Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 5
Contents
- 1 Goodwood Kartways
- 2 Battery Kartodromas
- 3 Susan McCray
- 4 Timelog Project
- 5 Balls Boys
- 6 2010 Jama Masjid attack
- 7 JoAnn Genette
- 8 Weinberger Law Group
- 9 World Live Music & Distribution
- 10 Viatrophy
- 11 Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit
- 12 Marcelo Feldman
- 13 Paul Gerhard Vogel
- 14 Kabul Medical University (Peshawar)
- 15 Robert T. Rhode
- 16 Dream Chord
- 17 Electron confinement
- 18 TheOptionsLab
- 19 Kelvin Phillips
- 20 Mama grizzly
- 21 Gainesville Interchange
- 22 Andrew Blake Ames
- 23 Landshark (Transformers)
- 24 Sentinel Maximus
- 25 Well-being & Progress Index (WIP)
- 26 Vintage Hawaiian Treasures
- 27 The Analysis Code
- 28 Suicide of Tyler Clementi
- 29 Hampshire County Youth Choir
- 30 Daemonium (album)
- 31 Gou-rou.com
- 32 Greenhouse Park
- 33 Kai Fu
- 34 Kumite-ryu Jujutsu
- 35 List of years in politics
- 36 World Modern Arnis Alliance
- 37 World Tang Soo Do Association
- 38 Haji Springer
- 39 AddictingGames
- 40 2010 Milk Cup squads
- 41 New ideas in physics
- 42 Vitali Kapovitch
- 43 Otomar Hájek
- 44 M. Paul Smith
- 45 Hillroy Paulse
- 46 Algeria–Israel relations
- 47 Murder squad mafia
- 48 Tim Hartman
- 49 Waterside Press
- 50 Full power rifle cartridge
- 51 Nickel Children
- 52 Ghazal Omid
- 53 Ray Anthony Jónsson
- 54 The Alliance for Safe Children
- 55 Daniel Street
- 56 Adult Film Database
- 57 Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia/Peer review/BroadMap
- 58 Skydiver (2010 film)
- 59 Journey to the Darkness
- 60 List of songs by Nick Jonas and the Administration
- 61 Orish Grinstead
- 62 Spear Lancaster
- 63 List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast
- 64 Bulk REO
- 65 Hunting (House)
- 66 Genetic origins of the Kurds
- 67 Lee Remick (song)
- 68 Super Hits (Blue Öyster Cult album)
- 69 Baltic-American Freedom Foundation
- 70 Leonard G. Johnson
- 71 Mammah family (Sierra Leone)
- 72 Jinn in popular culture
- 73 SMARTHINKING
- 74 Locus Suspectus
- 75 London Buses route ELW
- 76 CCSIH
- 77 EtutorWorld
- 78 Sensible Sensuality
- 79 Energy and Security in Afghanistan
- 80 Mohammad Shaikh
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodwood Kartways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Essentially not notable. Documentation self-sourced or organizations supported by company, not outside refs. Appears to be WP:PR, WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No published sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Battery Kartodromas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. This is essentially promotional, WP:SPAM, WP:PR. It is documented only by its own site.Student7 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No published sources and no hint of notability. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Susan McCray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced BLP about a non-notable individual. Appears to be an autobiography, as it was created by User:Susan McCray. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and WP:RESUME. SnottyWong spill the beans 23:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AUTO and lack of reliable sources. The article is also a WP:BLP problem, even though created by the subject, since little-watched biographies of non-notable individuals are highly vulnerable to malicious editing. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per Bearian. Peter Karlsen (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Self-promoting autobiographical spam. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a diligent search finds sources, your concern becomes about an issue addressable through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The problem is that in the case of autobiographies of marginally notable people, such regular editing rarely goes on to take place. Typically no one besides the creator has any interest in the topic: so, having survived AfD, the article languishes unedited, the spam survives intact and yet another self-promoter gets to use Wikipedia as their vanity press. The solution is to shoot autobiographies on sight, and the rationale is simple: autobiographies are inherently promotional because, irrespective of their content, their purpose is to enhance the public profile of the subject. As such, they ought to be speedied G11 before they are allowed to grow legs. If some uninvolved third party then wishes to recreate the article from scratch, more power to them. At least that would demonstrate that one other person besides the subject actually thinks the person merits a Wikipedia article -- which, as tests of noteworthiness go, is a pretty low bar. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a diligent search finds sources, your concern becomes about an issue addressable through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now
Weakkeep - she appears to have been some kind of "assistant to the producer" of some TV shows, including Bonanza, and I found some reliable sources about her, see Google news and Brazilian Retro TV. I am not sure if that is enough. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Assistant to the producer", a.k.a. "The producer's secretary"? SnottyWong gab 21:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not a "secretary". A producer's assistant is an individual who acts as liason betwen producer(s) and production staff... and is often a step immediately below being considered an associate producer. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Assistant to the producer", a.k.a. "The producer's secretary"? SnottyWong gab 21:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional online research shows she was a casting director as well. She's looking more notable. Bearian (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bearian's newspaper link proves she is notable. The media covers everything she did, and gives her credit for helping make hit shows with one other guy. And if we can confirm she had a hit song, that makes her notable as well. Dream Focus 06:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She sang under the name "Susan Sands", and her song Say A Prayer for Michael was a Billboard (magazine) "Best Pick".[1] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per bearian Aisha9152 (talk) 16:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above comments.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AKA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- AKA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- AKA: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep per Bearian's WP:AFTER and his lack of pre/mis conceptions which thus allowed an unprejudiced search for available sources. And as most of her work was done under her maiden name "Susan Sukman" as well as some under the name "Susan Sands", I have offered several more adequate Find sources above... which offer additional available sources to add to Bearian's finds. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong yak 14:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Dream Focus. --Alpha Quadrant talk 22:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Timelog Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable software product. Claims of notability amount to 1) Microsoft Gold Partner -- an achievement any company can obtain by entering into the proper agreements with Microsoft; and 2) a Dagbladet Børsen Gazelle Award which, according to the reference provided, is awarded to over 2000 companies each year -- hardly an elite group. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability, and borderline spam, though perhaps not enough so for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 23:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Balls Boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This was proposed for deletion last year with the rationale "Student radio programme, fails WP:NOTE by not being quoted in any independent third-party sources - only references are in other student-run media and not independent publications." The prod notice was removed without reason, and the concerns have not been addressed. As it's already been prodded, I can't do it again, so bringing here. As far as I can see, the prod rationale was bang-on, and so I recommend delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article is about a non-notable programme and lacks reliable sources. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep references shows notability, also I have heard the show.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How do the references show notability? They aren't independent of the subject, which is what we require. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sign of significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Jama Masjid attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reached a consensus to merge this article into Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Commonwealth_Games#Jama_Masjid_incident Saqib Qayyum (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a consensus? I'm currently watching the article you referred to, but I haven't noticed any discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong! Thanks, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is to be merged into the main article as initiated by the nominator, then AfD is not the right medium per merging protocol – at least not now. Regards, ANGCHENRUI Talk♨ 09:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Discussion is ongoing at Talk:Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Commonwealth Games. I'd recommend that this AFD be withdrawn until consensus is clear that a merge is appropriate - and, even then, there is no need to go to AFD. If consensus is there, just merge it. Bring it to AFD if you want it deleted. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus has been reached to merge this article into Concerns_and_controversies_over_the_2010_Commonwealth_Games#Jama_Masjid_incident. --Saqib Qayyum (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS minor incident. no fatalities. 2 injuries . one of them minor.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Wikireader41 (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, the consensus referred to above consists of one person on the talk page. Second, this incident has wider implications. Several athletes have pulled out of the Commonwealth games because of security concerns prompted by this attack. --Banana (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The merge proposal was kept open for less than three days. Perhaps a longer period would cause more than one person to comment?--Banana (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody pulled out of the games because of this particular attack. Some athletes did pull out because of general concerns about security but to to think that they would have not pulled out in the absence of this attack is pure speculation unsupported by RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My earlier comment must have been unclear. I remember reading in a reliable newspaper of athletes who pulled out because of this attack. I was not stating my own opinion. Here is a different article than the one I originally read [2]. The relevant quote is "Australia's world discuss champion Dani Samuels said the shooting near Jama Masjid had led to her decision to pull out".--Banana (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK so a handful of athletes out of 7000 athletes from 71 countries pulled out and one of them attributed it to this particular attack. what about the 99% athletes who ignored the attack ?? There has been a general concern about security situation in India for a long time especially after the spectacular 2008 Mumbai attacks. a little while ago 2009 Indian Premier League was moved to South Africa because of security concerns. nothing remotely similar has happened after this shooting.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't really understand your last comment. I don't see what the Indian Premier league or the Mumbai attacks have to do with this article. I was pointing out why I believe your statement "Nobody pulled out of the games because of this particular attack" is incorrect. --Banana (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about 1/7000 athletes pulling out of the games due to this attck. I was rebutting your statement that this was notable attack because one athlete pulled. If you cant see the importance of Mumbai attacks in generating lingering security concerns in India ( most notably the effect on IPL) then you need to educate yourself more about India before commenting on articles related to India. Cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to ask you to reconsider your last comment. --Banana (talk) 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right about 1/7000 athletes pulling out of the games due to this attck. I was rebutting your statement that this was notable attack because one athlete pulled. If you cant see the importance of Mumbai attacks in generating lingering security concerns in India ( most notably the effect on IPL) then you need to educate yourself more about India before commenting on articles related to India. Cheers.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't really understand your last comment. I don't see what the Indian Premier league or the Mumbai attacks have to do with this article. I was pointing out why I believe your statement "Nobody pulled out of the games because of this particular attack" is incorrect. --Banana (talk) 05:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK so a handful of athletes out of 7000 athletes from 71 countries pulled out and one of them attributed it to this particular attack. what about the 99% athletes who ignored the attack ?? There has been a general concern about security situation in India for a long time especially after the spectacular 2008 Mumbai attacks. a little while ago 2009 Indian Premier League was moved to South Africa because of security concerns. nothing remotely similar has happened after this shooting.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My earlier comment must have been unclear. I remember reading in a reliable newspaper of athletes who pulled out because of this attack. I was not stating my own opinion. Here is a different article than the one I originally read [2]. The relevant quote is "Australia's world discuss champion Dani Samuels said the shooting near Jama Masjid had led to her decision to pull out".--Banana (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nobody pulled out of the games because of this particular attack. Some athletes did pull out because of general concerns about security but to to think that they would have not pulled out in the absence of this attack is pure speculation unsupported by RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NOTE, significantly covered by reliable sources, and far from a routine news item. Peter Karlsen (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant coverage by the press, that is what defines notability. Biophys (talk) 02:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JoAnn Genette (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable radio personality lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope you reconsider, I have recently provided independent sources from respected print media (Chicago Sun Times, Chicago Tribune) that are easily verified, please review and advise Billy NickolsBilly Nickols (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – You are right the articles are easy to confirm; however, the bad news is they are not "non-trivial" coverage. The article still fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. ttonyb (talk) 04:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I ask you to reconsider. I have not received any feedback as what is considered not “non-trivial“, so I went to the Wikipedia Guidelines -
Wikipedia:Notability General notability guideline “without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter promotional self-published sources,…” *The works cited are not promotional, and the authors are without bias. They do not promote or endorse, and are some of the most respected reporters in the media field. This article is not using Blogs, websites, promotional material, or non-traditional material to show notoriety. The Robert Feder articles are in the Chicago Sun-Times with Daily circulation of 312,274 readers not including online readers. In 2008 it was number 21 most circulated paper in the nation.
Jim Kirk’s articles appeared in The Chicago Tribune daily circulation of half a million, number 8 most circulated in the United States.
"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. You point out that they are easily verified, and it does not appear that you needed original research to extract the content.
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material” This validates the two of the segments I have used as references, and the third “WLIT Signs on Two New Hosts” is directly referring to the subject of the article.
I apologize if I am being verbose, but the article , as I am sure you can imagine, is important to me. I hope you can reconsider - Billy NickolsBilly Nickols (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find any sources that show that this person is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I hope you can reconsider, in accordance with Wikipedia's "Identifying Reliable Sources" I have included citation from respected print news organizations. These are not Blogs, but reliable print sources. Please reconsider and advise. Thank you. Billy NickolsBilly Nickols (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – You are right the articles are easy to confirm; however, the bad news is they are not "non-trivial" coverage. The article still fails to meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion.
- Thank you for your input. Please do not be hasty in deleting this, I will improve the article if possible. Could you provide guidance on what you would considered "non-trivial". Thank you. Billy NickolsBilly Nickols (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have put up a persuasive explanation why this article should remain - if the editors really believe this article should not stay, they should answer. If they cannot, it should remain Billy NickolsBilly Nickols (talk) 03:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weinberger Law Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
article reads like an adverstisement, doesn't appear to meet notability guidlines. tenleaders.com is the only reference that isn't associated with the law firm or is not user generated, and it doesn't seem to imply notability of the subject. WookieInHeat (talk) 22:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and: (1) Ten Leaders is not a reliable source by any stretch; (2) there is no evidence that any one of the seven attorneys meet my standards for notability of attorneys. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional article, lacks depth of coverage required by guidelines. Most of the sources are incidental mentions of the firm, and there is trivia such as someone's "AV" rating, which is pretty meaningless. The article is padded with trivia such as a section on pro bono work, which every firm does, and a long section on its practice areas. Figureofnine (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pretty much spam and little more. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sources used do not appear independent or reliable and there is no indication that proper sourcing can be found.--PinkBull 19:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- World Live Music & Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable record label. References are all self-published press releases or blogs. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not all references are crap but there is no evidence of notability in the reliable one. I did not find any evidence myself. --Kvng (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Viatrophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notability is probably reason enough. A couple of mentions in music magazines doesn't seem sufficient. Seegoon (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever made this article does know that Viatrophy have split up now, right? Anyway, aside from this article being incredibly low quality, I agree that the band isn't notable. They never achieved any real heights of popularity, even in the UK underground, hence their dissolution. I say delete. Ngk44 (talk) 14:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Mainly an article to promote this company. WP:PR, WP:SPAM. Student7 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This has 181 hits on gnews alone and is clearly notable. I don't find it overly promotional in tone, but even if it was that is not a valid reason for deletion. WP:PR leads to peer review, hardly a rationale for deletion. Yoenit (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep general precedent seems to be that venues of notable sporting events tend to be notable. I agree I don't see much of an advertising tone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is a notable venue both within Australia and internationally. All other MotoGP and V8 Supercars tracks have articles, as well as a vast array of sporting venues within Australia, even if the articles are brief or the venues have less significance. SchueyFan (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not spam. It is one of Australia's most notable tracks, it has plenty of coverage on google news. Mattg82 (talk) 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Rated by some as the best motorcycling circuit in the world, also features content about the birth of motor racing in Australia. Frankly this is a somewhat frivilous AfD. If Student7 has an issue with the content of this article, an AfD is not the way to handle it. Mark the sections you have a problem with SPAM or even ESSAY tags and raise the issue on Talk:Phillip Island Grand Prix Circuit, and or the relevant Wikiproject talk page. --Falcadore (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability is not an issue. The only advertising-grounds for deletion is if there's no usable content, which is clearly incorrect. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This one elicits a bit of a wtf from me. The circuit has hosted international top-level motorcycle races for a very long time, in addition to other major motoring events. The news coverage is long-lasting, both of the races that the circuit hosts but also of the circuit itself (eg [3]).--Mkativerata (talk) 06:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep per all of the above and it looks like its starting to snow. Jenks24 (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. I further request that the nominator holds back on creating so many silly AfD's that waste people's time, I'd also request that the nominator reads the policies he quotes. Jeni (talk) 10:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above? --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops ;-) Changed now! Thanks. Jeni (talk) 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above? --Falcadore (talk) 11:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Marcelo Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician. No valid references provided, but the article's author insists on removing the BLP PROD based on the introduction of the flimsiest of references. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional article, nothing on gnews or gbooks and only social media on normal google. No independent reliable sources available, thus he is not notable. Yoenit (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage, only a mention in alumn notes. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per (presumed) BLP1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Gerhard Vogel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original PROD by User talk:Kudpung on 28 August 2010 for: Tagged for sourcing issues since Jan 2009, this biography of a possibly living person has no references at all within the definition of WP:RS and WP:V.
PROD was removed by creator without editing the article or providing sufficient rationale in ES or on TP.
PRODed again on 5 October by User Talk:Alpha Quadrant (disallowed repost of PROD and removed) for: The article appears to be about a non-notable person. The sources provided are unreliable.
Kudpung (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lack, or unreliability, of references is not in itself a reason for deletion. Non-notability would be such a reason, and failure to find references would support that claim if it were made. However we have no claim of non-notability, and no claim that references cannot be found. In fact, references can be found in a few minutes with Google Books and Google Scholar. I have added a couple, and a notability claim. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nominator stated PROD was removed by creator without editing the article or providing sufficient rationale in ES or on TP. WP:CONTESTED encourages but does not require editing or explanation: in this the PROD was removed with the edit summary Asked for help at Wikiproject: LGBT studies which seems a perfectly sensible explanation. It does not seem to constitute any case for deletion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been passed to AfD because two editors, independent of each other, have considered the article to be of sufficient concern that may require consideration for deletion. Normal procedure. The PROD produced neither explanation for being contested, nor any improvement or changes to the article. AfD is hence the recommended process and avoids possible indiscriminate deletion. --Kudpung (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The form of the nomination is non-specific to the article itself. If you have a problem with "sourcing issues", what is the problem? The generic problem with WP:Notability (people) such as the subject (i.e. historical significance attested to in one historical work) in this is being discussed in WT:Notability (people). (ES=>edit summary TP=>talk page, for the newbies) patsw (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article has been passed to AfD because two editors, independent of each other, have considered the article to be of sufficient concern that may require consideration for deletion.--Kudpung (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't see what the problem with the nomination is: article is not notable. There is not substantial coverage in independent sources, fails GNG. Spent a few min on Google Books & Scholar: the few references of Vogel appear to be mentions. I'll check back to see if the sourcing situation is cleared up. Lionel (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The coverage from sources in the article is substantial, are you making the case that they are trivial or something else? patsw (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With due deference to WP:SOURCEACCESS, it is quite clear that the policy at WP:RSUE has not been observed. Failing which, the sources cannot be taken into consideration. However, as a native French and German speaker, I would be happy to be of service for those languages if it means helping the 'keepers' to comply. Any other languages may be usable through a much cleaned up Google translation.--Kudpung (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Kudpung could explain in what respect "the policy at WP:RSUE has not been followed"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since WP:RSUE is about quoting from non-English-language sources, and since the two books cited are not quoted from, it is clear that policy has not been violated by their use. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, RSUE has been violated. References #4 & #5 are translations of quotes from the film which is in Dutch/German. The original German/Dutch text is missing. These sources should be removed. Lionel (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RSUE says nothing of the sort. It only says that the original text should be provided when we quote directly from a non-English source, not when the source itself is a translation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The film was subtitled in English and those may be quoted. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 11:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:RSUE says nothing of the sort. It only says that the original text should be provided when we quote directly from a non-English source, not when the source itself is a translation. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, RSUE has been violated. References #4 & #5 are translations of quotes from the film which is in Dutch/German. The original German/Dutch text is missing. These sources should be removed. Lionel (talk) 20:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since WP:RSUE is about quoting from non-English-language sources, and since the two books cited are not quoted from, it is clear that policy has not been violated by their use. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps Kudpung could explain in what respect "the policy at WP:RSUE has not been followed"? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep According the the gbooks snippets he has his own section in the two books now added to the article as references. Seems to meet WP:GNG. Yoenit (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Yoenit, 'section' is a bit optimistic. Die Verfolgung der Homosexuellen in der NS-Zeit; has very short snippets, one on pp 57 and one 58 mentioning the subject's name, but the full text of the pages is not available and there is no proof that it is a contiguous text. Same for Le ragioni di un silenzio: has very short snippets on pp 57 and 58 mentioning the subject's name,, but the full text of the pages is not available either. However, Die Andere Welt has a very brief mention on p.15, but the paragraph is truncated. However, not provided as a ref in the article, but Persecution of Homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust (2010) Lambert M. Surhone, Miriam T. Timpledon, Susan F. Marseken (editors) Betascript Publishers, 2010, ISB 6130338007, 9786130338008, promisses to have something on him, but I cannot find what. --Kudpung (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Betascript Publishing is a publisher of Wikipedia articles, such as the above Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so it cannot be considered a WP:RS -- obvious WP:CIRCULAR. patsw (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)already thin and few[reply]
- Well, as nominator, even I have tried tried to find stuff, but we seem to be accumulating more reasons why the sources are inadequate.--Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please say which sources you find inadequate and why? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's start with the master's thesis. Lionel (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By all means. In what respects is this inadequate? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In all respects. They aren't reliable. Finished Ph.D. dissertations are another matter.Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship.
- The policy cites that finished Ph.D. dissertations are acceptable and unfinished dissertations are not. This appears to be a finished Masters dissertation. There is no consensus that these are inherently unreliable. Is there specific reason to believe that this one is particularly unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In all respects. They aren't reliable. Finished Ph.D. dissertations are another matter.Wikipedia:Rs#Scholarship.
- By all means. In what respects is this inadequate? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's start with the master's thesis. Lionel (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please say which sources you find inadequate and why? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as nominator, even I have tried tried to find stuff, but we seem to be accumulating more reasons why the sources are inadequate.--Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Betascript Publishing is a publisher of Wikipedia articles, such as the above Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, so it cannot be considered a WP:RS -- obvious WP:CIRCULAR. patsw (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)already thin and few[reply]
- Delete Article lacks significant coverage in reputable third party sources. Alpha Quadrant talk 02:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The notability claim is that he was one of three people about whom a 44 minute documentary was made. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This claim is not valid. He was interviewed in the documentary. That disqualifies it as an independent source. While interviews are RS, they are primary sources and do not count toward notability. This article does not have significant coverage in multiple sources, thus the article fails WP:GNG. Lionel (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was selected for interview as one of the few survivors of this sort of persecution (BTW, why do you suggest that it was not independent?). That is evidence of notability. You seem to be confusing this film as evidence of notability and a reliable source for his life. There are three issues here. The film is a primary source for the events of his life -- is is a secondary, and presumably reliable, reliable source for his claims of what those events were -- it is good evidence of notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of course the documentary is independent of Vogel. For the documentary and Vogel to be dependent there would be to be a close relationship between the two such as Vogel funding it, directing it, selecting the victims to be interviewed, Vogel having a financial interest in the production, etc.
- Vogel is a primary source. The documentary is a secondary source using primary sources. The processing of compilation, editing, production, etc. makes its content a secondary source. patsw (talk) 17:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The doc would be a secondary source if it provided critical analyses of Vogel. To solely use quotations from Vogel's interview makes this usage that of a primary source. Primary sources do not count toward notability.Wikipedia:Evaluating_sources#Examples Lionel (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this article does not "solely use quotations from Vogel's interview", this point, valid or not, appears irrelevant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The doc would be a secondary source if it provided critical analyses of Vogel. To solely use quotations from Vogel's interview makes this usage that of a primary source. Primary sources do not count toward notability.Wikipedia:Evaluating_sources#Examples Lionel (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He was selected for interview as one of the few survivors of this sort of persecution (BTW, why do you suggest that it was not independent?). That is evidence of notability. You seem to be confusing this film as evidence of notability and a reliable source for his life. There are three issues here. The film is a primary source for the events of his life -- is is a secondary, and presumably reliable, reliable source for his claims of what those events were -- it is good evidence of notability. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course we are, no need to be sarcastic. The film is used in the article to source the quotes. The fact that Vogel was one of three people selected to be interviewed supports notability. Vogel's words are primary. The film is clearly a secondary source for Vogel's claims: it is a reliable account of what he said. The film is thus an independent secondary source in which Vogel has received significant coverage. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can at least agree that the actual footage of Vogel speaking and being interviewed is a primary source. If the film specifically presented biographical and/or critical information on Vogel, either by way of narration, montage, etc., independent of Vogel himself, then that would be a secondary source. Now: there is nothing to support that the coverage of Vogel in the film, neither in the article footnote, nor even IMDB, is anything more than him being interviewed. If there is, add a quote to the footnote and we'll move on. Until then, without substantiation, the source does not count toward notability because it is a primary source. Lionel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a primary source if he had made the film. The film is clearly a secondary source, as a newspaper interview would be. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finally we're getting somewhere. Newspaper interviews also do not count toward notability.Lionel (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a primary source if he had made the film. The film is clearly a secondary source, as a newspaper interview would be. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we can at least agree that the actual footage of Vogel speaking and being interviewed is a primary source. If the film specifically presented biographical and/or critical information on Vogel, either by way of narration, montage, etc., independent of Vogel himself, then that would be a secondary source. Now: there is nothing to support that the coverage of Vogel in the film, neither in the article footnote, nor even IMDB, is anything more than him being interviewed. If there is, add a quote to the footnote and we'll move on. Until then, without substantiation, the source does not count toward notability because it is a primary source. Lionel (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not really seeing him meeting the criteria laid out in WP:N. At best, this is a case of WP:BLP1E (he was alive at least in 2006, so it should remain valid): the entire article revolves around his one (admittedly drawn out) experience (as in, the sources cover him only in the context of that event) and it seems to me that he "remains [...] a low-profile individual" per the guideline. Canadian Paul 02:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Exactly how does it fail WP:N? - references are in the article, are you saying that the references fail WP:RS or those references are not independent of Vogel or something else? The Nazi Holocaust is not a 1E. patsw (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can speak for Canadian, Vogel's "claim to fame" is his time at Emsland. He is not known for any other single topic, thus BLP1E. I.e., we don't create an article for someone just on the basis of their being held in a nazi concentration camp. Lionel (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is known for having been selected to have his experiences recorded. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If I can speak for Canadian, Vogel's "claim to fame" is his time at Emsland. He is not known for any other single topic, thus BLP1E. I.e., we don't create an article for someone just on the basis of their being held in a nazi concentration camp. Lionel (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where do we stand on the sources?
- Vestal - masters thesis - not RS
- Bennetto - looks like a good source
- Teaching... - this is a resource book, it lists the film as a resource, certainly doesn't count toward notability
- Pink Tri - it's is a primary source - doesn't count toward notability
- Pink Tri - it's is a primary source - doesn't count toward notability Lionel (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and what about Hoffschildt? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further reading... "not used to verify article content" WP:FURTHER Lionel (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but still valid for establishing notability, which is an attribute of the article subject, not the current content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and when I added those two books, I did so as References, precisely because they do verify the article content. I don't know why they were relabelled Further Reading. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what about the two books? And who says Vestal's thesis is unreliable? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and when I added those two books, I did so as References, precisely because they do verify the article content. I don't know why they were relabelled Further Reading. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- but still valid for establishing notability, which is an attribute of the article subject, not the current content. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further reading... "not used to verify article content" WP:FURTHER Lionel (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Seems to lack many reliable sources, thus breaching WP:V, WP:BLP. I feel, unless anyone is willing to completely re-write this article, with reliable sources to all the information they include, this article has no place on Wikipedia. Thank you. Tofutwitch11 (TALK) 11:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If an article can be improved, this is not so much an argument for deletion as for improvement. Do you feel that no acceptable article on this person could possibly be written? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly, but not for this encyclopedia. It should have become clear by now that this is not a debate about the notability of the unfortunate Paul Gerhard, but one of sourcing, and upholding our policies and principles for inclusion. The fact that we have been discussing it so long already is reason enough to cast doubt on the reliability and 'significant' coverage provided by those sources. In this case, it's about a living person, so if there turns out be no consensus, it should default to 'delete'. --Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Hoffschildt book has at least three pages of coverage and the Circolo Pink book has the subject's name as a section heading. This, along with shorter coverage in the other sources cited, is enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Or alternatively, if consensus says that the guy isn't notable by himself, merge to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. It's true that not all of the sources given are reliable, but enough are that it shouldn't be impossible to write a valid article. Rewriting would be a great improvement, but that isn't really a reason for deletion. There does seem to have been a reasonable level of coverage in genuinely reliable sources within the context of the broader topic. This is on the edge of WP:BIO, but I think it falls marginally the right side. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I sadly consider this non-noteable. He is simply one more ordinary person caught up in the horror of the Nazis. Had he developed something like Viktor Frankl while imprisoned, that might be different. The issue around BLP is interesting in that no one seems to know if he is indeed living. I think Canadian Paul brings this out, too. Alzarian16's suggestion to merge into a broader article is appealing but fails WP:NOTDIR --CompRhetoric (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the six points of WP:NOTDIR would that fail? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect to Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. After reading his page, this page, and the sources, I believe there is enough for a four line paragraph elsewhere, but not a full page of his own. As to the issue of the Master's thesis, thesis review is a rigorous process, and if I could see it had been reviewed, I would keep it, but I don't see that, so it doesn't make the cut for me. Sven Manguard Talk 23:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kabul Medical University (Peshawar) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence the University is accredited [4] or even exists. Possible hoax or error (there is a legitimate Kabul Medical University in Afghanistan). Unverifiable, in any event, delete per WP:V. TeaDrinker (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no references or external links in the article, no reliable or unreliable results using search engines, not recognized by PMDC (as per nom)... Farjad0322(talk|sign|contribs) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and Farjad0322. I have not been able to find sources. A Kabul University exists but appears not to be the same orgaisation.--Kudpung (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - can not be verified, probably created in well-meaning error. Bearian (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per consensus and as a poorly sourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert T. Rhode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable author. Originally proposed for deletion as an unreferenced BLP, the PROD was removed after two very questionable references were added by a new user who has made no other contributions. The references (one to the minutes of a private club, which does not meet the requirements of verifiablity and one to Volume 3 of Discover published in 2010, which, if it is Discover magazine, would not have published volume 3 in 2010. Attempts to contact the new user to clarify these references have gone unanswered. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -as per nom. Fails at WP:AUTHOR. --Kudpung (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of evidence of passing WP:PROF. "Discover" appears to be the alumni magazine of his employer, not the famous one. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Chord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non-notable neologism that has no evidence of being used regularly by composers or musicians. No references can be found for the dream chord. If this article gets deleted, we'll also need to delete the link to it in {{Chords}} and La Monte Young. SnottyWong converse 18:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's not really a neologism, since it's a term that has been in use since the 60's at minimum. I have added some references to the article. There are more to be found, if you'd like me to find them. The first reference, this, is quite useful, since it has a significant amount about the Dream Chord. From the references that I found and the significant long term coverage that there seems to be on the term "Dream Chord", I feel that it reaches the notability standards. SilverserenC 22:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that any of those sources establish the notability of a "dream chord". It appears to be a term that a composer used to describe a chord in one of his pieces. The sources only prove that the term exists, but don't explain why it's notable. In other words, it's not clear to me how this article could ever become anything more than a permastub. SnottyWong verbalize 23:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can definitely be expanded to, at the very least, start class with the references I added, along with the other stuff out there. Though i'm thinking that it would require someone who knows more about music. SilverserenC 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Its not a neologism and I can find references to it ("Dream chord" and young on google books finds a good number of references), so those parts of nomination are incorrect and can be disregarded. The real question is whether this "dream chord" is sufficiently notable to have its own article (and be included on the chords template), or whether the content should just be kept on the La Monte Young page, with "Dream Chord" being redirected to the Young BLP. There is no question that Young is notable (11 wikis have bios on him, btw) and that the dream chord as part of his contribution to the development of minimalism is notable. The article creator is not a prolific editor, but does seem to be a musician. As of right now, unless experts chime in otherwise, I'm inclined to go the redirect route, without prejudice to future recreation if importance is shown.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for the record, I have a bachelor's degree in music performance, and I've never heard of the Dream Chord. However, I could see something like this being more popular with composers and music historians, of which I am neither. I'm just not seeing enough coverage in sources that would allow this article to eventually become something like Tristan chord. SnottyWong verbalize 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, at least from what I can find.--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, for the record, I have a bachelor's degree in music performance, and I've never heard of the Dream Chord. However, I could see something like this being more popular with composers and music historians, of which I am neither. I'm just not seeing enough coverage in sources that would allow this article to eventually become something like Tristan chord. SnottyWong verbalize 18:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Silverseren - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has recieved significant coverage in reliable sources. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Electron confinement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
electron confinement is merely the effects on an electron due to quantum confinement. This is covered in Quantum confinement effect. This article is thus a fork, with nothing additional to add to the quantum confinement effect page, which is why the article has not been marked for merging. Craptree (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as redundant. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete – At first I thought it might have been about the Penning trap, but no it's just a pointless fork.—RJH (talk) 22:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TheOptionsLab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional page for non-notable company. Completely unsupported by citations to reliable sources. Ronnotel (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per nomination. An online trading analyst business that makes no claim to historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A claim is made of technical significance: "The Options Lab was specifically mentioned by Barron's magazine for its unique approach to analyze ( [sic]) risks and rewards in options trading." Whether or not the claim is true is not verified. Barrons' online search does reveal a single article result for the phrase "Options Lab"; it is here. However, as a non-subscriber, I don't have access to the full article. Perhaps someone with access to the archives can resolve the dilemma. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is to an article that supposedly discusses an improvement Fidelity has made to their bond trading capabilities, which seems tangential to this company which touts it's option capabilities. I'm not sure if I can see the entire article, it appears to be oddly truncated. However, even if they are mentioned in the article, it's would hardly be enough to establish notability, I would think. Ronnotel (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. Saebvn (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: From this source http://www.investorbrain.com/index.php/site/P15/, you can read the mentioned Barrons' article in full. Make sure do a search on words "The Options Lab", this article was published in Barron’s, September 7, 2009. Title is "Saturday, September 12, 2009 Fidelity Spiffs Up Its Bond System", other notable references include Trader's resource (http://technical.traders.com/Products/display.asp?prodid=545&dbname=internet\internet&tablename=internet), 01:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethmethod (talk • contribs) — Sethmethod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Weak Delete - Aside from the Barrons' article, I don't see sufficient depth of coverage of multiple reliable sources to warrant keeping it. If kept, it needs to be updated appropriately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artlovesyou (talk • contribs) 05:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One incidental mention in a Barrons article is not sufficient to establish notability. Figureofnine (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kelvin Phillips (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication of meeting WP:ATHLETE. Plays football in non-professional leagues. Single reference just mentions that he played in one particular game. noq (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A semi-pro football player; fails WP notability guidelines for WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. — CactusWriter (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There do not seem to be enough good sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines. The Coventry Telegraph article is pretty small-time wrt establishing notability. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. --Kudpung (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails all relevant notability criteria. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - very nice of his cousin to write an article about him and all that, but he clearly fails all relevant guidelines. And who on earth are "Flybe Lane"?!??!?!? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails all the relevant criteria - scoring four goals against Malvern Town doesn't quite cut it as far as Wikipedia goes. Bettia (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agree , does not meet notability. AlgebraT (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. I discount the opinions by Mtiffany71, JMK, Saebvn and Solevita, because they are not based on Wikipedia policy or guidelines or are otherwise weakly argued. After subtracting them, we have a headcount of 10 keep (inc. rename) opinions and 9 delete opinions. This is no consensus to delete. Sandstein 05:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mama grizzly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Egads, where to begin. What we have here is a split-personality article; the titled is a flash-in-the-pan neologism while the subject is essentially the List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin. WP:NEO addresses the former, while a simple WP:N covers the latter. We shouldn't have articles on neologisms until/unless they demonstrate lasting, historical significance, e.g. strategery, and while the drive-by media is fascinated by Palin 24/7, I see little to support the notion that an article solely about her endorsements is notable either. Many politicians endorse many candidates, there is nothing to suggest that Palin's are more notable than ex-presidents, senators, etc... Tarc (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article could use a fair amount of editing and more references should be found, balance added, etc., but the topic itself is notable. There is wide press coverage of the term itself and Palin's use of it. Palin didn't create the term or its essential meaning so I would expand the article to include use of the phrase in other contexts. I think we could probably also lose the list of Palin's candidates, though brief mention of them without photos and bios might be appropriate. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are Non-Notable Neologisms, which Wikipedia slays like Minnesota mosquitos, and then there are newly coined terms which have become part of popular culture. The subject of this article is among latter; the Emily's List response lends balance and the list of endorsed female candidates is helpful. All in all, a nicely done page. --Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.
- Delete - It's a neologism, and while it's being used (inconsistently from my brief survey of the sources provided in the article), that doesn't mean the word itself needs an article, which is basically a list of endorsed candidates. For presidential candidates we have lists of who endorsed them (List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 and List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008) but not those they endorsed (I can't find any quick examples of individual lists of them). Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N --Cosmonaut Kramer (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Non notable neologism that at best deserves a blurb in the Sarah Palin article. Heiro 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If only to spare the family-values types most likely to resort to this sort of jingoistic idiocy the embarrassment of being told that since grizzly bears are solitary animals and males and females only tolerate each other's company to mate and do not form a pair bond, they are in fact endorsing promiscuous sex and unwed single-motherhood. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (It's a mother mammal's instinct to protect her young that is being invoked, not other aspects of brown bear character.) Having said that, the fact that Mrs. Palin endorsed some candidates should be given in her article, the articles on each candidate, and the article on the election. The expression itself does not have lasting importance, and even if it did it's not the job of Wikipedia to
report thathave an article on the expression itself. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It could be mentioned in Palin's article when the endorsements are mentioned. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep It's a term which has a coherent definition and appeared in several reliable sources independent of Sarah Palin. There's plenty of precedent for articles on political slang and slogans like Change we can believe in or if you like it more historical, Massachusetts Miracle. With little effort I could find a dozen more of such usages in Wikipedia -- and many nevertheless could be called neologisms. Regarding the nom: it passes WP:NEO -- and in an obvious way since third party sources are using the term - which is the test for inclusion, and the WP:N failure is merely asserted and not demonstrated. Also, some of the Delete arguments are actually suggestions for improvement of the article, which is a strange way to support a proposal to delete. patsw (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The term has been picked up by reliable and verifiable sources which show independent coverage of the term to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The "fails notability arguments" are easily refuted by the fact that there are a dozen different references that are in the article (which is just a small sampling, Google has 3/4 million articles). As for the argument that the article reads like a "List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin", this is an exaggeration. Yes, there is a section which lists all the Mama grizzlys, as one should expect in such an article, but there are also sections on how the opposition has responded to the Mama grizzlys as well as a section for other uses. I'm not quite sure what message the nominating editor is trying to make with the statement "drive-by media" (Drive by media redirects to Media Bias, so it would be advisable for him/her to explain any perceived bias), but to say that "there is nothing to suggest that Palin's [endorsements] are more notable than ex-presidents, senators, etc" is contradicted by this external link in the Washington Post (which is listed in the article). Victor Victoria (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately with this idiotic, two-headed monster of an article, there are two wildly different issues to address. First the neologism, where "it's reliably sourced so therefore there must be an article" is an all-too-common mistake made around here. There are other hoops to jump through, such as the depth and breath of the coverage, which in this case falls woefully short. Name-dropping "mama grizzly" when talking about Palin's speech or a female candidate she endorses is not enough; show me a few reliable sources that discuss the term itself, then we'll talk. As for the endorsement list, again find multiple reliable sources that discuss the subject itself of Palin's endorsements; not just the fact that she nominated this or that person. The Post is one, so let's see if it can meet the "multiple" requirement of WP:N. Maybe that could justify a "List of..." style article as I noted in the nomination, but one way or the other, this list needs to come unglued from the neologism. An encyclopedia is not Sarah Palin campaign button. Tarc (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Words such as "idotic, two-headed monster of an article" fail WP:Civility, so there is nothing further for me to say. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The reliable sources only quote Palin, which doesn't make Palin's quote notable. JMK (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Huh??? There is a section on the opposition response -- those references definitely do NOT quote Palin, as she has nothing to do with her opponents. Victor Victoria (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer:Whether they quote her directly or indirectly makes no difference, the article is based on a Palin neologism. JMK (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:It actually makes a big difference, as it shows that others are using the term. Yes, she inspired the term, but the more people use it the more notability the term receives. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Political neologisms do appear in Wikipedia, such as Triangulation (politics) (do you really want me to cite a dozen?) The test, as explained in WP:NEO is third-party usage, which is clearly evidenced in the article itself. Gov. Palin is not using the term alone. patsw (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This almost reads like a Keep rather than a neutral comment. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have un-bolded the "keep" in your response. Please don't do that; if this person wants to enter in a keep opinion, they can do it on their own, and don't need you to do it for them. Actually, "patsw" already voted above, so it is doubly inappropriate. Tarc (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This almost reads like a Keep rather than a neutral comment. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I notice the stand-alone article Political positions of Sarah Palin already exists. I believe the content, possibly in condensed form, without the photos, but with all references included, could make a good addition to that article. JMK (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Perhaps the list of candidates could be listed there, but I don't see how the other sections about the opposition response and how the Washington Post used to the term to Stephanie Herseth Sandlin would not be appropriate in the article Political positions of Sarah Palin. Victor Victoria (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely. Delete. Should be covered adequately with a mention within the Sarah Palin article (or the political positions article). And, for those who argue that "strategery" is covered separately, it should have been covered in the George W. Bush article or the political positions article, as well. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Saebvn (talk • contribs) 21:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Carrite. At some point, for each neologism, the community will have to decide whether we can predict with any certainty that a phrase will become a byword for an age. This appears to be one for our day. Regardless of whether one supports Palin or not, she is a political leader of our times, she is here to stay, and this matter is notable, as shown by the extensively cited article. Bearian (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note that Notability is not temporary. If it's notable today, it is considered notable forever. Victor Victoria (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: And that is what worries about this neologism: its permanency. These candidates are not linked together by a strong, known concept, like neo-conservatism for instance. Their only distinctive quality besides being women, is being "vociferous". They are Palin's 21 unelected hopefuls, and 2 incumbents, given a brand name by her, all listed and pictured thanks to wikipedia. With a knee-jerk by the opposition as proof that they are notable. Maybe some political opportunism is at play here: if these particular ladies are not elected, we can keep the brand name, courtesy of wikipedia, and change the photos. JMK (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention 15 minutes. When the 15 minutes are over, and its still notable, we create an article, other wise merge it to Sarah Palin or leave it to WikiNews. Heiro 00:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In a sense this is not even a neologism, just two words that most people (Americans that is, English speakers outside of North America might not get it) can easily understand. How about "angry hornet", or "busy beaver"? Besides that there are much more important political expressions that don't have articles, commie for instance. Drive-by media already mentioned. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there's a political significance to Angry hornet or Busy beaver that can be defined, summarized and cited, go for it! Obscure political expressions like Locofocos and the more recent Blue dog have articles. (Is this my fifth example?) patsw (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, turn upside down, and rename to The role of Sarah Palin in the 2010 election. Put "mama grizzly" at the bottom in its own little section. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting perspective. With a redirect from "Mama Grizzly," that would work fine. --Carrite, Oct. 5, 2010.
- If it had to be kept at all, I could support this, but wasn't something else similar argued above? A redlink in the nom perhaps? Heiro 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already gave my reason why I oppose List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin. In my opinion, The role of Sarah Palin in the 2010 election wouldn't work because she doesn't have any role other than her endorsements (both male and female candidates). The male candidates she just endorsed individually (she could have easily called them the "Papa grizzlies"), while she gave a special name to the female candidates she endorsed in order to add an image in the minds of the voters. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but her role in endorsing, and/or brandnaming, candidates has been widely covered in the media and is probably WP notable. ("Papa grizzlies" wouldn't work for the reasons Mtiffany71 mentioned.)Steve Dufour (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps "Papa grizzlies" would not have been appropriate, but she could have branded them as "The gladiators" or whatever (not our roles as WP editors to give her branding advice). The point is that it is the branding of the "Mama grizzlies" that has become notable. Victor Victoria (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but her role in endorsing, and/or brandnaming, candidates has been widely covered in the media and is probably WP notable. ("Papa grizzlies" wouldn't work for the reasons Mtiffany71 mentioned.)Steve Dufour (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already gave my reason why I oppose List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin. In my opinion, The role of Sarah Palin in the 2010 election wouldn't work because she doesn't have any role other than her endorsements (both male and female candidates). The male candidates she just endorsed individually (she could have easily called them the "Papa grizzlies"), while she gave a special name to the female candidates she endorsed in order to add an image in the minds of the voters. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it had to be kept at all, I could support this, but wasn't something else similar argued above? A redlink in the nom perhaps? Heiro 03:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting perspective. With a redirect from "Mama Grizzly," that would work fine. --Carrite, Oct. 5, 2010.
- Keep. There is very wide media coverage of her endorsements, and sufficient reliable source references already in the article to demonstrate the notability of the topic. Whether the article should be called "Mama grizzlies" or "List of candidates endorsed by Sarah Palin" or something else entirely can be addressed separately. 28bytes (talk) 05:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Some neologisms are commonly used, and in this case several facts about this term are used for evidence of its notability. Truthsort (talk) 19:05, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. List of politicians endorsed by Sarah Palin could be integrated in her article.--Solevita (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is not merely a list but a memorable and cited political term like Nixon's Enemies List for which there is a clear, obvious, manifest precedent for including. patsw (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid rationale to keep an article, and this media mini-blip sure as hell hasn't gained the notoriety that Nixon's list had. Not in the ballpark, not even the same sport. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You beat me too it. My thoughts exactly. Heiro 16:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid rationale to keep an article, and this media mini-blip sure as hell hasn't gained the notoriety that Nixon's list had. Not in the ballpark, not even the same sport. Tarc (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an OSE. Every time an editor makes an appeal to a clear, obvious, and manifest precedent that a class of subjects passes notability, it's not OSE. In this case it's demonstrating that political terms passed WP:N, like Greens, Suffragettes, Netroots and the more obscure Kitchen Cabinet and Wobbly which have their own articles. The threshold size of the media mini-blip as you put in has been easily reached for Mama grizzly for Wikipedia and many political terms with much less prominence have passed WP:N. patsw (talk) 21:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is precisely an "otherstuff" argument; "they have theirs, I want mine!" to a T. Wobbly and kitchen cabinet have demonstrated historical notability, while this is much too soon to say the same. Editors here need to heed WP:RECENTISM and not rush here to write an article everytime the media says something juicy. Tarc (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The cover of Newsweek for October 4th uses this term with the title "The Bear Truth". Raymie (t • c) 00:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)'[reply]
- Rename to "Endorsements of Sarah Palin in 2010" and include the men. Her role as an high-profile endorser is what is being reported by the media, the nickname is secondary. Borock (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This was the briefest of news memes; should be relegated to Palin's page as a minor entry. swain (talk) 04:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All political issues aside, this has to go. Simply put, we don't create articles for memes unless they have a much larger impact than this, say two decades and of use and a place in the permanent lore of the field. In fact the only meme I am aware of that has its own page is All Your Base Are Belong To Us. (yes it is a meme. If we stop pretending that politics isn't a part of pop culture, it clearly is a meme) Sven Manguard Talk 01:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to U.S. Route 29 in Virginia. I am closing this based upon the present arguments and the current condition of the article. What the article could become is not the issue. Closure here is without prejudice to re-creation should new information become available. JodyB talk 17:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gainesville Interchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable interchange, construction project can easily be covered in the I-66 and US 29 articles. Dough4872 15:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into I-66 and US 29. :pepper 20:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The info can be merged into U.S. Route 29 in Virginia rather than U.S. Route 29 as the former is a state-detail page focused on the VA part of the route. In merging the content, there is no need for a redirect to exist. Dough4872 20:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into I-66 and US 29 as per User:Pepper. --Kudpung (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per User:Dough4872 –Fredddie™ 22:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge but with a concern. The Gainesville Interchange project is primarily about the junction of I-66 and US 29, but other roads affected by the project include SR 619 and SR 55. Do we need to also place information about the project on the pages for these routes? --Tim Sabin (talk) 03:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That could be done. Dough4872 15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per the above. If there are sources that refer to a "Gainesville Interchange", then a redirect is not unreasonable - and cheap, too. If there's some other interchange that would fit the name better, perhaps the redirect should point there. We could always Disambiguate if it gets too complicated. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm finding it very difficult to understand how merging this content to two or more other articles could make this a better encyclopedia. Surely it's better to put the information in one place that can be linked from other articles rather than create such content forks? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The interchange itself is not notable and cannot sustain its own article. The construction project concerning the interchange can be mentioned in the roads that it affects because it is a part of the history of those roads. A redirect is unnecessary as this interchange alone is not notable. Dough4872 19:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Mergeper above. To adress Phil's comments above. I think the question is, what makes this interchanges special (and noteworthy) over the millions of highway interchanges in the world? Currently, the article doesn't make any statement to justify the interchange is any different than any other interchange on the planet. If the article can be expanded to show that it is unique, I'll change my vote in a heartbeat. For examples of articles for interchanges that I have supported keeping, see Newhall Pass Interchange, Four Level Interchange, and Mousetrap. In the case of the Mousetrap article, this interchange is mostly notable for an accident that occurred in the 1980s. So it's always possible that while the interchange is not currently notable, that could change. Dave (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not addressed my point, which was nothing to do with "what makes this interchanges[sic] special (and noteworthy) over the millions of highway interchanges in the world", which would only be relevant if this was the Guinness Book of Records rather than an encyclopedia. I asked the question of how Wikipedia would be a better encyclopedia with this information in two or more articles rather than in just one. Nobody has yet answered that. And nobody has explained how the sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination fail to confer notability, as defined in our general notability guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review, there isn't anything in the article worth merging, so I change my vote to delete. Dave (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dough orDelete. Imzadi 1979 → 02:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - I had added the information about the construction to the Interstate 66 and U.S. Route 29 in Virginia articles. At this point, there is no point for this article to exist and it should simply be deleted with no redirect. Dough4872 02:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please hold off on deleting the article for a short while. This weekend I'll add the appropriate text to the SR 55 and SR 619 articles, but I need the Gainesville Interchange article as a jumping-off point for my additions. --Tim Sabin (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I must note that none of those editors asking for deletion has addressed the issue of whether the article subject passes the general notability guideline, and none of those with a "merge" opinion has explained why it is better to fork this content to two or four other articles rather than have it in one place where it can be maintained consistently. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The interchange alone fails the GNG, Wikipedia does not have articles for every single interchange, only the more important ones. This interchange is simply a run of the mill interchange. The construction information about the interchange can be covered as a historical event in the roads that serve it. Dough4872 20:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already asked this above, but as no answer has been provided I'll ask again: how do the spoon-fed sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination not satisfy the general notability guideline? Last time I checked The Washington Post was a reliable source. And, for the third time, how is it better to have the same information in two or four places rather than one? I'm getting the impression that I'm talking to a brick wall here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'd be loath to mention the interchange by name on any article. It's a partial cloverleaf interchange shaped by space constraints and the angles of the intersecting highways. Nothing more and nothing less. –Fredddie™ 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But what does that have to do with notability? It has attracted significant coverage in reliable sources, such as The Washington Post, which has coverage of important aspects of this interchange such as its effect on businesses in the area. Maybe to road nerds it's no more than a "partial cloverleaf interchange shaped by space constraints and the angles of the intersecting highways", but to the general public it's far more important that that. Could anyone replying to this please give some indication that they have actually read the sources that I have referred to several times above? Phil Bridger (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'd be loath to mention the interchange by name on any article. It's a partial cloverleaf interchange shaped by space constraints and the angles of the intersecting highways. Nothing more and nothing less. –Fredddie™ 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I already asked this above, but as no answer has been provided I'll ask again: how do the spoon-fed sources found by clicking on the word "news" in the nomination not satisfy the general notability guideline? Last time I checked The Washington Post was a reliable source. And, for the third time, how is it better to have the same information in two or four places rather than one? I'm getting the impression that I'm talking to a brick wall here. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The interchange alone fails the GNG, Wikipedia does not have articles for every single interchange, only the more important ones. This interchange is simply a run of the mill interchange. The construction information about the interchange can be covered as a historical event in the roads that serve it. Dough4872 20:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As mentioned, there simply isn't the significant coverage required at the moment. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Blake Ames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Individual of questionable notability. Despite the plethora of external links and references given only two of them mention him by name, IMDB and his own website. Other than that it's just another non-notable autobiography. roleplayer 15:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
150.162.199.3's comments |
---|
|
- Comment I have moved the IP comment above and signed the second part to show they are both from the same IP, despite claiming to be different people. Yoenit (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved them into a collapsed box so we wouldn't have to deal with them cluttering up the otherwise productive AfD. Sven Manguard Talk 01:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And we have yet a third person from the same IP advocating a keep in this AFD. Dear 150.162.199.3, stop doing this. Everybody can see in the article history all these comments come from the same IP. If it truly is a public library computer then how come people from Texas and Florida use it while it geolocates to Brazil? Keep pretending to be multiple people and you will be blocked from editing as you are violating the sockpuppet policy. Yoenit (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nominator. Fails all policies at WP:ANYBIO, WP:BASIC, WP:ENT, and WP:BLP1E--Kudpung (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - there is an open question about whether his roles are significant, but there are also plenty of reliable sources that can be found easily by clicking the Google and Google news links above. This actor has quite a resume; whether that is enough is entirely the community's call. However, a semblance of a decent article could be constucted that passes WP:GNG. The IP addresses are not helping their case, but that is of no consequence. Bearian (talk) 23:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All I can see are simple mentions of him, no actual coverage of him as a person. So unless I'm missing something the article fails WP:VERIFIABILITY. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Online search yields next to nothing valuable, heavy on the promo biography, sources are not that great. Also, any chance this article had at me working to help it up and died when I saw the IP's comments. Sven Manguard Talk 01:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Landshark (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Obscure Transformers character. No likelihood of notability, considering that he originated in a Botcon story. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 15:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hardly worth any real mention here due to his lack of any notability. This is the kind of stuff the Transformers wiki and wikia thrives off of. Sarujo (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete I found nothing more than trivial fleeting coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:N. Active Banana (bananaphone 15:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No major coverage on CNN, etc. Tedescoboy22 (talk) 02:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment CNN coverage is not necessary to establish notability. If we used those criteria, then we'd probably need to delete thousands of articles. --Divebomb (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Autobots. By himself, he is not notable. He can be covered in the character list. --Divebomb (talk) 05:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That "List of Autobots" article doesn't give very useful coverage to any of the characters. Redirecting there would be almost the same as delete. NotARealWord (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Extremely unlikely that anyone would actually come here to find out more about him, as he is a convention exclusive. Outside of TF fandom, virtually no one has heard of him. --Khajidha (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - poor article without good sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Transformers: Timelines where the character is from. Mathewignash (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sentinel Maximus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Character seems rather obscure, not really likely to be notable. NotARealWord (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agreed. This character is not showing anything beyond the franchise. He seems to only be tied into the Botcon comics. Sarujo (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Autobots. Character can basically be covered there. --Divebomb (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Extremely unlikely that anyone would actually come here to find out more about him, as he is a convention exclusive. Outside of TF fandom, virtually no one has heard of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khajidha (talk • contribs) 14:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - poor article without good sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 06:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - To Transformers: Universe, the comic line he's from. We should start a character list there. Mathewignash (talk) 19:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well-being & Progress Index (WIP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
New quality-of-life measure with no indication of any coverage or usage outside of its creator. The reference provided in the article is the paper where the creator of the index, L. D'Acci, defines it. There is no evidence of independent reliable sources commenting on or using the index. Accordingly, it fails both the notability and verifiability requirements for articles. —C.Fred (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable, self-promotion. (I originally PRODded this.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. GPrint search indicates no hits. PS. This probably should be reverted as well, it does indicate a source. A single scholarly paper, just published, does not make a concept notable. No prejudice in revisiting this in several years if it can be proven then that the use has spread to other works. Case closed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vintage Hawaiian Treasures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of non-notable compilation albums that is a contested PROD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete This is a disambiguation page that leads nowhere. I don't see a contested prod in the article history. Normally I would have nominated it for speedy deletion under G6: {{db-disambig}}, but it seems there is some controversy here? Yoenit (talk) 14:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An article with no content except redlinks and one sentence. Write some of the articles about the records before creating empty disambigs. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there were apparently never articles for the individual albums, unless the link titles were incorrect. I've restored the previous article history to make it easier to double-check things. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is nothing to disambiguate. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to user space. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Speedily deleted. Searches for the title of the film together with the name of the producer, or the director, or any one of several of the stars, produced nothing: inconceivable if this were not a hoax. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Analysis Code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. No record of this film found outside of this Wikipedia article. Apparent hoax. None of the actors, directors, producers, or involved parties presented in this article acknowledge participation in this film. The three top-billed stars were actually working on a James Bond film during the time that The Analysis Code was supposedly being produced. CSD was challenged, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Cindamuse (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A 1983 movie starring Sean Connery and Harrison Ford that nobody ever heard about? Obvious hoax. Yoenit (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete per WP:CSD G3 as a blatant hoax. A very quick search engine test shows no results about this film. It's not some obscure historical figure who may not be covered in such results; it's a film with major stars that would generate plenty of junk results on Google if it existed. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. This is an article that was discussed and closed yesterday. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suicide of Tyler Clementi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a tabloid news stopry masquerading as a biography. The suicide is slightly less than a nine-days wonder, the individual concerned is of zero notability other than for the suicide, a redirect to a suitable section in context in an article on gender politics in the US education system would fit with policy in a way that this does not. The entire thing is just a spontaneous howl of outrage; Wikipedia is not here to immortalise moments of righteous anger. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, maybe you are unaware that this article already went through an AfD that started 1 Oct 2010 and ended yesterday. Re-nominating an article for deletion one day after it its last AfD ended seems a bit extreme. Please consider withdrawing this AfD. Kingturtle (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this just survived an AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tyler clementi, why did you bring it back so soon? Yoenit (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - did you miss the previous discussion that concluded just yesterday? It seems hard to miss the large notice at the top of the article talk page. I find the nomination itself to be non-neutral and possibly of a tone to be deliberately offensive. A clear failure to consider the guidelines of WP:BEFORE. Tabloids have featured the story, so have many other reliable sources; it cannot be rudely dismissed as a tabloid fabrication. This has been a major topic of discussion, it is not neutral to describe it as a "nine-days wonder". The phrase "spontaneous howl of outrage" is rude and appears to be deliberately intended to offend anyone who has worked to verify the article or contribute to its creation and previous discussions. I suggest such text is struck from the nomination or this AfD deleted as disruptive. Fæ (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF. Comments are not struck from AfD by others unless they are extremely disruptive, and that is clearly not the case. Guy has a right to an opinion on the article just like yourself and everyone else, and frankly your comment here was extremely uncivil. The AfD was under a different name, and the "large" notice at the top of the talk page is approximately 80 pixels high; it's easy to miss the prior nomination. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Non notable biography. Non notable event. This is an encyclopedia for god's sake. WHen are people going to realise that we are not a newspaper and that not every single newstory of the week is eternally notable. What is so notable about a gay college boy who had his privacy taken away from him and felt so embarrassed that he jumped off a bridge? Its a sad newspaper story at best.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the previous extensive deletion discussion. This is not a biography but an article about invasion of privacy, a legal prosecution, extensive international media interest and a suicide that might have been the result of cyber-bullying. Fæ (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article includes extensive reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating that this event is notable beyond the single event. The scope, breadth and continuing nature of this coverage all establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article covers the death of a non notable person. Per WP:BIO. This death is no more notable than any other death. All deaths receive a certain amount of news coverage, but I fail to see why this one is notable at all.Jojhutton (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close: recently closed as keep; this should go to DRV if the result is contested. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep- If you disagreed with the close yetsrday, DRV is thataway ----->DRV. Umbralcorax (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't aware of the previous nom and this was renominated so soon. Looks as if the consensus was a clear keep as much as it pains me to think so. This should not have been renominated within a day of closing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep due to the recent closure of the related AfD as a snowball keep. In the absence of that, I would still recommend keeping the article due to the breadth of coverage. Remember that the topic is the death of the person, not the person himself. Since there are two criminal cases pending and new pieces of legislation being drafted as a result of the suicide and events that led up to it, this is a notable event on the order of the suicide of Megan Meier. —C.Fred (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - This just closed with a snow keep. Returning it to AfD is disruptive, in my view. The correct procedure is to make an appeal to Deletion Review. —Carrite, Oct. 5, 2010.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hampshire County Youth Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BAND. hardly any coverage [5], just a small community choir. LibStar (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fully concur with the nominator. Voceditenore (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Edison (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very little coverage, fails WP:BAND. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 15:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite the poor Google News results, a search of LexisNexis turns up several articles from Hampshire media devoted to this choir. One article describes it as "achieving a growing reputation with appearances on television in Italy, Denmark and Canada" (Wendy Gee, "Young musicians to show their talent", This is Hampshire, 16 November 2004). Its visits to British Columbia were covered in several newspapers there. If editors don't think the choir is independently notable, I'd suggest that it could be mentioned in an article on its parent organisation, the Hampshire Music Service. EALacey (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daemonium (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non notable album. Article is just a track listing. Mattg82 (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gou-rou.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
An unsourced website article that does not claim notability. Alexa ranking: 19,361,808; google links: 2 results. An orphan tag has been there for 13 months but no improvements have been made. --Yau (talk) 06:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm having a bit of trouble finding sources to show notability, here. Alexa rankings do not themselves show a lack of notability, but they can be indicative of it. Happy to keep if sources are found, but I don't think this one is sourceable. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero reliable sources that show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Greenhouse Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:GNG. a non notable local park. could only find coverage of the same named park in the USA. [6]. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG; this was the only non-trivial third-party coverage I could find, and one source doesn't qualify as significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 23:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kai Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has no reliable third person sources to support to support an article. I believe delete is the only option. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article gives no reason why this art is notable and I could find no independent sources that showed notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I came to the same conclusion as Astudent0. Papaursa (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kumite-ryu Jujutsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has no reliable third person sources to support to support an article therefore a delete and founder of this martial was also deleted so I think says it all. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article doesn't make any claims about why this art is notable, nor does it give any third party sources. I found no independent sources that support notability. Astudent0 (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with previous comment. Papaursa (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List_of_years_in_politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
This page provides no information whatsoever. Many significant political events occur every year. So this list is nothing but an inexhustible and utterly unnecessary list of all the years ever! It was nominated for deletion in July 2010, but the tag was removed citing "aid to navigation". If someone would want to read about "the year 1981 in politics", they would just type exactly that in WP search or in their browser address bar! They need not come to this list at all! Please think of a senario where such a list would be useful to anyone! Delete per WP:LINKFARM, or more likely WP:NOTSTUPID!! Geeteshgadkari (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am the editor who removed the PROD. The page is not meant to merely list years, but to be a navigational aid for articles of the kind $YEAR in politics, where $YEAR is any given year. As such it is a normal navigational aid, of the kind complementary to categories. There is no actual rationale for deletion here apart from "I personally don't need it, so nobody needs it" kind of reasoning, which is obviously not a deletion reason. --Cyclopiatalk 14:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hrm. This article, really, has no content whatsoever. I want to say that a category would do a better job of aiding navigation, but I see that the category starts in the 900's - so it'd be tricky to find modern-era years without multiple click-throughs. What about a template? Several topics have a template that includes the current article and maybe 5 or 10 on either side of it, sliding as you go through the years. Additional links could jump decades. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - This is clearly a navigational tool and not a "list" in the way that Wikipedia uses the term. The fact that so few links are blue indicates to me that this is a navigational tool not ready for primetime — but one can see this as a useful "See Also" page placed at the bottom of each and every $YEAR in politics page. Not ready for primetime but quite possibly will be in the future means "Keep," right? —Carrite, Oct. 5, 2010.
- Userfy - until there's enough blue links to make it a useful navigational tool.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A clear case where a category is much preferable to a list, and a list has nothing to add. RayTalk 18:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably Delete Good effort to help WP readers, but there are probably better ways to help them find the "Year in politics" page they are looking for.Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Cyclopia. Lists of lists articles (e.g. Lists of people) exist for navigational purposes. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - navigational purposes are moot if there is nowhere to go. At the moment, there's only the 2000's and a handful of other years, it'd be at most worth a bottom page navigation box template. In the spirit of WP:WTAF, the better option is some form of incubation rather than keeping it on the mainspace. Hence my "userfy" !vote.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are articles for years that have political sections in them. Someone could copy that information over perhaps, or link to the sections in existing articles for each year. This has potential. Dream Focus 04:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction. They no longer place information according to what it is about, but spew it altogether so its impossible to navigate through historical events and pop culture. If you go to the article for [1968], and search for the word "politic" you can find many places where something political happened. Building side articles for each year is possible. Many things can be combined perhaps by the decade, with them expanding outward to just one year to cover if there is enough information. Search for "politic" to find "politics", "political", and "politician". Dream Focus 04:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is an index page, listing other pages. It's a necessary part of the 19xx in politics group of articles, a well-established group. A list does not need to add anything to a category, it's an alternative means, an an equally good one. DGG ( talk ) 04:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- World Modern Arnis Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has no reliable third person sources to support to support an article therefore a delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep largest of the remaining Modern Arnis orgs. Also, nominator still isn't indicating in his edit summaries significant edits like this--I nearly skipped over it, assuming it was routine. JJL (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Bob Hubbard (talk) 05:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria supporting notability
1. Subject of an independent article/documentary: Sole or majority subject in the media, either a news article or a TV program. Be careful with 'niche' publications; check they are not related to the school teaching it. If it is an internal magazine with an annual issue it probably isn't notable, but a style big enough to produce a widely distributed monthly magazine may well be notable—though sourcing from it should be treated as with all primary sources. March 2002 issue of Fighter Magazine, Swedish Publication. January 2003 issue of Fighter Magazine, Swedish Publication. February 2007 edition of Martial Arts Professional Magazine. Also featured in MartialTimes Magazine, MartialTalk Magazine etc. More references at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hartman, might fit inclusion in main article. 2. A long externally verifiable history (i.e. secondary sources, not the club's website that says it has existed since 10,000 BC...) Google lists about 700 hits for "world modern arnis alliance". Also referenced on several Wikipedia pages including the Modern Arnis entry. 3. Multiple notable practitioners (see Martial artists) If we're talking "Bruce Lee" level notoriety, no, 4. A large number of students: Try to be objective. Remember that there are over 6 billion people in the world. Objective estimate, 400-600 members. Best I can do short notice folks, if they qualify, cool, if not, oh well. 129.44.244.141 (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC) — 129.44.244.141 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Criteria posting was by me, but I wasn't logged in. Sorry. Not sure of the 'proper wiki protocol' for correcting such things. Bob Hubbard (talk) 20:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article lacks sources and a quick search didn't show me independent sources that support notability. I'm hoping those voting Keep can provide some reliable sources that show this article passes WP:MANOTE. Astudent0 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I appreciate the research by the above poster. The problem is that the Fighter Magazine and NAPMA articles appear to be about Tim Hartman, not the organization. As for size, I know of individual schools that are larger than this organization. I didn't find independent sources that support notability for the organization. However, I did find enough that I'm going to remove the notability tag on Tim Hartman. Papaursa (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete 1 hit in gnews, no extensive coverage [7]. LibStar (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't believe the reasons given above show the organization meets WP:MANOTE. I think they show Tim Hartman is notable, not the organization. Astudent0 (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find anything about this organization that shows notability. 204.126.132.34 (talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- World Tang Soo Do Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has no reliable third person sources to support to support an article therefore a delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Astudent0 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although the organization claims to be quite large, I didn't find any coverage of it by independent sources. Astudent0 (talk) 14:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the organization is as large as claimed, it's clearly notable. However, there are no independent sources for this or any other claim of notability--either in the article or that I could find on the web. I'm also dubious of the claim that all 100,000 members voted unanimously to promote the founder to 9th dan (and why would that be voted on?). Papaursa (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete per consensus and as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Haji Springer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged for notability April 2008. I can't see any indication of how this artist meets the basic criteria for notability. Shirt58 (talk) 11:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 18:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - based on the above {{find}} searches, there appears to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. In particular, the google news results seem to consist of an interview, and trivial mentions. PhilKnight (talk) 12:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I was able to find lots of trivial local coverage of him but nothing substantial whatsoever. Fails WP:GNG. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently assess notability. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 17:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor coverage is all I could find - nothing significant enough to warrant inclusion -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AddictingGames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail the WP:PRODUCT guidelines. Any unique information on this website can be merged into the parent article Atom Entertainment. Fæ (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Delete and merge is not really an option. NotARealWord (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Struck my suggestion to avoid confusion. Fæ (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not enough coverage from reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. --Teancum (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Milk Cup squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Whilst the tournament may just about be notable, I don't think that a separate squad article is warranted. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Competition is not noteworth enough to merit a seperate article for squads. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. GiantSnowman 22:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A notable competition but not notable enough to justify a separate article for squad lists. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Isn't the entire content of this article already in 2010 Milk Cup anyway? Which came first, this or those? If it was this we'll have to redirect it there for copyright purposes. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the article creator has pre-empted the result of the AfD and merged the squads into the main article. This appears to have been done within two hours of this AfD being started. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That probably isn't a good idea, as this doesn't seem to be heading for a merge outcome so far and is discouraged under WP:AFD. Should we revert it? Alzarian16 (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the article creator has pre-empted the result of the AfD and merged the squads into the main article. This appears to have been done within two hours of this AfD being started. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the tournament is notable, but there is not need for a separate squad list. --Carioca (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New ideas in physics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be original research. The Anome (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The facts that the article's creator is Kaliamboslef (talk · contribs) and the article cites papers by one Lefteris A. Kaliambos, do rather make that case, as indeed does the title of the article. I've been unable to find the second (2003) and third (2008) papers, but given that the abstract of the first (1994) and second papers match the abstracts that I have found, I conclude that this is just three papers by Kaliambos, one published and two apparently unpublished (the 2003 paper, like the 1994 paper, having been presented at a conference; but, unlike the 1994 paper, not published as far as I can tell), that didn't garner any attention in the world at large, being dumped into Wikipedia in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I also think its original research. In addition I don't think the article fits to the Title. The title itself is quite strange, since there are always new ideas in any scince, but then, since it is new its original research... RolteVolte (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research, and as failing to have mutiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage, thus failing notability.. Edison (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or an indiscriminate collection of information (No clear inclusion criteria. It is not clear what "new idea" means.) Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was hoping an article with this title to be worthwhile, but when trying to go through the text I saw that it makes very little sense, and if somebody were to be interested in salvaging this somehow, they would have to do more work than is worth it. In addition, delete per wp:IINFO and wp:NOTESSAY. Nergaal (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - most of it is sythesis or bollocks. There are snippets of interesting ideas that should be merged elsewhere, e.g., "Faraday ... observed in 1846 that the magnetic field B changes the plane of polarization of light, since B exerts a torque on a moving dipole." Much of the rest appears to be a coatrack to showcase a fan's appreciation for a non-notable physicist's outdated original research. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -Is this article's title more suitable for a science news website thn an encylopedia?--Netheril96 (talk) 14:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vitali Kapovitch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prodded by User:Thomjakobsen and deprodded by User:DGG, this person fails WP:PROF. Highest cited paper, 18. Single digit h-index. Abductive (reasoning) 08:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. The nominator is correct that on the face of it the entry does not appear to satisfy WP:PROF. What gives me some pause here, however, is that the subject has publications in the most prestigious and selective journals in the discipline - Annals of Mathematics[8], Acta Mathematica[9], Journal of the American Mathematical Society[10] and two in Duke Mathematical Journal[11][12]. This is an indication of something unusual... Nsk92 (talk) 09:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In only one of those is he the first author. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In math the concept of the first author does not really exist - for math papers the authors are almost always listed alphabetically. Nsk92 (talk) 17:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In only one of those is he the first author. Abductive (reasoning) 17:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep basically per Nsk92. Mathematics is a low-publication/citation rate field, with correspondingly greater emphasis on quality over quantity. Not my specialty, so I don't know what's going on here, but I do not think keeping could hurt Wikipedia in any way. RayTalk 18:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taking the term "rational homotopy theory" from Kapovitch's highest cited paper, a Google Scholar search shows papers with 657, 401, 318, 207, 63, 34, 31, 24, and then Kapovitch's 18 citations. So it's not a low citation field; it's Kapovitch that has low citations. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rather ambivalent feelings about this entry, but the high citation articles/books you mention above a rather few and they are 30-40 years old. In math the shelf life of articles is pretty long and the publication speeds are fairly slow, so citations usualy accumulate fairly slowly over time. Excluding books, I see almost no articles in the googlescholar search you linked above that have been published in the last 20 years and that have more than 20 citations. Nsk92 (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One could say, then, that this page on an Associate Professor was created too early... Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, taking another term from the title of Kapovitch's highest-cited paper, "nonnegative curvature", and limiting the search to the last ten years, titles only, one sees papers with 41, 25, 18, 18, 16, ... , with the last two by Kapovitch. Looks pretty average, and average does not meet WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I admit that I have very ambivalent feelings about this article, particularly in its current state - basically a rather unilluminating out-of-date resume, probably created by a postdoc or a grad student. However, as a professional mathematician myself, I know that having even just one article in a journal at the level of JAMS/Annals/Acta is fairly rare, even for very good mathematicians; here we have three such articles (already at a relatively early stage in his career) , plus two in Duke, plus one in the Journal of Differential Geometry[13], plus two in Geometric and Functional Analysis - also top-notch places. This to me indicates a fairly unusual degree of excellence. I have looked up the reviews of his papers in MathSciNet. Some of them are fairly complimentary (e.g. for the JAMS paper the reviewer concludes "... Thus, in focussing on the relation of splitting rigidity to vanishing of derivations, the authors arrive at a beautiful connection between the geometry of curvature and the algebra of rational homotopy." For the Acta paper the reviewer writes, in particular: "This is a rich paper in which the authors completely settle the problem of determining which are the pinched, negatively curved manifolds (i.e., complete Riemannian manifolds whose sectional curvature is bounded between two negative constants) with amenable fundamental group." Mathematically, all this stuff about manifolds of positive curvature and pinched curvature and the relevant Alexandrov geometry is very far from my own area of expertise and I do not feel particularly competent in adding stuff to the article explaining what he did and why it is significant. If someone else did that, I'd probably be inclined to keep the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, whoever knows this guy and wrote this two sentence page can't explain what he did to advance mathematics, but Wikipedia needs his CV just in case? Without encyclopedic content, heck, without even an article on pinched manifolds or curved manifolds or splitting rigidity (although there is a very short article on Rigidity (mathematics) why should this BLP be kept? Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that whomever created this page can't explain why this stuff is important, rather they probably did not understand that they needed to do that - such pages are often created by inexperienced users who are not familiar with Wikipedia standards and don't really know what is expected from a WP article. As for the terms you mention - we do have articles on Curvature of Riemannian manifolds, CAT(k) spaces, Soul theorem, Collapsing manifolds etc - which is what Kapovitch's papers are about. In any event, there are a great many notable and important scientific topics about which we do not yet have articles - that does not mean that we do not need articles about them. Like I said, mathematically I am fairly far from these topics but even I have a rough understanding that they are important. In particular, this stuff is very much related to Grigori Perelman's solution of the Geometrization conjecture - probably the most important and famous result in mathematics for the last ten years. E.g. long-term evolution of Ricci flow in Perelman's stuff can produce some limiting "pinched" objects with potentially bad behavior - possible collapsing of a manifold etc; it is important to know when this behavior can occur to be able to rule it out, for example, in Perelman's proof itself. Nsk92 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kapovitch appears only in the Geometrization conjecture article, with no indication of any contribution at all. In fact, his paper is only cited to make a claim about a different mathematician. Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct, of course, but it does not imply that his own work is not significant or important. The Geometrization conjecture article itself is in a rather poor shape -it really does not explain anything about the nature of Perelman's proof which, as I understand it, was quite revolutionary. Similarly, there are no WP articles on quite a few related and important topics, such as Alexandrov geometry, for example. The general reason for this is that academics, on the whole, are very little involved in editing Wikipedia (the most active WP editors appear to be undergraduate and high school students) and as a result modern academic topics and developments are not well represented on Wikipedia - which I think is to Wikipedia's detriment. What I do know is that most mathematicians would gladly give up a year's salary to have a result worthy of publication in Annals/Acta/JAMS and he has several of those... Nsk92 (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Making the low citation numbers for those articles in those journals worse, not better. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The low citation numbers are a mark of the fact that his articles are recent and in a field that, owing to major developments of late, can be difficult to understand. They do not reflect any lack of importance - indeed, it is not uncommon in math for superb and technically difficult work to take a good while before others grasp the work well enough to follow up on it (I was once told 10-20 years is not an unusual gap for truly first-rate results). Nsk correctly describes the stature of Annals/Acta, etc. RayTalk 15:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:PROF is designed to avoid endless discussions on citation statistics and their interpretation, yet people choose to ignore it. The article has nothing about his contributions to his field or other indication of notability.--RDBury (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes, he does have articles in some of the more prestigious journals, but they haven't been cited much, even by math standards: WoS citations are 5, 5, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 1, 1, 1, 0, ... Journal prestige does not necessarily translate into article impact (immediate or otherwise) and this sort of situation is not really that unusual. (For reference, I'll note that I voted "keep" in another current math-related AfD on the basis of articles cited around 10X as much as this case, but others still consider this insufficient.) As noted above, math research does accrue recognition more slowly, so it's possible this person's work may ultimately show real impact. It's just too early to tell. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete. The excellent journal placement for his papers is a very good sign for his career, and it also shows that these papers are likely to make an impact in future, but it's not really anything we can use to show that he has already made an impact. He is mentioned in several books as having played a minor role in the Perelman case but again I don't think that's sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Withdrawn nomination. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Otomar Hájek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP since January 2008. Contested PROD. I can't find significant coverage at independent reliable sources for this America-based scientist. I can verify the publication of the books, but I can't find any coverage about the person. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn following both sourcing, and the arguments below. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You can see that he is emeritus at Case Western here. I don't see that the notability is in question, and the biographical content is not at all worrying. The Mathematical Genealogy page verifies much of his academic career. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before nominating here, I checked to see if the MGP was counted as a reliable source (see here for the search I made), but there was no mention one way or the other. I know that they invite submissions and corrections, but I am not sure how much editorial input and checking there is into this, so I am unable to be sure myself (despite looking through the website) if it is covered under WP:RS. For all we know, the details could have been submitted by Hájek himself (which would mean that it does not meet WP:IS). With regard to his being emeritus, the website does indeed indicate this, but I did not feel that it met WP:PROF#5 The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is via the published work, surely. MGP should be counted as reliable enough. There is "coverage of the person", and more if you look for it. At most some trimming of what is actually given in biography, or {{fact}}, is warranted at this time. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's not shown how the subject satisfies WP:PROF. The 'emeritus' position comes close to satisfying condition 5, but I don't think it's on the level of a 'named chair'. The article is unreferenced except for the math genealogy project and that shouldn't be used as evidence of notability. Finally, date and place of birth should be minimum requirement for any bio article.--RDBury (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:BIO actually says that Dates of birth and death, if known should be used - but there is no actually requirement in any policy or guideline that says that it has to be there. Not having it would not prevent me from supporting keeping the article if RS/IS could be found to show that he meets the notability criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it's a policy or guideline, but for someone born in modern times it seems like a good indication there is insufficient material for bio article if no one has found a source for basic information like this. The "if known" is a bit vague in any case, I assume someone knows the date; not like Euclid where the date is lost to history.--RDBury (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps he's just an individual who likes his privacy? Even if he does meet the notability criteria, he's not a tv/film celeb - he's not going to have the press crawling over his personal life and finding those details! However, a look at Ancestry could have possibly revealed his DoB - he would have been 33 when he got his PhD, does that sound right for him? Sources (membership of Ancestry may be required) are DoB: 1930 (if this is our boy, then some of the sources from the Biography & Genealogy Master Index that are listed there might be useful to verify/add to the article details) and 22 December 1930, Living in Fredericksburg, VA in 1996/22 December 1930, Living in Chardon/Cleveland OH 1993-1995. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it's a policy or guideline, but for someone born in modern times it seems like a good indication there is insufficient material for bio article if no one has found a source for basic information like this. The "if known" is a bit vague in any case, I assume someone knows the date; not like Euclid where the date is lost to history.--RDBury (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relevant that he was a Fulbright scholar in 1990: [14]. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:BIO actually says that Dates of birth and death, if known should be used - but there is no actually requirement in any policy or guideline that says that it has to be there. Not having it would not prevent me from supporting keeping the article if RS/IS could be found to show that he meets the notability criteria -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep I'm not really sure about this as he is too far from my area to assess directly. But MathSciNet lists about 74 publications so he was reasonably productive, and 2 of his 3 books have been reprinted which suggests that someone is reading them, so I would guess from this that he is probably sufficiently notable in his area. r.e.b. (talk) 13:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. GS gives h index = 10 with some high cites that indicate impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:PROF warns that indices may be used as a rough guide but should be used with caution. There no rule such as h index > n implies notable.--RDBury (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is certainly true. Acceptable h index varies with subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I'll put this comment here, rather than as a reply to anything above, as the formatting of this discussion seems to be all over the place. I have no opinion about whether this article should be kept or deleted, but would point out that a position of "professor emeritus" has no more inherent notability than that of "professor" - it is simply a professor who carries on doing some part-time work after formal retirement. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Xxan, R.e.b. RayTalk 16:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources are avalible per Xxan. Ronk01 talk 05:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May I suggest that some of the 'keeps' here actually find and add some of these sources to the article? I looked and couldn't find any significant coverage of him at indepedent reliable sources, but if some of you who say they are out there can find some, I'd be quite happy for this to be kept! Saying that they are there and not adding them to the article seems to me to indicate that you haven't actually found the reliable sources which would demonstrate that he meets WP:PROF - I couldn't find evidence that The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (#1), which I presume is what the 'keeps' are suggesting? I also can't see how he meets the other criteria for inclusion, hence why I brought the article to AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I did, but I also looked at WP:PROF: The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. [...] In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be twice the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only [...] Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used. - to be honest, if there was evidence that he met any of the other criteria, I'd have no problems with the article being kept, but I am usually cautious about someone who only appears to meet criteria 1. How many citation hits are at WoK and Scopus? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For Heaven's sake make an effort. GS tells you exactly exactly what each source is. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- For heavent's sake, add something to the article then, to demonstrate the notability that you feel is there! If you feel that he meets the notability criteria (I am not convinced) then add some references to the article. He has a few papers which have been well-cited, yes - but he also has a *lot* of papers which are either cited by 1 other, or by none. I am not convinced, even though I think we can see where this AfD is going - but I hate the fact that often I see people saying "keep", but not being willing to actually add to the article to demonstrate the notability which they claim the person meets. Look at the 'keeps' here: one uses his emeritus as demonstration of notability, but this does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion; the others say about GS hits - but none of you can be bothered to add anything to the article. I'm not going to add anything, because as I said, I'm not convinced that he meets the criteria for inclusion - so I feel that it is the 'keep's who should add something. I'm also surprised that someone so 'notable' has not actually been mentioned (other than citations of his work) in any RS - where is the coverage saying "he is recognised as a pioneer in... " or "he is widely seen as one of the foremost researchers in ..." etc? Anyway, I'll turn off my rant-mode now! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I probably am the editor who originally deprecated the use of google scholar. I'm not sure I would do so now; the quality is much improved, and it is both more comprehensive and less erratic. It's an appropriate supplement to the WoS and Scopus indexes. It is just necessary to keep in mind that it gives cites from all sorts of things other than peer-reviewed journals, and so the counts are usually consistently higher. See for example Nisa Bakkalbasi's [15] & [16] ; though she was my research student, this was unrelated work done by her subsequently. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For Heaven's sake make an effort. GS tells you exactly exactly what each source is. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I did, but I also looked at WP:PROF: The only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. [...] In the other direction, GS includes sources that are not peer-reviewed, such as academic web sites. Thus, the number of citations found there can sometimes be twice the number of actual citations from truly reliable scholarly material. In essence, it is a rough guide only [...] Measures of citability such as H-index, G-index, etc, may be used as a rough guide in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied, but they should be approached with considerable caution since their validity is not, at present, widely accepted, and since they depend substantially on the source indices used. - to be honest, if there was evidence that he met any of the other criteria, I'd have no problems with the article being kept, but I am usually cautious about someone who only appears to meet criteria 1. How many citation hits are at WoK and Scopus? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep: Noted mathemtician - formerly (now emeritus) Prof at leading US University - published important articles and books. Added refs of review of book in peer-reviewed journal and to von Humboldt award, to support work at TH Darmstadt. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep 3 books, 2 by major academic publishers, is sufficient DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- M. Paul Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded by DGG on the grounds that he is Head of his dept and having been mentioned as a (third) author of a study written up by the NYT. Being Head or Chair is not mentioned in WP:PROF as being sufficient for an article. Wikipedia is not a directory of everybody who has advanced in their administrative careers to some arbitrary point. Mere mention in an article about something else are not sufficient for notability. Compared to other workers in conodont fossils, he has low citation numbers and an h-index around 12. In addition, he has not been awarded the Pander Medal, the prize given out to notable conodont researchers by the Pander society. Abductive (reasoning) 07:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Some high GS cites in a field that is probably not highly cited. Chair of the Publications Board of The Paleontological Society. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I included a link above that shows that he is not anywhere near the highest cited worker in his field. Abductive (reasoning) 01:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A person doesn't have to be the best to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Is that notion expressed in any Wikipedia policy or guideline? Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not: neither is the contrary. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- It is implicit in the concept that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, rather than a dumbed-down publication such as the Guinness Book of Records. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that notion expressed in any Wikipedia policy or guideline? Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A person doesn't have to be the best to be notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. This guy is actually pretty important, he established "the origin of the vertebrates to 515 million years BP, 40 million years earlier than had been previously thought." That alone is major find for someone in his field, it's a major find period, as mentioned in The New York Times when it happened (See WP:PROF criteria #1). But more than that, he is a director of a Museum, head of a university academic department (see WP:PROF criteria #6), published scores of peer reviewed papers, co-authored at least two books, his name and work is mentioned in dozens (100s?) of books published by other authors (see WP:PROF #1), he has a Chair position on the Publications Board of Paleontological Society which is a major International non-profit in his field (see WP:PROF criteria #3 and #8). Green Cardamom (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He has not been given the conodont researchers' in-house award. How do you explain that given your opinion that he is "pretty important"? Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, this scientist established when vertebrates first evolved. It may be my "opinion" that this is "pretty important", but it's really up to you to say why it's not important. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. Secondary sources are the currency, not our opinions. For example, I say that being a middle author on a paper from 1992, if it was so important, should have resulted in peer recognition. Yet in the tiny field of conodont researchers, Smith is conspicuously absent from the list of Pander Medalists. Only one of the other Medalists even has an article, by the way. I cannot say why his peers don't cite him as much as nearly everybody else in the field, but that is a fact. WP:PROF sets a high bar, lest all of the professors in the world get an article. According to Wikipedia's own article Professors in the United States, there are 11,000 professors in the California State University system alone. That article also says "... that the U.S. Department of Labor's list of "above average wages and high projected growth occupations," with a projected increase of 524,000 positions between 2004 and 2014." If the US is adding professors at the rate of half a million per decade, how many are there already? How about the rest of the world? Millions? Tens of millions? Abductive (reasoning) 05:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your setting an arbitrary and self-selected criteria (winning the Pander prize). If you look at WP:PROF, winning a prize is just one of many criteria that could allow a professor for inclusion in Wikipedia. I noted above this professor matches criteria #: 1, 6, 3 and 8. He only needs to meet one of those criteria to be notable, so you'll have to refute all four convincingly. Green Cardamom (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did. Secondary sources are the currency, not our opinions. For example, I say that being a middle author on a paper from 1992, if it was so important, should have resulted in peer recognition. Yet in the tiny field of conodont researchers, Smith is conspicuously absent from the list of Pander Medalists. Only one of the other Medalists even has an article, by the way. I cannot say why his peers don't cite him as much as nearly everybody else in the field, but that is a fact. WP:PROF sets a high bar, lest all of the professors in the world get an article. According to Wikipedia's own article Professors in the United States, there are 11,000 professors in the California State University system alone. That article also says "... that the U.S. Department of Labor's list of "above average wages and high projected growth occupations," with a projected increase of 524,000 positions between 2004 and 2014." If the US is adding professors at the rate of half a million per decade, how many are there already? How about the rest of the world? Millions? Tens of millions? Abductive (reasoning) 05:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Keep. Noted Paleotologist (judged by publications and full professorship at leading UK university), Chair of the Publications Board of The Paleontological Society, high profile in conodont research and in local geological community and Director of Lapworth Museum of Geology. (Msrasnw (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep—seems notable enough, in the matter argued in the above discussion. —innotata 16:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The NYT article is in my opinion decisive. Abductive's argument that one must be the top person in the field is irrelevant, or we would remove everyone who competed in the Olympics unless the won a gold medal, or any film performer not winning the academy award, or any city not the largest in its country, or any US politician who did not get elected president. Equally inappropriate is his similar argument that if we had articles on all full professors who were chairs of their departments in major research universities, we would necessarily have articles on everyone who was a college teacher, which would lead to the conclusion we should have no articles at all. And FWIW, anyone who believes the US Dept of Labor's hilariously optimistic job predictions.... DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The NYT article merely mentions this guy, it does not do any analysis of him. Abductive (reasoning) 07:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hillroy Paulse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see no proof that this cricketer is notable per WP:BIO. I declined this speedy as I am American (ergo, I have no idea if "plays for Boland and Cape Cobras" is notable, although google gave some indication it might be). Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article is correct, then Keep per Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cricket - he apparently has played the required one First-class cricket match.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unsourced BLP created after 18 March 2010. Blow it up and start over.Armbrust Talk Contribs 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Professional athlete per WP:ATHLETE. Plenty of reliable sources about including this for a start. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He's played 35 first-class matches so far. Basic ref is easy to supply. See this. Johnlp (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the WP:ATHLETE#Cricket guidelines (in line with WP:CRIN recommendations). He's a professional who has played nearly 60 matches at the top domestic level in South Africa, a major cricketing nation.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has played first-class and List-A cricket, which per WP:CRIC makes him notable, also passes WP:ATH. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, cricketers who have played first-class games are notable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Algeria–Israel relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very shortn unreferenced, and of dubious encyclopedic vlaue. delete or merge either to Algeria or Israel related articles. Hard to find suitable RS, and maybe original research or opinion. Kudpung (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't intend to !vote yet in case multiple reliable sources are found. so far I've found coverage on hostages and the usual "don't support Israel" stance. which is the norm for Islamic countries. yet to find actual evidence of a meaningful relationship or enough diplomatic conflicts. LibStar (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 18:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 18:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Foreign relations of Algeria, or Foreign relations of Israel, or both. There doesn't seem to be much there right now. RayTalk 18:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I was initially unsure, but further research indicates notability: consider that Israel's media and actions play a part in Algerian internal politics, that tens of thousands of Algerians have immigrated to Israel, this journal article "Algeria and the June 1967 Arab-Israeli war", Israel and Algeria amid French Colonialism and the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1954-1978.--TM 19:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just a minute or so with Google Scholar unearthed the sources found by TM and this one. This topic has clearly been subject to academic study, so is acceptable for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to reinstating. The subject is notable, like any international relations, but the article is a month old and consists of a couple of sentences. Hence, it's not worth reading and WP:DEMOLISH doesn't apply. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, even though it isn't worth reading at the moment. Can I suggest that one of those who found good sources write a few sourced sentences to make it non-embarrassing as a stub? Then whack a stub tag on it and let nature takes its course. Zerotalk 07:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I thought we settled this long ago, that significant countries in the same area would always have sources for the notability of the international relations--as the event proves. Given the world as it is, it can most certainly be assumed for Israel vis-à-vis any Islamic country. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Article has been speedy-deleted and salted as a hoax, and the author indef-blocked as a vandalism only account. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Murder squad mafia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely hoax. Both google and google-news turn up squadoosh regarding this supposed "criminal enterprise". Any notable criminal gang of this nature would have something of note appear in the news. There's nothing at all on this supposed group to be found anywhere. Jayron32 06:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it's worth, the source cited in the previously deleted version is actually about the Black Mafia Family. This is either making up a name for something that already has another name, or just complete failure to read and understand a source. This name isn't used for the BMF as far as I can determine, and this content is duplicative and useless. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the previous version was just a copy of Black Mafia Family with some changes made. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable criminal organisation without reliable sources and maybe a hoax too. Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as Hoax. I've tagged it CSD:G3. This is, I think, the fourth version that this editor has created, and they've all been different - and all speedy deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and he also added "Murder squad mafia" nonsense to a couple of other completely unrelated articles too - now deleted. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Looks like he's had five different versions (with different capitalizations) speedy deleted now, and he's indef blocked. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Hartman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO. gnews only lists other Tim Hartmans. currently referenced with primary sources. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only refs in the article are to self-published sources OR are trivial and short in nature. No evidence of extensive or in-depth writing about this person by independent, reliable sources. Therefor, fails WP:BIO. --Jayron32 06:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote based on changes to the article since my last vote. The article needs serious editing to bring it in line with WP:MOS, but the new sources make it clearly a keepable article.--Jayron32 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has been tweaked repeatedly to meet Wiki requirements. Of the referenced magazines none are self-published. 1 might be considered biased. The remainder are independent sources. Trivial is a matter of opinion. Do the wiki guidelines give a minimum word count for a references validity? In the martial arts world, who if not main stream publications, and international ones at that, are considered 'valid'? Bob Hubbard (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's a lot of unsourced claims in the article, which should either be documented or removed. However, I believe there is sufficient magazine coverage to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep he's been on the cover of a significant martial arts magazine, for example. JJL (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where is the Wikipedia policy which states this is a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Being the subject of a Cover story in a reliable publication is generally considered significant. --Jayron32 05:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep His non-trivial coverage in several different magazines allows him to pass WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Waterside Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of article fails WP:ORG as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. The mention of the company in The Times was in reference to a book published by the company, not a discussion of the company itself; it was also an incidental mention in a light-hearted "Water Cooler" section, not substantial coverage. The remainder of the references currently in the article are either online directories or sources closely connected with the company itself. The company may be significant as a niche publisher in its own specific field, but this is not sufficient for notability. The article creator has pointed out that some books published by the company appear in reading lists at respected universities. However, such mentions are not under "Essential Reading" and the works are not listed as subjects for study in themselves. In any case, that would be a case for the notability of the books; it does not confer notability on the company. ("not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable" is suggested at WP:NOTINHERITED.) Finally, a Google search reveals that it says here that "JWL and Waterside Press are trading names of Duncan Print Group Ltd." - so this is not in fact a separate company, but merely a trading name. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This seems to be an example if a case where the energy devoted to arguing for deletion might be better spent improving and referencing the article. If I bought a copy of a book this company published, and wanted to know more about the publisher, I would want Wikipedia to have an article. Cullen328 (talk) 04:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources does not exist, then it can't (by definition) be added to the article - as references or anything else. Yes attempts were made to improve the article. The article's creator (the only person to edit it other than me) has acknowledged that there is very little coverage in secondary sources and that it's pretty much impossible to improve/expand the article further as a result. If I bought a some-widget made by some-company then Wikipedia should have an article on some-company does not seem a very strong argument for over-riding what the policy at WP:ORG actually says. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I couldn't find multiple, independent, and reliable sources to verify notability. While this is an interesting niche and I learned something from the article, it needs to be notable to pass Wikipedia's standards.--Artlovesyou (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks evidence of notability, as most of the coverage is either incidental or originates from the company. Figureofnine (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Demiurge1000 has summed this up perfectly. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 12:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone above. This content really belongs in a sub-section of an article on Duncan Print Group Ltd, which is notable.4meter4 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Full power rifle cartridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unsourced because it's original research. It's a term without any formal definition, so it'll never pass muster. I tried to find a decent source so we could include it in Cartridge (firearms) but no one defines this. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no coverage, no article [17]. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject is in itself flaky to begin with and the term is in itself confusing. The meaning is ambiguous as well. A full power rifle cartridge could mean a rifle cartrige loaded to its maximum velocity, any rifle cartridge other than rimfire (as in high power rifle cartridge), a top end Remington loading of a RUM cartridge, or as the article proposes firearm cartridge taken as a class in which regard it is used least.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. —AliveFreeHappy (talk) 21:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Transwiki to Wiktionary (if they want it). To trim down the OR and opinion would leave it with a mere definition, which would still have to be somewhat ambiguous anyway. If no sources appear, it won't really be right for Wikipedia. I'd also be OK with just redirecting it to Cartridge (firearms). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 delete. CSD G4. It's the same article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nickel Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
recreation of recently deleted article 4twenty42o (talk) 03:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your AfD and raise you CSD G4, (recreation of deleted material.) Let's see how the CSD pans out. Sven Manguard Talk 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ghazal Omid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is a vandalism magnet (look at the article history) and no doubt this AfD has the potential for stirring up turmoil. I figured that the subject would be easily notable and was surprised that I wasn't able to do and find much--perhaps I was right and this will be deleted; perhaps I was wrong, and I will be gladly proven so. Drmies (talk) 03:23, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Expand and improve the article rather than deleting it. Cullen328 (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep She is a regular on Fox News (Cavuto, O'Reilly, Geraldo), a published author, and an activist who has worked with people like Robert Gates and Nancy Pelosi. Her own website links to several YouTube videos of her TV appearances (several other links are broken), and the website for her book shows many reviews by reliable sources. I am sure she is pure vandal-bait, and if you watch her interviews it isn't hard to see why! But notable, definitely. I will do my best to add some the RS info to the actual article, but unsure if I can pull it off this week. May have to take your advice and sic the ARS on this one! Tarastar42 (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing on TV does not necessarily contribute to notability. Like any other form of coverage, it depends on the depth and the topic of the coverage. If a TV producer decided to do a segment about her book, then that argues for the notability of her work (and by extension, the author herself). But if she's just invited to give her views in a programme about another topic (e.g. "What do you think of Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN, what do you think about human rights in Iran, etc."), it's really no different than getting quoted in a newspaper article --- it's not coverage about her and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia writing an article about her. cab (call) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The news media sees her as an expert on that, then that does count towards her Wikipedia notability. Dream Focus 11:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A television programme giving someone a seat on a panel or an interview to air their views is no different than a newspaper letting someone put a guest column on the editorial page. In terms of actual informational content conveyed, it's probably less. They say whatever they want without being required to cite sources or undergo editorial fact-checking. It is not coverage about the person in question, it is not a significant award, it has quite a low level of selectivity compared to what is required to be published by an academic press or major popular press, and it does not enhance Wikipedia's ability to write a biography of the person, which is what the primary notability criterion and WP:BIO are all about. cab (call) 11:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The news media sees her as an expert on that, then that does count towards her Wikipedia notability. Dream Focus 11:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Appearing on TV does not necessarily contribute to notability. Like any other form of coverage, it depends on the depth and the topic of the coverage. If a TV producer decided to do a segment about her book, then that argues for the notability of her work (and by extension, the author herself). But if she's just invited to give her views in a programme about another topic (e.g. "What do you think of Ahmadinejad's visit to the UN, what do you think about human rights in Iran, etc."), it's really no different than getting quoted in a newspaper article --- it's not coverage about her and doesn't contribute to Wikipedia writing an article about her. cab (call) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there's some Persian language hits as well, but mostly blogs and other user-generated content: [18]. I see some newspapers in there but I haven't really had time to dig through them. cab (call) 08:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: in some parts unencyclopedic and needs re-writing. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 14:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think what you saw were unacceptable edits that have been applied to the article before; they contain commentary and personal observation, as well as factual inaccuracies (themselves remainders of previous vandalism--that she was born in Boston, France, for instance). I have removed that 'information' again and warned the user. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of reliable sources.Farhikht (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)l[reply]
- Comment Here is a list of links I found, let me know what you guys think:
- [19] - AP Story: she is not the main topic (and she doesn't actually have to be, accordng to WP:SIGCOV), but featured very prominently, not a trivial mention at all.
- [20] - I really don't know what kind of editorial integrity this source has (any advice?), but it is an interesting interview with her.
- [21] Here is a transcript of testimony she gave to the British House of Commons
- [22] This search brings up a few articles in newspapers like Vancouver Sun and the Ottowa Citizen... we would have to cough up $5 to read the actual articles (although she published the article text on her own website, I am assuming you guys don't want to take her word for it?)
- [23] She is discussed twice in the book "iMuslims: Rewiring the House of Islam", published by UNC Press.
- Yet Another Comment A few more:
- [24] Fox News interviews her about her book and her experiences.
- [25] Interview with Sean Hannity, the clip is glitchy, but Hannity is questioning her mainly about her own experiences.
- Tarastar, I'm going to have another look at the articles from that Infomart database: at least one of them looks decent. I don't accept Universal Peace TV or that Institute for Monitoring Peace as reliable sources that impart notability, but other editors may differ (esp. on the second one). That book quote is helpful, as is the AP story: those things may change my mind, and I'll get back to it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Tarastar42 (talk) 04:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep To the nominator, I'd like to point out that being a "vandalism magnet" is not a reason to delete something. From her television appearances alone, she is clearly notable, a major news channel calling upon her for her expert opinion. Dream Focus 11:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you'll find her mentioned in many sources. There is a transcript showing her being interviewed about her book on CNN [26]. Just search for her name there, to get to the part where they start interviewing her. Dream Focus 11:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, I never said that being a vandalism magnet is an argument for deletion, but thank you for the advice. As for that transcript, if you had looked at the article, you would have seen that I was the one who added the sentence "...she has appeared on Glenn Beck's TV show (in 2007, on CNN).[1]" to the article, with a footnote to that very article. The claim that someone is notable because they're interviewed on TV is clearly not supported by consensus on Wikipedia, and "major news channel calling for her expert opinion": you know this was an appearance on Glenn Beck's show, right? Drmies (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were just Beck, I would agree with you, but the point is she is interviewed on every major cable news network on a fairly regular basis. Check this list of news clips: [27] If ever there is a story that could use commentary by someone Iranian, female, and slightly crazy, she is the cable news go-to-girl... and there are a surprising number of stories like that! Tarastar42 (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, I never said that being a vandalism magnet is an argument for deletion, but thank you for the advice. As for that transcript, if you had looked at the article, you would have seen that I was the one who added the sentence "...she has appeared on Glenn Beck's TV show (in 2007, on CNN).[1]" to the article, with a footnote to that very article. The claim that someone is notable because they're interviewed on TV is clearly not supported by consensus on Wikipedia, and "major news channel calling for her expert opinion": you know this was an appearance on Glenn Beck's show, right? Drmies (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- pablo 15:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've improved the article and added several references. There are artciles about her in The Vancouver Sun (8-6-2005) and The Ottawa Citizen (8-2-2005) that Tarastar42 mentioned above. There is also a third article about her in The Beacon (10-19-2006), which can be confirmed by going to NewsLibrary.com and entering her name in the search form. I believe this meets the requirements of WP:N. - Hydroxonium (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. What slid this to the "keep" side was the nominator saying that he's now cool with the article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ray Anthony Jónsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Icelandic football is not fully professional. As this person has done nothing other than play domestic football in Iceland, he fails WP:NSPORT. Mkativerata (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He plays at the top level of Icelandic football. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please refer to the applicable notability guideline that says the top level of Icelandic football confers notability. Or, alternatively, demonstrable coverage in reliable sources other than a link to a basic stats database. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 11:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - new sources added, combined with European appearances and an international call up, all push this player into the 'notable' bracket. GiantSnowman 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Icelandic football is not fully pro, and as such, this person fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Also the Icelandic football is not fully professional. --Carioca (talk) 20:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article's subject fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. MJ94 (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources in the Icelandic press were easy to find, and he was just chosen for the Philippines national team. I've added info and references. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much. Now that we have a proper article rather than a misconceived stub, I'll no longer press for the article to be deleted. I'll leave it to the remaining delete !voters to consider what to do: techcnically he still fails NSPORT as he hasn't represented Iceland but the sources look more than ok. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Appears to meet WP:GNG per the coverage found. Yes, he marginally fails NSPORT, but with such a high level of sourcing that shouldn't be an issue. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep various sources included conferring notability. Eldumpo (talk) 11:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. —Half Price 14:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Alliance for Safe Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. most of the coverage merely confirms its existence rather than indepth coverage. [28]. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. Five Years 03:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Strong keep, if there really is such a thing. The influence of their research, reflected in the 2004 conference and the 2008 report, and the founding of the International Drowning Research Centre in Bangladesh (all of which are now verified in the article), have convinced me the organization is doing important work which is being recognized by UNICEF, the United Nations, and the Australian government--not to mention the children of South East Asia. Weak keep. Yes--but the very fact that they have hits in Google News, that they are cited and mentioned, suggests to me that we are dealing with at least a moderately notable organization. I found the same thing that you did, and I wish I could find more significant stuff--maybe others can, so I'm going weakly here. Drmies (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- question is, can you build a decent article out of 1 line mentions? LibStar (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I probably can't. And LibStar, as valid as that question is, it doesn't matter. None of the content in Creepmime is, and the only verifiable content is that they recorded two albums--but they are notable by our standards. I maintain that this organization is notable per the coverage, but I realize fully well that I can only make a very, very weak claim, and that I will never get a DYK out of it. And I'm not going to go to war over this organization, or fuss if this ends up in deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to produce a text one sentence longer than my response to your comment; I'm surprised and pleased. It isn't much, but it confirms to me that the organization is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is depth. I don't doubt it does great work, but it hasn't generated sufficient coverage so as to enable an article to be written. Figureofnine (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I managed to produce a text one sentence longer than my response to your comment; I'm surprised and pleased. It isn't much, but it confirms to me that the organization is notable. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I probably can't. And LibStar, as valid as that question is, it doesn't matter. None of the content in Creepmime is, and the only verifiable content is that they recorded two albums--but they are notable by our standards. I maintain that this organization is notable per the coverage, but I realize fully well that I can only make a very, very weak claim, and that I will never get a DYK out of it. And I'm not going to go to war over this organization, or fuss if this ends up in deletion. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of in-depth coverage as required by the guidelines. Figureofnine (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This talks about their work at some length, as does this. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both stem from surveys conducted by this organization with UNICEF. Neither concerns the organization itself, which in my opinion fails to show the requisite depth of coverage. Figureofnine (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to both your comments at the same time: the organization is noted worldwide and has generated plenty of coverage, in my limited opinion. You have to realize that non-profit organizations don't generate coverage the way authors or pop stars do, but the effects of their work are easily measured by worldwide coverage. Stating that the results of a report done by the organization does not help establish notability for the organization that produced it, that's putting the cart before the horse and then calling the horse a bad name. And yes, one could write an article on it: I just did, and let's see how it fares at WP:DYK, where I nominated it. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's definitely a worthy organization, and certainly "notable" in the geopolitical sense. I'm just having trouble figuring out, as noted by another editor, how an article can be constructed around it. Certainly the world won't end if this article is kept, and it's not a self-promotion like some I've seen. Figureofnine (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To respond to both your comments at the same time: the organization is noted worldwide and has generated plenty of coverage, in my limited opinion. You have to realize that non-profit organizations don't generate coverage the way authors or pop stars do, but the effects of their work are easily measured by worldwide coverage. Stating that the results of a report done by the organization does not help establish notability for the organization that produced it, that's putting the cart before the horse and then calling the horse a bad name. And yes, one could write an article on it: I just did, and let's see how it fares at WP:DYK, where I nominated it. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Both stem from surveys conducted by this organization with UNICEF. Neither concerns the organization itself, which in my opinion fails to show the requisite depth of coverage. Figureofnine (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This talks about their work at some length, as does this. Drmies (talk) 16:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The multiple reliable and verifiable sources about the organization establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have reviewed all of the cited sources and haven't found anything with coverage of the organization beyond "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization". In the latter case, I'm adding to the "such as" the organization's own data, not just personnel's commentary. Beyond that, there's mention of the purpose of the organization, but no in-depth coverage of it&mdsah;nothing that identifies its size, scope of its work, means of going about its work, etc. If I've missed anything, please let me know. Bongomatic 22:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bongo--I canvassed you in hopes of getting a simple 'keep' out of you! And you stab me in the back? ;)
Seriously, being cited at length on the BBC, with data from your study included, that doesn't count? Report cited and director quoted in a Danish newspaper? (Ask Favonian for a translation if needs be.) An interview on Australian TV? Research cited, partnership explained with notable Australian organization, Royal Life Saving Society Australia, in a Chinese/English newspaper? Swimming lessons noted in Pakistan's best-selling English newspaper? And don't let me hear that all those are just single-line mentions: they are not. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bongo--I canvassed you in hopes of getting a simple 'keep' out of you! And you stab me in the back? ;)
- I've reviewed again the references you cite:
- BBC. Limited to quote from technical director referring to study. No reference to study in text of article. No information on organization itself.
- ABC. Unable to ascertain, but appears to be an interview with the coordinator of the joint UNICEF / TASC study.
- Epoch Times. Two mentions—one "according to data published by" and another "with partner". No information on organization itself.
- Daily Star. Sole mention is "with the assistance from". No information on organization itself.
- Just don't see anything that comes close to approaching the guidelines' threshold. Delete. Bongomatic 02:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment. Rightly or wrongly, the articles mainly treat the organization as equivalent to a contract research provider for UNICEF, and not worthy of any further comment. It is the treatment in secondary sources—rather than its actual activities and merit—that are relevant to the inquiry as to (Wikipedia, not real-world) notability. Bongomatic 04:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bongo, Michael Linnan is the technical director of TASC, per the [BBC. And those secondary sources, they cite the work done by the organization (and treat their numbers as authoritative), mention their founder and technical director, and confirm that they are prime movers in research and practice. For an organization, I think that's enough. I mean, ABC (Australia) says, "Peterson, founder of The Alliance for Safe Children (TASC) which sprang from a campaign that began in Vietnam, said there was a lack of data, prevention programs or research on injury in most developing countries," and then goes on to cite Peterson on the matter. But I'm obviously not going to change your mind. Later, Drmies (talk) 06:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed again the references you cite:
- Keep - Article has been significantly improved by Drmies since its AfD listing. It is "worthy of notice" per WP:N and has "multiple independent sources" per WP:ORG#Primary criteria. - Hydroxonium (talk) 06:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clicking the Google news search at the top of the AFD, and you will find that many major news sources do quote this organization. They consider them notable, and so should we. Remember, the suggested guidelines are there to help you form a decision, not to do the thinking for you. They state there are exceptions, and to use common sense. AN organization is notable if major news sources quote it for stats, obviously. Dream Focus 18:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's a guideline stating that notability is not inherited. The notion that every publisher of a notable statistic is notable in its own right is far from obvious—so far that it's not even conceivably true. Bongomatic 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inherited? That means you aren't famous just because a family member is. An organization that gathers stats, is notable if their stats and them are quoted in major news sources. Dream Focus 07:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles that solely quote an organization's official are considered "trivial coverage" by WP:ORG. Figureofnine (talk) 21:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there's a guideline stating that notability is not inherited. The notion that every publisher of a notable statistic is notable in its own right is far from obvious—so far that it's not even conceivably true. Bongomatic 23:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above keep sayers. i totally agree.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep A very promotional article. I would have simply deleted it as G11 and too thoroughly promotional to be worth the rewriting , but Drmies chose to try and rescue it, which is of course an option. Even now, there are signs of promotionalism remaining writing: most of the references are about the importance of the overall problem, not the work of the agency, there's still too much pathos, and too much jargon--without these, it would be a very short article. It is very difficult to judge the notability of organizations like these, especially when their primary activity consists of sponsoring conferences and issuing studies. Reliance upon the GNG is deceptive--it leads to notability for those groups with the better press agents, and the various articles here, even from what we think of as reliable sources, seem derived from press releases, not reporting. Organizations like UNICEF normally work in partnerships, and usually headlines refer to the best known group or the local group, so its hard to tell which is important and which is a mere mention. I prefer to judge by actual importance, but, since sponsoring conferences is not solving problems, the actual importance is hard to determine. But this group does seem just over the bar. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, feel free to edit for tone. I don't agree (but then, I wrote it) and I don't really see the pathos. A sentence like "The publication of the report generated interest from printed media..." is of course awful, but I needed a way to get the multitude of references, worldwide, in there. Besides that, I don't really see a promo tone at all, but I welcome edits for neutrality (Rlevse, that goes out to you as well!). Drmies (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above keepers. the promo tone can be worked on. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong babble 14:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closer: should this end up as delete, consider merging it into Pete Peterson. The content is relevant enough. If you don't agree, then please userfy it to me. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep leaning towards snowball strength, per improvements by Drmies which easily establish notability. Very important charity, good informative article with plenty of room for expansion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Pete Peterson (with options on Drowning#Prevention) or weak delete. Look, I know that there are 19 sources named in the footnotes, and that quite a number of editors have assumed (without looking) that all these sources actually say something about the organization. But the fact is that they don't. Almost half the sources say nothing more than "Look at these statistics on drowning, which we got from TASC". That makes drowning notable, not TASC. The other half say, "This group partnered with TASC, and now let me tell you about the other group." That makes the other group (e.g., UNICEF) notable, not TASC. Notability is not inherited from your affiliates.
Exercise for the 'keep' editors: Can you find a third-party source that tells what year the organization was founded? I couldn't. Can you find a third-party source that discusses its budget? I couldn't. Can you find a third-party source that says how many employees it has? I couldn't. How about where its headquarters is located? I couldn't. It seems to me that if you reduced this article to information provided by third-party sources that was strictly speaking about the organization, it would contain two sentences: "TASC does surveys on preventable child injuries, especially drowning, which it uses to advocate for instruction in swimming. Former ambassador Pete Peterson founded it." This article—while certainly about a WP:NOBLECAUSE—is a violation of WP:V's "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." An organization's own website is not a "reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and the trivial, passing mentions in all of these sources don't form the basis of the article. Overall, I think we need to WP:MERGE this into a notable subject, or, failing that, simply delete it as WP:NOTADVERTISING, which applies every bit as much to noble causes as it does to local businesses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources are fine if the information is not in doubt. See WP:SELFPUB, which is on the WP:V page. Also read the two tags at the top of the policy page. :This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." Notice the word normally links to the bit about common sense, telling you that Wikipedia isn't about following the rules exactly, etc. Another tag says "This page in a nutshell: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Dream Focus 21:38, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: A google news, scholar and lexisnexis search shows no major articles by the subject. Amandalu862 (talk) 15:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As per aboveAmandalu862 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article passes WP:GNG. Lots of significant third-party coverage; also note the existence of the journalist's awards (including one presented by the Governor-General). Just because there is little coverage in the academic sphere does not necessarily mean that the subject is non-notable. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources provided--good work, AOI. Drmies (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No news articles about him through google search and academic search. How is this worthy compare to other newscasters? How can one even try to expand the page without any articles? There is no evidence he is a human rights campaigner. Please explain.Amandalu862 (talk) 21:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several sources that I've already added into the article that show that he is notable, having been presented with several prestigious awards. As to the "human rights campaigner" issue, if this bothers you and you can't find anything to back it up, either tag the comment or delete it yourself.
- And finally, I'm sorry, but you only get one vote on the issue; you've already voted to delete this article three times (not including your votes in the previous AfD attempt). If you're going to comment on something, please mark your comments with comment and not delete. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 03:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adult Film Database (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable notability. No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to "Internet Adult Film Database. 68.45.109.14 (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agreed, questionable notability but high on nobility. In seriousness, though, phonebooks aren't particularly notable and poorly cited, I see no appreciable difference. -- CáliKewlKid (talk) 01:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources = no notability = no keep by Wikipedia's criteria. Neither "questionable notability but high on nobility" nor "I see no appreciable difference [from phone books]" comes anywhere remotely near being a justification for keeping under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IAFD's article was up for deletion and kept. Adultfilmdatabase in many cases has better data than them. Example, IAFD only has 524 titles listed for Jill Kelly, while adultfilmdatabase has 725. In terms of notability they used to be referenced on Tera Patrick's official homepage also. --Pinworm (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. A few more comments grounded in policy would be helpful.--Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Wrong forum Moved to MFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia/Peer review/BroadMap (edit | [[Talk:Wikipedia:WikiProject Virginia/Peer review/BroadMap|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure why the user chose to post their issue here, but I'm certain it doesn't belong. Patrick, oѺ∞ 01:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close and then over to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion for this one methinks. Keresaspa (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Skydiver (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be an insignificant film per Wikipedia's notability for films. Mike Allen 01:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 01:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Lacks the coverage and critical commentary that might allow it to meet WP:Notability (films). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no significant coverage and thus not notable by WP:NF. BOVINEBOY2008 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 speedily deleted as a hoax by a sock of a banned vandal —Preceding unsigned comment added by PMDrive1061 (talk • contribs)
- Journey to the Darkness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As far as I can tell, this film does not exist. No IMDb entry, the source provided says nothing about Journey to the Darkness, and also no Google hits. Mike Allen 00:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Mike Allen 01:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this seems a hoax. The references link to another film and this one is not mentioned at all. Even if the information is correct it should not be on wikipedia before some reliable source publishes it. Yoenit (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- G3 Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Note the IMDB EL that leads to a different film by Craven... and even the most generic G-Search leads only back to this article.[29] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to List_of_songs_by_the_Jonas_Brothers. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of songs by Nick Jonas and the Administration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is unclear, the title specifies that this is a list of Nick Jonas and the Administration songs, but the prose introduces it as a definitive list of songs by Nick Jonas alone and at one point this "list of songs" included a discography of everything done by him. There is not enough info to make a Nick Jonas list of songs, let alone a list for his band which has released one album. Fixer23 (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is already a List of songs by the Jonas Brothers. If any of this overlaps, I say merge duplicate info there. Not enough Nick-solo stuff to be on its own in a "list of songs". This article is also plagued by Jonas-fans who throw anything and everything into the article. - eo (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any overlap and delete. Cool Hand Luke 03:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete much of the content seems redundant or unnecessary for a single list. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to 702 (band). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Orish Grinstead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability outside of band. Merge discussion has stalled precisely because of the low visibility as she is not notable outside of her band. Fixer23 (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Redirect to the notable band she was part of. Rlendog (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge and redirect to 702 (band) per WP:MUSICBIO. Non-notable members of notable bands ared redirected to the band. I couldn't find any reliable sources, which discusses her outide the band. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to 702 (band). "Merge discussion has stalled precisely because of the low visibility as she is not notable outside of her band" - QED! Like Armbrust I've failed to turn up sources discussing this artist outside the context of her band. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2002. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spear Lancaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a one-time losing candidate and WP:N as an individual with no significant independent news coverage. Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is only one piece of information that for now is preventing me from agreeing entirely with the nominator, and that is that this individual was the first person from a third political party to appear on the ballot in Maryland in more than 30 years. Besides, you're gonna have a red-link when u look at the article on Maryland gubernatorial election, 2002 - Lancaster was the only 3rd party candidate on the ballot, notable to the 2002 election outcome, which was officially between Bob Ehrlich, Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend AND Spear Lancaster.
So I'll stick my neck out there and say absolutely razor-thin edge keep. Merge per Location below. Shiva (Visnu) 22:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't be a red link. The name would be delinked. I understand your other argument, but is there some sourcing that indicates the significance of this third party candidacy? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (tubelight! on red link :) no I'm certainly having difficulty finding other notable sourcing. I think Location may have prescribed the best solution for now. Shiva (Visnu) 23:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Maryland gubernatorial election, 2002. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. I interpret routine election coverage to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Also, the coverage about the candidate is in the context of the election, so (per WP:BLP1E) redirect to the election article. Location (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I wonder if there's much worth merging. RayTalk 22:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. The discussion below shows a careful consideration of the matter and a pretty strong consensus to keep. Participants noted that the quality of the list has been affirmed by its having been approved as a Featured List. It was pointed out that the FL process does not assess or guarantee the notability of the topic; however, the quality of the list has been strongly affirmed. Merging this into the Condé Nast Publications article, which is not very well developed, would have the additional negative effect of creating a weight problem with that article. Deleting a high-quality list in a process that reduces the quality of an existing article would be a net negative. The best path forward would be to improve the Condé Nast Publications article to a point where the complementary relationship between the article and list is readily apparent to the reader. Pete (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of mergers and acquisitions by Condé Nast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom, no opinion myself on the AFD. Overturned from DRV, started a new AFD on the matter, for a fresh discussion from the community. -- Cirt (talk) 12:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: User:Colonel Warden closed this AfD because the article was a redirect. Noting that the redirect was created immediately after the previous AfD, which was overturned at DRV; noting also that that redirect was created by Colonel Warden, who re-redirected the article now when Cirt had restored it: and noting that Colonel Warden wanted to close the previous AfD as "Speedy Keep This is a featured list. We are here to discuss deletions not mergers.", I can only regard this as a closure by a heavily involved editor. I have therefor undone it. Fram (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Just trying to save everyone some time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. The article in question was a redirect until Cirt resurrected for AFD just now. This was improper because deletion of redirects is handled by a different process. And note that we can't delete it anyway because its content has been copied to the Condé Nast Publications article and so we must keep the edit history for license attribution, as explained on this article's talk page. Please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Cirt acted properly in carrying out the consensus of the deletion review. Perhaps myself and others should have said a relist was unnecessary at deletion review, but given that the deletion review did end with a consensus to relist, I think unredirecting the article and relisting was appropriate. Calathan (talk) 16:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Colonel Warden, this page was merged during the previous AfD, a practice that is heavily frowned upon as it seen as an end run around AfD, because of the argument that usually follows, as in this case: it can't be deleted, it has been merged! Such behaviour should not be encouraged by experienced editors like you. Fram (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - I'm confused what the point of this is. Whether or not to keep the history of a redirect page?--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - There seems to be agreement now to make this a redirect. I'm kind of regretting my suggestion at deletion review to relist this, as it seems that another AFD isn't really necessary(but I definitely do still think the previous AFDs should have been allowed to run, and that the rational for closing them was incorrect). Calathan (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you find that "There seems to be agreement now to make this a redirect"? Fram (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This had been merged and redirected based on the discussion at FLRC. As the redirect had remained in place for several days, I figured there was agreement to merge the content into the parent article. But it seems like this AFD is getting more participation, which is one of the main reasons I thought an AFD for this would be good. So I'm striking my previous suggestion to redirect (which was based only on the thought that the main article editors were in consensus), as well as my statement that the AFD might not be necessary. Calathan (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where did you find that "There seems to be agreement now to make this a redirect"? Fram (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is still a featured list. I do not believe any featured list should be deleted or redirected while it is still listed at WP:FLRC: this could result in a silly situation where content is reaffirmed as "the best that wikipedia has to offer" by retention at FLRC... and at the same time deleted by an AfD. Read the DRV for my argument at more length if desired. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to keep the history of the page. Sandman888 (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Let's talk about the notability for once instead of wasting our time with bureaucratic wrangling over the list. The original would have been done over a week ago. I agree with Jclemens, it's a featured list which strongly suggests its notability. It seems to meet all the criteria for a list itself, and I don't think a redirect (really a merge) is necessary at this point. This is a large company where its mergers maintain a visible character of their previous identity (unlike many more run-of-the-mill corporate mergers/acquisitions). I don't want to set a precedent for all fortune 500 companies (or others) to need lists like this, but in this case it appears to be a good content fork. Shadowjams (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets all standards for a list. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets all the criteria for a stand-alone list, and merging back into the main article is a poor idea that would need to be undone in due course as the main article approaches compliance with standards. Courcelles 23:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For goodness' sake, it is a featured list. A merge with the main article is not necessary as there is sufficient material to go into the list. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Featured list means WP has decided it is worthwhile. Seems odd to pursue this AfD, to be sure. Collect (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rant from FAC delegate: the featured list process (and the featured article process), absolutely have nothing to do with notability. The articles/lists are judged based on criteria that do not include notability. At FAC delegates disregard any comments that the nominated article does not meet the notability guidelines, because that is not part of the FAC criteria and therefore it cannot be part of the promotion decision. The notability question must be resolved here, at AFD, not at FLC/FAC - and I note that FLs and FAs have been deleted at AfD before. The fact that it is a featured list is not a valid keep argument . Karanacs (talk) 14:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it seems that "Notability is not an FLC criteria" is the argument that isn't being supported by the community here. Jclemens (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Conde Nast. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Does anyone beside me think that the list should be the Condé Nast Publications article? I ask because that's what it basically is – a copypaste of the list of mergers and acquisitions with a much better-written, sourced, and cohesive lead than the actual article. This should be looked more into IMO, because I am not seeing a very good reason for a list itself to have its own page in this fashion. –MuZemike 03:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable company? Check. Coherent inclusion criteria? Check. Finite list length? Check. And every entry is sourced out. Why the hell was this challenged in the first place? Deletion nomination has a SNOWBALL'S CHANCE. —Carrite, Oct. 4, 2010.
- Keep Perfectly appropriate subject for a list, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge . Merge discussions should take place on the appropriate article talk pages. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bulk REO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is inherently spammy in nature and there aren't any reliable sources available to document it. While the article has been deleted and recreated 3 times over the past week and improved every time, the fundamental problem of a lack of references sources can't be overcome. Every google result I can find is either self published or a spam site. My PROD was contested by a likely IP vandal, but relisting at AfD so everyhing is above board. Request article be deleted and salted unless someone can find a way that this article can ever be well-written from a reliable source. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, still looks a bit spammy to me; if that could be overcome with an economically coherent description and non-spammy source (which describes the subject from an independent perspective rather than offering amazing deals or "free tips" for traders) then I would happily keep.I would oppose salting if there has been progress over time - ie. even if it gets deleted now, I wouldn't want to preclude the possibility of an acceptable article being written later. 18:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by bobrayner (talk • contribs) 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- I have tried looking for such sources, but they simply don't exist, which is why it needs to be salted. Consider why we don't have a wikipedia article on ch3ap vi4gr4..... Sailsbystars (talk) 18:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to become a DISAMBIGUATION PAGE. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)MBradleyUltimate[reply]
- Doesn't change the fact that it fails notability and reliable sourcing guidelines. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CITATIONS added.MBradleyUltimate (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
INTERNAL WIKILINKS added. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect – Wouldn’t a merge and redirect to REO make sense here? I was able to find sources for the reference “Bulk REO”, as shown here [30]. However, not enough for a standalone article at this time. However, as “Bulk REO” is actually just a spinoff of REO a truly notable subject, it makes sense, in my opinion to just merge and redirect this article to REO. Thanks for listening. ShoesssS Talk 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's even worthy of mention.... most of those google news hits are self published PR pieces. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most but not all. I even found a Google Scholar hit on the term as shown here [31]. However, do agree, just not enough for a standalone piece. ShoesssS Talk 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked through the google scholar entry and it's not about bulk REO, just mentions it 5 times in passing in a 156 page report. That's the problem. It's not a separate concept from REO, it's just a simple combination of two words that don't form a unique or notable concept. So maybe a sentence in REO mentioning that properties are sometimes sold in bulk, but I can't see how one could even add that without committing WP:SYN, given available sources. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most but not all. I even found a Google Scholar hit on the term as shown here [31]. However, do agree, just not enough for a standalone piece. ShoesssS Talk 19:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's even worthy of mention.... most of those google news hits are self published PR pieces. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you define how it differs from short sale And why this one is acceptable?MBradleyUltimate (talk) 04:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there's nothing to disambiguate, and disambiguation is simply being used as an excuse to keep a non-notable topic. Sailsbystars (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why is short sale acceptable? MBradleyUltimate (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is bulk purchasing acceptable? MBradleyUltimate (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is bulk buying acceptable? MBradleyUltimate (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectIf you don't think they are acceptable, nominate them. They look to me like terms one could reasonably expect to be looked up. This just looks like a minor variant of REO. Peridon (talk) 15:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep. That looks more informative and useful. Peridon (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- short sale defines variants too. The point why I'm asking is that, they basically have the same form, purpose, template and yet they don't accept bulk REO. If you look at the history, this started out simple just like short sale. Then people kept asking for references, links. And I followed. But if you look at short sale, bulk purchasing, bulk buying they are considered acceptable. they all look the same. I need a valid reason for this. I dont see the point why you keep pulling it down and yet there are other terms out there that are considered acceptable. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't intend to nominate them because I am using them as a benchmark. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the basic rules here is that the existence of one article doesn't give any other article a right to exist. Apart from which, articles should give information, and to be frank, I didn't get anything from this except that there is REO and Bulk REO. "Bulk REO can also refer to: * Bulk Purchasing - buying goods or services in large volume at a lower cost per item" - no, Bulk Purchasing is Bulk Purchasing of any sort of goods, but not usually real estate. Or, it can "refer to Real Estate Owned - properties that became under a lender's ownership after it has undergone foreclosure" - once again, that's not right as real estate owned is not of necessity 'bulk'. I am a real estate owner (to use the American term). I am not a bulk real estate owner. "Bulk REO or Bulk Real Estate Owned, at a real estate investor’s point of view, is like investing on wholesale real estate properties" - sort of. Well, I would expect bulk to be equivalent to wholesale in some ways. ('At' should be 'from', by the way.) Peridon (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Short sale looks reasonable to me. The other two look somewhat pointless as they stand and are tagged for lack of references. Peridon (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly and yet they do exist for about what 3 years and nobody even bothered deleting. I am doing the best I can to improve the article. Thank you for the suggestions and corrections. I'm learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBradleyUltimate (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly the 'team' scrutinising new edits is working more keenly. I know that I'm finding much less spam and far fewer hoaxes than I did a year ago. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand. I made updates. Would appreciate reviews and decisions as well on whether to delete it this or not. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly the 'team' scrutinising new edits is working more keenly. I know that I'm finding much less spam and far fewer hoaxes than I did a year ago. Peridon (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly and yet they do exist for about what 3 years and nobody even bothered deleting. I am doing the best I can to improve the article. Thank you for the suggestions and corrections. I'm learning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBradleyUltimate (talk • contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Short sale looks reasonable to me. The other two look somewhat pointless as they stand and are tagged for lack of references. Peridon (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the basic rules here is that the existence of one article doesn't give any other article a right to exist. Apart from which, articles should give information, and to be frank, I didn't get anything from this except that there is REO and Bulk REO. "Bulk REO can also refer to: * Bulk Purchasing - buying goods or services in large volume at a lower cost per item" - no, Bulk Purchasing is Bulk Purchasing of any sort of goods, but not usually real estate. Or, it can "refer to Real Estate Owned - properties that became under a lender's ownership after it has undergone foreclosure" - once again, that's not right as real estate owned is not of necessity 'bulk'. I am a real estate owner (to use the American term). I am not a bulk real estate owner. "Bulk REO or Bulk Real Estate Owned, at a real estate investor’s point of view, is like investing on wholesale real estate properties" - sort of. Well, I would expect bulk to be equivalent to wholesale in some ways. ('At' should be 'from', by the way.) Peridon (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peridon, I invite you to look at the sourcing for the article. The Article as it stands is OR, based on a a self published source (articlebase, and by the author of this wiki article no less! WP:COI anyone?) and a spam source (ultimatebulkreo). I see that the author of the article has added two seeming legitimate sources. However, the "wholesale REO" chapter in Millionaire RealEstate Mentor is available through google books[32] and doesn't support the information in the article. It talks about wholesale prices but says nothing about buying multiple properties. It also never calls it "bulk REO." The other book reference [33] is in a chapter that doesn't seem to be about bulk purchases either, although the actually cited page is redacted. Also, both books appear to be Get Rich Quick schemes, rather than scholarly tomes. Again, my challenge as in the nomination is for anyone to find a single reliable source documenting the topic as described in the article. Other wise, it fails WP:BASIC and should be deleted. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm prepared to accept a McGraw-~Hill publication until someone finds it doesn't refer to the subject. If anyone does check these hard copy books out, let us know. Peridon (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For one thing, those two books you have mentioned are published materials. Are you telling that they are not RELIABLE SOURCES? The chapter in Millionaire Real Estate Mentor, I do hope you read it thoroughly before you conclude that it doesn't talk about buying. The Chapter title itself talks about buying. It discusses the logic of buying bulk properties and how it works. By common sense, bulk and wholesale are synonymous. I agree with Peridon when mentioned that they are similar. The material is also published in 2003. New terms have sprouted after 7 to 10 years. When you do research for a material do you literally go for the exact word? I do believe as a researcher that if you look for sources you also go for terms that are similar to them. You haven't answered my previous questions also. Why is bulk buying, bulk purchasing and short sales even acceptable? You haven't answered that and instead look for another arguments. Delete them first.
From the list that you mentioned:
- It does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve it by citing reliable sources. - I FOLLOWED.
- The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. - I FOLLOWED.
- Very few or no other articles link to it. Please help introduce links to this page from other articles related to it. - I FOLLOWED.
So now what? Another argument? I suggest you remove them first before you keep on asking for more. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Link redirecting to website is removed to satisfy issues on spam sources. Suggest more for improvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBradleyUltimate (talk • contribs) 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every source is a reliable source. Not one of the sources you have currently cited qualifies, based on my experience. Sailsbystars (talk) 12:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep. I think there's still some room to improve the content, and the sources are not the best, but there are now four of them and I have no intention of recurrently biting a new editor who has tried to comply with suggestions so far by adding content and sources. I would still oppose salting if this article gets deleted; salting is a great tool if somebody keeps on hammering away creating a bad/invalid article with no attempt to comply with policy, but the AfD nomination acknowledged that progress had been made before, and I see more progress now, so I don't want to rule out the possibility of an better article appearing in future - I think salting would be the wrong tool in this case. bobrayner (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm too biased by having seen previous incarnations of the article and now deleted comments hinting that the article writing was bought and paid for (something along the lines of "I was assigned to write this article"), which is why I'm being perhaps more bitey and holding the article to a high standard. I'll let the rest of the community decide what's best and step back from this page. Also, I removed the salt portion from my request, since your reasoning is sound. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, I was assigned to write this article because the one who asked me is not techy enough to use Wikipedia (with all these naming conventions and special codes]. I believe that you should take responsibility of this conflict that you have started in order to avoid being a biter. Thank you for helping me out and making me realize lots of things here. I had so much as a newbie. MBradleyUltimate (talk) 16:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I know that AfD discussions should be about existential issues rather than content, but it would help me to get my head around whether this is a serious topic if someone could explain what is meant by "these properties sell for 40 to 60 percent lower than the actual market value". Surely the price that can be obtained for anything is precisely 100% of its actual market value? Or am I misunderstanding basic economics? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's a little misleading but not wildly so. Prices, if accurate, are being compared to sales of similar goods in a subtly different market. For a related example, last year I planned to buy a house at auction; prices appeared a lot cheaper than conventional housebuying but that's because (a) it's harder to borrow money for this type of purchase, (b) the products on the markets are similar but not identical, as properties at auction usually needed a refurb, and (c) the buyer takes more risks because many of the consumer protections available in retail no longer apply. bobrayner (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Wholesale real estate or delete entirely. Not enough to distinguish it from regular wholesale real estate for me. Sven Manguard Talk 23:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or delete per Sven's reasoning. This simply is not a notable topic on its own, and no amount of insistence is going to make it one. The "article" is more suited for an investor's newsletter than for an encyclopedia. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Overall consensus among editors is in favor of keeping the articles. In addition, comments by multiple users are correct in assessing that there is reliable secondary source coverage of these topics. Further, at least one editor is also right in stating that multiple of these sources could be used to improve quality of the listed articles up to at least WP:GA rated quality status. -- Cirt (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hunting (House) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I do not believe this article meets the guidelines as laid out in Wikipedia:Television episodes. Some sources are given, as with all the episodes from this season of House, but those aren't independent, significant discussions of the topic as required by our notability guidelines. The article has been tagged for notability and as unreferenced since April 2010, and consists, like the others in this season, of only plot, infobox, and templates. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The following House episode article AfDs redirect here:
- Acceptance (House)
- Autopsy (House)
- Humpty Dumpty (House)
- TB or Not TB
- Hunting (House) (obviously)
- Daddy's Boy
- Spin (House)
- Hunting (House)
- The Mistake (House)
- Deception (House)
- Failure to Communicate
- Need to Know (House)
- Distractions (House)
- Skin Deep (House)
- Sex Kills
- Clueless (House)
- Safe (House)
- All In (House)
- Sleeping Dogs Lie (House)
- House vs. God
- Euphoria, Part 1
- Euphoria, Part 2
- Forever (House)
- Who's Your Daddy? (House)
- No Reason (House)
- Acceptance (House)
- – sgeureka t•c 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The following House episode article AfDs redirect here:
- Delete - But this shouldn't be done piecemeal. An editor should go through all the episodes, determine which are not notable, and create one consolidated nomination for them. --Bsherr (talk) 20:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the episodes from season 2 are notable, in my opinion--but this one was tagged for a long, long time, and I still don't know how to do multiple nominations. 10lb Hammer, the card-carrying deletionist of TV episodes, is probably real good at it. ;) (This is also to say that you have my blessing to add the rest of season 2 to this nomination!) Drmies (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either approach is acceptable, insomuch as you'll get people bitching about it equally either way. If you nominate them one at a time then people will complain that they should all be considered together. If you bundle them then people will complain that they should be considered separately. Instructions for listing multiple related pages are found here. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'mma let you finish, but... whatever. For the moment, I'm withholding my !vote. IMNSHO, the vast majority of the House episodes are non-notable and should be consigned to electronic oblivion (though I'm willing to bet there's a Housepedia, I refuse to look for it). Most are simple plot summaries, with some blogldygook from, well, blogs about how accurate the medical mumbo-jumbo is or is not. The major characters, while probably(?) notable lack coverage in indicate same. I'd like a nice neat package of episodes to send to the flames together, rather than the piecemeal attack. I, too, await the learned hammer to strike while the ... You get the idea. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and lack of reliable sources, but I agree that a bundle would've been better. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as consisting wholly of plot and a handful of external links and unreferenced production minutiae. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hammer, if you don't mind, please bundle them in here, on my behalf: a. you know how to do this b. I gotta run and won't be back for a few hours. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have made several significant improvements to the article, I have cited sources and am working on each House episode article to improve their quality, therefore any premature deletion would be unwise. - Thecheesykid talk
Delete - no independent reliable sources establish the notability of this individual episode apart from the series. The current sources are a fansite blog and a music listing at Amazon, neither of which remotely satisfy WP:GNG. Having written several articles on notable individual episodes, I suggest that the process to follow is locate the independent reliable sources first and then write the article. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Struck !vote of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Sources for this notable topic are readily available as I have demonstrated by adding one - took all of a minute. All the comments above which are based upon an assumption that there are no sources are thus voided. Please see our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, three and a half sentences about the episode in a 264 page book, and all of it in-universe to boot. That's some real in-depth coverage there. Can I pompously declare your !vote to be void now because of the trivial nature of your supposed source? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 09:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That book covers the episode in multiple places. Rather than go counting scattered sentences, I just spend another minute browsing the sources and immediately find The House That Hugh Laurie Built which has a substantial section about this particular episode. The claim that there are no sources is thus shown to be blatantly counterfactual and so is comprehensively and thoroughly voided. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for your opinion, ipso facto the e pluribus unum. Is the book a reliable source? Maybe. Does it provide substantial coverage of episode? Maybe. Does it discuss the episode's importance or is it's coverage purely in-universe? So far, it's all in-universe. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your observation seems quite mistaken - perhaps you read something else. The most recent source leads off by providing details of the writer, cast and broadcast. It comments on the positioning of the episode within the season and its impact in providing "a needed jolt of sass, sex and intrigue". Colonel Warden (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for your opinion, ipso facto the e pluribus unum. Is the book a reliable source? Maybe. Does it provide substantial coverage of episode? Maybe. Does it discuss the episode's importance or is it's coverage purely in-universe? So far, it's all in-universe. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. By now, the article has been improved. As to the fact that much of the article is telling the plot, that is the article's main task. If you are going to delete every article about the plot of an episode from a TV-series, you've got a long way to go. --VR-Land (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - We are going to delete every article that does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It's an on-going task. If you feel the article meets our guidelines, please explain how. If you feel our guidelines should be changed, this discussion is not the place to do it. If you feel this is a "special case" and we should ignore the rules, please explain why. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It in fact is not the "main task" of an article about a television episode to recount the episode's plot. Per WP:PLOT, plot-only descriptions of fictional works are unacceptable. Per WP:WAF, articles written from a purely in-universe perspective are to be avoided. Fictional topics should have sources that discuss them from an out-of-universe perspective, which includes such things as casting, production, critical reception, cultural impact and so on. Per WP:GNG, a subject requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish its notability. Passing mentions in much larger books don't cut it. Plot descriptions coupled with trivia and "booboos" don't cut it. Five or ten or fifty regurgitations of the plot don't cut it. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]And as far as the supposed improvement to the article since nomination, I see little beyond the addition of what appears to be original research in the form of a list of material within the episode that is purported without sourcing to refer to Sherlock Holmes and pee that smells like asparagus. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 23:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)Struck comment of indef-blocked sockpuppet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong communicate 15:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant out-of-universe coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note User:Are You The Cow Of Pain? has been indef-blocked as an abusive sockpuppet of indef-blocked User:Otto4711. His !vote and comments above have been stricken. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all Since the other AFDs link here, and its all the same anyway, I'll just say keep in one place and save time. The episodes are listed in the book Colonel Warden mentioned. Its a notable show, and these days any show like this has all of its episodes mentioned in the news media somewhere. Because of having a name like "House" makes it difficult to search for, there far too many results appearing, it is hard to find them. I did a Google news search for "episode of House" and got some promising results [34]. A lot there to sort through. Dream Focus 11:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the rules are that being mentioned does not equate to being notable, that's clear also. To the newcomers, you'll have to explain that the "all" you are referring to is the section removed by the Colonel, incorrectly. Focus, I would not object to leaving redirects, and that takes care of the search issue. But there is still no evidence that any of these episodes are independently notable, and no actual proof fro the claim that they are possibly notable. Drmies (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as SummerPhD says. That book is in-universe. Please find source for actual real-world notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable; lacking significant rs coverage, original research. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are already season episode lists which contain brief plot summaries of the episodes. This means that even if this AFD is closed "delete", it would still be reasonable to recreate the page as a redirect to House_(season_2). This makes me wonder why we are even discussing pushing the delete button in the first place. Why not instead open up a discussion at wikiproject house about which episodes are notable enough for a standalone article and which should be redirected. One advantage to that approach is that if something happens or something is found later that shows that the episode is notable enough for a standalone article, the article history is still there and it can be restored without having to go to DRV or facing CSD G4. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum to my above comment, I'm surprised that nobody has !voted redirect to House_(season_2). To SummerPhD, there is a housepedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ron, as I indicated earlier above, I am not opposed to that. Drmies (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to the season article per the excellent arguments above. Reyk YO! 21:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Selective merge to the season 2 list. If the consensus is not to have individual episodes, then the terse snippets in the season lists need expanding, there's plot points that have been noted in secondary sources that will be totally removed otherwise, and that won't help our readers one bit. It's funny isn't it how we're increasingly driving those who want plot summaries of episodes to Wikia? Here's a review of the episode from TV Squad:[35]. Fences&Windows 22:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- p.s. Not a "reliable source", but the Polite Dissent reviews of House episodes are always good:[36] Fences&Windows 22:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weakKeepor mergeArguments like "that source doesn't count, it's all in-universe" are not based in policy or guidelines as far as I can see. The book is a solid RS in this context. If you have doubts, feel free to take it to the RS noticeboard. That said, it appears to be the sole independent, secondary RS identified so far. So a merge makes reasonable sense though I strongly suspect there are episode reviews in RSes out there. Hobit (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]- The TV squad article mentioned below is interesting. I'd assumed that wasn't a RS, but it looks like the writers are paid and part of AOL and has editors, and editor-in-chief etc. So looks like we meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 13:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of sources exist to make a GA out of every House ep. Whether anyone cares to do that is another matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non trivial RS. [37] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of RS commentary exist on every House episode. It comes with the popularity, but there's no exception to the GNG just because the reliable-yet-popular press vs. the ivory tower provides the sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see how the book User:Colonel Warden found is "in-universe". It recognizes that the show is fictional, and reviews how the episode fits into the real world of audience reactions, medicine, continuity errors, and other fictional works. Abductive (reasoning) 21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added all AfDed House articles whose AfD template links here. – sgeureka t•c 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to House (season 2). I guess there may one or two episodes that can be expanded to B-Class, but at the moment these articles just consist of plot (WP:NOT#PLOT) and sometimes which songs played in an episode (i.e. practically only trivial real-world info). Redirect the articles first and allow only those ep articles to be recreated that provide sufficient real-world info in the article. Otherwise the plot summary can fit in the season article. A book covering all episodes does not mean every episode is individually notable. I have always been opposed to using TV Squad to establish notability of episodes since they cover all episodes of certain series, and that usually in a poor fashion. – sgeureka t•c 08:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a horse and cart issue here. I'd say if a book provides significant coverage of a topic, it's a RS that counts toward notability. Heck, if we are going to bundle all these together (which I thought the ANI discussion concluded was the wrong thing to do) you basically must accept sources that hit every episode. Are we really expecting folks to pull out different sources for each of the 20 episodes that all redirect here? Rather we're forced to look at sources that cover most or all the episodes in detail. As far as TV squad goes, it too is a RS that covers the individual episodes in detail. That AOL believes it can make money off of these reviews implies pretty strongly that people care (which honestly is darn obvious given the number of people watching these episodes, but that's not helpful for notability on Wikipedia) and that the topic is "worthy of note".
Let me ask this question: given the bundling, what kind of sources are you looking for that would get you to think this group of articles should be kept? Hobit (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is a horse and cart issue here. I'd say if a book provides significant coverage of a topic, it's a RS that counts toward notability. Heck, if we are going to bundle all these together (which I thought the ANI discussion concluded was the wrong thing to do) you basically must accept sources that hit every episode. Are we really expecting folks to pull out different sources for each of the 20 episodes that all redirect here? Rather we're forced to look at sources that cover most or all the episodes in detail. As far as TV squad goes, it too is a RS that covers the individual episodes in detail. That AOL believes it can make money off of these reviews implies pretty strongly that people care (which honestly is darn obvious given the number of people watching these episodes, but that's not helpful for notability on Wikipedia) and that the topic is "worthy of note".
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. With all these other episode articles bundled in at day 4, resetting the clock on this discussion seems reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Notable. --3sides (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep All Multiple reliable sources have been produced which testify to the notability of the episodes of the show. Note that this show is so outstanding that we have a list just to record all its awards! There is not the slightest case for deletion of this material and expanding the AFD in this frivolous and counter-factual way is doing the disruptive work of a banned editor contrary to WP:BAN. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Default to keep Debating this number of episodes at once is impractical, bulk-nominations are best left for open-and-shut cases which this isn't. Bundling multiple nominations together days after the AFD has been running is just not on, the entirely predictable train-wreck is already happening. I don't see how deletion is even on option in this case, at the very least redirecting would be the thing to do so that the material's preserved. Someoneanother 17:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all every TV show should be inherently notable. Any contemporary one will have a half dozen summaries online and in print. Episode guides are one of the most read Wikipedia articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "every TV show should be inherently notable" is completely unsupported by policy. Active Banana (bananaphone 23:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brilliant observation, was it the word "should" that clued you in? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that strongly about it, you're free to start a wiki devoted solely to plot synopses of episodes of TV programs. Mtiffany71 (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Did Drmies look for any sources for any of these articles? Was a merge to the season articles considered? Is it reasonable to expect editors to scramble to find sources for 26 articles all at the same time? Why didn't Drmies wait for this one AfD to be resolved before bundling more articles halfway, causing a terrible muddle? Was any thought put into this other than "delete delete delete"? Fences&Windows 00:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, yes, xe did. Yes, it was. Because xe was asked to do it. Yes there was (and re-check your measurements for 'halfway'). Any more questions? You may want to look at the edit history. Drmies (talk) 04:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all - Notable show, big fan base makes for notable episodes. I wish deletionist energy would be better directed, god knows there's plenty of crap that needs attention without attacking the fanzine-style episode treatments that Wikipedia users seem to love. And no, not WP:ILIKEIT because it's a case of WP:IVENEVERSEENIT and WP:CALLINGASPADEASPADE. —Carrite, Sept. 27, 2010.
- having a huge fanbase is not one of the criteria for having a stand alone article. Having specific "more than trivial" coverage about the specific subject of the article in reliable third party sources is one of the criteria. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all Plenty of 3rd party sources available.Theo10011 (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and possibly discuss proper merging, but, most important, work on the articles for sourcing and conciseness. I would feel much more confident about recommending a merge if it were not for the case that those who do not like this articles normally reduce all merged sections to one or two sentences unencyclopedic teasers, DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all As said, the sources and references of the articles have been significantly improved. I think this is a good reason to keep the articles, since the small number of sources/references was enough of a reason for some persons to file them for deletion. Also, House is not just a minor show with a small community of fans, but one of the most viewed TV-shows in the world. --VR-Land (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Multiple reliable sources have been identified; this book as well would likely provide material to build all of these articles. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per multiple sources offered as to notability. And with respects to the nominator, I disapprove of "bundling" additional articles to an ongoing AFD[38] days after numerous editors began commenting, as this acts as a dis-service to editors trying to meet original issues of the ONE... and allows less time for the subsequent articles to be themselves addressed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Isn't this sort of cruft what wikia is for? Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete : Acceptance (House), Humpty Dumpty (House), TB or Not TB, Daddy's Boy, Spin (House), The Mistake (House), Deception (House), Failure to Communicate, Need to Know (House), Distractions (House), Skin Deep (House), Sex Kills, Clueless (House), Safe (House), All In (House), Sleeping Dogs Lie (House), House vs. God, Euphoria, Part 1, Euphoria, Part 2, Forever (House), Who's Your Daddy? (House), and No Reason (House) which despite all of the !votes "its notable" no one has actually added any third party reliable sources to the articles to validate that claim. keep Hunting (House) which appears to have at least passing coverage in third party sources and Autopsy (House) which won a significant award. Active Banana (bananaphone 21:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all Why is this being relisted again?? this is the third consecutive time its going through AFD process, was the overwhelming consensus above not enough? is a different outcome expected ? Theo10011 (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that further discussion will not be productive. Also, Cirt actioned 10 other discussions in the same minute. He's obviously not actually reading them so I suppose he's using a bot. This seems improper and so I will take this up with him. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. I read them in the days prior to closing them. -- Cirt (talk) 16:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All Previous consensus has been for retention of such articles and the claims of notability are met with appropriate sources included in the articles and readily available to be added. Alansohn (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All - there are definitely reliable secondary sources out there which cover these episodes, all we need is for someone to integrate them into the articles. What I don't understand is the need for this to happen immediately. If the article for Mars had no citations, we still would not delete it because we know that it's notable. Same goes for these article. They don't really have citations, but we know that the episodes are generally notable. No need to delete them when all it takes is a few minutes to find a few reviews and production info. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 14:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to History of the Kurdish people. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Genetic origins of the Kurds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nomination on behalf of User:Spatulli. This article was changed to a redirect and nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. Rather than permit a backdoor deletion, the article has been restored and nominated for deletion here. I am currently neutral on the deletion of this article.
The reason for deletion at RfD was that the term wasn't mentioned in the destination article History of the Kurdish people, which obviously isn't applicable to AfD. –Grondemar 05:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to History of the Kurdish people, establishing a new section or sections as needed. Potential content fork here. —Carrite, Sept. 26, 2010.
- redirect. This is a non-issue. Please do not create unnecessary red tape. There is no reason to delete the redirect, as it contains edit history, and does no harm. There is also no reason to recreate the article, because it is worthless trash. So why not just leave things the way they were (i.e. fixed). --dab (𒁳) 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Why do you suggest redirecting without merging?! This is quite senseless IMO - The Kurdish history article has absolutely nothig about genetic ancestry. I really cannot understand your opinion, and your past decision to redirect without merging anything. Spatulli (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per Carrite. Redirect would effectively be deletion by another means as the destination article does not contain this material. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are, apparently, parallel articles on Turkic people Origin of the Turkic peoples and Genetic origins of the Turkish people , which makes this a tad difficult to really sort out. Also the proposed destination is at 72K, which means that any merge will likely elide much of this article as being duplicative. so Merge and someone please propose the same for the parallel articles. All share many of the same faults. Collect (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I redirected Origin of the Turkic peoples to Genetic origins of the Turkish people as the former was a duplicate of the latter Spatulli (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to History of the Kurdish people, establishing a new section. There is some well-sourced material that should not be lost. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge I hadn't realized that this article had some valuable content. In my opinion, it should be merged selectively, with a removal of all wp:OR/wp:SYN stuff. But it can be made after the merge. Spatulli (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, I found this material interesting but it should be contained within History of the Kurdish people. Abductive (reasoning) 07:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Articles on the genetic origins of various populations are valuable in and of themselves, and they're not easily integrated into the generic history articles of those same peoples. This article has a number of good references to actual genetic science done on the Kurds and neighboring populations. The companion article on Genetic origins of the Turkish people is much better done, and clearly wouldn't fit well into a general history of the Turks, but that calls for improvement of this article, not deletion. Argyriou (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Hefner (band). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lee Remick (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable single. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hefner (band).--Michig (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Michig. Shiva (Visnu) 23:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 all except the seven identified by Eric444, as there does seem to be some consensus that this is the correct action; hopefully this is one of the rare times that a bulk AfD with differing amounts of notability has actually worked properly. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Hits (Blue Öyster Cult album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Super Hits (Brooks & Dunn album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (The Byrds album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Kenny Chesney album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Charlie Daniels album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Miles Davis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Europe album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (The Hollies album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (The Hooters album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Alan Jackson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Lonestar album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Patty Loveless album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Loverboy album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Monica album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Montgomery Gentry album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Mandy Moore album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Willie Nelson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits, Volume 2 (Willie Nelson album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (New Kids on the Block album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (The Outfield album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Quiet Riot album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Ricky Van Shelton album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits Vol. 2 (Ricky Van Shelton album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Shenandoah album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Pam Tillis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (2004 Pam Tillis album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Luther Vandross album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits Live (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Super Hits (Xscape album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The parent article, Super Hits, was just deleted via AFD, which has also brought to my mind the notability of each individual entry. Almost all of these articles are scarce more than track listings, and mostly just one sentence of content (one of them doesn't even go that far!). A couple have made very low chart positions and/or have super-short reviews from Allmusic, but that doesn't translate to notability in any way. Also, the presence of "([name of artist] album)" makes for unwieldy redirects, so deletion would be a better alternative. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete some If there are no sources, but for articles that have a source for a review or chart-listing, these are notable enough artists and if you combine those two factors, it seems like these are notable enough. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not if the chart position is way down in the 50s and the Allmusic review is barely two lines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They won't be missed. Apparently none of them were actually released by the Artist. They were released by Sony as moneymakers and I never saw them anywhere other than on Amazon or Ebay. Bwmoll3 (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep some These can't all be judged in one fell swoop, because some are more notable than others. The RIAA search isn't working for me right now, but Joel Whitburn's Hot Country Albums 1964-2007 confirms that the releases by Ricky Van Shelton and Shenandoah have been certified Gold (for sales of 500,000 copies), while the releases by Charlie Daniels and Willie Nelson have been certified 2× Multi-Platinum (for sales of 2 million copies), so I would vote to keep those. I would also vote to keep the releases by Brooks & Dunn and Alan Jackson as they are by notable artists, charted in the Top 50 of the Billboard Top Country Albums chart and were reviewed by Allmusic (the Alan Jackson review being far more than two lines). The Kenny Chesney release also has my keep vote for being by a notable artist, charting on Billboard and being listed on Allmusic. All of this information either appears in these articles with sources or will in the next few minutes. On the other hand, I would vote to delete the releases by Lonestar, Patty Loveless, Montgomery Gentry, Willie Nelson (volume 2), Ricky Van Shelton (volume 2) and Pam Tillis (volumes 1 and 2) as they didn't chart and barely earned a mention on Allmusic. Eric444 (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope the users voting are taking the time to judge each album on its individual notability and I hope the closing admin will as well. The albums by Charlie Daniels, Willie Nelson, Ricky Van Shelton, Shenandoah, Brooks & Dunn, Alan Jackson and Kenny Chesney are on a different scale and the only argument that I'm seeing to delete them is that they're called "Super Hits." On their own, these album articles establish notability, are well sourced and would probably never be nominated for deletion, but among this hodgepodge of stubs, I don't feel they're getting a fair trial. A quick look at the incoming links to Willie Nelson's Super Hits includes 1994 in country music, where it is listed among the top album releases of the year. WP:OSE states that "in categories of items with a finite number of entries where most are notable, it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items." Brooks & Dunn released 16 albums during their 20 year career, all of which charted and all of which have articles. It would be kicking a hole in their discography to delete their Super Hits, rendering Category:Brooks & Dunn albums incomplete. All of the nominated albums that contain sources, charted, were reviewed by Allmusic and particularly those certified by the RIAA should be kept. Eric444 (talk) 15:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP THEM ALL without exceptions!!! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to expand on that Pjoef? Just wondered what your rational for keeping them was. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete them all. As with the parent "Super Hits" article, these albums do not meet notability criteria. They were cheaply produced, budget albums, featuring previously released material, put out by Sony with no involvement from the bands or artists themselves. In addition, according to Joel Whitburn's Top Pop Albums 1955 - 2001 none of these albums even charted in the Billboard 200 album chart. As someone who has worked very hard on The Byrds' related articles over the past year or so, I've always been amazed that the Super Hits (The Byrds album) article even existed. As much as I love The Byrds, this album is clearly non-notable. The same goes for all the other Super Hits articles on Wikipedia. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Willie Nelson's did. [39] I fail to see how a compilation by a notable artist that charted on two notable charts, was certified for the RIAA for sales of 2 million copies and was reviewed by a notable third party website doesn't fit the criteria for an article. Eric444 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, OK...my mistake. Although I see it only just scraped into the Billboard 200 at number #193. I guess Willie Nelson's compilation may be the exception to the rule but then again, like all the Super Hits albums, his contains nothing new, just repackaged material, which definitely diminishes its notability in my opinion. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 10:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all - Wikipedia isn't the Internet Compilation Album Database.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All these "gas-station" compilations are not "real" albums. By "real" I mean the artist in question was not involved, only the label/distributor. I feel that diminishes their notability. The Interior (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All as non-notable comps. —Carrite, Sept. 28, 2010.
- KEEP ALL They provide great information on those artists great songs on those songs. They are great collection in which I approve. Yes there budget album but, most of them have there classic songs on them. There are more less improtant things on Wikipedia that should be deleted first. You want to delete them just because their low class comps, now that's not a great reason for it. I agree that there no good with only ten songs but at least they provide quality and the artists great songs. --Ltlane777 (talk) 28:28, 29 September 20010 (UTC)
- Keep the ones that Eric444 suggested to keep and delete the others. Just because some releases aren't notable doesn't mean all aren't. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at least some - Per Eric444. And I am not sure his list is complete as to which of these meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Rlendog (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the seven that Eric444 suggests as they seem to pass WP:NALBUM by having both charted and been covered by reliable sources. Delete the others for failing the same guideline. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Baltic-American Freedom Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no third party sources. [40]. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of third-party sources [41], including news, government press releases and more. --Sander Säde 08:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep admittedly a recently established organization with no major 'breakthroughs' yet, but there's no lack of sources, e.g. Estonian newspapers (in Engl.), [42], (a Latvian site). Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 11:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lot's of sources, just not in English. I know enough Estonian to recognize that, but not enough to do the translating myself Vrivers (talk) 11:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 13:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leonard G. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This individual doesn't appear to have garnered significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongomatic 01:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As an inventor whose ideas and concepts are being covered in reliable sources, it would seem he meets the criteria for creative professionals as set forth in WP:CREATIVE. And it is to be noted that per guideline, "many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." However, as this inventor IS getting coverage, that point is moot. And a nice aside, is that this inventor has set a "first" in that in 2008, he completed the United State’s first pure biofuel transcontinental flight using bio-butanol in an experimental airplane he personally built. So this guy is not a BLP1E. And yes.... the article would definitely benefit from cleanup... but this is an issue best addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Mr. Schmidt's comment combined witht the Air & Space article (an independant and reliable source), meet the threshold for me.--kelapstick (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC
- keep Disclosure: original author. My first contribution, and not yet up to Wiki writing standards- Mr. Schmidt's comments are spot on. Bongomatic is correct that there are few secondary sources, however this is itself of secondary importance per WP:NOTABILITY guidelines. Also per guidelines, the first biofuel flight across America is notably interesting as a "first". Combined with the successful demonstration of the viability of bio-butanol as an aviation fuel replacement for leaded gasoline, and the subject's activities in making the production of sufficient quantities of required bio feedstocks practical, the subject appears to clear the threshold. FlyButanol (talk) 16:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Butanol fuel as a WP:BLP1E. I know not from where the unreferenced biographical details come from, but the independent sources cited in the article appear to be about the flight. I do not think the amount and degree of coverage indicates that he passes any of the points in WP:CREATIVE, and I disagree with the article creator that secondary sources are of secondary importance. WP:GNG specifically states that sources "for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability." (WP:BASIC states something very similar.) I also respectfully disagree with Schmidt who cites a statement in WP:BIO that points to Wikipedia:Notability (academics), a notability guideline that the subject clearly does not pass. Location (talk) 05:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that WP:NOTABILITY emphasizes the quality and independence of sources, intending to say that "few secondary sources" were of secondary importance, not that "secondary sources" were. I apologize for muddying the debate. FlyButanol (talk) 23:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep obvious keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 05:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mammah family (Sierra Leone) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not even an attempt to assert notability, very little work on the article in two years, no progress on previous AfD as article has nothing to merge. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -no assertion of notability, Sadads (talk)
- Merge into Sierra Leone Liberated Africans as the first AFD nomination told it to do. That AFD nomination was closed in January of 2008 and the article still hasn't been merged. It's a very odd situation. Strangely enough, the tag is still on the page right now. 99.245.196.204 (talk) 02:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfectly willing to do a merge if that's the conclusion, but I don't see anything to merge here. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without Merge I'm sorry but this is a joke, right? Merge that? No. It's someone's POV and totally useless information. If there were pages on six or seven Mammahs and we had a Mammah_(surname) page, that would be different, but this is just nothing. Sven Manguard Talk 00:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jinn in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Trivial listcruft at best. If any entries are notable, they belong in the main article. Branched out articles like this are simply dumping grounds that get out of hand. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge as a content fork. The Genie article without it is only 1500 words long. Abductive (reasoning) 09:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve or delete, but don't merge. The main article "jinn" really does not need a trivia magnet either, slimmed down or not. Representations of jinn / genies in popular culture belong to cultural phenomena which are sufficiently distinct from the actual Islamic concept to deserve a separate article. Cavila (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "main article" jinn is a disambig page. This argument to remove "trivia" is diametrically opposed to the WP:Content forking guideline. And the distinction of mythical jinn from fictional genies argues for separate articles for them, not for a "...in popular culture" article for either. Abductive (reasoning) 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, "genie" really ought to be at "jinn", which is the term most often used by reliable sources on the subject (as far as I'm aware anyway), but that's another matter. Could you explain why you'd prefer to make a typological distinction between mythical and fictional as the basis for separate articles? I don't really see that working here. My point is that the genie in "modern non-Islamic popular culture" is a vast subject of its own, informed by the jinn of Islamic culture only to a certain extent. To have a separate article for that sort of thing is not content forking. Cavila (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that a study of usage will show that fictional genies are conceptually very different from the mythical jinn. Genies are a Western construct, Jinn are Arabic. This may be of interest. Abductive (reasoning) 16:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Western genies' tend to be fictional, true that, but an Arab writer, who may well believe in the existence of jinn, is - at least theoretically - able to present a non-mythical jinn in a work of fiction - that's why I'd prefer a distinction between Islamic and non-Islamic culture. But anyway, most if not all of the trivia cited in "popular culture" happen to belong to the latter category, which is why I don't think they merit a section in our start-class article on the jinn in Islamic cultures (founder under "genie", alas). Of course, there's more to modern non-Islamic genies than just popular culture (I wouldn't lump all forms of literature into that category, for instance). I'm certainly not arguing with that. Cavila (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so there should be an article on Jinn and an article on Genies, and the pop culture stuff will fit nicely into the Genie article (which is very short and will be shortened further by the removal of some Jinn material). Abductive (reasoning) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not yet sure what title would be appropriate for the genie artice, but yeah, that's what I would say. Cavila (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC) P. S. I've gone ahead and proposed to rename the article at Talk:Genie. Cavila (talk) 14:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, so there should be an article on Jinn and an article on Genies, and the pop culture stuff will fit nicely into the Genie article (which is very short and will be shortened further by the removal of some Jinn material). Abductive (reasoning) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Western genies' tend to be fictional, true that, but an Arab writer, who may well believe in the existence of jinn, is - at least theoretically - able to present a non-mythical jinn in a work of fiction - that's why I'd prefer a distinction between Islamic and non-Islamic culture. But anyway, most if not all of the trivia cited in "popular culture" happen to belong to the latter category, which is why I don't think they merit a section in our start-class article on the jinn in Islamic cultures (founder under "genie", alas). Of course, there's more to modern non-Islamic genies than just popular culture (I wouldn't lump all forms of literature into that category, for instance). I'm certainly not arguing with that. Cavila (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that a study of usage will show that fictional genies are conceptually very different from the mythical jinn. Genies are a Western construct, Jinn are Arabic. This may be of interest. Abductive (reasoning) 16:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Leaving aside the Jinn/Genie naming discussion, there is enough scope for a list of genie-related media which is what this basically is. Like virtually all lists of this ilk, it's currently shit but needn't necessarily be, it just needs dragging away from trivial instances of genies and towards media which strongly feature genies. See List of zombie video games, an actively maintained example of what this could and should be like. Someoneanother 04:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SMARTHINKING (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable and no assertion of notability. Commercial promotion. Very recent set-up. No independent verification other than blogs and Media reports of press releases. Velella Velella Talk 10:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As this fails WP:N and is an extension of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straighterline which has already received a discussion and deleted. Maybe even a speedy as an attempted duplicate using a different name? - Pmedema (talk) 13:42, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A couple of articles about the subject in Inside Higher Ed (one of which is rather critical), one in a local paper, one in Washington Monthly, and one in eSchoolNews? Plus the blog, whatever that's worth. I think it meets WP:CORP easily. bobrayner (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, sourcing inadequate, commercial promotion. Figureofnine (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Locus Suspectus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreliable sources and not found on Google except for on Facebook - the website is just some blog with the F word written everywhere. Whenaxis (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Target website is a keyword-stuffing linkspam site. I'd raise this to the level of CSD A11, but the spam isn't immediately obvious from the context of the article. All I can say is the title is accurate, suspect location indeed... -- RoninBK T C 04:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As said above, the target appears to be a linkspam site, without any indication of notability whatsoever. -- Dreambother (talk) 13:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if this article is removed, the redirect Locus suspectus should also be removed. -- Dreambother (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to this the magazine folded in 2008. Obviously someone picked up the lapsed URL and are creatively spamming us. The spam noticeboard should be notified--I'd bet this is not the only article with this linkspam redirect. As for the original magazine itself, it had a short lifespan with apparently no third-party coverage. I think this could be speedied. freshacconci talktalk 20:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The website is currently a spam website, but that likely just means a spammer picked up an expired domain - nothing creative there; the article/link were in good faith at the time. That said, I agree that if the magazine folded in 4 years then that's a good sign that it's not notable. Quarl (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to East London Line. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- London Buses route ELW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This seems to be a non-notable former rail replacement bus service. I am unable to find anything to grant it notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I AfDed this using Twinkle - it's not my fault it didn't do step three. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, or at worst merge to East London Line. There are a few sources available, such as this BBC report and a London Assembly question, plus (for verification only, of course) one TfL page and a possibly unreliable fan site. It also received non-trivial coverage in Buses Magazine on at least two occassions in 2008, so there may be enough to make a decent article. If consensus is against it, it deserves a few sentences at the Tube line's page. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and there's this PDF document as well. It's part of a London Underground site which may or may not be considered reliable. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bus routes are transient in many communities (passing especially quickly into and out of existence). Maybe this is different for London, but I think this means that bus route articles must be very clear in meeting WP:GNG. Otherwise it is a violation of the policy WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I see nothing in the above comment by Alzarian16 that goes above either trival mention by a secondary source or a primary source giving route and schedule updates. Strong delete. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see your point about passing coverage with regards to the BBC report (although we kept London Buses route 183 on the basis of less), but what about this? Together with the Buses Magazine coverage I think there's enough. Would you be opposed to a merge should consensus be against a separate article? Alzarian16 (talk) 08:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with East London Line. Most of the coverage of this route is related to it replacing the East London Line, so it seems to derive its notability from the line and is probably best covered there rather than in its own article. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 08:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CCSIH (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable computer certification. Little content. No assertion of notability. GrapedApe (talk) 14:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I asked an expert in IT security, and he informed me that this is just on of several of the less rigorous or prestigious awards that sprung up when companies realized that the field was emerging and they could make money in certifications for it. Now that technically is OR, but it does explain the lack of sources. Sven Manguard Talk 00:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EtutorWorld (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability - fails WP:N and no assertion of notability. No independent verifiable sources Velella Velella Talk 19:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:CORP. Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The one working source given does appear to be reliable. Questionable whether one source meets WP:CORP significance criterion. I've put up a notability banner in effort to answer that. No need to jump straight to AfD here. --Kvng (talk) 15:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Far to adverty for me, one functional link of questionable validity and little on the Google search. My belief is that it cannot be rewritten to the point of functionality with the currently available sources. Sven Manguard Talk 04:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sensible Sensuality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:Notability (books) Dlabtot (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looking at the size of the article and the list of reliable print sources, why do you think that it fails WP:BK? Joe Chill (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, 1, the book has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, 2, the book has not won a major literary award, 3, the book has not been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement, 4,. the book is not the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country, and 5, the book's author is not so historically significant that any of her written works may be considered notable.
- The size of the article is irrelevant to the notability of the topic. The list of sources does not include a single reliable source on the subject of the article, the book Sensible Sensuality, rather, all of the sources are about the author, Sarojini Sahoo. And some of those are sketchy as well. For example the about.com article that is deceptively labeled as coming from the New York Times. Dlabtot (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Delete. Thanks for explaining your stance. I never said that length equaled notability anyway. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't mean to imply that you did. Since you mentioned it, I felt like I had to in my reply, as well. Dlabtot (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Delete. Thanks for explaining your stance. I never said that length equaled notability anyway. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a book which will help to understand Eastern Feminism. I think, deletion of this article will not serve any purpose.Kanu786 (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. a paragraph or so mention in the authors article should be enough for now. until her article is reliably sourced, and then only if she is shown to be historically important (#5 above), could we have a smaller article on the book. i dont think this book has its own article at the indian language (which?) wikipedia.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As per WP:BEFORE #4. The multiple main links to Sarojini Sahoo in the article make it obvious that a merge is what needs to happen here. --Kvng (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right then, so you mean merge, not keep. Sven Manguard Talk 04:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google books yields zero results. Normal google search shows nothing that great either. Sven Manguard Talk 04:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Energy and Security in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Full of original research; any meaningful content or useful sources should be merged into the appropriate articles (likely Energy in Afghanistan.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete there is a lot of duplication in this article of data belonging in other articles, many of whom are extensive in coverage. Shiva (Visnu) 00:59, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Submitter needs to read WP:BEFORE #4. --Kvng (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meaningful and sourced. I do not see what's the problem.Biophys (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohammad Shaikh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has been deleted several times, see the history. A new article was created as Mohammad shaikh which I think does not have the same objections, so I moved it here over the create protection. Personally, I have no opinion on whether it is sufficient, but I think it deserve another discussion. If the decision is that the current refs are not enough, and nobody can find more, then that'll be the end of it. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, salt and redirect to International Islamic Propagation Center. Sources are just not there, they refer to the publication, not the subject. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete The fact that the article mentions that he is one of the top muslims in the world, but I can't find proof, leads me to believe that there is something wrong here. Considering that this article has been deleted before is another hint. Sven Manguard Talk 04:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.