The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non notable PR agency. I nominated the article for afd1 , when it was closed as delete. This time we need to protect against re-creation DGG (
talk )
23:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Insufficient media coverage - fails
WP:GNG. I was going to suggest merging to
J. Walter Thompson, with the single good source in the Social Wavelength article now, but there's no acquisitions section at JWT, and so it would be undue weight if added to the history section. If anyone ever does add JWT's acquisitions to a section, this could warrant at least a sentence, but otherwise, it's a delete.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)01:22, 29 September 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. Even if it did happen, the article consists entirely of uselessly empty tables. The orginal wording of the article was "is scheduled to be held". This was changed by later editors, probably as a copyedit simply because the date had passed.
SpinningSpark01:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Was the softball competition supposed to be held and then was canceled? Or was it never supposed to be held? If it was supposed to be held, we can discuss the cancellation at the
2016 South Asian Games article and redirect this there, per
WP:ATD. Otherwise, it should be deleted per above.
Smartyllama (
talk)
16:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I would go along with that if there were a source for it, but even the source in the article fails to verify that it was even ever scheduled, let alone the reason for not going ahead.
SpinningSpark17:16, 27 September 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 ANI thread was for that I nominated 160 articles in 1 day. That was way to much, and I acknowledged that I was wrong there. Trying to get this article speedy kept because of admin incompetence and an ANI thread for mass nominating is just awful. This article will certainly not be speedy kept. There are no reasons to keep this. »
Shadowowl |
talk10:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep based on results of two prior AfDs, with no new argument being presented as to why they should be overturned. BBC and LA Times articles are
reliable sources, and there are others available as well - see
here at the Japan Times,
here in a book about centenarians,
here at CBS News, etc.
PohranicniStraze (
talk)
00:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The first and last one just confirm that he is dead. That is just
WP:ROUTINE coverage and it does not prove notability. The second one is a list, and cannot be used to claim notability. »
Shadowowl |
talk10:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The guideline at
WP:ROUTINE states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." None of the sources provided, nor the additional ones I pointed out, are in that category. The sources provided are fairly long, in-depth retrospectives of the subject's life, not at all within the purview of that policy. While you may not think simply being old makes one notable, multiple reliable sources seem to disagree; most people do not get multiple international news articles on them when they die.
PohranicniStraze (
talk)
15:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Source 1, BBC, says little more than he died + some trivia. The second source is full of sensationalism. The third source is a GRG table, which cannot be used to establish notability. The fourth source is a expansion on the first source and the best source we have. Source 5 and 7 are lists, and don't count for notability. The 6th source is another death+trivia report And again, these sources don't point out WHY this person is notable, they only report on his death. »
Shadowowl |
talk16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
They all say why he's notable. It's right in the leads: BBC - "A retired Japanese silkworm breeder believed to have been the world's oldest man has died at the age of 114" LAT - "Yukichi Chuganji, the world's oldest man, died Sunday at the age of 114" Japan Times - "Yukichi Chuganji, 114, the oldest man in the world, died of natural causes Sunday at his home" CBS - "Yukichi Chuganji, a retired silkworm breeder documented as the world's oldest man, died at his home in Japan at age 114" (emphasis mine). Just because you
don't agree that extreme age is notable, doesn't mean others can't believe it is notable.
PohranicniStraze (
talk)
16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO1E because there is only
WP:ROUTINE coverage of him that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how he relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions and the usual longevity trivia (born, had kids, lived with a daughter, died). There is nothing else to say about him. His age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
09:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. The article on a deceased (i.e. non-
WP:BLP) man has already been nominated twice. Each time it was closed as keep. Not no consensus or near keep, i.e. a borderline keep. Not even once. I try to remain open minded but where is the change versus previous discussions? This information feels missing to me.
gidonb (
talk)
11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
This topic area has a LONG (we're talking at least a decade) history of off-wiki canvassing which clearly happened in the first and second AFD's so now that the 110 Club has put their socks away a much clearer discussion can happen. Consensus can also change as well.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
All except 1 keep vote were he is old so he must be notable which isn't policy. It should have been a NC close, as the keep arguments were repeating the same. »
Shadowowl |
talk13:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge per
WP:NOPAGE. After removing all the fancruft about "titleholders", there's just the barest bio info left. In most of these discussions we don't need to reach the question of whether they're notable, because even if they are they're still best presented in a list, per NOPAGE.
EEng17:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list.
WP:NOPAGE and
WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. Half the article is either unsourced longevity trivia about his predecessors/successors or original research about how someone was older but later is no longer recognised. What's left is the absolute bare life basics of born, bred worms, had a daughter who outlived him, became oldest man and then died. Entry on a list is enough because there is never going to be more than 5 things to say about him.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per
WP:N. Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because
consensus can change. When it comes down to sourcing that provides encyclopedic content per WP:N, I do not feel that there is enough here to justify a stand-alone article.
CanadianPaul21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. In earlier years we kept all too many articles in this field. But the oldest person on a world basis or whoever has a reasonable claim to it, with at least somewhat acceptable sources, is appropriate for a WP article. DGG (
talk )
23:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC) .reply
Keep as notable per
WP:GNG. I would suggest that being, at one point in time, the world's oldest living person is an exclusive club, and one for which general readership will seek encyclopedic information. There is more verifiable information here than fits neatly within a list. The encyclopedia would therefore not be improved by its deletion.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)19:33, 28 September 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. No consensus to delete, which is a default keep. A merge could be discussed elsewhere. Curiously, I found that I closed the first Afd back in 2010 as well, what are the odds :) Tone09:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Non-notable person. Contains the usual trivia. Source 1 is a list. Source 2 confirms that she's dead and the other one is a GBWR listing. Nothing makes this person significant. Being old is not an achievement but is instead based on luck. »
Shadowowl |
talk21:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: You are hurting the case for keeping this article -- a cause I support! -- by comparing it to
Chiyo Miyako, an article whose defense you and your friends so bungled that it wound up getting merged despite there definitely being enough to build a standalone article. (Another user's edit-warring to keep it as a standalone article after the deletion review ended is beside the point.)
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
01:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse
WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The vast majority of the content in the article is the usual longevity trivia (born, married, had kids, got separated, died). Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge/redirect Per Eng#s and Newshunter12. Being the WOP does NOT automatically qualify as notable, there needs to be sufficient content to justify an article. There isn't, all meaningful encyclopedic content can be found in a list, or at a stretch, a mini-bio.
DerbyCountyinNZ(
TalkContribs)04:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Another clumsy nomination. Having been the oldest person ever in Japan, let alone Asia, is a highly noteworthy achievement, and the article already includes more reliably sourced information than the vast majority of the sub-stubs left in the mainspace by Andrew Davidson and the like. I'm confident most of the community would !vote keep even without my help, but there's also the risk this AFD will be overrun by bullshit keepist !votes with no basis in policy, as happened
here, and the closer dismisses them all as a result.
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list.
WP:NOPAGE and
WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here if the sources meant she was "notable". There is never going to be more than 5 things to say about her (born, married, had kids, became oldest in country, died). Much better handled on a list and not a standalone article.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per
WP:N. Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because
consensus can change and there is no policy that states being the oldest anything is automatically notable; it comes down to sourcing, which in this case I feel is insufficient for a stand-alone article.
CanadianPaul21:34, 25 September 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 reason for the deletion is that Panjiayu Massacre may be a fake event.
Checking the page history, I found that the person who created this page has only one purpose.His purpose is to make this page and this historical event.But this page has no reference.
It may be my prejudice, but when there is no more reliable reference, I can't believe the point of view from China.
Since you bring up the matter of the edit history (and inferred purpose) of the creator of this article, I'd point out that your own (short) edit history exhibits some extraordinary features. Anyway, yes, this massacre occurred, regardless of the claims made decades later about a hotel and police in Sweden. Therefore reject the deletion rationale, and at least for now keep this (very poor) article. --
Hoary (
talk)
04:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, meets
WP:GNG, from the sources cited above, also a gsearch of "hebei Massacre 1941" brings up more sources, most are from chinese publications that some may suggest are bias but i have been unable to find any sources that state that this did not ocur.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
06:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep'. I see multiple google book hits for this, and
this Routledge handboox satisfies me in that it is treated as a factual event. In as much as this is a hoax - it would be a notable hoax - and one would expect strong sources backing up this assertion (given the multiple sources treating this as factual) - as opposed to an editor's opinion.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I am surprised that we should have an article on the massacre and none on the place where it took place. Currently the article has one source (in Chinese). If it did happen, it is certainly notable, but I cannot judge whether it did.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Finding sources that even verify existence for small villages outside of Europe and North America is often difficult. Many get nominated and deleted at AfD leading to our populated places articles being heavily skewed. We at least have
Panjiayuan Subdistrict. I am surprised that you are unsure of the existence of the event. Do you not find the sources presented in this discussion convincing?
SpinningSpark19:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Panjiayuan is completely different from Panjiayu. Panjiayu Village was and still is located in
Huoshiying,
Fengrun,
Tangshan,
Hebei, China. There are at least 700,000 villages in China, the majority of them with a population over 1000 and therefore meeting
WP:GEOLAND, but the truth is we barely have articles on Chinese towns (like
Huoshiying) which typically administer 10-100 villages.
Timmyshin (
talk)
21:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Sometimes there are multiple places with the same name, and often there are multiple transliterations possible for non-English (and all the more so - non-Latin alphabet) locations - I've seen a few for the massacre (including one word vs. two words - e.g. the Routledge source above uses "Pan Jiayu" and not "Panjiayu"). As for our systemic bias- yes - see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheed Pir Chandam for instance - this was a small village with fairly ancient, but less notable, shrine. Chandam, though a minor figure, has locations named after him throughout the Indian subcontinent. There are also 4 different spelling variations in English (dam, dram, dan, dran) - and this in a country (Pakistan) where English enjoys an official status. I actually ended up verifying the location of this village on a satellite image through (un sourced) information in the pre-deletion article that described it in relation to other larger towns - and then located the photographed shrine in the satellite image. After verifying the location, with two (in google maps - the road was written different from the town) variant spelling on the one we had in the article + province name / nearby settlement names - we were able to find in the AfD a few sources mentioning this... No Urdu-Wiki entry for this one .... In short - small locations in countries that do not use English and that don't have a very active editor base - often get overlooked. We probably have an entry on almost each ghost town and itty bitty village in the US - but coverage in China or Africa - including larger and older settlements - is much more spotty.
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:29, 27 September 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 expounds in great detail one side of a quite obscure religious dispute pertaining to a specific religious denomination. The sources remain unclear (there are page numbers, but of which work?), and more importantly, it's entirely unclear how this very particular topic meets
WP:GNG or is of interest to readers of a generalist encyclopedia. The topic is covered at a more appropriate level and more understandably at
Orthodox Church in America#Recognition of autocephaly. Sandstein 19:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, the creator,
LoveMonkey (
talk·contribs), is now indef-blocked for "crass battleground attitude, personal attacks, long-term tendentious editing agenda" and for violating a topic ban regarding East-West religious disputes, so there may well be problems with this content that are not immediately obvious. Sandstein 19:58, 22 September 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. Whether or not it is currently manufactured is irrelevant. There are numerous early-20th sources covering this, including a lengthy entry over several pages in
The Book of Cheese]. As to whether it is still made, the closest I could find was an entry in
The Complete Book of Cheese] which mentions it disparigingly in the past tense, but without actually saying it is now unobtainable. Further coverage
[6][7].
SpinningSpark19:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion is clearly at odds with community practice: The notability guidelines are routinely applied to old articles. Sandstein 15:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Despite 44 references in the article itself, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The articles either discuss/review the products and not the company (fails CORPDEPTH) or are based on announcements/PR/quotations/interviews with company sources (fails ORGIND). Overall, fails GNG and
WP:NCORP. [Edit: the company was acquired by
Zagg in 2016 but I don't see a lot in this article that could be merged].
HighKing++ 17:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The notability guidelines have been changed since the article's creation. I would not consider new guidelines on this to apply to articles created before that date.
Daylen (
talk)
19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
delete blatant advertisement and obvious subject of heavy promotional editing, likely UPE. See
here. If somebody wants to create an actual encyclopedia article on this company they can. This should be nuked. yes NCORP applies to everything. There is no "grandfathering".
Jytdog (
talk)
20:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Actually, someone
did create an actual encyclopedia article on it - that person being me - however, the issue here is that it has been turned into a promotion-fest since that time. It's sad when a company is notable enough that someone decides to write about it, then editors with a likely COI come along and ruin it. I am kind of conflicted here as the
companyisnotable (just three but there are many more). The problem I see is that the current version could likely be speedied based on
WP:NOT. With that being said, they (anyone adding the promotional tone) made their own bed and I'll abstain from voting and leave it up to the rest of the community to decide the article's fate. I won't be heartbroken if deleted. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
16:17, 25 September 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.
Loose Women is notable, and the episodes of a notable series are verifiable. So the nominator does not raise any valid complaints here. But as this is a talk show and not the kind of series for which we presumptively list episode-specific information, there is still a possible basis for deletion. So let's focus on that... postdlf (talk)
16:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
There aren't any sources in the article at present. The only way to check would be to watch the episode as it airs but that can't be linked. There was a maintenance tag on the page. It's a valid complaint. The information seems too specific as well. The number of episodes that each panelist/presenter has appeared on is sufficient in the main article.
Matt14451 (
talk)
16:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Sourcing is only relevant to deletion if it can't be sourced, so no, what is "in the article at present" is not relevant to deletion (and no, watching a TV show when it originally airs is not the only way to verify its contents, unless you've somehow time traveled to the 1950s). The second part of your comment is on the right track as far as what is relevant here. postdlf (talk)
16:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, no sourcing and seemingly cannot be sourced, so failing
WP:No original research. I would happily change my mind if someone can provide adequate sourcing for all the episodes of just one series, assuming good faith that the remainder could similarly be sourced. Until and unless that happens, though, it's a delete from me. Fish+
Karate14:17, 25 September 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.
Unsourced, unverified. Pin points to urban area of modern Ras Al Khaimah - Al Fulaya Plaza nearby shopping centre likely all that's left of any community that may have existed here. Not notable.
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I have redirected the page to the current
Al Falayah Fort, a landmark which today stands at the former location of the settlement and a name in modern usage and a notable place. I hope this sorts out the issue of this mad, archaic stub. Best.
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
16:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The idea is fine, but technically and procedurally it is not good to redirect during AFD, could you undo that,
Alexandermcnabb? (Speaking for myself I don't mind if you redirect the second this discussion is closed, if you are sure to fort is located in the same area.) SamSailor18:21, 20 September 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done
WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time.
SpinningSpark18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep First of all, infobox is not necessary. An article may or may not have it. Secondly, it passes
WP:GEOLAND as it says, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable."Knightrises10 (
talk)
14:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done
WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time.
SpinningSpark18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done
WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time.
SpinningSpark18:09, 22 September 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.
Nominally, this is an acceptable outcome, but the dab page lists only a dozen out of the hundreds of Sanskrit-related topics. I don't think we should be creating such "Outline of" style articles unless they're at least partially complete to begin with and there are editors willing to expand and maintain them. –
Uanfala (talk)13:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Arguably,
Sanskrit studies and
Sanskrit are ambiguous. In that case, however, the language is the primary usage and disambiguation can be done with a hatnote. I would therefore not object to deletion, though it might be good to have some sort of navigation aid, as discussed by Narky Blert and Unafala, above.
Cnilep (
talk)
00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Retitle I believe in the organic growth of such lists, and their periodic reorganization. Here there is too much potentially available for a list in "See also", and while the "CategoriesM" list at
Portal:Sanskrit is useful, it is not the only way to organize the articles. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Retitle I'd dispute the OP that The term Sanskrit isn't ambiguous. similarly to Cnilep, since the base word "Sanskrit" could refer to almost any of those articles depending on context, meaning the word itself is ambiguous as far as our article titles go, but it has a clear primary topic. (If I tell my non-Star Wars fan coworker that I'm going to see "Star Wars" after work, I'm probably referring to whichever new film in the franchise is in cinemas now, and not the original 1977 film or to "the franchise overall" -- whatever that would mean. This is similar, as "translated from the Sanskrit" could better refer to
Sanskrit Buddhist literature,
Sanskrit Wikipedia, etc., depending on context.) That said, retitling is probably the better move to begin with.
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
04:31, 27 September 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: fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BAND. The article from Above Average Hip Hop is the only in-depth source about the band, and it may not pass as a reliable source. There are two references which are about two artists that the group has worked with, but Bonnevilla aren't mentioned in either article. Everything else is social media and links to videos for the tracks and download sites.
Richard3120 (
talk)
22:07, 27 September 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 has been here a couple of days now. No sign of meeting
WP:Notability. Also, it's only source isn't reliable. NOTE I removed a wiki project source which was it's second source.
6Packs (
talk)
08:53, 22 September 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 is not notable per
WP:BASIC, no in depth coverage at non-affiliated sources in article, Google searches didn't return any significant secondary source coverage, no clear claim to notability independent of coverage in sources.
Rosguilltalk07:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment My own Google searches returned dozens of mentions in relation to different projects. There is very good coverage of her "Google doodle". Other mentions are in less depth, but she certinaly has aprofessional profile as an illustrator/comics artist I'm not sure how the nominator missed her bing mentioned in
The Independent, the
Comics Alliance, in
Elle India and the
Financial Post. While the sources could be more in depth, she certainly has a professional presence and has some coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know what to say other than that these sources didn't show up in the first few pages of Google search results when I searched "Devaki Neogi"--what did show up was promotional outlets advertising her, but not providing the sort of neutral in-depth coverage we expect. I do want to point out that the elle.in article does not mention Devaki Neogi by name, and that the Financial Express and Independent sources merely namedrop her in connection with one work each. The coverage on Comics Alliance is the most significant of all provided sources, and even that one seems to just be an interview with a colleague of Neogi's that gives her some very warm shoutouts. I don't think there's any question that Neogi is an artist for graphic novels and that she has received some recognition in her career, but these mentions don't appear to quite be enough to meet
WP:BASIC,
WP:GNGRosguilltalk17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree with you. I just wanted to comment that there is some up and coming notability based on mentions in good sources, but you are right, it is not in depth.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
01:21, 8 September 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, incorrect and invalid deletion arguments. "We do not have lists like this for any other country."
List of years in Denmark,
List of years in China,
List of years in Mongolia,
List of years in Thailand,
List of years in Andorra... Looks like we actually may have them for every country. So the only deletion rationale offered is a contradiction of
WP:NOTDUP without any justification. The lists, on top of simply being the preference of many editors/readers to work with in addition to or instead of categories, can also do two things that the categories cannot: include redlinks, and organize all on one page under clear headers what is broken up in the category structure into subcategories. postdlf (talk)
13:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per postdlf and trout nominator because the claim of uniqueness is disproven by two of the navboxes in the article. Any deletion of such a list would need to be applied consistently, and that would require an RFC (which would be all but certain to fail). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~06:21, 23 September 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.
Nowhere near encyclopedic value. Pure trivia. This is just collection of information for the sake of having another list.
Tvx1
14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Really? So a page that helps people identify historical figures by nicknames, when they may not know the actual name, has no value? Despite the fact I created the page just for that reason (not, I might say, "for the sake of having another list"). Of course, this is just another effort to delete every damn page I ever created. So what about
this? Not notable, I suppose? Or
this? No "encyclopedic value", right? Or
this? Which has already been deleted once before as "not notable", but didn't stick; go ahead, try again. Or
this, clearly no value there, either, right? Just because you don't like it, it has to go, I guess, & that anybody but you might find it useful makes no difference, right? Right. Why don't you try creating a page, rather than working so damn hard to delete them? Oh, wait, then you'd have to put up with my "unencyclopedic" ones... What a tragedy.
My Name Is Nobodyjust shoot me14:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not seeing the claimed value of this list as a navigation aid. If a person wants to find a general known as "Butch" for instance, the list is useless unless you already know it exists. The target can be found much more directly from the
Butch disambiguation page which points to
Butch (nickname) where I find two generals of that name
William H. Blanchard and
Clyde J. Tate II. That example, by the way, highlights the severe sourcing problems with this page. The pages for both those generals confirm the nickname but they are not on the list. However,
Crosbie E. Saint is but his article says nothing about a nickname. It's one thing not to have every item in a list cited, but at the very least the linked article should confirm the fact. If kept, this needs cleaning up big time.
SpinningSpark17:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep (& not only because I created the page). Yes, completeness is an issue; that presupposes any given editor knows every figure with a given nickname, or knows the list exists. Given the number of editors (& individual pages!), I don't see how that's a fixable problem. That, IMO, does not mean the page itself has no merit; WP itself is a WIP... It does seem the idea of "value" to potential readers does have no merit, however, which puzzles me; "encyclpedic", by definition, would seem to mean "wide coverage", so why does a page that can point readers from nicknames to actual people a bad idea?
TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura05:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A large proportion (well over 50%) of military personnel have had a nickname. We would delete a
List of military figures, even if inclusion is by wiki notability, as simply too large a list - this list - a list of all military people, notable ones, with a nickname - is approximately the same order of magnitude of size - failing
WP:SALAT. I also doubt that nicknames of all military personnel (from all ages / locations) are discussed a set.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)reply
List of aviators - being much fewer (very few pilots overall - compared to ground crew or greens - though all (or 98%) of pilots have nicknames/callsigns), and being period scoped to the last 100 and a bit years - is 2-3 ordrrs of magnitude less indiscriminate.
Icewhiz (
talk)
22:25, 17 September 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.
Kept at AfD in 2005, but we've since developed
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG which this woman fails.
Cary, North Carolina is certainly not a big enough town to grant a presumption of notability to council members, and there aren't enough non-local sources about this woman to justify keeping the article under GNG. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)07:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete city council members in cities the size of Cary are very rarely notable and nothing suggests that Dorrel is an exception to that rule. We kept way too many things back in the 00s.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. City councillors receive an automatic presumption of notability only if they serve in major, internationally famous
global cities on the order of New York City, Chicago, Toronto or London — outside of that narrow range of cities, city councillors are deemed notable only if they can be
reliably sourced well enough to qualify as special cases of significantly greater and more nationalized notability than most other city councillors in non-global cities But this is referenced to just two glancing namecheck of her existences in local media pieces that aren't about her to any non-trivial degree, which is not the type or volume of sourcing it takes.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:21, 25 September 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 show was filmed in 2010 but according to Chinese Wikipedia, never picked up by any TV station.
WP:NTV: "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network." I would however recommend userfication so that it can be moved back to mainspace in the unlikely event that it gets syndicated.
Timmyshin (
talk)
06:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Easy one here. No significant coverage that proves notability, with absolutely no information about the network it aired on, or when it exactly aired. Just nothing is present to justify the article.
WP:GNG failed.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
00:37, 29 September 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.
Non-notable TV show. No hits for this show in English. This may be suitable for Estonian Wikipedia but not English Wikipedia and there are absolutely no references.
Pkbwcgs (
talk)
12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is there a good argument for deletion here? If it's suitable for Estonian Wikipedia, it's suitable for all Wikipedias. We don't need English-language coverage for a topic to be notable. --
Michig (
talk)
06:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Michig: The article is unsourced and all sources are in Estonian so it is not suitable for English Wikipedia if sources are in Estonian. We need sources that are in English so that it can be covered by an English encyclopedia. If you can find English sources, please feel free to add them but I couldn't.
Pkbwcgs (
talk)
13:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Like Michig said, the language of sources are not important in this case, but....to establish
WP:GNG it needs *significant* coverage with secondary, reliable sources, something this show and this article do not have.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
00:21, 29 September 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 The case study can
be found here but it in turn states the content is derived from the Canadian Industrial Research Assistance Program where CleanPix was a client, therefore this source isn't intellectually independent and fails ORGIND. The other references are also mainly from connected sources, failing
WP:ORGIND. There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 16:42, 22 September 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.
See
film notability guidelines, and in particular
future film guidelines. Unreleased films are not notable unless they are in principal photography and the production itself is notable. There is no mention in this article of principal photography, which can be assumed not to have begun.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteLZMA uses a statistical Lempel-Ziv approach
[11], but that point doesn't seem to be widely discussed. As such, it might be worth a brief mention in the LZMA article. But I have been unable to find multiple in depth secondary sources discussing these particular primary sources. Hence delete or perhaps merge a sentence into
LZMA with the secondary ref above would be reasonable outcomes. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}02:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
strong Keep -- A google scholar search (of the name of the article in quotes)
[12] shows that a number of the secondary sources do call it by the name created in the original paper. For example
[13] says "A variant of the Lempel-Ziv Algorithm called Statistical Lempel-Ziv Compression Algorithm was used in a study to compress text and C files [14]." Rathore
[14] has a long section starting: "Statistical Lempel-Ziv was a concept created by Dr. Sam Kwong and Yu Fan Ho in 2001. The basic principle it operates on is that a statistical analysis of the data can be combined with an LZ77-variant algorithm to further optimize what codes are stored in the dictionary." I see enough references in secondary sources by that name to give it a keep. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
09:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 10:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC) noting that some of the articles are from a predatory journal.]reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per new information presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100002:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The Rathore article (Y Rathore, MK Ahirwar, R Pandey, "A Brief Study of Data Compression Algorithms", in (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 11, No. 10, October 2013) (the fifth item in
this Google scholar search) is not original research but a review of existing research:
Abstract—This paper present survey of several lossless data compression techniques and its corresponding algorithms. A set of selected algorithms are studied and examined. This paper concluded by stating which algorithm performs well for text data.
I am not sure why it has such glaring English grammar errors. Maybe because engineers wrote and reviewed it? :)
Also,
this is another review article (Upasana Mahajan, Prashanth C.S.R, "Algorithms for Data-Compression in Wireless Computing Systems", IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL. 14, No.9, September 2014.):
This paper presents the survey of various lossless data compression algorithms. [from Absract]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and Note that google immediately suggested that I search "Heinrich Pesch Haus". The turns up descriptions of academic conferences that take place there, distinguished people who have worked there, and similar in both books and journals, almost all in Deutsch, but a few in English and other European languages. Being housed in a handsome, free-standing building/campus is usually an indication that an institution of any kind is significant. Clearly a notable academic conference center for scholarly and socially/economically progressive study and conferences.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
10:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per new information presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100001:12, 22 September 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. Non notable PR agency. I nominated the article for afd1 , when it was closed as delete. This time we need to protect against re-creation DGG (
talk )
23:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Insufficient media coverage - fails
WP:GNG. I was going to suggest merging to
J. Walter Thompson, with the single good source in the Social Wavelength article now, but there's no acquisitions section at JWT, and so it would be undue weight if added to the history section. If anyone ever does add JWT's acquisitions to a section, this could warrant at least a sentence, but otherwise, it's a delete.
TimTempleton(talk)(cont)01:22, 29 September 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. Even if it did happen, the article consists entirely of uselessly empty tables. The orginal wording of the article was "is scheduled to be held". This was changed by later editors, probably as a copyedit simply because the date had passed.
SpinningSpark01:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Was the softball competition supposed to be held and then was canceled? Or was it never supposed to be held? If it was supposed to be held, we can discuss the cancellation at the
2016 South Asian Games article and redirect this there, per
WP:ATD. Otherwise, it should be deleted per above.
Smartyllama (
talk)
16:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I would go along with that if there were a source for it, but even the source in the article fails to verify that it was even ever scheduled, let alone the reason for not going ahead.
SpinningSpark17:16, 27 September 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 ANI thread was for that I nominated 160 articles in 1 day. That was way to much, and I acknowledged that I was wrong there. Trying to get this article speedy kept because of admin incompetence and an ANI thread for mass nominating is just awful. This article will certainly not be speedy kept. There are no reasons to keep this. »
Shadowowl |
talk10:09, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep based on results of two prior AfDs, with no new argument being presented as to why they should be overturned. BBC and LA Times articles are
reliable sources, and there are others available as well - see
here at the Japan Times,
here in a book about centenarians,
here at CBS News, etc.
PohranicniStraze (
talk)
00:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The first and last one just confirm that he is dead. That is just
WP:ROUTINE coverage and it does not prove notability. The second one is a list, and cannot be used to claim notability. »
Shadowowl |
talk10:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The guideline at
WP:ROUTINE states that "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." None of the sources provided, nor the additional ones I pointed out, are in that category. The sources provided are fairly long, in-depth retrospectives of the subject's life, not at all within the purview of that policy. While you may not think simply being old makes one notable, multiple reliable sources seem to disagree; most people do not get multiple international news articles on them when they die.
PohranicniStraze (
talk)
15:45, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Source 1, BBC, says little more than he died + some trivia. The second source is full of sensationalism. The third source is a GRG table, which cannot be used to establish notability. The fourth source is a expansion on the first source and the best source we have. Source 5 and 7 are lists, and don't count for notability. The 6th source is another death+trivia report And again, these sources don't point out WHY this person is notable, they only report on his death. »
Shadowowl |
talk16:15, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
They all say why he's notable. It's right in the leads: BBC - "A retired Japanese silkworm breeder believed to have been the world's oldest man has died at the age of 114" LAT - "Yukichi Chuganji, the world's oldest man, died Sunday at the age of 114" Japan Times - "Yukichi Chuganji, 114, the oldest man in the world, died of natural causes Sunday at his home" CBS - "Yukichi Chuganji, a retired silkworm breeder documented as the world's oldest man, died at his home in Japan at age 114" (emphasis mine). Just because you
don't agree that extreme age is notable, doesn't mean others can't believe it is notable.
PohranicniStraze (
talk)
16:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO1E because there is only
WP:ROUTINE coverage of him that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The content of the article is pretty much just trivia on how he relates to other peoples longevity milestones or longevity milestones for various jurisdictions and the usual longevity trivia (born, had kids, lived with a daughter, died). There is nothing else to say about him. His age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on four different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
09:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. The article on a deceased (i.e. non-
WP:BLP) man has already been nominated twice. Each time it was closed as keep. Not no consensus or near keep, i.e. a borderline keep. Not even once. I try to remain open minded but where is the change versus previous discussions? This information feels missing to me.
gidonb (
talk)
11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
This topic area has a LONG (we're talking at least a decade) history of off-wiki canvassing which clearly happened in the first and second AFD's so now that the 110 Club has put their socks away a much clearer discussion can happen. Consensus can also change as well.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
All except 1 keep vote were he is old so he must be notable which isn't policy. It should have been a NC close, as the keep arguments were repeating the same. »
Shadowowl |
talk13:07, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge per
WP:NOPAGE. After removing all the fancruft about "titleholders", there's just the barest bio info left. In most of these discussions we don't need to reach the question of whether they're notable, because even if they are they're still best presented in a list, per NOPAGE.
EEng17:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list.
WP:NOPAGE and
WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here. Half the article is either unsourced longevity trivia about his predecessors/successors or original research about how someone was older but later is no longer recognised. What's left is the absolute bare life basics of born, bred worms, had a daughter who outlived him, became oldest man and then died. Entry on a list is enough because there is never going to be more than 5 things to say about him.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
11:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per
WP:N. Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because
consensus can change. When it comes down to sourcing that provides encyclopedic content per WP:N, I do not feel that there is enough here to justify a stand-alone article.
CanadianPaul21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. In earlier years we kept all too many articles in this field. But the oldest person on a world basis or whoever has a reasonable claim to it, with at least somewhat acceptable sources, is appropriate for a WP article. DGG (
talk )
23:52, 26 September 2018 (UTC) .reply
Keep as notable per
WP:GNG. I would suggest that being, at one point in time, the world's oldest living person is an exclusive club, and one for which general readership will seek encyclopedic information. There is more verifiable information here than fits neatly within a list. The encyclopedia would therefore not be improved by its deletion.
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)19:33, 28 September 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. No consensus to delete, which is a default keep. A merge could be discussed elsewhere. Curiously, I found that I closed the first Afd back in 2010 as well, what are the odds :) Tone09:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Non-notable person. Contains the usual trivia. Source 1 is a list. Source 2 confirms that she's dead and the other one is a GBWR listing. Nothing makes this person significant. Being old is not an achievement but is instead based on luck. »
Shadowowl |
talk21:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: You are hurting the case for keeping this article -- a cause I support! -- by comparing it to
Chiyo Miyako, an article whose defense you and your friends so bungled that it wound up getting merged despite there definitely being enough to build a standalone article. (Another user's edit-warring to keep it as a standalone article after the deletion review ended is beside the point.)
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
01:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete This article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BIO1E because there is only sparse
WP:ROUTINE coverage of her that fails to demonstrate notability and there is no notability guideline that "the oldest x" is notable. The vast majority of the content in the article is the usual longevity trivia (born, married, had kids, got separated, died). Her age, life dates, and nationality are already recorded on three different lists, where they are easier to view, so this article is not needed.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
09:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge/redirect Per Eng#s and Newshunter12. Being the WOP does NOT automatically qualify as notable, there needs to be sufficient content to justify an article. There isn't, all meaningful encyclopedic content can be found in a list, or at a stretch, a mini-bio.
DerbyCountyinNZ(
TalkContribs)04:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep Another clumsy nomination. Having been the oldest person ever in Japan, let alone Asia, is a highly noteworthy achievement, and the article already includes more reliably sourced information than the vast majority of the sub-stubs left in the mainspace by Andrew Davidson and the like. I'm confident most of the community would !vote keep even without my help, but there's also the risk this AFD will be overrun by bullshit keepist !votes with no basis in policy, as happened
here, and the closer dismisses them all as a result.
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
23:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete or Redirect to appropriate list.
WP:NOPAGE and
WP:PERMASTUB should almost certainly apply here if the sources meant she was "notable". There is never going to be more than 5 things to say about her (born, married, had kids, became oldest in country, died). Much better handled on a list and not a standalone article.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
11:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to one of the many longevity-related lists on Wikipedia. There seems to be more coverage here than usual, but nothing that justifies a stand-alone article per
WP:N. Previous nominations are irrelevant (unless made in quick succession) because
consensus can change and there is no policy that states being the oldest anything is automatically notable; it comes down to sourcing, which in this case I feel is insufficient for a stand-alone article.
CanadianPaul21:34, 25 September 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 reason for the deletion is that Panjiayu Massacre may be a fake event.
Checking the page history, I found that the person who created this page has only one purpose.His purpose is to make this page and this historical event.But this page has no reference.
It may be my prejudice, but when there is no more reliable reference, I can't believe the point of view from China.
Since you bring up the matter of the edit history (and inferred purpose) of the creator of this article, I'd point out that your own (short) edit history exhibits some extraordinary features. Anyway, yes, this massacre occurred, regardless of the claims made decades later about a hotel and police in Sweden. Therefore reject the deletion rationale, and at least for now keep this (very poor) article. --
Hoary (
talk)
04:20, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, meets
WP:GNG, from the sources cited above, also a gsearch of "hebei Massacre 1941" brings up more sources, most are from chinese publications that some may suggest are bias but i have been unable to find any sources that state that this did not ocur.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
06:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep'. I see multiple google book hits for this, and
this Routledge handboox satisfies me in that it is treated as a factual event. In as much as this is a hoax - it would be a notable hoax - and one would expect strong sources backing up this assertion (given the multiple sources treating this as factual) - as opposed to an editor's opinion.
Icewhiz (
talk)
11:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I am surprised that we should have an article on the massacre and none on the place where it took place. Currently the article has one source (in Chinese). If it did happen, it is certainly notable, but I cannot judge whether it did.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Finding sources that even verify existence for small villages outside of Europe and North America is often difficult. Many get nominated and deleted at AfD leading to our populated places articles being heavily skewed. We at least have
Panjiayuan Subdistrict. I am surprised that you are unsure of the existence of the event. Do you not find the sources presented in this discussion convincing?
SpinningSpark19:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Panjiayuan is completely different from Panjiayu. Panjiayu Village was and still is located in
Huoshiying,
Fengrun,
Tangshan,
Hebei, China. There are at least 700,000 villages in China, the majority of them with a population over 1000 and therefore meeting
WP:GEOLAND, but the truth is we barely have articles on Chinese towns (like
Huoshiying) which typically administer 10-100 villages.
Timmyshin (
talk)
21:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Sometimes there are multiple places with the same name, and often there are multiple transliterations possible for non-English (and all the more so - non-Latin alphabet) locations - I've seen a few for the massacre (including one word vs. two words - e.g. the Routledge source above uses "Pan Jiayu" and not "Panjiayu"). As for our systemic bias- yes - see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shaheed Pir Chandam for instance - this was a small village with fairly ancient, but less notable, shrine. Chandam, though a minor figure, has locations named after him throughout the Indian subcontinent. There are also 4 different spelling variations in English (dam, dram, dan, dran) - and this in a country (Pakistan) where English enjoys an official status. I actually ended up verifying the location of this village on a satellite image through (un sourced) information in the pre-deletion article that described it in relation to other larger towns - and then located the photographed shrine in the satellite image. After verifying the location, with two (in google maps - the road was written different from the town) variant spelling on the one we had in the article + province name / nearby settlement names - we were able to find in the AfD a few sources mentioning this... No Urdu-Wiki entry for this one .... In short - small locations in countries that do not use English and that don't have a very active editor base - often get overlooked. We probably have an entry on almost each ghost town and itty bitty village in the US - but coverage in China or Africa - including larger and older settlements - is much more spotty.
Icewhiz (
talk)
14:29, 27 September 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 expounds in great detail one side of a quite obscure religious dispute pertaining to a specific religious denomination. The sources remain unclear (there are page numbers, but of which work?), and more importantly, it's entirely unclear how this very particular topic meets
WP:GNG or is of interest to readers of a generalist encyclopedia. The topic is covered at a more appropriate level and more understandably at
Orthodox Church in America#Recognition of autocephaly. Sandstein 19:24, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, the creator,
LoveMonkey (
talk·contribs), is now indef-blocked for "crass battleground attitude, personal attacks, long-term tendentious editing agenda" and for violating a topic ban regarding East-West religious disputes, so there may well be problems with this content that are not immediately obvious. Sandstein 19:58, 22 September 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. Whether or not it is currently manufactured is irrelevant. There are numerous early-20th sources covering this, including a lengthy entry over several pages in
The Book of Cheese]. As to whether it is still made, the closest I could find was an entry in
The Complete Book of Cheese] which mentions it disparigingly in the past tense, but without actually saying it is now unobtainable. Further coverage
[6][7].
SpinningSpark19:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one "keep" opinion is clearly at odds with community practice: The notability guidelines are routinely applied to old articles. Sandstein 15:24, 29 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Despite 44 references in the article itself, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. The articles either discuss/review the products and not the company (fails CORPDEPTH) or are based on announcements/PR/quotations/interviews with company sources (fails ORGIND). Overall, fails GNG and
WP:NCORP. [Edit: the company was acquired by
Zagg in 2016 but I don't see a lot in this article that could be merged].
HighKing++ 17:17, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The notability guidelines have been changed since the article's creation. I would not consider new guidelines on this to apply to articles created before that date.
Daylen (
talk)
19:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
delete blatant advertisement and obvious subject of heavy promotional editing, likely UPE. See
here. If somebody wants to create an actual encyclopedia article on this company they can. This should be nuked. yes NCORP applies to everything. There is no "grandfathering".
Jytdog (
talk)
20:25, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - Actually, someone
did create an actual encyclopedia article on it - that person being me - however, the issue here is that it has been turned into a promotion-fest since that time. It's sad when a company is notable enough that someone decides to write about it, then editors with a likely COI come along and ruin it. I am kind of conflicted here as the
companyisnotable (just three but there are many more). The problem I see is that the current version could likely be speedied based on
WP:NOT. With that being said, they (anyone adding the promotional tone) made their own bed and I'll abstain from voting and leave it up to the rest of the community to decide the article's fate. I won't be heartbroken if deleted. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
16:17, 25 September 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.
Loose Women is notable, and the episodes of a notable series are verifiable. So the nominator does not raise any valid complaints here. But as this is a talk show and not the kind of series for which we presumptively list episode-specific information, there is still a possible basis for deletion. So let's focus on that... postdlf (talk)
16:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
There aren't any sources in the article at present. The only way to check would be to watch the episode as it airs but that can't be linked. There was a maintenance tag on the page. It's a valid complaint. The information seems too specific as well. The number of episodes that each panelist/presenter has appeared on is sufficient in the main article.
Matt14451 (
talk)
16:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Sourcing is only relevant to deletion if it can't be sourced, so no, what is "in the article at present" is not relevant to deletion (and no, watching a TV show when it originally airs is not the only way to verify its contents, unless you've somehow time traveled to the 1950s). The second part of your comment is on the right track as far as what is relevant here. postdlf (talk)
16:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, no sourcing and seemingly cannot be sourced, so failing
WP:No original research. I would happily change my mind if someone can provide adequate sourcing for all the episodes of just one series, assuming good faith that the remainder could similarly be sourced. Until and unless that happens, though, it's a delete from me. Fish+
Karate14:17, 25 September 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.
Unsourced, unverified. Pin points to urban area of modern Ras Al Khaimah - Al Fulaya Plaza nearby shopping centre likely all that's left of any community that may have existed here. Not notable.
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I have redirected the page to the current
Al Falayah Fort, a landmark which today stands at the former location of the settlement and a name in modern usage and a notable place. I hope this sorts out the issue of this mad, archaic stub. Best.
Alexandermcnabb (
talk)
16:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The idea is fine, but technically and procedurally it is not good to redirect during AFD, could you undo that,
Alexandermcnabb? (Speaking for myself I don't mind if you redirect the second this discussion is closed, if you are sure to fort is located in the same area.) SamSailor18:21, 20 September 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.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done
WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time.
SpinningSpark18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep First of all, infobox is not necessary. An article may or may not have it. Secondly, it passes
WP:GEOLAND as it says, "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can remain notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. One exception is that census tracts are usually not considered notable."Knightrises10 (
talk)
14:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done
WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time.
SpinningSpark18:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. I'm going to speedy all these nominations. Nominator clearly hasn't done
WP:BEFORE and these are only going to go one way. No point in wasting anybody elses time.
SpinningSpark18:09, 22 September 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.
Nominally, this is an acceptable outcome, but the dab page lists only a dozen out of the hundreds of Sanskrit-related topics. I don't think we should be creating such "Outline of" style articles unless they're at least partially complete to begin with and there are editors willing to expand and maintain them. –
Uanfala (talk)13:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Arguably,
Sanskrit studies and
Sanskrit are ambiguous. In that case, however, the language is the primary usage and disambiguation can be done with a hatnote. I would therefore not object to deletion, though it might be good to have some sort of navigation aid, as discussed by Narky Blert and Unafala, above.
Cnilep (
talk)
00:14, 23 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Retitle I believe in the organic growth of such lists, and their periodic reorganization. Here there is too much potentially available for a list in "See also", and while the "CategoriesM" list at
Portal:Sanskrit is useful, it is not the only way to organize the articles. --
Bejnar (
talk)
03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Retitle I'd dispute the OP that The term Sanskrit isn't ambiguous. similarly to Cnilep, since the base word "Sanskrit" could refer to almost any of those articles depending on context, meaning the word itself is ambiguous as far as our article titles go, but it has a clear primary topic. (If I tell my non-Star Wars fan coworker that I'm going to see "Star Wars" after work, I'm probably referring to whichever new film in the franchise is in cinemas now, and not the original 1977 film or to "the franchise overall" -- whatever that would mean. This is similar, as "translated from the Sanskrit" could better refer to
Sanskrit Buddhist literature,
Sanskrit Wikipedia, etc., depending on context.) That said, retitling is probably the better move to begin with.
Hijiri 88 (
聖やや)
04:31, 27 September 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: fails
WP:GNG and
WP:BAND. The article from Above Average Hip Hop is the only in-depth source about the band, and it may not pass as a reliable source. There are two references which are about two artists that the group has worked with, but Bonnevilla aren't mentioned in either article. Everything else is social media and links to videos for the tracks and download sites.
Richard3120 (
talk)
22:07, 27 September 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 has been here a couple of days now. No sign of meeting
WP:Notability. Also, it's only source isn't reliable. NOTE I removed a wiki project source which was it's second source.
6Packs (
talk)
08:53, 22 September 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 is not notable per
WP:BASIC, no in depth coverage at non-affiliated sources in article, Google searches didn't return any significant secondary source coverage, no clear claim to notability independent of coverage in sources.
Rosguilltalk07:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment My own Google searches returned dozens of mentions in relation to different projects. There is very good coverage of her "Google doodle". Other mentions are in less depth, but she certinaly has aprofessional profile as an illustrator/comics artist I'm not sure how the nominator missed her bing mentioned in
The Independent, the
Comics Alliance, in
Elle India and the
Financial Post. While the sources could be more in depth, she certainly has a professional presence and has some coverage.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
16:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I don't know what to say other than that these sources didn't show up in the first few pages of Google search results when I searched "Devaki Neogi"--what did show up was promotional outlets advertising her, but not providing the sort of neutral in-depth coverage we expect. I do want to point out that the elle.in article does not mention Devaki Neogi by name, and that the Financial Express and Independent sources merely namedrop her in connection with one work each. The coverage on Comics Alliance is the most significant of all provided sources, and even that one seems to just be an interview with a colleague of Neogi's that gives her some very warm shoutouts. I don't think there's any question that Neogi is an artist for graphic novels and that she has received some recognition in her career, but these mentions don't appear to quite be enough to meet
WP:BASIC,
WP:GNGRosguilltalk17:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree with you. I just wanted to comment that there is some up and coming notability based on mentions in good sources, but you are right, it is not in depth.
ThatMontrealIP (
talk)
01:21, 8 September 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, incorrect and invalid deletion arguments. "We do not have lists like this for any other country."
List of years in Denmark,
List of years in China,
List of years in Mongolia,
List of years in Thailand,
List of years in Andorra... Looks like we actually may have them for every country. So the only deletion rationale offered is a contradiction of
WP:NOTDUP without any justification. The lists, on top of simply being the preference of many editors/readers to work with in addition to or instead of categories, can also do two things that the categories cannot: include redlinks, and organize all on one page under clear headers what is broken up in the category structure into subcategories. postdlf (talk)
13:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per postdlf and trout nominator because the claim of uniqueness is disproven by two of the navboxes in the article. Any deletion of such a list would need to be applied consistently, and that would require an RFC (which would be all but certain to fail). ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~06:21, 23 September 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.
Nowhere near encyclopedic value. Pure trivia. This is just collection of information for the sake of having another list.
Tvx1
14:13, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Really? So a page that helps people identify historical figures by nicknames, when they may not know the actual name, has no value? Despite the fact I created the page just for that reason (not, I might say, "for the sake of having another list"). Of course, this is just another effort to delete every damn page I ever created. So what about
this? Not notable, I suppose? Or
this? No "encyclopedic value", right? Or
this? Which has already been deleted once before as "not notable", but didn't stick; go ahead, try again. Or
this, clearly no value there, either, right? Just because you don't like it, it has to go, I guess, & that anybody but you might find it useful makes no difference, right? Right. Why don't you try creating a page, rather than working so damn hard to delete them? Oh, wait, then you'd have to put up with my "unencyclopedic" ones... What a tragedy.
My Name Is Nobodyjust shoot me14:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm not seeing the claimed value of this list as a navigation aid. If a person wants to find a general known as "Butch" for instance, the list is useless unless you already know it exists. The target can be found much more directly from the
Butch disambiguation page which points to
Butch (nickname) where I find two generals of that name
William H. Blanchard and
Clyde J. Tate II. That example, by the way, highlights the severe sourcing problems with this page. The pages for both those generals confirm the nickname but they are not on the list. However,
Crosbie E. Saint is but his article says nothing about a nickname. It's one thing not to have every item in a list cited, but at the very least the linked article should confirm the fact. If kept, this needs cleaning up big time.
SpinningSpark17:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep (& not only because I created the page). Yes, completeness is an issue; that presupposes any given editor knows every figure with a given nickname, or knows the list exists. Given the number of editors (& individual pages!), I don't see how that's a fixable problem. That, IMO, does not mean the page itself has no merit; WP itself is a WIP... It does seem the idea of "value" to potential readers does have no merit, however, which puzzles me; "encyclpedic", by definition, would seem to mean "wide coverage", so why does a page that can point readers from nicknames to actual people a bad idea?
TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura05:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A large proportion (well over 50%) of military personnel have had a nickname. We would delete a
List of military figures, even if inclusion is by wiki notability, as simply too large a list - this list - a list of all military people, notable ones, with a nickname - is approximately the same order of magnitude of size - failing
WP:SALAT. I also doubt that nicknames of all military personnel (from all ages / locations) are discussed a set.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)reply
List of aviators - being much fewer (very few pilots overall - compared to ground crew or greens - though all (or 98%) of pilots have nicknames/callsigns), and being period scoped to the last 100 and a bit years - is 2-3 ordrrs of magnitude less indiscriminate.
Icewhiz (
talk)
22:25, 17 September 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.
Kept at AfD in 2005, but we've since developed
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG which this woman fails.
Cary, North Carolina is certainly not a big enough town to grant a presumption of notability to council members, and there aren't enough non-local sources about this woman to justify keeping the article under GNG. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)07:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete city council members in cities the size of Cary are very rarely notable and nothing suggests that Dorrel is an exception to that rule. We kept way too many things back in the 00s.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. City councillors receive an automatic presumption of notability only if they serve in major, internationally famous
global cities on the order of New York City, Chicago, Toronto or London — outside of that narrow range of cities, city councillors are deemed notable only if they can be
reliably sourced well enough to qualify as special cases of significantly greater and more nationalized notability than most other city councillors in non-global cities But this is referenced to just two glancing namecheck of her existences in local media pieces that aren't about her to any non-trivial degree, which is not the type or volume of sourcing it takes.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:21, 25 September 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 show was filmed in 2010 but according to Chinese Wikipedia, never picked up by any TV station.
WP:NTV: "in most cases, a television series is not eligible for an article until its scheduling as an ongoing series has been formally confirmed by a television network." I would however recommend userfication so that it can be moved back to mainspace in the unlikely event that it gets syndicated.
Timmyshin (
talk)
06:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Easy one here. No significant coverage that proves notability, with absolutely no information about the network it aired on, or when it exactly aired. Just nothing is present to justify the article.
WP:GNG failed.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
00:37, 29 September 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.
Non-notable TV show. No hits for this show in English. This may be suitable for Estonian Wikipedia but not English Wikipedia and there are absolutely no references.
Pkbwcgs (
talk)
12:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Is there a good argument for deletion here? If it's suitable for Estonian Wikipedia, it's suitable for all Wikipedias. We don't need English-language coverage for a topic to be notable. --
Michig (
talk)
06:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Michig: The article is unsourced and all sources are in Estonian so it is not suitable for English Wikipedia if sources are in Estonian. We need sources that are in English so that it can be covered by an English encyclopedia. If you can find English sources, please feel free to add them but I couldn't.
Pkbwcgs (
talk)
13:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Like Michig said, the language of sources are not important in this case, but....to establish
WP:GNG it needs *significant* coverage with secondary, reliable sources, something this show and this article do not have.
Jovanmilic97 (
talk)
00:21, 29 September 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 The case study can
be found here but it in turn states the content is derived from the Canadian Industrial Research Assistance Program where CleanPix was a client, therefore this source isn't intellectually independent and fails ORGIND. The other references are also mainly from connected sources, failing
WP:ORGIND. There doesn't appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notabilty, fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 16:42, 22 September 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.
See
film notability guidelines, and in particular
future film guidelines. Unreleased films are not notable unless they are in principal photography and the production itself is notable. There is no mention in this article of principal photography, which can be assumed not to have begun.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteLZMA uses a statistical Lempel-Ziv approach
[11], but that point doesn't seem to be widely discussed. As such, it might be worth a brief mention in the LZMA article. But I have been unable to find multiple in depth secondary sources discussing these particular primary sources. Hence delete or perhaps merge a sentence into
LZMA with the secondary ref above would be reasonable outcomes. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}02:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)reply
strong Keep -- A google scholar search (of the name of the article in quotes)
[12] shows that a number of the secondary sources do call it by the name created in the original paper. For example
[13] says "A variant of the Lempel-Ziv Algorithm called Statistical Lempel-Ziv Compression Algorithm was used in a study to compress text and C files [14]." Rathore
[14] has a long section starting: "Statistical Lempel-Ziv was a concept created by Dr. Sam Kwong and Yu Fan Ho in 2001. The basic principle it operates on is that a statistical analysis of the data can be combined with an LZ77-variant algorithm to further optimize what codes are stored in the dictionary." I see enough references in secondary sources by that name to give it a keep. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
09:34, 20 September 2018 (UTC) [revised 10:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC) noting that some of the articles are from a predatory journal.]reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per new information presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100002:13, 22 September 2018 (UTC)reply
The Rathore article (Y Rathore, MK Ahirwar, R Pandey, "A Brief Study of Data Compression Algorithms", in (IJCSIS) International Journal of Computer Science and Information Security, Vol. 11, No. 10, October 2013) (the fifth item in
this Google scholar search) is not original research but a review of existing research:
Abstract—This paper present survey of several lossless data compression techniques and its corresponding algorithms. A set of selected algorithms are studied and examined. This paper concluded by stating which algorithm performs well for text data.
I am not sure why it has such glaring English grammar errors. Maybe because engineers wrote and reviewed it? :)
Also,
this is another review article (Upasana Mahajan, Prashanth C.S.R, "Algorithms for Data-Compression in Wireless Computing Systems", IJCSNS International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security, VOL. 14, No.9, September 2014.):
This paper presents the survey of various lossless data compression algorithms. [from Absract]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and Note that google immediately suggested that I search "Heinrich Pesch Haus". The turns up descriptions of academic conferences that take place there, distinguished people who have worked there, and similar in both books and journals, almost all in Deutsch, but a few in English and other European languages. Being housed in a handsome, free-standing building/campus is usually an indication that an institution of any kind is significant. Clearly a notable academic conference center for scholarly and socially/economically progressive study and conferences.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
10:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting per new information presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100001:12, 22 September 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.