourcing, no valid content, just a list of trivia. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)08:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It might be better with the more prominent examples (by whatever standard) converted to prose, but it's a legitimate subject for a page. The items are bluelinked, and the basic claim "this piece of media portrays LA" is straightforward enough that it can be sourced by the linked articles. (I mean, the source for "Blade Runner is set in LA" is Blade Runner itself.) So, it's not an article anyone should be proud of, but it doesn't merit deletion, either. I made a start on cleaning it up.
XOR'easter (
talk)
21:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep and expand. There is a lot more that can be said about the way L.A. is shown in popular culture. First of all, that it is often used due its distinctive landmarks, culture, and urban concentration.
- WPGA2345 - ☛05:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I think certain information on popular culture in Los Angeles is notable, while some of the
irrelevant topics can be removed by discussions, and some of the significant footnote topics can be expanded by citing the sources at any time.
SA 13 Bro (
talk)
01:15, 24 January 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. Policy-based arguments are solidly for delete. The canvassed views expressed here do not address the core issue of lack of independent sources to substantiate notability. Guy (
Help!)
10:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Author is publicising their own software package without any evidence of notability. Two of the three sources cited are self authored and the third behind a paywall.
Cabayi (
talk)
08:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep The article describes mechanical simulation software that has served Wikipedia users very well by providing animated illustrations of mechanical devices on many different pages. The article documents the existence of this tool, which is appropriate and desirable. It does not advocate for or promote its use. The software is notable in that it is a lean effective simulation tool that is available at low cost. It is appropriate for Wikipedia to document software simulation tools like
MeKin2D and
CATIA, just like it documents other products such as the
Ford Mustang and
Cabbage Patch Kids.
Prof McCarthy (
talk)
00:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The simulation of the mechanisms developed by the author is very useful for teaching and understanding by the students of the principle of many mechanisms functioning. The program is useful both for didactic and research purposes, especially in the development of new mechanisms. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.180.74.190 (
talk)
05:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Regrettably
Cabayi is trying to invalidate any favorable vote cast in this matter. In turn I would like to call the attention upon the fact that, according to his/her Wikipedia contributions, the only negative voter so far does not have sufficient expertise in the subject of
MeKin2D. In my view, Wikipedia rule changes are stringently necessary in order to clear more easily disputes like this present one:
There should be some rule changing regarding the deletion of articles, because self serving Wikipedia edits cannot be entirely eliminated. I am signaling a case of self-promoting by Wikipedia itself: Whoever made that
Disruptive Innovation entry, placed Wikipedia in the academia category (which is false) just to put Wikipedia on top of the list -- and I could iterate 3 more case of self promoting articles I encountered in the last two months only!
(1) With certain exceptions, new articles should be allowed a given number of months to mature before they are proposed for deletion. Better yet, articles (new or old) should be reviewed for deletion periodically, based on their low traffic.
(2) Voting in an article-deletion case should NOT be permitted to unregistered users.
(3) Users known to have added content to articles of the same categories as the article proposed for deletion should be invited automatically to cast their vote. In this respect the following features should be implemented by Wikipedia developers:
(4) The edits of registered users should be metered and used to build a database of users' expertise. An expertise rank should be easily retrievable with user's name, with the possibility of displaying it on the user page.
One can assess an article's worth without having significant experience in the topic area. That does not automatically invalidate the oppose itself. The simulations are very good; the point still stands that the majority of the newly introduced sources are behind a paywall and the others are self-authored. --
Cadillac000 (
talk)
22:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep in mind this Wikipedia rule on notabability: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." And then this: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability." I will also add that pointing out other self-promoting articles or other articles without notability is not an argument that this article qualifies as notable. -
Rectorsquid (
talk)
19:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Dear Simiprof, I had never heard about this software until you linked to my page in an attempt to get me to vote to keep your Wikipedia page from being deleted. There are many features in many software packages that are the same. That does not make them notable. On Wikipedia, notability is determined by citations, not from being similar. for instance, I have a blue car and others have blue cars. That does not mean my blue car is notable, it means that some cars are blue. For the record, the only software package I consulted for idea for the Linkage software was Corel Draw and only to get idea on how to make it work like an illustration program, not a typical CAD program. I wish to be left out of your Wikipedia conflict. Feel free to delete or obfuscate and references to my software if you think that I am trying to gain notability through this conflict. -
Rectorsquid (
talk)
20:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: All "keep" opinions are by IPs or accounts blocked for socking. We need experienced contributor input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't find evidence in
reliable sources that this software has been widely adopted.
Two hits on Google Scholar, with one citation between them — that's simply not enough to go on. We cannot write articles without independent sources that indicate the significance of the subject matter.
Those sources might well exist in the future, but they don't exist now. None of the paywalled references written by people other than Simionescu concern this software in particular. Contrast this situation with, for example,
PyMC3, a scientific software package that was AfD'ed not too long ago. In that case, there were book chapters written about the software, and plenty of scientific papers that used it.
Delete It is clear that this article is intended to help this software gain notability, not to reflect any existing notability. I have been working on software to do similar functions for the last 15 years and have researched what software already exists as a means of determining what is common in this area. I have never heard of or seen a reference to this software before being dragged into this conflict.
Rectorsquid (
talk)
20:10, 24 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This bio was last year deleted via AfD but re-created. The notability of the subject is very similar to that of
Bakhtawar Bhutto Zardari - the latter is on the verge of deletion. The subject has not notability by its own, and sourcing is in passing and routine coverage, which means no in-depth coverage. The subject is not a elected politician thus fails WP:POLITICIAN and doesn't have a notable career either.
Saqib (
talk)
07:04, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@Ominictionary : "Rotary Ambassador and former UN Ambassador for Polio Eradication" are quasi diplomatic posts but diplomacy and diplomats and politics are inherently and inseparably linked. But, frankly, I wasn't aware of [[WP:DIPLOMAT]] (I never used it before) and was using the other. Thanks to you.
Quis separabit?07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep or Redirect: Before creating this article I had thought a lot about this article's notibility but after some research I thought that the article worths creating. She get notibility for her activism of Polio eradication. She has worked in
United Nation also. There is a high possibility for her holding any goverment office which has been mentioned in the article with citation. So I think the article meets notibility and important to mention that this article is mostly based on secondary source and lastly, it doesn't matter the article meets
WP:Politician or not because she is not a polititian but a health activist.
Ominictionary (
talk)
07:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
First thing first, you didn't specify where to redirect this incase if it kept. Working for UN or any other top organisation doesn't makes one notable. Second thing, she doesn't hold any major public (or gov) office. --
Saqib (
talk)
07:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Saqib, Thanks for reminding me that I didn't mention about where it should redirected, maybe it could be redirected in
Zardari family and secondly a question to you, is it necessary for a activist to hold a public office?? I am not getting why many are are treating her as politician when she is yet to be it??? She is an activist who has get signinificant coverage from secondary source and also has a possibility of holding a public office soon as genaral election in Pakistan is coming closer and I think she gets significent secondary coverage for her activism. So the article is worth to keep. Bests
Ominictionary (
talk)
08:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I cant see her getting significant coverage, as you claim. She is only getting passing mentions in news releases and no-indepth coverage. Her social activism career is not notable as of now. You said "high possibility of holding a public office soon as genaral election in Pakistan is coming closer ". So my answer would be when and If she in future hold a public office, she would get a bio, but
WP:NotJustYet. Thank you. --
Saqib (
talk)
08:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Saqib, I have also some doubt about her career's notibility that is why I suggested Redirect also. But I think she has got significiant coverage. I do beleive that the article's most of the reference are significiant and not passing except ref 1, 2, 5. Plz check the article refernce properly. Most of this coverage she got in her own right and some of them are depth coverage too. You could hold ref 4 as example. Thanks
Ominictionary (
talk)
Comment:- I don't think it would be proper to delete this article right now, when it has been confirmed that she will participate in this year election.
[17] It is hard to think that she will not win this election. As PPP has a strong hold in Sindhi and she also carry "Bhutto" name. So, there is a high possibility that she will soon hold a public office. Now, if we delete this article now, there is a possibility that we need to make this again. That's why I will suggest again not to delete this article.
Ominictionary (
talk)
16:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Are you serious? I don't think this is a valid reason to keep this article for the very reason Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Furthermore, general election are to be held in July 2018 - after half a year from now so no reason to hold this article and wait for her to win the election. In Fact there is no guarantee she will win. If and when she win, I assure you an article would be created in due time. Furthermore, please avoid repeating keep vote.--
Saqib (
talk)
16:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Dear
Saqib, I am completely serious about my word. For ur kind information I had made a comment with a reason which I beleive to be valid for keeping this article and hadn't voted. As far as I know there is a
WP:PRESERVE policy in wikipedia. In which basees wikipedia hadn't deleted
Barron Trump's article entirely instead give a redirect. I think same applies here too. Thanks.
Ominictionary (
talk)
19:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Störm:, then you should vote for redirect rather than delete and also important to mention that she is a member of Zardari family as Pakistan is a patriarch country.
Ominictionary (
talk)
16:52, 26 January 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.
I could not identify any independent reliable source, in Thai or English, that provides in-depth coverage of the subject. Best I could find was her being nominated for a best stuntwoman award in 2011.
[18] While the article creator has made effort to also create the relevant film articles for context, most of them hardly seem notable either.
Paul_012 (
talk)
06:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Here is the most reliable source: "
a ray of light in the dark kingdom" (
Nikolay Dobrolyubov). Do you know whom this phrase refers to? Prapimporn Karnchanda, of course. The watchers and critics are unanimous in the opinion that
BloodMonkey is a rotten film. But Pim is the only delightful character in this tedious movie:
@
Paul 012: First and foremost, thanks for your information concerning Thai sources. It is a regrettable fact that my favourite character in the above-mentioned film is not a
celebrity in Thailand. I do not have any problem with your proposed deletion if only because we have got 7 additional Prapimporns Karnchandas in other Wikipedias. To speak the truth, I'd like to have 10 Prapimporns at least. For "happiness is not in money beautiful women, but in shopping their amount" (
Marilyn Monroe). But it isn't a problem. It's easy to increase the amount of Prapimporns Kanjundas in Wikipedia just as
Carly Jepsen is the creator of numerous
Angguns (
als:Anggun,
cs:Anggun,
uz:Anggun etc.). We can follow
Carly Jepsen's example and launch a new WikiProject, viz. "Kanjunda Translations." I've
already explained (
pl:User Talk:Warszawiak22#Egzotyka Wschodu) the reason for my creating WP articles about the actress under discussion. After I had finished watching
BloodMonkey I wanted to learn something about the exotic actress playing the part of Chenne. For this purpose I addressed myself to the corresponding article in WP and was surprised at the fact that the Asian actress
was not even mentioned there. This lack of information in Wikipedia compelled me to begin searching the Web. At last, I created a stub and expounded information obtained by me. Isn't it
WP:AGF? I do not have any connections and interest to do any advertising. Besides, it makes no matter to me that my English Kanjunda has been proposed for deletion here. Enwiki is not the sole Wikipedia which our exotic "girl of Jungla Jean" can live in. We've already endowed her with
multiple citizenship in several Wikipedias and nobody drives her away (in contrast to English Wikipedians). --
Janggun Dungan (
talk)
14:51, 15 January 2018 (UTC)reply
We'll create these departments of our new WikiProject when we have time. We can also invent other departments, e.g. the Department of
Indologie (
id:Prapimporn Karnchanda).
But the most interesting section of our brilliant WikiProject might be Prapimporn Karnchanda in the
Amharic alphabet.
Wikipedia:Be bold! In accordance with this rule, there will be a great deal (
harem) of Prapimporns Karnchandas in Wikipedia with the consequence that it is too late to remove our exotic "girl of Jungla Jean" from our free (!)
encyclopaedia. --
Janggun Dungan (
talk)`
This is patently false. As I stated in the nomination, there is zero coverage in Thai, save for that single non-notable award nomination. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
05:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
CommentLeaning to delete Please keep in mind that per
general notability guideline, this person still needs significant coverage to assume her notability. I don't agree with comments that she has plenty of coverage in Thai, because sources barely cover her biography and such. --
Horus (
talk)
03:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Horus: Judging from
Paul_012's remarks,
FloridaArmy is mistaken when he says: "Plenty of coverage in Thai." In addition, he uses a strange (strictly speaking, inappropriate) word, namely: "notoriety." But he's right in saying "(the woman's notability stems) from a series of major films." Prapimporn's significant roles in notable films (
BloodMonkey a. "The Lady") are enough to establish her notability. --
Janggun Dungan (
talk)
11:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Why are you still confused? She might played in
notable films, so what? This article is barely a biography, just a list of her work. You should better find the source covering about her life in detail, or I'm not convinced that she's notable. --
Horus (
talk)
13:23, 21 January 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.
Don't see how this company can possibly be notable. Submit Express might have received some awards and press in the early 2000's but nothing recently. Is this company even still around?
Fightforsocialjustice (
talk)
20:49, 20 January 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.
Keep- more citations have been added and a quick google search will show more sources available to expand article and show that subject passes GNG.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
04:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
These references do not meet the requirements of
WP:NACTOR. They demonstrate that the subject is an actor, but not that the subject is notable. Anyone with minimal exposure to the acting profession is likely to have at least this much coverage. Plus I note that the same article is listed several times but appearing differently, which is inappropriate.--
Rpclod (
talk)
13:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The source,
The Daily Star which is the largest circulated English language newspaper in Bangladesh, describes her as an accomplished actress and a charming TV show host. Does not seem like minimal exposure. The multiple citation to the same source was result of the article creator using a odd article name. English is not the actors native language and as a result more sources are available in Bengali languages. Try searching using সাবেরি আলম. An example
1 of the sources available in Bengali which demonstrate notability.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
06:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep It comes down to the question of significant coverage. The first two sources are the deepest. The remaining sources are not deep individually, but each contributes an important bit of encyclopedic information - a television program or film she was in, an award won. Reasonable people could argue it either way. Now she's often playing the mother in remakes of programs in which 25-35 years ago she played the love interest. Because the nomination appears to have been made in bad faith, and because the peak of her career was in pre-internet, non-English, third-world TV, for which sources are difficult to access, I'm inclined to cut the subject more slack than I might otherwise. Rpclod is correct that it isn't obvious whether her significant roles have been in notable television shows, but that probably says more about Wikipedia's abysmal coverage of Bangladeshi TV rather than about how much has been written about TV there. --
Worldbruce (
talk)
21:19, 22 January 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.
This album I'm uncertain on. While the sources in the page do show that the album was once named Shade of Black then Courtesy Curtis during development, I have not been able to access the myspace post that says the album was renamed to The Killa Chronicles. There is a possibility that the album was once again renamed to
Crime Pays (Cam'ron album) but I can't find anything linking the two except for a
YouTube video which I know is not reliable. Outside of the YouTube video, I have not found a reliable source that shows there is a Cam'ron album named The Killa Chronicles. So, should this article be merged and redirected to Crime Pays? Or should it be deleted?.
MrLinkinPark333 (
talk)
19:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and possibly describe elsewhere. Like the nominator, I see some confusing sources on this item's relationship to
Crime Pays (Cam'ron album). That album's article can explain its development through different titles and false starts, if
notable and backed up with reliable sources. Regardless, this item may not even exist and if it does, it has remained unreleased for 11 years. Does not qualify for its own article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)22:17, 25 January 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.
Fails
WP:NCORP. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Topic was deleted at AfD previously:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modoka. Author has continuously recreated the article different names
Modoka and
Modoka Studios without ever establishing notability. The article's references consist of a GameSpot database page with no information about the company, a GameFAQs page (unreliable source) and 2 primary sources directly from the company's website. A
reliable video game web source search for ""Modoka Studios" yields a pitiful 10 results, none of which cover the company in any depth.
The1337gamer (
talk)
19:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the draft was moved to main by the author after an AfC submission was rightly declined due to lack of notability. I see no
admissible coverage in independent reliable sources.
Rentier (
talk)
21:31, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete this article. And the redirect
Modoka Studios as well. This company really is not notable, at all, there are a few mentions I see on the internet and what has been discussed above, but nothing in depth or substantial, therefore the article does not meet the policy requirements.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
23:33, 20 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Strong keep - On top of the sources already in the article, death threats Dean received in 2015 which resulted in her fleeing Pakistan were very widely covered, see for instance
here in Dawn.
Smmurphy(
Talk)23:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Meets GNG. There are multiple documents which state that she was the primary reviewer and textbook author on a revision to the national curriculum to remove hate speech and add gender diversity. Controversy erupted over her changes, which attempted to secularize the primary school textbooks and she was forced to leave the country.
[19],
IJT organizes APC over proposed changes in curriculum,
[20],
[21],
[22]SusunW (
talk)
15:04, 22 January 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.
Delete Agree wih JPL. Boosterism now seems to be in full swing for just about every group. WP is drifting toward being a directory of humanity.
Agricola44 (
talk)
16:15, 21 January 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.
Inadequately sourced article about a person notable primarily as a non-winning candidate for political office. This is not a claim that passes
WP:NPOL -- a person has to win election and thereby hold a notable office to get an article because politics per se -- but there's no strong or well-sourced claim of preexisting notability present here otherwise. The only sources are his own deadlinked website and the website of another directly affiliated organization (both
primary sources that would be acceptable for verification of facts but not as support for a notability claim), and a namecheck of his existence in a book that isn't about him and is being cited only to support the fact that he was a closeted gay man. This was created in 2005, a time when our standards for notability and sourceability were much looser than they are now -- but under 2018 standards, he doesn't have a valid notability claim under any SNG, or solid enough sourcing to pass
WP:GNG in lieu.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Dowson is not only an unsuccessful candidate, but a trounced one. When someone gets less than 300 votes to the winners 10,000+ votes, they are not even remotely close to being notable.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Dowson's significance is not in being a political candidate but in being the leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement from the 1940s to 1970s and also due to the Dowson v RCMP court case.
Nixon Now (
talk)
19:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The leader of the entire Trotskyist movement? Not what the article says; it just ascribes him the leadership of one relatively minor Trotskyist group that's notable only as one of several forerunners of the merged
League for Socialist Action, and wouldn't even independently pass
WP:ORG in its own right for a separate article as a group. So no, we would need a lot more sourcing than this before we could deem him notable for that. And Dowson v RCMP might qualify for an article about the case, in the vein of
Egan v Canada or
Delgamuukw v British Columbia, but it's also not enough to earn him a standalone biography separate from that in the absence of much better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Not the entire Trotskyist movement, the entire Canadian Trotskyist movement. I've added sources, in any case, and will continue to do so. It would be helpful if you did so as well. Dowson's name comes up a lot in Google Books.
Nixon Now (
talk)
22:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Two groups merged in 1960, the Socialist Education League and the Socialist Information Centre. If you read the Tate book (which does much more than a "name check" of Dowson), it's clear Dowson was considered the national leader even before the formal merger. In any case, Dowson was leader of the LSA from 1960 until 1974 so even if you want to quibble about the 1950s it is clear he was leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement in the 1960s.
Nixon Now (
talk)
22:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as the article has been improved with references added, and because the subject was the leader of the Canadian Trotskyist movement, which seems to me to be a reasonable claim to significance. In short, the article meets the policy requirements for inclusion
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
23:37, 20 January 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.
While there is some additional media coverage such as
this, in total it's not enough to meet
WP:CORP. The article itself is blatantly promotional and would need a thorough rewriting to become encyclopedic even if better sources could be found.
Huon (
talk)
17:42, 20 January 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.
It might be that there are sources in Chinese, but I could find zero coverage which even shows this person (or perhaps a character from folklore) existed.
Onel5969TT me15:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep and Move to
Lin Daoqian(edited per below) I appreciate the nominator does not speak Chinese, however even the
Chinese Wikipedia article has four sources, and there are more available via Google. I will not go into detail because my Chinese is not good enough to do so. However this is enough to meet the requirements of
WP:V and there is thus no deletion reason.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
23:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep but move to
Lin Daoqian - I find few modern English references to Vintoquián (most use the form Vintoquian) in Google Books, there are however numerous reference to Lin Daoqian (a few to the Wade-Giles spelling of Lin Tao-ch'ien -
[23],
[24],
[25],
[26],
[27][28],
[29],
[30]. Vintoquian appears to be more favoured in older English and European (French and Spanish) sources -
[31],
[32],
[33], but current usage would suggest that Lin Daoqian should be used. The lack of sources for Vintoquián appear to have led to a mistaken belief that there are few sources for the person and therefore not notable, when there are more sources under different names.
Hzh (
talk)
14:40, 21 January 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.
Delete both, for the reasons stated above and also on the basis of notability. The show claims to be affiliated to a large number of stations. I don't know if this means the same thing as syndicated as per the notability criteria for radio shows but the linked sources do not mention it. I searched about half but could not find any mention of this show on their websites.Ther are no independent sources and this subject fails GNG.
Domdeparis (
talk)
19:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep both. Cranked Up Live is a rock radio show that has now ended, but does not need to be removed from history due to that fact. Cranked Up Country is a current, syndicated radio show on FM, AM, and internet radio stations. KBIM 94.9 The Country Giant has the logo on their main page.
BradleyH1 (
talk) 19:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Note to closing admin: BradleyH1 is the creator of both articles. Anarchyte (
work |
talk)13:36, 24 January 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.
Dear Wikipedians, Indeed, I have probably misunderstood something about the user pages. I have already a user page on the french side of wikipedia, and I was confused about why it is distinct from the page you want to delete. I did not know how to (or even whether I should) redirect. Sorry about the confusion.
Lewisiscrazy (
talk)
15:04, 20 January 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.
NN pub. Fails GNG. A quick search didn't find significant sources outside of tourist and pub listing websites. There's passing mentions in a few books. Widefox;
talk14:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep We have had this sort of AfD many times before. The relevant policy is
WP:GEOFEAT, "Artificial geographical features that are officially assigned the status of cultural heritage or national heritage, or of any other protected status on a national level and which verifiable information beyond simple statistics are available are presumed to be notable."
Edwardx (
talk)
14:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:GEOFEAT guideline has "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability" . I didn't find any. (Grade II listed doesn't add up to much, which is the only source we have, II* or I is more like it). "Also, Many artificial geographical features may be mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but they may not necessarily be notable" is also applicable. The G II listing is run-of-the-mill too. Is there a link for presumed notability of G II? and even then, if there's no sources and we only know it's build mid 1800 then
WP:PERMASTUB and we may as well redirect to the list
List of pubs in London. Widefox;
talk15:50, 20 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentFloridaArmy, that Variety reference actually fails
WP:RS since the journalist states he is merely repeating unattributed gossip - "Three Point Capital, which is providing debt financing for the boxing movie “Tiger,” is expanding by hiring Eric Fischer to open offices in Ohio and Kentucky, Variety has learned exclusively.". Leavng that aside, the reference relies entirely on quotations from an exec VP and the final paragraph is standard information and description provided by the company which can be also found in various forms in other announcements and even on their website. Reference fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
HighKing++ 19:31, 21 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Article needs updating, but there were numerous sources provided in the first deletion nomination (many unfortunately now suffering from linkrot), and seems a notable magazine of its time.
Greenman (
talk)
10:28, 13 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—
cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online14:04, 13 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The social services programme of a major denomination, even in a Muslim majority country should be reliable. If a source was a RS when the article was created or edited, it does not cease to be one because it has become a deadlink, perhaps due to having migrated to a new web-host.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the sourcing is fine (UCA is a reliable source for the purposes of notability and verification), the issue is that it's actually coverage about the diocese and not the group: this appears to be a diocesan level charity, not a national one from what I can tell. I'd be happy to change my !vote if someone point out to me otherwise.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
22:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. local organization with no national significance. The references are either mentions, are incidental short case studies within a general article DGG (
talk )
05:44, 22 January 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.
This article is a stub. The only citations appear to be to an unpublished thesis dissertation (by KJ Wade), with a link that no longer functions, and a very general description of allergy symptoms that does not specifically address cross-reactivity between milk allergy and soy allergy. I will say in fairness that this article does garner about 400 views a month, and that an internet search on the title yields numerous website presentations/discussions on milk soy protein intolerance, abbreviated as MSPI. A better article would get rid of the food lists and the symptom lists and focus on evidence for prevalence of dual allergy, and whether that is based on cross-reactivity of milk and soy proteins. However, I did not find MEDRS quality research on either of these avenues. Kattan JD (2011)
PMID21453810 is the best possible citation. As an alternative I have added content to
Milk allergy and to
Soy allergy, touching on the evidence for cross-reactivity, citing Kattan. Can this article become a redirect?
David notMD (
talk)
01:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments (1) The citation to the dissertation would still be valid without the link; it can always be cited as a printed document, so the link is just for convenience. (2) If kept, the article ought to be renamed; I figured it was talking about intolerance of protein in soy milk, not intolerance of protein in milk and in soy products.
Nyttend (
talk)
00:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
As the nominator, I am comfortable with this becoming a redirect to the section within the Milk allergy article that deals with cross-reactivity to soy. In answer to Nyttend's comment - No, the concept really is that people, especially infants and young children, who manifest an allergy to milk will also be allergic to soy. Kattan estimated 2-3% of infants will have cow's milk allergy and 10% of those also soy.
David notMD (
talk)
02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The latter. "Soy milk" is a soy product which contains no cow's milk. People can have allergic responses to that. But the article in question is about being allergic to cow's milk proteins AND soy proteins.
David notMD (
talk)
11:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
That's what I thought. If kept, the article ought to be renamed, because it looks like it's talking about intolerance of "milk soy" protein.
Nyttend (
talk)
05:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
To Nyttend: I suppose "Milk and soy protein intolerance" would be clearer and still be the acronym MSPI, but internet searches find many users of "Milk soy protein intolerance" and none of those are about soy milk protein intolerance. The "and" is understood.
David notMD (
talk)
12:44, 21 January 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.
Contested PROD. Looks like partial course notes for a lecture, but is a meaningless typesetting exercise, not an explanation of its putative topic. Original contributor hasn't been seen since creating this in 2013. Wikipedia is not a textbook and it's not clear the treatment of the subjects started here could ever be completed as a reasonable encyclopedia article.
Wtshymanski (
talk)
00:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't see how merging this into
Induction motors is practical. The level of detail here is way beyond what that article contains; anything here would be totally out of place. And, it would take a serious subject matter expert to do anything useful. I have a background in electrical engineering; I get the gist of what this is talking about, but the details of the math are way beyond me. --
RoySmith(talk)02:52, 28 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Peter Tabori was one of the architecturally well known group working in Camden 1950s to 1970s - internationally reported for the high-density low-rise estates. I would urge retention! —
Saltmarshtalk19:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well — I have added another reference which I hope supplies enough to retain this stub. I'm not an architectural historian, we might hope that some more knowledgeable editors might expand it and add articles relating to Camden's departure from the high-rise estates of the early 60s. —
Saltmarshtalk12:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You need not know anything about the architecture of Camden, although it helps a bit. It's all about searching and assessing sources. I found 4 below.
198.58.168.40 (
talk)
08:40, 21 January 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.
Well, this translation is available for purchase, circulating among Silesian-speakers and used for prayer and devotional reading. Do you suggest that this book does not exist?
Hyrdlak (
talk)
10:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlakreply
I added 5 references to press articles and a youtube film devoted to this translation. Is it sufficient? There are many more pieces of news on this translation easily available online. Next time, when proposing to delete an article, please, check up the facts, instead of just saying 'I didn't find any news not related to publisher itself'.
Hyrdlak (
talk)
10:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)Hyrdlakreply
Delete the article is about a specific self-published translation from 2017, not about the general concept of translations of the Bible into a Silesian language. The references (both in the article and that I could find on Google search) are mostly announcements of the pre-sale.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
05:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Repurpose to Bible translations in Silesian -- we do not have an article. It appears this might be the only actual translation--there is also an adaptation [
[34]]. This seems a little unsual to me, and would need confirmation, but , acording to our article on the
Silesian language, the usual liturgical language there is Polish DGG (
talk )
18:47, 23 January 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.
An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage to meet
WP:NCORP /
WP:CORPDEPTH not found. Article sources to routine finding news, passing mentions,
WP:SPIP, and other sources otherwise not suitable for notability.
The one source that may look impressive (The New York Times) is based on an interview surrounding launch publicity, as in: "'This is one of the best times to be launching this site,” Mr. Lin said. “Renters know this is a renter’s market (...). So the stars have aligned for this to take off.' " The article also includes: "Whether RentHop is a workable business remains to be seen" suggesting it's
WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia entry; the company has not achieved anything significant just yet.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
23:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete a highly promotional article with insufficient reliable sources and no redeeming value. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
DocumentError (
talk •
contribs) 14 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable tech company. Fails
WP:NCORP and
WP:CORPDEPTH, as the article suffers from a lack of in-depth coverage. The article's sources are limited to trivial mentions or to press releases concerning business. Does the company produce products? Yes. Does this equate to encyclopedic value when considering
What Wikipedia is not? No.
SamHolt6 (
talk)
05:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have added a
Montreal Gazette reference (
[35]) about the early days of the company and a
Le Journal de Montréal reference about the AMTEK acquisition (
[36]). Of the other sources in the article, the TCT Mag one appears to be reliable+in-depth.
Le Soleil is a major daily newspaper, and the article is focused on Creaform. The 3DPrinting Industry pieces appear to be reliable, and not just routine. The 3DPrint.com source seems OK too. I'm not sure about the other sources, some of them might be press releases. Coverage in three daily papers + a bunch of specialty trade publications should be enough for
WP:CORPDEPTH. -
Mparrault (
talk)
00:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete References that are extensively based and rely on interviews with company officers, press releases, company announcements, etc, without intellectually independent analysis and/or opinion fail the criteria for establishing notability. The references that I can find fail the criteria. For example, Mparrault above says that the TCT Mag reference appears to be reliable+in-depth - sure, but its based on
a company press release and contains no additional data/information or intellectually independent analysis or opinion. "Coverage" in reliable sources is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability. The coverage must be intellectually independent - otherwise all we're really doing is acknowledging that the company has a functioning marketing department and/or lazy churnalism. Topic fails GNG, references fails
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH.
HighKing++ 18:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
HighKing, the strongest references are the ones in the daily newspapers, none of which you discussed.
WP:ORGIND is about whether the source is independent of the company - content does not need to be "intellectually independent", and there is no mention that analysis is needed. Not all of the daily newspaper articles are just re-released press releases. -
Mparrault (
talk)
14:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Mparrault I'll explain. I didn't discuss the newspaper references because they are clearly based on company announcements and interviews and therefore fail CORPDEPTH and/or ORGIND. Contrary to what you say, sources to meet the criteria for notability must be intellectually independent and references that are extensively based on company announcements or other PRIMARY material fail those criteria. "Independent sources" does not simply mean sources that are independent at a corporate level in that the publisher is not dependent on the company, it goes further to mean sources that are not influenced by the company and that the article is not simply regurgitating company blurb. Some articles might paraphrase the announcement but without independent analysis or opinion are still considered to fail the criteria for establishing notability. "Intellectually independent" simply incorporates that idea.
WP:CORPDEPTH and
WP:ORGIND specifically deal with those issues. I have looked at the newspaper articles and they are based on company announcements and interviews and therefore extensively rely on PRIMARY sources. If you like, post the specific link to article below here that you believe meet the criteria and I will provide you with a detailed explanation (based on my opinon) for each.
HighKing++ 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Going through the better sources:
1.
[37] A Montreal Gazette article in considerable depth about the company. Definitely a very positive article, although the article does note that "the partners were finding it difficult to pierce the lucrative U.S. market". There are a lot of quotes from the company CEO, but there is also a lot of other content too. and it is not written by the company.
2.
[38] An in-depth Globe and Mail article about Creaform's Indian operations. Again, very positive, but not written by the company directly or indirectly.
3.
[39] An article in
The Engineer, a 162-year old trade magazine, in some depth, not based on a press release. Generally positive, but not entirely so (e.g. "For a fledgling business to invest heavily in such a new technology was a gamble but it turned out to be an inspired decision")
4.
[40] A Journal de Montreal article about Creaform's sale to AMETEK. Rather short, with many details not in the relevant press release announcing the transaction. There are a number of other stories also about this acquisition, with similar but not identical content (e.g.
[41])
5.
[42] A La Soleil article about Creaform acquiring Gencad. Fairly short, but does not appear to be based on a press release (this
press release does not have many of the details in the article)
In my opinion, 1, 2, 3 easily pass
WP:ORGIND. 5 and 6 might be considered "substantially based on a press release", although there is content there not in the relevant press releases. Some of the other sources might be OK too. -
Mparrault (
talk)
19:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- a corporate brochure on a non notable company, detailing its "Corporate structure" and "Products and services". Wikipedia is not a catalog of nn business or a free means of promotion. The sources above are local, not meeting
WP:AUD, or routine corporate news, not meeting
WP:CORPDEPTH. Does one of them call the company a "fledgling business"? This screams
WP:TOOSOON, i.e. the company is not yet notable.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
05:26, 27 January 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.
This company appears to be defunct, but its demise was not notable enough to get press coverage. The sourcing is largely PR about funding and corporate renames, rather than being about their product. The funding wasn't significant enough to suggest notability.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
06:54, 20 January 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.
Keep Unlike the nominator, sourcing has been found. Meets
WP:ARTIST. References added to article, too!
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The state of the article is not a sign of the subject's notability (see
WP:ARTN). The subject is the the co-author of two books (ISBN 0321534468 and ISBN 0321967054), a lecturer in software testing and development, and has published many articles. She easily meets
WP:AUTHOR no. 1, 2 and 3.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
06:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment The article has been improved and secondary sources now support what I claimed, vis, that she is "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert". Once again this is a case of an AfD being done based on the state of the article, which I stated was against WP:N, and the nom did not perform
WP:BEFORE, and at least two of those discussing the subject did not bother to investigate whether the subject was or was not notable.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
That is a curious stement to make. Do you have evidence to back up your assertions about what people did or did not do to investigate notability? I would assume that given
WP:AGF, evidence would be required to make such an assertion. If you are including me in this veiled comment, that I can reassure you that you are wholly wrong. VelellaVelella Talk 20:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
None other than that they did not find the evidence that is obvious by searching. I'm sorry you think I'm wholly wrong. What did you do try to to prove that Gregory fails any notability criteria? You responded to my statement that she co-authored two books. You clearly didn't find the content that was added to the article. I was about to add similar, but only had time to comment when I responded here. People not doing BEFORE is becoming a greater problem with AfDs. When the nominators make statements like "non-trivial sourcing to support inclusion" it's clear they're basing the AfD on the contents of the article, not a search. So, sorry if I have tainted your character by claiming you didn't search for sources. Feel free to clear your name by indicating the searches you did.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
22:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Your apology reluctantly accepted. This is no beauty contest, I don't have to prove anything and I am perfectly content that both my name and reputation are unaffected by this slightly weird discussion. I do however, have concerns about what might, to an uninvolved observer, seem like the application of undue pressure through malformed arguments. I will assume good faith and premptively accept that you have no other vested interest here. VelellaVelella Talk 02:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know what people will think about your malformed arguments. Perhaps any uninvloved observers can let one of us know. I'd be happy to clear the air for them. Seriously though Velella, I don't believe you. A assume good faith, but when you can't find sources that are clearly present, and you won't explain how you missed them, I can only concluded that you didn't bother to look in the same place that other editors who found those references found them.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I supported prodding and AfD, prior to recent expansion (see this version
[43]). Notwithstanding the subject's place in the agile testing community, I'm still dubious, especially given the lack of significant in-depth coverage about her. Many of the sources offered are press releases and announcements of lectures and seminars
[44],
[45],
[46]. A separate concern is the increasingly promotional tone the article has taken during its expansion--the article's creator hasn't responded to questions about conflict of interest.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
07:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - co-authoring two books does NOT meet the requirements of
WP:AUTHOR and having struggled through the mass of references, I have to agree with the analysis of the firts IP written comment. The style of writing and the organisation of the article also makes it very difficult to be clear where notabilituy is supposed to lie. I don't believe that this is worth saving and
WP:TNT is, I believe the best approach on the off chance that some other editor may make a more cogent and convincing article at a later date. VelellaVelella Talk 08:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep This article was started as Janet Gregory is considered by many to be notable as a coach/trainer/speaker on Agile software development and testing. In addition to having co-authored two important books on agile software testing, she has authored several articles, worked with other notable agile software development figures like
Robert C. Martin,
Ron Jeffries and
Kevlin Henney (who all have Wikipedia articles) and is a keynote speaker at many well known Agile and Testing conferences around the world. I've added some external links to interviews
User:Mlvandijk
OK, I get that. But please could someone constructively explain how to show notability without being considered an 'advert'. Am really just trying to understand. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mlvandijk (
talk •
contribs)
05:32, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Get away from it. This is an excellent example of an article created by a new user, who notwithstanding your denial, appears to have some sort of association with the subject. Uninvolved parties don't usually create this kind of article, nor have so much interest invested in their outcome. If the article is kept, a thorough copy edit will remove the bulk of it for unacceptable sources and promotional tone.
2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
13:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Walter Görlitz, a bit of AGF please--don't do the "hiding" thing; it's the kind of low blow that backfires. This is an AfD and spirited discussions are fine, but really. (The IP editor has nothing to hide but their identity; their long career of edits here speak to their character and love for the project well enough.)
Mlvandijk, I haven't looked at the article yet but I want to tell you that someone being interviewed does not notability make ("Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is a kind of original research); secondary sources do that. Thank you,
Drmies (
talk)
16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the reminder. Here's one for you @
Drmies: Person A was interviewed by magazine Z so they must be notable" is essentially what
WP:GNG says. Specifically, if the topic is directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Granted, significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, so if it's a one-column interview, it doesn't help to meet GNG. If that interview was the only thing the subject had going, then that too would not help the subject to meet GNG. However, it's another point toward meeting GNG.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
18:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not with you on that. Certainly an interview provides a good reason for looking more carefully, but interviews aren't in the GNG for good reasons, I think. If an interview comes with coverage (discussion), that's a different matter.
Drmies (
talk)
18:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It's an advert, and I may yet tag it as such. It's also a lack of good faith to accuse editors of hastily bringing this to AfD, when the sources are pretty uniformly awful. I've stated as much, but to focus on the pivotal claims, "a major contributor to the North American agile testing community" and is considered an "industry expert", here are the references:
[47] and
[48]; a press release with the phrase "Janet's programming background is a definite plus," and a blog. If that's the best we can find,
Comment. I would have considered speedy deleting this as it was clearly intended to be promotional, but in view of the fact that a lot of work has been done to find sources, I'm content to let it remain, subject to cleanup.
Deb (
talk)
14:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Quotes supporting notability, like a major contributor to the North American agile testing community seem to come from websites. Her books do not seem to be widely-held, e.g. the More Agile Testing is ~100 (WorldCat). Seems to have been written by a SPA, who is trying to promote Gregory and her authorship partner Lisa Crispin.
Agricola44 (
talk)
Keep. I frequently hear references to Gregory's first book in the industry and I'd like for us to have a chance to find good published references that reflect this.
Faught (
talk)
15:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Two comments, it actually is a valid argument as the editor in question is a contributor to several software testing discussion groups. In specific, subjects such as
Cem Kaner,
James Bach and other important writers in the software testing world reference her work in their own publications, and certainly in these discussion groups. However, those discussion groups do not meet RS so I can see why they were not provided. However, she is a recognized expert. This is also the point being made by The second comment is who is this anon and what cards does the anon have that they are not willing to share by remaining anonymous? And that was assuming good faith about the editor. I don't really see why an editor in Old Lyme, Connecticut who is as prolific as this editor needs to remain anonymous other than a few.
Walter Görlitz (
talk)
07:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Articles on Janet Gregory and Lisa Crispin were started as their book "Agile Testing" is mentioned under Further reading on the
Agile testing page but neither author had an entry on Wikipedia. Before starting the articles notability criteria were reviewed and concluded they were eligable: 1. their identities are verified on VIAF/Library of Congress/etc (see wikidata) 2. They have written books and multiple articles, either together, separately, and/or with other people in the industry with several different publishing houses / industry magazines, which provides multiple reliable sources. In addition, they are frequent keynote speakers at industry conferences. Reliable source of this are publications by Springer on XP Universe conferences which includes the.
There is no conflict of interest: I do not know either author personally or professionally, am not getting paid to write this (did spend a lot of spare time trying to improve the article; which is why I'd hate to see it deleted), nor does my employer have any link to subjects of articles (we sell their book, along with millions of other products). Unreliable sources have been removed and "promotional" content has been removed/rewritten (with help of others on this page: Thank you!). Interviews have been added as source (but content of interviews has not been added to page)
If I find additional reliable sources, they will be listed here/added to wikidata rather than added directly to the article. For instance:
The "Agile testing" book is cited in other publications (see google books among others) - for instance in "Developer testing" </ref>[1]
Comment. I'm not so much concerned about COI here as the lack of demonstrated notability. For example, Walter Görlitz has answered criticism of testimonial with more testimonial and Mlvandijk observes the Agile Testing book is used and cited, which is true of the "average book". So far, most of the "keep" reasoning seems to be subjective. We do have more quantitative and objective conventions for cases like this, which is how often publications/books are cited, how many libraries hold copies, etc. I looked again and WorldCat shows
261 holdings for the Agile Testing book, which will be a decade old next year. This would be a good statistic for an esoteric/obscure area, but for a very popular, high-visibility topic like programming, it seems pretty average. (For reference, lots of other books in the very same area show double these numbers, e.g.
Watkins' agile testing book at >500 or
Lewis et al. testing at ~500.) I'm certainly not saying Gregory hasn't contributed, but, in the end, we seem to have websites selling her products and blogs that call her a major contributor to the North American agile testing community and an industry expert rather than authoritative RS and/or quantitative metrics saying these things.
Agricola44 (
talk)
15:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Speaking at a conference is completely irrelevant to an AfD like this because it is part and parcel of what they all do. It doesn't distinguish her in any way. Sorry.
Agricola44 (
talk)
14:56, 27 January 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.
Subject fails NATHLETE as a sports promoter. Subject fails GNG - no RS in article and a BEFORE search only finds articles in reference to her recent, failed candidacy to the Fort Worth city council (and it's not even clear if it's the same Jennifer Trevino).
Chetsford (
talk)
05:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The coverage is either her promoting her events or consists of passing mentions. There's nothing to show that
WP:GNG, or any other notability criteria, is met. Claims like she "will be the first female to host an Amateur MMA event in San Antonio" are both unsourced and fail to show notability even if true.
Papaursa (
talk)
15:38, 20 January 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.
Article on a small, Icelandic animation company which has produced two small features and three shorts. One reference which is of questionable RS. A BEFORE search fails to identify anything further. Article has had an unresolved notability tag on it for the last seven years.
Chetsford (
talk)
05:22, 20 January 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.
Delete because the entire article is sourced only to a Marvel comic, and I don't think independent reliable sources can be found to support the article. If I removed the unsourced information the article would be completely blank. And we have an article about real
Humans already. Also
Marvel Wikia has an article that looks very similar.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
09:59, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep There are numerous sources out there which cover this stuff, including the following.
Imperfect articles are welcome and
AfD is still not cleanup.
Yes I understand, but do you have any of those sources to confirm they are relevant, and if so do any of them have information on Homo Sapiens (as defined my Marvel) that could be used here? I know lots of reliable sources cover the 'Marvel Universe' but as far as I know they are mostly focused on the characters and specific commentary on the best story arcs. I know this article accurately represents what is in the comics, but can that be verified as required by Wikipedia policy? If so I will change my recommendation.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
14:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
These sources are all relevant. For example, they say things like "The Atlanteans are a genetic offshoot of mainstream Homo sapiens called Homo mermanus, who ..."; "it was revealed that the Inhumans were descended from the apelike species that would evolve into Homo sapiens..."; "the depiction of anti-mutant hysteria among homo-sapiens in the Marvel Universe was reaching..."; "her powers reorder the universe into a world where homo-superiors reign over homo-sapiens". As mutants and rival strains of humanity are a significant theme in Marvel titles like X-Men and Inhumans, you'd expect such compendious works to cover this topic and so they do.
Andrew D. (
talk)
10:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I am not convinced, unless there is an actual section focused on this subject in one of these works, I can't see how it has wider relevance. Also the more detailed Marvel Wikia already has this article so it's not like it's being lost.
Ilyina Olya Yakovna (
talk)
12:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the article is fancruft in-universe unreferenced essay, it adds no encyclopedic value to Wikipedia, and adding a list of sources of general publications about Marvel Comics has absolutely no relevance to the precise subject matter.
The Rambling Man (
talk)
22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Most sources will be primary and seem to be describing distinct units. This seems to be case where the individual elements may be notable, but don't seem to be as a collective. --
Killer Moff (
talk) 14:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)--
Killer Moff (
talk)
14:56, 22 January 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.
He may possibly be notable, but this is a advertisement full of puffery. Rating in lists are put in the lead, Oxford University where he attended but did not take a degree much less prestigious school from which he actually graduated. Basic bio details like dates and place of birth are ignored,. Most of the article describes his firm, which has a separate article that would do well enough just to link to, . Enthusiastic "reviews" are taken from blogs, not reliable sources. The preface to the book itself is quoted to say how good it is.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Looks like a nice little park, but just not notable. Other than the city website, no sources. A ***
WP:BEFORE*** search came up with absolutely nothing that establishes notability.
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:54, 20 January 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.
Why isn't
Medical consensus a list of things all doctors agree on? Why isn't
Scientific consensus a list of all the scientific facts that a have universal consensus? We have no article listing everything physicists mostly all agree on. No article on historical consensus. Yet when it comes to this one field, the dismal science, there is a need for an article touting a handful of highly political, divisive hot-button issues that supposedly, economists "all" agree on. This entire concept stinks: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. It is not "normal". No other field has this defensive need to tout such a list of consensus positions.
The reason is that politics and economics are inseparable, and every bit of this is highly controversial. Any claim that any economics question is settled and resolved is shameless propaganda. Various assertions in this article can be moved to whatever article they might be relevant to, if they haven't already, but what we have here is a
WP:POVFORK and
WP:COATRACK.
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
03:34, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Although superficially garnished with many sources, this is classic synthesis and original research with arbitrary percentages from nowhere –
Ammarpad (
talk)
07:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Can you be specific as to what this content would be? If it's just another list of "things the other side is wrong about" then it's not encyclopedic. What else would there be? --
Dennis Bratland (
talk)
18:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I believe that, you being the original claimant, the onus is on you: it's obviously a way of POV pushing. Can you be specific as to what this POV is?
JorgeLaArdilla (
talk)
08:47, 28 January 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 merge to
Heriot-Watt University. While I might wish for a bit more explicit consensus on the merge target there appears to be a solid consensus favoring a merge and the only target mention is
Heriot-Watt University. Also a quick reminder that only material that is properly sourced or completely uncontroversial should be merged per WP:V and WP:CITE. It's time to close this and move on.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
19:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The program does not establish why it itself is notable separately from the universities that are offering it (e.g. we do not have a have an article about a Harvard MBA specifically, rather an article about the degree generally and then one about Harvard Business School). The given sources appear to largely target the universities themselves and those that discuss the program are written by a professor at one of the schools that issues the degree or are just program rankings.
Mifter (
talk)
04:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I would personally merge the what notable information exists into the parent university articles until such time as the degree program establishes it itself is notable outside just its parent organizations (
WP:NOTINHERITED).
Mifter (
talk)
17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi Lourdes, as I mentioned in the nom I believe this is different because something like a
Master of Business Administration (MBA) as a degree program is independently notable with the degree itself getting high levels of coverage in reliable third party sources and is offered by a very large number (hundreds) of universities whereas this program is only offered by this single consortium of universities (that I can see) and it is a single, unique program (If any university creates a unique new degree program independently or as part of a consortium it does not automatically deserve an article until that degree program is itself sufficiently notable.). If any part of the degree program is notable I would argue it should be merged into the articles for the university's offering it until there is sufficient coverage to establish that this unique program is independently notable. Similarly a
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology is also offered widely, though our article on it could use work and it needs more sources. Finally, after looking at the linked article, I would argue that
M. Tech Clinical engineering might suffer from the same issues that this article does as it is appears to be a unique program offered by a single consortium but I am still looking at it. In sum, something like a MBA as a degree program independently passes our GNG due to its heavy coverage as a general degree while this degree program with its primary distinguishing factor being that it is offered by a consortium of universities does not appear to satisfy notability just as a degree program.
Mifter (
talk)
17:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Ok. I understand your viewpoint. I would have preferred that before this Afd, a merge discussion could have been initiated on the article's talk page as an alternative to deletion. But now that this is here, in my opinion, as the EU has withdrawn its support to the program (www.mspme.org) and as the actual MSPME degree is offered by only
Heriot-Watt University, we could Merge the main contents to the HW Univ page. If you agree, you could consider withdrawing this nom and we could both then be bold and start a discussion on the article's talk page to merge the article, and finish it up boldly post consensus. What do you think? Thanks, Lourdes21:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi Lourdes, I just saw this note and agree that a merger would likely be the best outcome. I'd like to think about how to best proceed for a short while and will followup soon after giving it some thought. Best,
Mifter (
talk)
17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi Mifter. There are other pages with erasmus mundus programs:
Hi Nkalyvio. Thank you for the links and information and
welcome to Wikipedia! After looking at them though, I am not sure how they are directly relevant to this article's notability.
That we have other articles that may be similar does not establish why this specific degree program is sufficiently notable to have its own article as
notability is determined on a case-by-case basis and is
not inherited. Further, Stanford Online is not a degree program, it appears to be an online version of the University and
International Master of Science in Rural Development does not cite any sources and itself may not be notable enough for inclusion though that is beyond the scope of the discussion here. I'd be happy to discuss further should you have any questions. Best,
Mifter (
talk)
17:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Hi
Mifter. Just wanted to leave a gentle reminder ping to consider the Merge suggestion I had given above, to enable this Afd to reach a consensus (or get re-listed again, if you don't agree). Warmly, Lourdes12:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Hi
Lourdes. Thanks for the note, I was out and didn't have a chance to check in on Wikipedia for a few days. I'm happy to merge the article (in fact it would be my preferred outcome as I mention above), but am wondering your thoughts about how we should proceed. We could let the AfD run its course and have an uninvolved admin/editor close it as merge, have someone close it now as merge, or withdraw and open another discussion to discuss the merger. I believe the third option would be redundant considering we appear to have an emerging consensus here towards merge and would be fine with the other options. Also, if you see another path forward, I'm happy to hear it, my goal is to resolve this as smoothly as possible while trying to avoid being overly
bureaucratic. Best,
Mifter (
talk)
22:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Mifter. We'll let the Afd proceed and once this closes (hopefully as a merge result), we can then proceed to the respective articles and conduct the actual merge. Lourdes01:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge following the consensus rationale emerging above: Best to conclude this AfD and allow the merger proposal to be carried through.
AllyD (
talk)
08:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Administrator Comment There appears to be a consensus favoring some sort of merge. However I am not altogether clear as to what article(s) are to be on the receiving end of the merge. Once that is settled I will be happy close this discussion. -
Ad Orientem (
talk)
15:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
There are quite a few
Otr500. If you check the article, you'll find sources like
this. The main
University source also gives good details. As I have already mentioned above in my reply to Mifter, it seems that the European sponsorship has come to an end, which is confirmed by the primary website
http://www.mspme.org/, which also mentions that it's only the Heriot-Watt university which gives a new renamed "Master of Science in Strategic Project Management" certification from hereon. Thanks, Lourdes05:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I see there are primary sources and my comments were "just" that merging to "Heriot-Watt University" should be sourced in that article as the entire Programme structure section, that already includes 'Master of Science in Strategic Project Management", is currently unsourced.
Otr500 (
talk)
08:49, 21 January 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.
Delete. While it's true that NMEDIA accepts duly licensed radio stations as notable, what we don't have in this article is
properly sourced verification that this station is properly licensed. We don't extend that presumption of notability just because a radio station is nominally verifiable as existing, because pirate radio stations and unlicensed Part 15 and carrier current and closed circuit radio stations exist too — the presumption of notability is extended only when we can properly
verify that the station actually has a broadcast license from the appropriate regulatory authority. But no such verification is present here. NMEDIA explicitly states that the base notability conditions for radio stations have to be properly sourced for the NMEDIA pass to be given — we delete radio stations if we can't properly verify that they actually satisfy all three of the core requirements.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
That's just a directory list of stations that exist, not a database record of their licensing statuses. All that list proves is that the NTC is aware that the station exists, in exactly the same way that Industry Canada and the FCC are always aware of all low-power VFs and pirate radio operations in their respective countries whether they have licenses or not — it doesn't prove that the NTC has given them a license to operate.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. No reliable and independent source to verify
WP:NRVof its nobility
WP:GNG. Listed sources in the page do not able to provide Wikipedia verification guidelines to meet well "source".
CASSIOPEIA (
talk)
20:06, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The NTC link did something; prove that this station is 300 watts, not the 1,000 claimed in the article. That means it barely covers the campus area and maybe most of Dumaguete, and nowhere else. As it is, this is a university radio station that's comparable to
carrier current stations, which means it doesn't have much range, few sources and little notability off-campus. Nate•(
chatter)09:19, 20 January 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am singularly unimpressed by the rational of the sole Keep !vote. However given there is only one favoring deletion I'd like to get some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk)
01:53, 20 January 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 while conceding that the criteria for inclusion needs to be beefed up and better defined. There does not appear to be a sense that this deficiency is enough to justify deletion. See also WP:FIXIT.
Ad Orientem (
talk)
03:01, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
This article only sources one of these on the list and I'm not even sure you can even consider that sourced country totalitarian (not saying Venezuela isn't a dictatorship though). The problem is that it violates
WP:NPOV and there are no other sources. Yes, some of them may seem obvious but others are a matter of opinion and we shouldn't just label countries as "totalitarian" unless used with caution which this article fails to do. I requested this be deleted before but the deletion template was removed. I am still not seeing why this page should continue to be on Wikipedia so I am requesting its deletion on accounts of violating
WP:NPOV,
WP:V and
WP:AD. The Ninja5 Empire (
Talk)06:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
'Keep':altought this article has some inconsitencies ,i oppose the deletion,because as the article says in one topic "this list is incomplete" .
So if its incomplete ,Fully scrapping this article isn't the best way to solving the errors in the article.
Gregorius Deretius 09:26 12 january 2018(UTC)
Delete. I do not believe that there are any objective enough criteria by which Wikipedia can label a regime as totalitarian or not in its own voice.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
10:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't doubt that there are many sources that provide lists of totalitarian countries, but do they agree on any objective criteria for saying that they are totalitarian? Within any article about an individual regime we can discuss, using
WP:DUE, how totalitarian it is or was based on the reliable source coverage, but inclusion on a list is a binary thing, so requires Wikipedia to make its own judgement as to whether a regime is/was totalitarian or not. I have still not seen any objective criteria by which we can make that judgement.
86.17.222.157 (
talk)
22:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Sources disagree on everything. But your are right that criteria for the list should be included. By the rules this list should include all countries described in reliable secondary RS as "totalitarian" during a certain period of their existence. There is obviously an agreement of RS that USSR, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were totalitarian countries. Looking at the books above, one can see a number of additional specific examples, such as
Democratic Kampuchea (arguably even a more "totalitarian" country than others), etc. There is no problem to include them with in-line references.
My very best wishes (
talk)
22:33, 14 January 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.
No evidence of notability, an early inhabitant of a smallish village who is mentioned as such in some books, without further indications of any notability. A non notable rapper as a 5th generation descendant is not really a reason to keep this either. Fails
WP:BIOFram (
talk)
10:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The thing about the rapper may not be notable but the article itself would be considered notable due to its coverage outside of Wikipedia.
Pokemon879 (
talk) 3:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Pokemon879 -
Notability has nothing to do with the article itself. It has to do with the article subject, or what you're writing the article about. The statement you cited here means that (if applied correctly), there are no edits that anyone can make to an article on Wikipedia that will make that person notable. It has nothing to do with how well-written or how "good" the article is. Notability is established by the availability of independent reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth - sites that are outside Wikipedia determine this. I just wanted to add a comment to help clear any confusion here before you continue down this path and with the wrong interpretation of this process and these guidelines in-mind; AFD and notability is a process and guideline that new users typically don't understand until they gain some experience and tenure on Wikipedia. You're welcome to message me if you have any questions or need any help - I'll be happy to do so.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)10:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It also cites 2 books (obviously you didn't read the references). If you google something as simple as "W.C Clark Puxico" several things will come up. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pokemon879 (
talk •
contribs)
00:05, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete There are primary sources such as death certificates which might be interesting to descendants, but are not the
reliable secondary sources with significant coverage needed to satisfy
WP:BIO. Then there is a directory listing that says he bred swine, and passing references as one of several early residents of a place. These, too, are not the significant coverage needed to satisfy
WP:BIO and serve as the bases of an article. Being someone's ancestor is inadequate per
WP:NOT.Instagram and the like are not
reliable sources. Descendants might wish to create an entry at Ancestry.com.
Edison (
talk)
03:54, 20 January 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.
Provisional Keep, they've been involved in a couple of instances of idiocy in the past few months that have dominated the days' news. In lieu of an obvious redirect target, I think we should keep this article, at least for the time being, to see whether anything else comes from them. If they fizzle and don't do anything again, then we can revisit and delete this in a few months time.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)02:37, 6 January 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.
Delete No indications of notability, no references. Impressive catalog of movies but notability isn't inheritied and we need independent sources. Fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 19:58, 21 January 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.
Seems to have lack of notability (
WP:GNG and
WP:ORG) as also verifiability (WP:V). Article is poorly sourced and based largely on the organization's website. It has been tagged for this issue since June 2009. There are some independent sources but they are they are insufficient.
This reference is about a single event which linked to the Global Exchange by stating that thse two activists are associated with the Global Exchange, not that it was action by the Global Exchange itself.
The WTO mentions Global Exchange directly; however, as an alone it is not enough.
That source seems to mention the Global Exchange but it is not probably a depth coverage. Search by the term "Global Exchange" gives a lot of results but most of them are not related to this organization. I was not able to find a significant sources by more specific searches. These sources may exists, of course, but at the moment I am not convinced.
Beagel (
talk)
13:45, 12 January 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.
Procedural Keep nominator has not done WP:BEFORE it seems. Someone has tagged the article with "unreliable source", but as far as I can see, this has not been explained on the talk page, where editors could help improve the article. Please also consider WP:ATD.
Egaoblai (
talk)
11:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I was the one who tagged it with the unreliable sources tag. Rana 2004 is not a reliable source as publications from Diamond Pocket books are not considered reliable historical books, and Sarbeshwar Sahoo is not a historian and the book is not historically reliable.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
13:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Was this brought up to the people who created the article? Is there a previous discussion about why these sources aren't reliable?
Egaoblai (
talk)
22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep I think that the article can be sourced, e.g.:
[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59].... However, most of these basically say he was a Bhil (Bhils) chief who commanded a body of men in the rear during the 1576 battle. However, there also seems to be a modern day state award named for him (e.g. - some bestowals:
[60][61][62] - which this seems to be a description of
Rana Punja Award.
Icewhiz (
talk)
23:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@Icewhiz I know the article is mentioned in reliable sources, but as you mentioned all of them only mention his part in the Battle of Haldighati and nothing about his background, or that he participated in any other battles.
mewariindia.com is not a reliable source as a) It is not a historically reliable website and b) It is not an official government site. I could not find any official goverment site of Mewar but I did found the official government site of Rajasthan, the province in which mewar is. See
rajasthan.gov.in. I would recommend its redirection to the
Battle of Haldighati.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
08:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I was responding to the claim this is backed up by Diamond books. It does seem that he is highlighted in modern times as a
Dalit of note (see -
Class action, Times of IndiaHis organisation, Dalit Adivasi Evam Ghumantu Adhikar Abhiyan (Dagar), founded in 2006, chronicles and highlights Dalit contributions to history: Bhilu Rana Punja's role in rescuing Rana Pratap in the 1576 battle of Haldighati and Keerat Bari's part in saving Prince Udai Singh's life. For him, empowerment is also about locating your place in society.) and there is a modern day award -
coverage of award bestowal by Udaipur Times. I'm assuming Udaipur Times is reliable enough for stating that an award has been bestowed. Without this modern use of this well documented footnote - I probably would've been neutral / weak delete. But what we have is a very well documented footnote/mention + modern use of this footnote in a different context.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
The article is sourced, but wherever Rana Punja is mentioned, he is only mentioned with the Battle of Haldighati, as we cannot find any other reliable sources which mention something else about him, I think it should be redirected. All the sources I've found uptill now only say that he was a commander of 400 bhil archers in the rear in the Battle of Haldighati and saved Maharana Pratap's life in that battle and awards have been commemorated in his name. With only this much content about him, I don't think that the notability of this induvidual article is established.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
10:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've added a couple sources, I'm not sure if they've been brought up already, but an article about a birthday celebration gives a small amount of detail on his life, including stating he held the title "king" of Bhomat, although I think perhaps the article is overselling a chieftancy.(Goswami, Vajrasar.
Birth Anniversary of Rana Punja celebrated at Moti Magri Smarak, Udaiput Times, October 5, 2012)
Smmurphy(
Talk)17:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I am still in favour of redirection to Battle of Haldighati. The information you gave comes from a site and it can give inaccurate or honorary traditional information. All reliable sources only list him as a Bheel Chieftain of Merpur who fought in a battle. As for Rana 2004 by Bhawan Singh Rana, the book is not a reliable source as discussed many times before in talk pages as well.
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
At the moment notability does not matter as much as the content we can take out from the reliable sources. Seeing the minimal amount of content that does not tell us anything about him except his chieftainship and participation in the battle, I agree with redirection to
Battle of Haldighati or as an alternative, this article can be merged into either
Bhil people or the
Battle of Haldighati. --
Hagoromo's Susanoo (
talk)
13:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Battle of Haldighati for lack of reliable sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail. Should such sources present themselves (of which I'm not convinced) the article could be restored. The sources presented at this AfD are insufficient / passing mentions, so a redirect to the battle is appropriate, as typically done in
WP:BIO1E situations.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:00, 26 January 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. There's clear agreement here that these are not appropriate encyclopedia articles, but would be valuable in another setting. As somebody has already moved them to
wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek grammar tables, I'm just going to delete them here. I also added a note on the talk (discussion?) page there to give some more history. I'm not an expert on the licensing/copyright issues around transwikification; if there's anything else I should do, please ping me. --
RoySmith(talk)20:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I thought that transliteration of the Greek words might be valuable for some readers, so I created an alternative version of
Ancient Greek grammar (tables) with transliteration. The tables had to be displayed on three separate pages because the generation of transliteration (via
Module:Ancient Greek) for all the terms in the tables was too expensive, in Lua memory or processing time, I don't remember which. There are a number of ways that I could see to fix that problem, so that the tables with transliteration could be displayed on one page, but it would be time-consuming.
Ship all four articles off to Wiktionary if the markup works there (or can be easily modified to do so). This isn't content for the Wikipedia mainspace but hopefully we can find somewhere to put it as it looks very valuable to experts in this area (though with no knowledge of the subject area, I could be wrong). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e)01:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Ideally, an article shouldn't consist solely of tables (just as a list article sholdn't just consist in a bare list), but it's a step in the right direction. It's possible to build prose text around those table, explaining the patterns observed and relating their prior history and subsequent development: Ancient Greek is a damn well studied language, so there's no question there won't be sources for that. Just noting further that this article doesn't duplicate
Ancient Greek grammar as it's more specific and has a different focus. Also, articles like this are a pretty standard feature of wikipedia: see
Spanish conjugation for one that is more or less at the same stage of development, and
Latin conjugation for one that has a bit more prose around the table skeleton. –
Uanfala (talk)02:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Erutuon, I meant to nominate all the four articles for deletion. It was just that I did not (and still do not) know how to submit a multiple nomination using
TW. I will nominate the other three for deletion if this one is deleted. By the way, these are very well-made tables, and I can tell how useful they are for Ancient Greek learners. I would love to see them flourish on
our sister website.
Professorjohnas (
talk)
18:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOT, this isn't an encyclopedia article (or a list etc) and has no hope of ever becoming one. Somebody has already moved the content to Wiktionary as
wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek grammar tables, the edit histories of the four pages here don't have anything in them so we don't need to keep those but I suggest somebody find the original source of this text and copy over the edit history to avoid Wiktionary breaching copyright. Hut 8.518:39, 28 January 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.
Not enough. They are either namechecks or trivial announcements which they do as a director of X institute. No source discuss themselves personally.
Störm(talk)09:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Many books, but WorldCat shows all single-digit or low double-digit (e.g. 20s) holdings. This is below the conventions for PROF.
Agricola44 (
talk)
19:17, 18 January 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 article lacks even one reliable source. It has been tagged with this problem for five years. IMDb only demonstrates that the person existed, and even at that at times is allged to have errors and is not a reliable source. My search for sources only showed as an additional real source Find A Grave, but that is not a reliable source either. There is no indication that any of Palange's roles meet the guideline of being significant roles in notable productions. There seems to have been an attempt to create articles on everyone credited in Hollywood film productions from 1920-1950 or maybe more years. This is just not the intended scope of notability for Wikipedia.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
16:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. Google Books has hundreds of results, showing Palange as among the principal cast of several films. --
Michig (
talk) 21:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC) A search of British newspapers from the first half of the 20th century shows her in significant roles in Speed to Burn, Road Demon, Winner Take All, Caught in the Act (starring role), Song of the City, and Little Miss Roughneck. --
Michig (
talk)
21:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: Fails
GNG and
NACTOR (#1); "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.". I used Google, Google books, and even Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb and Find-Grave. Just raw data, and mention of a name that leads to bit-parts do not advance
notability. Someone would have to actually show me the links that support Has had significant roles for actual notability, as I just don't see them, nor anything reliable to ever expand this past a 23 wordpseudo-biagraphy. The movies listed on the article and above:
4)-
The Grapes of Wrath (film) (1940)) : Uncredited and almost nonexistent (Woman in Camp) and the subject is listed number 73 out of 77 in the cast.
5)-
Speed to Burn (1938) (not listed in the article): Minor part playing Mama Gambini (as Ines Palange), listed at the bottom but at least not in the extra cast section,
6) Caught in the Act (1941) stars Henry Armetta, Iris Meredith, and Robert Baldwin. Ines is the stars wife and not significant role (at least #5 now) and was certainly not a "staring roll" as suggested above,
7)-
Road Demon (1938), Minor roll and #11 on the cast list,
9)-
Little Miss Roughneck (1938): Minor role (Mercedes Orozco), #6 on the cast list.
I could keep going on but all the rest are the same and most of the movies with Wikipedia coverage have one reference supported by IMDb usually used as a reference.
Otr500 (
talk)
16:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
So you think actors in films listed 5, 6, and 7 in the cast list only had 'minor roles'? Like Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader were some sort of minor characters in Star Wars? I've searched newspaper articles from the era she was appearing in films, which is a better guide that Rotten Tomatoes for that era. --
Michig (
talk)
17:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Rotten Tomatoes sucks but I do not consider #5, #6, #7 to be "significant" for notability but am open to considering RS's. I have a very sensible idea: put the links, that two other editors couldn't find with no reason to lie, here if not in the article. I like all things history, but unlike some editors, I subscribe to following policies and guidelines. I consider any role, that doesn't have some notability (significant roles as identified by reliable sources), not leading roles or close supporting, to be minor for notability. If there is not some point or gauge then all members of the cast not uncredited would be considered "significant" and that is just not what consensus has shown. You listed the subject as having a "starring role" (headlining) in Caught in the Act so this must be a different film. I don't need "hundreds" but certainly more reliable sources than provided or that can be easily found.
Otr500 (
talk)
17:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -- per thorough analysis by User:Otr500. This does not meet
WP:NACTOR for lack of significant coverage of the subject's career. The number of hits and such do not count in deletion discussions.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. I had hoped to be able to expand and
WP:PRESERVE this article about an actress whose Hollywood career started when she was ~40 and lasted for almost 30 years. But I can't. Yes, Google Books has hundreds of results, but if we consider that Palange had ~100 film roles in her career, it should not surprise us, and AFAICT none of her roles were starring roles. Her role as Mrs. Camonte in the 1932 film Scarface is in the current version mentioned as the role, for which she was best known; but Mrs. Camonte is merely the mother of
Paul Muni's character Antonio "Tony" Camonte, and I do not see Palange getting much more than trivial mentions for her role. So, she fails the SSG
WP:NACTOR so far. Could she pass
WP:BASIC? She perhaps could given the length of her career, but I can't find sources online that support she does. Delete per
WP:DEL8. SamSailor15:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. American sources are likely to be the best bets here, but from British newspapers of the time: Prescot Reporter, and St. Helens General Advertiser (5 May 1939): "Those lovable Gambinis, who made their screen debuts as a family in Speed to Burn, are due for a riotous return enagagement in...Road Demon, 20th Century Fox's motor racing melodrama. There is Papa Gambini, played by the inimitable Henry Armetta, and Mama Gambini, played by Inez Palange and the kids.", Faversham Times and Mercury and North-East Kent Journal (26 August 1939) about Winner Takes All: "Also prominent in the cast is the famous Gambini family, headed again by the inimitable Henry Armetta and including Inez Palange...", Forfar Despatch (3 August 1939): "Road Demon is a motor racing melodrama featuring the Gambini family, with Henry Armetta as Papa and Inez Palange as Mama.", Milngavie and Bearsden Herald (20 September 1941) "Caught in the Act, starring Henry Armetta, Iris Meredith, and Inez Palange." (no other cast members mentioned). --
Michig (
talk)
16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep even if her performance in the classic original and influential
Scarface movie isn't enough, and TCM has one of the famous scenes posted on their website, her roles as a singer and comedian in the duo Les Iris Palange is part of Library of Congress' Victor recording collection. This further establishes her historical significance. Her experiences as an immigrant are noted in a book about Italian immigrants to the U.S. Obviously, we are limited as to sources easily availavle online for performers from earlier eras but she had a significant role in a major and influential film and went on to have many other credites parts in other films. She's no Sophia Loren but her roles and signifance are worth noting and expanding as more details become available.
FloridaArmy (
talk)
00:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the book and press sources identified earlier,
Atlantic306 (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Lavender Country. I'm not sure that page protection is needed at this point. Just point to this discussion and revert any attempts to re-create the article. If, at that point, it becomes an issue it can be requested.
Killiondude (
talk)
04:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:NMUSIC, "members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases" — but this offers and sources no reason whatsoever why he would need or qualify for a standalone biography separate from the band article. Of the three sources here, two are about the band rather than him, and while the third is more than trivially about him, it still addresses him in the context of the band rather than addressing any plausible notability claim independent of the band — so none of them actually support a credible reason why Haggerty and his band would need to have two separate articles. Normally I would just have redirected this, but this is now the third attempt since last June to make a standalone BLP of Haggerty happen without actually offering a reason why he would need a standalone BLP as a separate topic from the band, so I think it's time for a larger set of eyes to weigh in on this.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:30, 5 January 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.
Renominating for deletion, as the sole "keep" vote in the last AfD did not actually read my nomination, where I said that Jimquisition is not considered proof of notability per
WP:VG/S. Therefore it still fails
WP:GNG. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)23:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep please note, there was only one vote on the previous AfD, probably due to the 50+ Gaming AfDs ongoing. Disagreeing with the rational of a user is not usually a reason for re-listing. But anyway, there are two unquestionable RS; plus
Tech Raptor,
Voletic.com and
Twinfinite,
The Escapist,
PC Games (Germany) all have articles on the game, due to it's poor port, and general poorness.
Lee Vilenski(
talk)
18:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)reply
A game needs more than 2 RS to pass
WP:GNG and the Kotaku one isn't a substantial mention. None of those you mentioned are RS. They are all unreliable sources and the Escapist one is a random forum post by a random user. In any case, it wasn't relisted because I disagreed with the rationale, but because there was no consensus.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)03:25, 7 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete: Eurogamer has written
twoarticles about it, and Kotaku published
one. (other sources mentioned above is not considered to be reliable according to
WP:VG/RS) Mostly about the ethics of PlayStation Store promoting terrible games rather than talking about the game itself, so I don't think that these sources can justify the game's notability. We could probably merge this to
PlayStation Store regarding
quality control issues as well, but I don't see this as necessary given the weak coverage.
AdrianGamer (
talk)
09:42, 23 January 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 sourcing has been discussed in depth and its clear that notability is not established. Tip to Leitmotiv, attacking other editors rather than finding better sources is a) a waste of time and b) likely to get your opinion given less weight as you are clearly not arguing from a policy perspective.
SpartazHumbug!09:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No discussion in detail in any reliable sources. The fact that it was listed in a now extinct notable price guide does not show notability in the slightest. Notable does not equate with reliable and existence, which is not disputed, does not equate with notability. All sources on article and all that I've found have no even vague indication of reliability. Most are blogs, some are Wikis. Fails
GNG by a mile.
John from Idegon (
talk)
05:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Disagree, and I vote to Keep as the article's creator. You overstate your case when you claim there are no reliable secondary sources, and flat out lie, when you suggest nothing is discussed in detail. I doubt you've read the Scrye magazine, and yes, I call your bluff.
Scrye is a reliable guide and personally, I prefer it to the competition of
InQuest. Just because a magazine got put out of business by the internet, doesn't make it less reliable; that's nonsense talk and you're really reaching with that argument. Your flawed logic could be applied to any scientific magazine or newspaper that was rendered obsolete by the internet as proof that it is no longer valid. Sorry, facts don't become invalid just because a company stopped producing a product. The fact remains, Scrye was a relatively prominent publication and is both notable and reliable, and works as a secondary source for this article, as well as InQuest, should I choose to go through my copies of that for source material.
Furthermore, there is no wiki source in the reference section. I assume, you're referring to SF-Encyclopedia? That's has exactly three editors (which I see is prerequisite for being a reliable secondary source) and is the online version of the book in its third edition. You don't need just secondary sources to confirm the existence of something, but they can be used to flesh out the details a bit in a supplementary way (there are two primary sources in the article), the remaining are secondary sources of varying quality, but all of them are used to note different aspects of the card game. InMint.com, sells the game, but it also describes the premise, for which I borrowed a few things. The full paragraph is this:
"In the Rifts Collectible Card Game, mankind, once dominant, now must struggle for survival against dire adversaries both human and inhuman. Set approximately 300 years in the future, Rifts Earth is a planet beset by dimensional anomalies, called rifts, through which aliens, demons, and magical forces have invaded our world."
So, more hyperbole coming from you, disproven. The CCGGamez.com site has 5 paragraphs that I could copy here, but won't... nah, I think I will to directly show you haven't bothered to review the sources in any substantial way, and have mislead everyone in your case against the article:
"The world of RIFTS, as introduced 18 years ago in the role-playing game of that name, is marked by two factors: danger and diversity. Earth has become crisscrossed with key lines of magical power and pockmarked by gates into other dimensions. Demons, vampires and dinosaurs stalk the land while the Earthlings themselves, dabbling in hand-me-down science and newfound sorcery, have formed into factions engaged in constant warfare.
In the new RIFTS Collectible Card Game, players lead these factions to take over what's left of North America. Each player starts with one of nine faction cards, a deck (the size of which is dictated by the faction) and a hand (likewise). Most cards in the hand are drawn at random from the deck, but some are chosen before the game begins.
Some cards can generate resources. On each turn each player "rotates" cards to play other cards from their hand, with certain restrictions. "Base" cards, representing cities and other large installations, can only be played using resources generated by a faction card. Other cards can require resources with a specific attribute; for instance, a factional restriction such as "2 Pecos" means the resources must be generated by cards with the "Pecos Empire" attribute (so only the Pecos Empire or its allies can use it). Other limitations such as "Tech" "Magic" or "Techno-Wizard" prevent all-magic factions from controlling armies of giant robots unless they have some source of technological resources.
One type of card, the Unit, is rated for Attack, Counter-Attack and Damage Capacity as well as special abilities (almost all units have them). During the combat phase, a player can order Units to attack another player. When this is done, the defender takes damage equal to the attacking units' Attack, while the attacking units take damage equal to the defenders' Counter-Attack. Counter-Attack points equal to an attacking units Damage Capacity kill that unit, whereas Attack points kill defending Units or Bases or can be "Decked" meaning the defender discards that many cards from their deck or hand.
When a player's deck runs out of cards they are out of the game. The last player standing wins."
The owner of that site, has clearly played the game, or digested the instruction booklet.
I didn't say Scrye wasn't a reliable source, only that notability does not equate with reliability. It appears that it, alone, may be the only reliable source you've got. However, and admittedly, I cannot check it, when the title of the article is "Scrye Price Guides: RIFTS", there doesn't seem like there's much chance of a discussion in detail, which is a requirement of sources for notability. And as best I can tell from your
TLDR comment above, you clearly lack an understanding of
WP:RS, as your recent (reverted) edit at
WP:N also attests to. I'm also going to ping
Diannaa to this conversation to look over your comment with an eye to copyright violation here.
John from Idegon (
talk)
08:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You're backpeddling now. Go and review the 10 sources at the article, none of which are "blogs", nor "Wikis" and many, if not all, are reliable if you really poke your nose into them. Only then, come back with some legitimate arguments. Also, just because poor you, can't review any given article that's not online, doesn't mean it's not notable. Like I said, I could cite more of these non-readable issues if you desire. As for your TLDR comment, well that just shows you're failing at your job here and I expect more, since you were the one nominating this for discussion. The fact that I did write so much that your eyes just glossed over is probably proof you've given up, or that there's plenty of content worth citing. I suspect I understand WP:RS more than you do, if this thread is any indication.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
09:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)reply
OK, I just looked over the sources. I'm a gamer but not a CCG person (well not after 1994). I can't find any source that is more than either promotional text from the publisher (
http://archive.li/9xZrf) or just a list of cards. The very very small number of reviews and the really poor rating on BGG makes me suspect the game isn't notable (that isn't a
WP:N argument, but great rating and large number of reviews would make me suspect there are good sources out there). Now if the Scrye article(s?) has some depth, that would be great. Do you have a hardcopy of the article you could scan and post somewhere so we can take a look at it? But even if that article is solid, one article isn't going to be over the bar--WP:N requires multiple sources. And card lists and the like just don't count for much.
Hobit (
talk)
21:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Well thanks for looking over the sources, you can see they're not blogs or wikis, huh? That pissed me off with that ignorant false claim. While the link you supplied is promotional, in some sense, it is promotional for the RPG book, not the card game. The card game was defunct at the time he wrote that. Though I feel you're exaggerating your critique here. There is only 1 list article and 1 so-called "promotional" site. That still leaves other sources. Sorry I don't have access to a scanner, but that's probably an investment coming down the road. As for a game being notable, that's really in the eye of the beholder. If I have reliable secondary sources one of the requirements for keeping an article around, it seems I've done my part to make an appropriate article. Btw, I'm adding another source as I've found more material from a book I've recently purchased. Any comment on the Youtube source?
Leitmotiv (
talk)
19:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Could you point out what you think are the best 2 or 3 sources? Everything I'm seeing is either just a card list or not independent. But I'm willing to admit I might be missing something. Thanks.
Hobit (
talk)
20:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Okay, I'm rewriting my original response. If you can't figure out what the best 2 or 3 sources are, then maybe you shouldn't be the one reviewing the sources. It's pretty clear what the best sources are. But what makes this article great is that all the sources working together has made an article like this. It's a solid three paragraphs with another smaller fourth paragraph. I feel I could break down some of the flaws in the second sentence of your reply, but I deleted it feeling that we're going in circles and that maybe you aren't reviewing the sources properly in conjunction with what they're citing in the article.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
21:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Fair enough. The problem is I'm not seeing any good sources. I asked in the hopes I missed something (I looked at all the ones on-line in the article and didn't see anything that was independent and had depth.). If you can't or won't identify any in the article and can't or won't add anything about anything not in the article, I think I've reached the point that I can't find a reason to keep the article. Sorry.
Hobit (
talk)
20:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Take a real close look then, rather than a glance. Scrye Magazine and a Book are good and dedicated sources on this very topic, there you got it out of me. But it shows that I don't feel you're really trying very hard. They're good sources and I think you should admit that.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
21:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I can't find anything about the Scrye article anywhere. You apparently have it, but lack a scanner (or a camera?) to get a copy out and you've not described the coverage. The book doesn't appear to have significant coverage of the game (it mentions it a lot, but no details that I can find).
Hobit (
talk)
22:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Just because you can't read something personally, doesn't mean it's not valuable or lacks content. Sorry, that's a fallacy. But yes, both have content regarding the article. Neither are fully available online, the book only in part, so I'm not sure how you can say you reviewed them. Addendum: If you look at the index it shows Rifts being mentioned on no less than 8 pages. I bought the book recently and I've applied it to a few articles I've edited and created, and plan on using this book much more. Addendum 2: I think it's funny that you say I haven't described the coverage. I created the article with inline citations! Have you read the article? As I said above, I could use these sources overlapping existing citations, but I didn't see the point. Do you want me to do that?
Leitmotiv (
talk)
22:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Just to be formal (I commented above at length) delete. The topic doesn't meet WP:N with any of the sources in the article that I can access nor do I have confidence that the sources off line have any more detail.
Hobit (
talk) 15:58, 24 January 2018 (UTC) -- Correction--merge to
Rifts (role-playing_game). Probably just a paragraph, but it can easily fit under "Spinoffs and alternate editions" in that article.
Hobit (
talk)
20:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I've looked at every source in the article that is on-line. You have the only non on-line source but have refused to provide it or describe it in any meaningful detail. My sense is you have no leg to stand on and so resort to insults. It has certainly made me not wish to engage, but I don't care to be bullied, so here I am. This doesn't meet WP:N and you have no evidence it does.
Hobit (
talk)
06:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Refused? That's not putting it honestly. You asked if I could provide material and I said I didn't have the means. I've also stated I made inline citations for the content they provide, but that seems to be lost on you, as well as your answer to my question if I should cite other stuff that overlapped in those sources. I may have come on strong, because the dude who started this discussion lied up front and it pissed me off. I may have insulted you because objectivity has left you. You state I haven't supplied evidence - ignoring the two secondary sources cited in the damn article. Somehow you think your lack of access is proof positive that they don't qualify. That's nonsense. They're bonafide secondary sources no matter how you personally want to spin it.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
07:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm to understand you don't own a cell phone with a camera? And that in addition you are unable to provide a summary of the article in your own words? No on-line source that meets
WP:N exists and at this point I'm unwilling to take you at your word that the off-line source has anything more (though again, a scan good picture or a fairly detailed summary would help). I lean toward inclusion here. But there just aren't sources.
Hobit (
talk)
13:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Your argument is ridiculous. You don't seem to listen or answer my question (maybe I can return the favor?), which in turn would answer the one you're asking now. I've provided in line citation for the sources that essentially summarize parts of the articles. I'll ask again though: do I need to cite the the overlap with the other articles to show what they cover?
Leitmotiv (
talk)
21:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)reply
No, but you could provide the three best sources that count toward WP:N. And if you cite an off-line source, you could provide a brief summary of what that source covers. This is a standard thing at AfD. As far as I can tell, there are no independent sources that cover the topic in any depth.
Hobit (
talk)
15:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I believe I've read everything. I will admit I find the hostility hard to read through, so maybe I missed something. Again, could you list the three best sources? And if you list an off-line source, could you either take a picture of it or briefly describe it?
Hobit (
talk)
21:25, 26 January 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.
Didn't speedy the biography for the claimed position of President of a Nigerian association. Had to remove copy-vio material from the article. Couldn't find any
reliable sources that could assist the subject in passing the
GNG/
BIO thresholds. Lourdes15:13, 12 January 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.
At first glance, it looked like there was coverage, but most of the sources are mere mentions of the person or confirmation that he belongs to a group etc. In the end, it's a puff piece without significant coverage of the subject by reliable third-party sources. Would not oppose a redirect to his company article per
WP:BUSINESSPERSONOUTCOMENiteshift36 (
talk)
17:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
1) No, there hasn't been an AfD discussion. 2) The notability of his company isn't the subject of discussion. This is about the notability of the individual. Being the CEO of a notable company doesn't give you a free pass to notability.
Niteshift36 (
talk)
19:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect. No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Most of the sources aren't independent at all. I do not believe that the Who's Who entries are evidence of notability, as I believe these particular publications include all senior executives of all companies over a certain size. The Marquis Who's Who, in particular, allows subjects to submit their own biographies and boasts of having over 1.5M biographies.
Pburka (
talk)
01:43, 13 January 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.
Actor whose only significant film/television role seems to be a recurring minor character, no indication of meeting
WP:NACTOR. PROD removed by
User:Waledemz(who was not the article creator) without comment after adding unsourced claims abour theatre roles and a program called Ajalangers (which returns no results on Google).
Of note: Waledemz's username matches a stage nickname used by Demehin, claims to be Demehin on their talk page, and has twice tried to create articles about Demehin in the past. RA0808talkcontribs17:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC); edited 15:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)reply
If Demehin is so well known, why were both the article creator and Waledemz seemingly having as much difficulty as I did locating "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (as required by
WP:GNG)? RA0808talkcontribs21:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC); edited 21:07, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Neither of those are examples of significant coverage. Revolvy is a Wikipedia fork and is not a reliable source per
WP:FORK, and even if it were reliable Demehin is only given a trivial mention in a cast list. The Irokotv link also only gives a trivial mention in a cast list.
WP:N requires significant coverage which "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." RA0808talkcontribs22:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
It is not the main topic, and it is not a trivial feature either.
Plus, you requested citation for "Adewale has played several roles in stage plays including OLD MOYO (GCK) 2001 , AJAGBE (Divine Assembly) 2009, OBA (Divine Assembly) 2010 amongst others." The events were obviously not publicized on the internet, because the internet had not gained much grounds in Nigeria at that time. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davioseki (
talk •
contribs)
22:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia tends to be cagey about YouTube as a source, but even if it was taken as a reliable source (which I would ask others to weigh in on), it still is one source that is about what seems to be his only significant provable role. As for the stage plays, sources do not have to be on the Internet. If they were notable productions were there not newspaper articles written about them? RA0808talkcontribs19:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
"Nomination is flawed":
HandsomeBoy You could state which sections of
WP:NACTOR that this page fails. And I am aware of what
WP:COI discourages. I have no relationship with the owner of this profile, and haven't received payments for my edits here or elsewhere.
I visited the page to learn more, and saw the nomination for deletion. I suggest it should be improved rather than deleted.
Visit
Wikipedia:Autobiography. Note 'If you have been published elsewhere on a topic, "we welcome your expertise on the subject for Wikipedia articles. However, every Wikipedia article must cover its subject in a neutral, fair, and comprehensive way to advance knowledge of the subject as a whole. Please forget your biases while enriching the Wikipedia readers' knowledge." Articles that exist primarily to advance the interests of the contributor will likely be deleted.'
Page was not created to cause an excessive hype about the personality, or for reasons of self promotion. Else, you who have nominated should point such places out that spell excessive praises on the profile.
Also, acting records (especially for stage plays) as at 2009 in Nigeria, are rarely found on the internet. But just because they are not on the internet doesn't mean they never occurred, does it? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davioseki (
talk •
contribs)
20:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)reply
I was referring to the article creator, whom I already explained why the article wasn't notable on my
talkpage. But since you replied me, the reason the article fails NACTOR is that he has not had main roles in multiple notable films; neither has he been nominated or won an award in a notable film ceremony. Awards like
AMAA,
Best of Nollywood Awards and
Nigeria Entertainment Awards have been existing before 2010, if he or any of his works were notable, they would have at least gotten a nomination. Secondly, the short films you claimed he acted in are of questionable notability. For a film to be notable, we need a
reliable source to talk about it, either online or in print. The only notable film he has acted in is Jenifa's Diaries, and it was a minor role. NACTOR talks only about significant roles, not minor. Don't waste your time, this article will definitely get deleted.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
19:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)reply
•"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.
Article does not seem to fail this.
• "Sources"[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.
Article does not seem to fail this either...
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
The sources requested here have been provided. Person in article is featured in a YouTube video which has over 200,000 views, and has been watched by thousands of fans on Jenifa's diary.
• "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
HandsomeBoy (
talk) you should also read under additional requirements on NACTOR: I'll quote;
"People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.
"A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability. Editors may find these criteria helpful when deciding whether to tag an article as requiring additional citations (using
for example), or to instead initiate a deletion discussion."
I hope you see that this nomination for deletion deletion has been flawed all along.
Person in article does not require any awards to qualify for a space on Wikipedia. Plus, the role of
Adewale Demehin in
Jenifa's Diary cannot be passed as insignificant.
Keep
Below are the requirements for an article to be deleted, and after reading through, the article, fortunately passes all of them, and as such, should not be deleted.
Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion
Content does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion...
Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's non-free content criteria
Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish
Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject)
Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)
Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.
Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)
Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons
Person in this article does not breach the Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.
Redundant or otherwise useless templates
Categories representing overcategorization
Files that are unused, obsolete, or violate the non-free policyAny other use of the article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace
Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia
Comment: For the sake of easing the reading for other editor's viewing this discussion... let's review what sources we have so far related to Demehin in relation to
WP:GNG as of the 16:04, 19 January 2018 revision. We have:
Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
A
behind the scenes video from Jenifa's Diary including interview segments with Demehin produced and posted to YouTube by SceneOne, the show's production company
Significant coverage Y, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
The
About Us page for Mercy Upon Mercy, an organization founded by Demehin and his wife, that lists him as Co-Founder with no other information.
Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
A brief (three line)
blog post from Mercy Upon Mercy about a trip led by Demehin and his wife to an old folk's home
Significant coverage N, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
The
About Us page for Kr8tvt Solutions, a web design company founded by Demehin.
Significant coverage Y, reliable source Y, independent of subject N
An
article about Demehin on BooshBingBang, a blog run by a Nigerian expat in the UK (interestingly enough, the web design for the blog was done by Demehin's company Kr8tvt).
Significant coverage Y, reliable source N, independent of subject Not sure
Just a reminder. An article does not need to meet all the requirements to appear on Wikipedia especially as stated under NACTOR.
Eitherway. I still stand my ground that this article only needs improvement, rather than deletion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Davioseki (
talk •
contribs)
20:48, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Ademiyan does not meet any of the three specifications of
WP:NACTOR, he is not notable, not only by Wikipedia guidelines but also from the dictionary definition of notability. He is currently a nobody in Nollywood. This is not about lack of sources, this is about reality.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
23:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Agreed with HandsomeBoy.
WP:BIO says that if a subject does not meet the NACTOR criteria they may still be notable under
WP:GNG. Demehin's lack of multiple significant roles means he does not meet NACTOR and, as I showed above, he does not meet GNG requirements of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise, per
WP:FAILN, non-notable topics without plausible merge targets are generally deleted. RA0808talkcontribs00:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Handsomeboy, just because an actor is a "nobody" to you, does not make them a "nobody in Nollywood." Neither does it make the article useless to Wikipedia. Clearly I have searched for and provided enough links to show how others may be interested in this person.
WP:SCNR clearly states,
"...An article like this, however short it may be, does serve Wikipedia’s ultimate purpose. This article is useful. In other words, if a topic has received coverage (i.e. is noticed) in independent, reliable, and verifiable source/s, however big or small, significant or insignificant the coverage may be, the topic could be considered to be notable, i.e. capable of being noted or worthy of notice, and thus Wikipedia may have a stand-alone article on that topic..."
RA0808, fortunately for the article, you would be wrong to say that the article does not meet the significant coverage in independent, reliable and verifiable sources, and as such, should not be on Wikipedia.
Take a look at
WP:BLP1E and take note that, even if Adewale Demehin was mentioned in only one notable event, the Jenifa's Diary, yet, the page still deserves a stand alone page on Wikipedia.
Was the subject mentioned in one notable event with significant coverage? Yes, the Jenifa's Diary.
Was there a detailed coverage on the subject? Yes, the SceneOne TV YouTube channel.
Davioseki (
talk)
09:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Davi'O, I appreciate your enthusiasm for this topic but this is simply grasping. To begin:
WP:SCNR is an essay, as it clearly states at the top. Essays are not the same as guidelines or policies, and in fact have no official status on Wikipedia (see
WP:ESSAY). Even if it was, Demehin does not even meet the criteria given in SCNR of "coverage... in independent, reliable, and verifiable source/s" since it is questionable the BooshBingBang can be considered independent and all other sources are directly connected to Demehin (and thus not independent). Even SCNR - again, which has no official status since it is an essay - requires that a source be both independent and reliable.
SceneOne distribution are the production company for Jenifa's Dairy, owned by
Funke Akindele, how can you use them as a source to show significant coverage for an actor that they employ? The interview can never be independent! I'm done spending time on this pointless discussion, something I should dedicate to improving articles on genuinely notable topics. Your persistence and refusal to learn will not make you contribute constructively and enjoy Wikipedia.
HandsomeBoy (
talk)
00:44, 22 January 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.
This page lacks any reliable sources. What we have here are sources that aim to be comprehensive databases listing everyone involved in acting with no regard for impact, and which due to various issues have been judges by the Wikipedia community to not meet the criteria of reliable sources. Articles should be based on reliable sources, which we have lacking here. There is no clear evidence that any of his roles ever fit the description of a substantial role in a notable production. His film roles seem to have been minor and forgettable, and it is not clear any of his stage roles were even in productions that were notable. My google search for sources turned up absolutely nothing that was close to a notable source. It did near the start give me a hit for Bill Cosby, showing that entering the term William Black and actor into google get some interesting results. I also learned there have been other actors who went by both William Black and Bill Black, so if this article is kept, it may well need to be moved to William Black (actor born 1871).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
00:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep as the original creator of the article. Frankly, I don't understand the policy rationale under which this is nominated, since I believe the subject passes the notability requirements for an actor, and the nominator didn't actually provide a policy-based reason for deletion. IBDb is, as MarnetteD says, not a user-generated database such as IMDb, it is owned, compiled and run by The Broadway League -- the official national trade association for Broadway theater. I have had occasion to correct credits in the database, and in my discussions with them, I was required to provide proof of the change I wanted to make in the form of references such as printed programs and other reliable sources. Their information is based on their archives of Broadway productions and other reliable research materials.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
01:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment none of the above have demonstrated that the broadway database in any way limits its coverage to people who are involved in significant roles in notable productions, which is what would be needed to show that it is a source that adds towards notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)reply
You seem to be confusing notability as an article-level standard with an entry-level standard, just as you did when you mass-removed multiple entries from the articles of notable actors such as
Gilbert Roland,
ZaSu Pitts,
Leon Ames and others.
[64] It's quite possible for the career of a notable actor to consist in large part of non-notable roles, especially during the studio era, when most actors were essentially indentured servants who were required to do whatever the studio bosses told them to do.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
14:45, 20 January 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.
^Alexander Tarlinder (2017). Developer Testing: Building Quality into Software. Addison-Wesley.