Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skopje Marathon[edit]
- Skopje Marathon (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)
Does not appear to be a sufficiently notable event WP:N. Polargeo 2 (talk) 09:32, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to have been revived, see e.g. here or here. Travelbird (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 28 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) 00:06, 2 November 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, Davewild (talk) 19:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: That it's been revived, perhaps. That there are sources to be found beyond blogs and the marathon's own website, not so far. Ravenswing 17:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This event has received sufficient news coverage for inclusion, but the coverage is generally not in English. Macedonia uses a variant of the Cyrillic alphabet, so searching for "Скопскиот Маратон" reveals sources, e.g., [1].--Milowent • talkblp-r 18:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seem to be sufficient sources. Google Translate does surprisingly well on the Macedonian sources. (I had expected a much rougher translation for a relatively minor language like this!) DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 14 November 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 Indie rock. Bold redirect per WP:ATD (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indie punk (music)[edit]
- Indie punk (music) (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)
There is already an article with the title Indie punk and this article seems to have been created simply to avoid the fact that that article is a redirect. Material here, such at it is, which is sourced can by all means be posted to Indie rock, but there is not reason for another article on the same topic with a slightly different name. This just creates a confusing subject fork. SabreBD (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if a content fork were appropriate, the forked article would be Indie punk; there's no ambiguity to resolve. Agree with nom that dab is a weird maneuver around the redirect. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:56, 9 November 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 Good Luck Charlie. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mia Talerico[edit]
- Mia Talerico (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)
Second AFD, One claim to fame is she was on Good Luck Charlie, I almost redirected it on sight to Good Luck Charlie. Until I saw the failed AFD ended as no consensus. Thus I bring it up for consensus. Fails (IMHO) WP:ENT as she fails all three Criteria. Should the article be deleted and Redrected to Good Luck Charlie? Oh by the way She is Two! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Good Luck Charlie, the show which is the only role of this two-year-old actress. There is not enough to say about her outside the context of this show to warrant an article yet. If she continues acting as she gets older, the redirect can be changed back to a proper article when the time comes. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete: I'm astonished that anyone could advocate keeping this at the prior AfD. What conceivable criterion of WP:ENTERTAINER can a two-year-old pass? Or shift this to the GNG; even presuming there's a source out there discussing the subject in "significant detail," what significant detail could there BE about someone who's working on mastering speech for the first time? The three Keep votes from the prior AfD ran respectively through "She meets the GNG" (which she doesn't), "The entire show revolves around her character" (which it doesn't), "There are sources" (which is irrelevant if they don't discuss the subject in significant detail) and "One episode has aired" (which forms no part of valid inclusion criteria). This is one of those cases where the closing admin should have gone for policy over counting votes (well, shouldn't they all be?) and I hope folks have better sense this time out. Ravenswing 17:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was my thought as well The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the show as it is a plausible redirect. There is no signficant coverage about her, and not surprisingly, as a 2-year old, her acting career does not consist of a large body of critically recognised work. -- Whpq (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the one who previously nominated this article for deletion, I agree with the above comments that a redirect to the show's article is probably the best outcome. As far as I'm aware that's what we generally do with reality show cast members and the like who do not warrant a standalone article but whom somebody might reasonably search for. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Good Luck Charlie. how can a 2 year old merit its own article in this circumstance? LibStar (talk) 06:49, 16 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eagleowl[edit]
- Eagleowl (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 band lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BAND. ttonyb (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
34,600 hits on google, and I would say fulfils 1,7,10 of WP:BAND. Featured on BBC television tonight: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00vt75r --Empanda (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: I dunno. I was ready to put the smackdown on myself, noting that the top hits on Goggle UK were either on blogs or self-created sites like last.fm and Youtube. But I kept on going, and they have nearly six hundred unique hits on Google UK. That's a lot, and they're not completely soft hits; it suggests they meet the "cult status" bar, as well as hitting the "most prominent in the local scene of a city" criterion. Ravenswing 17:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage in the Herald [2] [3] The Scotsman [4] amongst others. Needs cleaning up, but they're notable. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I found the "under the radar" category more telling than the On-the-radar article title. I also have a hard time determining what is legitimate press in Britain. [5][6] I ask myself if this band were to break up tomorrow would a wiki article be useful particularly in say 2 years. I doubt anyone would be looking the band up.Eudemis (talk) 06:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Herald and The Scotsman are Scotland's two main 'quality broadsheets'. We're not talking local or student press here. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 07:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and confirm Catfish Jims comments on Scotsman & Herald --Hywel Ashkenazy (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage in Morrison, Alan (30 April 2010), "No grand plan - just a natural progression", The Herald -- Kelton, Sam (10 January 2009), "Birds on a wire", The Scotsman -- "Eagle Owl", Calgary Herald, 20 June 2008 and reviews in "CD Reviews: Pop/Folk", The Scotsman, 19 December 2008 -- Sakamoto, John (20 March 2010), "The Anti-hit list; An alternative Top 10", The Toronto Star. Coverage extends outside the British Isles. duffbeerforme (talk) 16:12, 13 November 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 a7, attempt to bootstrap article about a band with no claim of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Freakno[edit]
- Freakno (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 don't think this is eligible under any speedy tags but this is a completely non-notable music genre thought up by a non-notable band. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 22:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly non notable music genre with no reliable sources, nothing on Google either. TeapotgeorgeTalk 22:12, 9 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Runway Magazine[edit]
- Runway Magazine (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)
For much the same reasons that this article was nominated previously - a non-notable magazine with no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. There are a number of sources listed on the page but nothing that constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources. The magazine was a "new publication" in January 2010 according to the editor, Nole Marin[7], and Google searches for the period from the beginning of 2009 do not throw up significant coverage in reliable sources[8][9] to meet the inclusion criteria in WP:GNG. The article has been previously speedy deleted as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion[10] but as this version has been up since August, I have brought it here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The circumstances of this have not changed at all. Completely sourced by the magazine itself and puff-pieces about the magazine, and certainly not improved at all from the first iteration. As the consensus of the first AfD was completely ignored, it's time to ask for a salt on this title. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 9 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Melinda McGowan[edit]
- Melinda McGowan (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 model who doesn't satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. References provided are not from reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent reliable sources have been provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 20-Mule-Team Delete: Fails the GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER going away. The creation of a SPA intent on putting the subject into several articles. This may be a hoax article. Ravenswing 17:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable non-model. However, if you Google "Melinda McGowan" you link this article and her facebook page. This is kind'a cute. At 15, Melinda, who gave up modeling at 9, has a Wikipedia page. Good for her. She is at least as important to my life as the Aung Kyaw Moe who was midfielder on the roster for the Yadanabon FC and "Man of the Match" for the Myanmar National League Cup Grand Royal in 2009. Unfortunately, there are some standards. She meets none of them. ___ Komowkwa (talk) 05:08, 11 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
James L. Perry (actor)[edit]
- James L. Perry (actor) (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)
Clearly non-notable "WP:actor". Completely WP:AUTOBIO, with most recent additions by block-evading sock. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no non trivial 3rd party sources and none found.—Sandahl (talk) 03:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per the above and nom. Heiro 05:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above. The film career is pure WP:CRYSTAL, and his IMDb entry is practically empty of achievements. Favonian (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a notable actor from Los Angeles smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. It really sounds like "Give us some money, or we'll shoot this old dog." It looks like he has legitimate credible third party media coverage and about 50 years of acting experience predating the internet. I saw him perform last year in Hollywood in the "Sound of Music" and was impressed. He probably pissed off some wikiweenie high up in the wiki-reich and thus invited retaliation by unsubstantiated admin claims. It only adds credibility to the claims of wikipedia detractors that purges like this are a sure sign that wikipedia content is pure fluff with a political agenda. PsychClone —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC). — PsychClone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Trolling struck per ANI consensus. Favonian (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And your litte tirade proves he's notable enough for an article how? Heiro 02:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:And your conflict of interest proves that Herb_Roe deserves an article how? That artist page smells of self promotion and should be immediately deleted. See hypocrite...LOL. BTW: "LITTLE" IS SPELLED USING AN "L" -- Like I said, I saw a very good actor on stage and his references clearly show that as the subject of a front page headline story, he is noteworthy and recognized by a major metropolitan west coast newspaper written by a real journalistPsychClone —Preceding undated comment added 06:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Trolling struck per ANI consensus. Favonian (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He hasn't participated in any notable films. Minimac (talk) 20:37, 14 November 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 This is mainly a procedural close, but can also be viewed as a speedy keep. The nominator has called for the article to be kept, and appears to be using this to somehow invalidate a redirect discussion. An article should only be nominated for deletion if the nominator believes it should be deleted. AniMate 23:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tareq Salahi[edit]
- Tareq Salahi (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. There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page about reducing the article to a mere redirect from editors who claim the subject is not worth a full article; since it would destroy a lot of non-redundant information about the subject, redirect and deletion would be identical outcomes. Therefore I nominate the article to put what is, actually, a deletion discussion in the proper venue and seeking proper consensus - I personally support keeping the article (see !vote below) Cyclopiatalk 21:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per previous AfD. Subject is notable for multiple events - even if he is mostly famous for one, sources can be found on other aspects and controversies of his life, therefore WP:BLP1E is an invalid concern. More than 70 sources indicate that subject is absolutely notable. Redirection or merging is also not an option given the huge amount of information which would not be relevant to the often proposed merge target. --Cyclopiatalk 21:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - procedurally user shouldn't really be nominating article s for deletion and then voting keep, it makes a mockery of the process. Off2riorob (talk) 21:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, why? Nominate != endorse. I nominated because I want a proper, regulated discussion to be had to seek consensus. It is not the first time people nominate articles on such grounds. Usually a nominator wants the article deleted, but it's not a prerequisite, as far as I know. --Cyclopiatalk 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I was involved in such a nomination and no one could understand it, either you want it deleting or you are in the wrong place and should have stayed on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can't understand that a deletion discussion has to be held at AfD, I doubt I can help you. There is a deletion discussion in the wrong venue (the talk page). I put up the proper place where to discuss that. That I want it to be kept or deleted is irrelevant -what is relevant is that this is the correct venue with the correct procedure to discuss a deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 21:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not lie about what others are discussing elsewhere. A discussion regarding whether or not to redirect an article is not analogous to a discussion to delete an article. Redirect. Deletion. Not synonyms. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not lying: the nomination clearly states that, formally, the discussion is about a redirect, but in practice it is deletion that it is being discussed. A redirect is not an article, it is a pointer. I would anyway agree with you that AfD wouldn't be needed if most content on the article was already in the proposed target, but apart from the crashing incident, other information about the subject is unlikely to pop out there. That said, if you still disagree, well, you were bold in attempting the redirect; I boldly created a venue because I believe it is the better one. Whatever you think of my decision, we now have a proper chance to get a more sound and objective consensus than in a talk page discussion, so I'd say let's stop the self-referential bickering on this AfD and let's see how it plays out. --Cyclopiatalk 00:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the point of AFD and no one has nominated it for deletion and there is an outcome created as in Keep or delete or whatever, by bringing it here when you want the article kept you are using the process in a way it is not intended. Because you have done that, there is no nominator and no deletion rationale, poor show if you ask me, a waste of process and it should be deleted (this AFD) Off2riorob (talk) 00:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one nominated it for deletion, then on which page are you commenting? I will answer for you: I nominated it. I want it kept but I nominated it the same. The process is intended to decide if an article is to be deleted or not: who cares about the nominator's thoughts on the outcome? It's proper process I want. --Cyclopiatalk 12:20 am, Today (UTC+0)
- How you can claim to want proper process and yet you have created this falsehood is beyond me, there is no deletion rational for users to comment on because there is no nominator. Off2riorob (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, why? Nominate != endorse. I nominated because I want a proper, regulated discussion to be had to seek consensus. It is not the first time people nominate articles on such grounds. Usually a nominator wants the article deleted, but it's not a prerequisite, as far as I know. --Cyclopiatalk 21:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close, but barring that, Redirect - The nominator has regrettably hijacked a redirect discussion on the subject's talk page, and as a literal delete is really not on the table, this really didn't need to come to AfD. Since we're here though, we really just have a classic WP:BLP1E; all this person is known for is gate-crashing a White House gathering. The article has been built up with substantial puffery since then in an attempt to address his one-trick-pony, but all we have are tales of winery founding, charitable awards, an interest in polo. All coverage stems from a "who the fuck is this guy anyways?" media blitz that happened following the gate-crash. I'll note that his wife and fellow crasher has a redirect, not an article. Also, I note that a DRV last year overturned the keep to no-consensus, with a strong urging to involved parties (I was not one at the time, for the record) to consider the merits of the merge proposal. This was done and enacted Feb 2010, only to be undone in 2010, and here we are now. The prior consensus to redirect should be restored, especially as the page at the time is not substantially different from the present version. It is regrettable that this issue was not brought up as soon as the page was unilaterally restored, but we can't change that now. Tarc (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is actually not a bad forum for discussing what amounts to the removal of an article from the mainspace. There has been sufficient nontrivial discussion focussed on the subject to pass WP:BIO, and surmount WP:BLP1E: the subject's role in the events was major, well documented, and spawned a lot of coverage of the subject personally which was persistent. It's certainly a judgment call whether one thinks that coverage was persistent and whether the subject is likely to become low profile. To the first, I do, and to the second, given that the subject actively courts media attention, I find the "low profile" of this subject to be a dubious proposition. RayTalk 14:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:GNG.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural close - bad faith nomination to gain the upper hand in a content dispute about the right role of tabloid tittle-tattle in a biography that amounts to an attack page. Discussions about whether a merger with the subject that brought this guy into the limelight do not belong on AfD, so this entire AfD is moot. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please consider retracting your statements about bad faith. I can't see how proposing an article for deletion amounts to "bad faith" and "gaining the upper hand" -if anything, I put the article at risk so I did it against my interests. I simply put a deletion discussion in its proper place. We are not talking about a merger, we are talking about a redirect; the article content (including all the biographical material not inherent to the merge target) would be deleted. --Cyclopiatalk 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Note that I, for one, first looked at Salahi's page due to the fact that he is on a reality show, which is related to but not derived from the purported "1E". Salahi seems to have three levels of notoriety to me. (1) Minor and non-WP pageworthy status as a local person of interest, covered in Washington Post for the Polo and Winery stuff. This alone would not merit page status. (2) Central character on well-known reality TV show, in fact, one of two major centers of attention on said show. This alone might merit page status, q.v. David Rainey. Go delete the non-remembered Real Worlders before bothering about Salahi. (3) the infamous event. Hardly a 1E in my estimate, more like a 2.5E, with plenty of 0.5E peoples' pages sitting out there to spend time worrying about deleting first. I think those in support of deletion or merger simply mistake the sheer magnitude of the major event for it being the only reason for notoriety, but you're eating poisonous fruit from the tree... 74.7.121.69 (talk) 22:44, 11 November 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) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better than Today[edit]
- Better than Today (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 am nominating this because after repeated attempts to redirect the page to the parent album it keeps being re-opened by different users. The cover is unsourced, as is the background section, release date and track listing. There are just three sentances of critical reception which don't really tell us much about the song. My point is that per WP:NSONGS songs which have not charted or have not recieved significant coverage. These 'three' critical reception sentances are most certainly not significant coverage. without a full confirmed release date its a WP:CRYSTAL -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This song has been officially confirmed as the 3rd single from "Aphrodite" and has been performed on The X Factor (one of the UK's most watched shows) as such. The artwork is on promo CDs that have been issued. The artwork on the promo CDs for Kylie's last two singles All The Lovers and Get Outta My Way ended up being the final artwork for the commercial release, so it seems sensible that the same will apply with this release, too. Finally, if it's removed, it'll just be opened up again anyway, as it's definitely the 3rd single. I've also now added a link to the iTunes release of the single, thus proving it's a valid release and the release date. (Paul237 (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep - All it needs is a little bit of expansion - which is quite easy to do. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT (Talk) 21:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This page must be kept as it is an official single release from Kylie's Aphrodite album and by taking it down would wrongly inform any person who is looking for information on the song, therefore doing the opposite of Wikipedia's intentions. Secondly, the page will, over time, be expanded as more news and updates become available. For example, chart positions, reviews, music video etc. Like above, the artwork is on promo CDs that have been issued. Therfeore is the official CD single artwork and not fan made. 115.70.108.58 (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Farely detailed article and it's now notable (#67 on the UK charts) --Cprice1000talk2me 19:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the sources given don't prove that it has charted at number 67. Furthermore there isn't enough detailed information at the MOMENT for a detailed independent article. Per WP:NSONGS independent articles should not be created until a detailed page can be made. None of the comments here address why a paragraph on the album's page wouldnt suffice. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:34, 14 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dirgham Salahi[edit]
- Dirgham Salahi (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 should be listed at WP:NOTINHERITED as a very good example of an article that we should not have on the Wikipedia. Even the intro of the lead is a clear indication of this; "Dirgham R. Salahi was a winery owner, who gained national attention when one of his sons, Tareq was alleged of crashing a White House state dinner." Notability cannot be inherited from his equally (IMO, but that's a discussion for another AfD or similar discussion non-notable son and daughter-in-law's shenanigans. The only reliable source mentions are because he just died; WaPo, along with gossip blogs such as Radar Online. Tarc (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Individual of less notability than his son, and his son is a one event BLP in need of merging with his gatecrashing event, more of the content in the article is actually about his son. Off2riorob (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Pretty clear. FWIW, and only because there is early electioneering above, I have searched out info on WP for Tareq Salahi for reasons other than the 1E. The guy is in a well known television show that will be in reruns for a long time, and the final program of which basically consisted of the entire rest of the cast commenting on his and his wife's behavior for an hour - things far beyond the "1E". As I say I searched out info on him on WP for reasons unrelated to the alleged "1E", that's in fact the only reason I'm in this discussion right now. weigh that in. (when we get there. not sure I'll be around.) 74.7.121.69 (talk) 22:19, 9 November 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 Adrian d'Hagé. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Omega Scroll[edit]
- The Omega Scroll (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. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - the text is also very obviously the publisher's blurb, which frankly Alan you should have spotted! I'll leave it to you to do the copyvio stuff. Johnbod (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like a lot of editors missed that one including yourself. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:29, 2 November 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, Davewild (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have relisted to get more views, given that the copvio has been removed and one review has been added since the above comments. Davewild (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest a merge to author page - the book has some reviews and the author is clearly notable, so why not merge a little of the plot into the author's page, Sadads (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, merge Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge to authors page. Heiro 05:28, 10 November 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) 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marc D. Alexander[edit]
- Marc D. Alexander (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)
Spam. Koramil (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dreaming of deletion. A classic up and coming person, but not there yet. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, regretfully. He sounds like quite a dynamo, but the sources just aren't there yet to support his inclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 04:40, 16 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fat americano[edit]
- Fat americano (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)
Little or no context, fails WP:N, WP:V and is likely WP:MADEUP 2 says you, says two 19:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources, self-described as WP:MADEUP. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I prodded it because there was no speedy category that fitted. (Pity.... Why can't we have one for made-up stuff?) No refs, no notability. Peridon (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article can be an advertisment. User:Lucifero4
- Delete. WP:N. --LadyGarGar (talk) 14:07, 11 November 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 Jazz (Queen album). Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jealousy_(Queen_song)[edit]
- Jealousy_(Queen_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)
Doesn't list any reason of why it's notable as an individual song, thus failing WP:NSONGS. No sources provided. Merge, maintance and prod tags have been removed with no explanation. Attempts to redirect to Jazz_(Queen album) have been reverted. Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Enric Naval (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NSONGS and provide sources that allow to write a detailed article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I don't want to read WP:NSONGS or any other dreary lifeforce sapping guideline. It is a Queen song and it should have an article. How can that not be obvious? MtD (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not obvious in wikipedia.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has policies and guidelines which govern what subjects can and can't be included. I'll defend to the death your right to hold fanboy attitudes, but surely what must be obvious to you is that they have no place in such discussions. Add me to the Merge and redirect crew. Ravenswing 18:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not obvious in wikipedia.... --Enric Naval (talk) 12:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. I don't want to read WP:NSONGS or any other dreary lifeforce sapping guideline. It is a Queen song and it should have an article. How can that not be obvious? MtD (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:NSONGS and provide sources that allow to write a detailed article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect with the parent album. The answer to the problem of a redirect being reverted is to protect the redirect, not to delete the article. This article is likely a permastub, but redirects are encouraged in the guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. I double-checked to make sure, but WP:NSONG says, "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." That does not mean that redirects are encouraged. The song is not notable, there is no verifiable content worth merging--deletion is a solution. However, the page views per month number in the hundreds, up to 1000 (I checked only a few months), which might suggest it's a possible search term (obviously I can't tell if those visitors come from Jazz (Queen album)). As DGG used to say, I believe, redirects are cheap. Drmies (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My concern over redirecting this is that it will break the chain of chronology in the single infoboxes (i.e. the links from the infoboxes in Don't Stop Me Now and Mustpha won't make sense). There again, it does seem very unusual the a Queen single at this point in their career should fail enter the charts at all. Does anyone know what's going on here? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it is going to break the chronology chain, the consecutive listing of complete singles. Unfortunately, there's a lot of heartless editors out there who just don't care. What a pity. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor should we, of course; "making the navboxes look pretty" forms no part of inclusion criteria. Ravenswing 02:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, this isn't about making Navboxes look pretty, it's about making Wikipedia easy for users to navigate. That may not be Wikipedia policy in its own right, but it is part of common sense which falls under WP:IAR, which is policy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case the links ought to be designed to do so, or else the links should be eliminated. I've heard worse rationales to keep an otherwise non-notable article than ease of navigation, but very few. Ravenswing 09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, before you accuse someone of having a bad rationale to keep, perhaps the word "comment" might have given you a clue. But that aside, enforcement of the notability criteria has to be weighed up against whether the links in the other articles make sense. It is standard practice for articles on singles to link to the previous single and next single in the infobox, and both of the solutions you propose have problems. I am happy to suggest better ways of managing the links if you want to delete this, but I won't waste my time if you're going to dismiss it as a rationale for keeping a non-notable article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In which case the links ought to be designed to do so, or else the links should be eliminated. I've heard worse rationales to keep an otherwise non-notable article than ease of navigation, but very few. Ravenswing 09:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, this isn't about making Navboxes look pretty, it's about making Wikipedia easy for users to navigate. That may not be Wikipedia policy in its own right, but it is part of common sense which falls under WP:IAR, which is policy. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor should we, of course; "making the navboxes look pretty" forms no part of inclusion criteria. Ravenswing 02:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, it is going to break the chronology chain, the consecutive listing of complete singles. Unfortunately, there's a lot of heartless editors out there who just don't care. What a pity. Best, --Discographer (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to album article. This is a minor Queen song (not featured on any of their Greatest Hits albums, AFAIK). The article is unsourced, and its information is already contained in the album article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:21, 16 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:40, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Griswalds[edit]
- The Griswalds (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 band. Article claims the band has a "popular song" in their genre, but this is impossible to verify (a quick Google search only throws up MySpace, youtube, etc and other non-WP:RS sites). I don't know how notable festivals such as Hollywood Showdown showdown are (we only have an article on the TV show of the same name). matt (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BAND. Not enough information exists surrounding the band to make it notable. The MySpace page itself only has a little bit of information on the main singer, and information from MySpace isn't even notable. Also seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest between someone related to the singer, as well. Legoland12342 (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless independent references are supplied to establish how WP:GNG is met. Nuttah (talk) 15:03, 14 November 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 deleted. By Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) per WP:CSD G7 T. Canens (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Limuel B. Forgey III[edit]
- Limuel B. Forgey III (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
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Subject has not had a significant or notable career as a professional opera singer. All four roles to date have been with semi-professional community companies. Golden Gate Opera's production of Madame Butterfly was with piano accompaniment only and for "emerging artists". California Opera is a training program. The roles created were in two other operas composed by a local high-school teacher with an amateur cast. All coverage has been very local (Fresno and Visalia in California), with no articles specifically devoted to the subject. No professional recordings or evidence of having won or placed in a national or international singing competition. Note that I had brought the article up to the best state I could, but it has recently been edited by an anonymous IP which I suspect is affiliated to the subject, who suprisingly has removed one of the few independent references and (not surprisingly) has re-added promotional language. To get the best version of the article available, see this one. Voceditenore (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE Debate is now moot as the article has been deleted at the request of the author [11] Voceditenore (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Voceditenore (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Opera - Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Clearly not a notable singer.4meter4 (talk) 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Possible self-promotion. Lack on notability. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more than "possible" self promotion—it's almost certain. The article was created by Limforgey and further edited by Lforgey. However, that in itself is not a reason to delete if the subject is notable. Unfortunately, this one is not. Voceditenore (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE While at first glance your assumption that subject does not have a significant career in opera seems to be somewhat valid, evidenced does exist to the contrary by supporting sites. Further, you suggest that subject has only worked in one area (Fresno), but Golden Gate Opera, according to their web site, is in fact in the North Bay area outside of San Francisco over 100 miles away, and not close to the other areas of work. Further, both California Opera and Golden Gate opera have intermingling of professionals with young artist, and there is no suggestion on either site that the subject was a young artist, but rather a contracted artist (http://limuelforgey.homestead.com "Booking and agent information") . Golden Gate opera's production appears to be both an emerging artist program and first "Town Hall Opera" suggesting a combination of up-and-coming and professional personell in an intimate setting which is not uncommon in b houses, which are in fact professional. In fact, there is clear indication that as the subject is a managed artist by California Opera, which, according to their site, deals with professionals, young artists and children all three. Finally, in regard to the quality of a work and the suggestion that it is not of "quality" because the composer is had also worked as a school teacher would also say that some of the works by greatest composers would be also inadequate. Subject asserts notoriety and it is supported.--KPrummer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) — Kprummer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Weak delete, probably fails WP:GNG. Fresno Bee ref would have the strongest chance of contributing to notability, but it appears to be broken and not recoverable via archive.org, and provides no quote to help us understand what it once said. Other refs, as professional listings, likely cannot be considered independent reliable sources. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment more support found at [12] Marine scope news paper on performace and professional nature of subject —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't provide significant coverage of subject per WP:GNG; he gets a passing mention, if a positive one. That would be suitable for inclusion in a Reception section of the article, but doesn't contribute to notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree: this discussion is not about the professionalism or the professional qualities of the subject, it is about whether or not the subject has (had) a notable professional career as a singer. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree: Inclusion in a professional review does provide "notable" and professional evidence--from an outside news source with a large following in a major US city and satisfies WP:GNG ; .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 November 2010
- Comment: you should read WP:GNG more carefully, particularly the first paragraph on "significant coverage": sources (plural) addressing the subject directly in detail (as opposed to a passing mention). --Francesco Malipiero (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree: Inclusion in a professional review does provide "notable" and professional evidence--from an outside news source with a large following in a major US city and satisfies WP:GNG ; .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 20:59, 9 November 2010
- Agree: this discussion is not about the professionalism or the professional qualities of the subject, it is about whether or not the subject has (had) a notable professional career as a singer. Francesco Malipiero (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't provide significant coverage of subject per WP:GNG; he gets a passing mention, if a positive one. That would be suitable for inclusion in a Reception section of the article, but doesn't contribute to notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, great. It's not the most in-depth coverage ever, but it's not a passing mention, and I would say it contributes to notability. That leaves us still at one notability-establishing citation, but if you can come up with another item as good as or better than that one, I believe I would change my !vote to keep. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete His premiering roles are in works by a composer who isn't apparently notable enough for an article here, and one of them for an operatic company that seems to have no other ghit than this article. I would presume Paul Klemme is the one who is Music Director at St. Paul's Episcopal, Salem, Oregon. Possibly a good trainer of conductors, and definitely a conductor himself (including works by Bizet and Menotti), but not a name widely known - so far as I can see. Kaplan is wider known, and was hailed by Bernstein as having great talent. However, being a student of someone doesn't make one notable (unless one murders one's mentor quite spectacularly...). Ghits for Forgey include the usual social sites and I didn't see anything much more. I feel (quite possibly incorrectly) that a bit of self-promotion is going on here. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have struck through multiple use of 'do not delete' above by the only supporter of the article. Please note that this is not a count the votes situation, but even so only one !vote is allowed per poster. Other remarks are 'comment' or similar. Peridon (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete: Falls within the scope of WP:GNG, comments on self promotion are not valid to this discussion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjpolarbear (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)— Cjpolarbear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment The preponderance of single-purpose accounts (all edits are to this discussion or the subject page) who fail to sign their posts and write "Do Not Delete" rather than "Keep" is getting a bit distressing in here. I'll just leave this here for the general edification: WP:SOCK —chaos5023 (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some of us actually are trying to learn the lingo, like myself. That dosen't mean that others should throw around accusations like sock puppets. So that's what this forum is now, more than one person disagrees, and there is conspiracy? Sad. Just sayin.--SIGNED KPRUMMER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 22:30, 9 November 2010
- You sign posts by writing four tildes in a row, ~~~~, as clearly explained by the message that SineBot left on your talk page, notification of which you will have received as a "You have new messages" box. I was attempting to gently and non-accusatorily point out that sock puppetry is unacceptable, since as you point out you're a newbie and we try not to WP:BITE those, even though attempting to manipulate consensus that way is something Wikipedia has very little tolerance for. I have since been looking around to see if there's any recommended path for someone who has socked without fully understanding the consequences to extricate themselves from their predicament, but have not been able to find anything. If you have, in fact, socked, the best thing I can think of for you to do is try to immediately WP:VANISH the sock accounts and henceforth post only from the single account of your choice; an apology would not be out of order. I do not know whether this is enough to prevent a block, but it's worth a try. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment--There is no "socking"--Im just saying that I myeslf (I can only speak for me) am learning about signing posts. I have never fought for an article before. I am a fan of this guy, and he is know and he is new, and I think he deserves an article, caue he seems to fit the critiria. Thats all. Thanks for trying to help me, and I just now understood how to read messages--I'm 60 years old and computers are not easy for me. But really, this kid is good and deserves an article. He fits the profile and is known in the opera world and getting more known. Can't we help the article some how, instead of trying to get rid of it?----KPrummer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 22:48, 9 November 2010
- Okay. Just, be advised, if you have been socking and you make us find out the hard way, any moral capital that might have been gained by voluntarily disclosing and giving it up is lost. As far as improving the article goes, I hope you see from my previous participation that I'm all in favor. There is only one kind of improvement that's of benefit to this discussion, though: the addition of independent, reliable, significant coverage. You found one citation which I consider to qualify, which is awesome. If you have the wherewithal to turn up another, then we'll really be in business. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Fraid not. That's what's called a "primary source", meaning it's a work he contributed to. Those don't contribute to notability. What we're looking for are independent, secondary sources, like the other citation you gave, of a critic discussing him. Newspaper or magazine articles about him or including a decent amount of information about him, material from books, that sort of thing. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, with the four tildes thing, the tilde is a little squiggle, not a hyphen; on a typical US keyboard it's found to the left of the number 1, in the shift position above the backtick (`). When you sign your posts using four tildes, you don't have to write your username; it fills that in for you. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I understand that his DVD of an Opera on Amazon can't work (but it seems like it should-jeeze)--here is the last thing I have today...It is an article about an opera he was in and he getting a great review by a critic for a large news paper. [15] if this dosen't give us the two we need, along with the one we thought was week, along with the professional DVD or an opera he was in, and supporting web sites...I feel defeated! Fingers crossed.Kprummer (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, that is tough. That's not very much coverage, though still better than the clear passing mention in the first item you found. Between your two new cites, though, and the California Opera Association and Golden Gate Opera refs, which maybe could be considered to contribute something toward notability, at least in the presence of other cites, I'm going to change my !vote to a weak keep. That's just me, though; I don't know if other editors will be as forgiving of the limited degree of coverage in the new cites. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great. Thanks for keeping an open mind and encouring me to look deeper. I think there is substance there and it was keen to keep looking myself into a subject that I really enjoy and an artist that I like a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprummer (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've sought feedback on the California Opera Association and Golden Gate Opera citations' contribution toward notability at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Professional listings in re Limuel B. Forgey III. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The websites of both those companies are reliable sources for verifying that Forgey sang with them. They are not reliable sources for his biographical claims. These bios are provided by the singers themselves or their agents and are not independent of the subject. Nor do they count as "coverage" of the subject. As an analogy, go the website of a dental practice. You will probably find resumes of each of the dentists in the practice, e.g. [16]. This doesn't attest to the notability of the dentist or significant coverage in published reliable sources which are independent of the subject, merely that they are employed by that practice. Voceditenore (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's what I figured in my first comment on the topic. I was vaguely hoping I was being too pessimistic about it. Doesn't sound like I was. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is especially for User:Kprummer but it applies generally to this discussion. The notability criteria at Wikipedia have nothing to do with how talented or accomplished the subject is, how well-liked they are in their community, or how well they do their job. Failure to meet those criteria does not imply that the person is untalented, has no accomplishments, is not well-liked in their community, or doesn't do their job well. Many new editors (especially emerging artists and their families and friends) make the mistake of thinking that the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to raise their profile in their chosen profession. In fact, the purpose of a Wikipedia biographical article is to document someone who has fully "emerged", who has made a significant impact, whose profile is already so high that they have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." (Criteria 1. for Notability of musicians and ensembles)
The independent sources which have emerged so far are:
#1 (review in a community newspaper with a one sentence mention of the subject)
#2 (a two sentence shout-out announcing Forgey's performance in #1 with ticket information in the Fresno Bee arts blog)
#3 (a review of The Scarlet Letter in a local newspaper, Visalia Times Delta, which mentions Forgey. I had added this when I was referencing the article because it was a completely unreferenced biography of a living person. For some reason this was removed by a IP editor yesterday)
#4 (reprint of a review of The Scarlet Letter in the Fresno Bee which mentions Forgey in
onethree sentences, by the same reporter in #2)#5 (Note I was able to recover this Google cache of the article publicizing the California Opera performances of Madame Butterfly and La traviata. It includes a paragraph each on Forgey and one of the other singers)
Opinions can vary as to whether this extremely local coverage (and in the case of #1, #2, and #4 also quite trivial) passes Criteria 1. for Notability of musicians and ensembles. I don't believe it does, which is why one then has to look at the other criteria to see if the subject would pass under one on those. I cannot see evidence of him passing any of them. The Scarlet Letter DVD is self-published by the composer, not released on a commercial label, and note the review of this performance in #4:
"The world-premiere opera, which played for four performances last weekend at the College of the Sequoias theater, had a polish—and a confidence—that you don't always associate with amateur productions." (my bolding)
Note also the quote from #5 re California Opera Association which trains singers at various levels, but still is a training organization:
Edna Garabedian, the indefatigable artistic director of Cal Opera, has always positioned the company's annual summer festival and institute as a training ground for advanced young singers. Many of them already have extensive vocal educations, but Garabedian is trying to prepare them for the next phase of a career: how to prepare for auditions, what to wear, how to choose roles. Part of being a marketable singer is the ability to sing one leading role on one night—and turn around and sing another one just a couple of days later. That's why Garabedian has programmed two major works for the last weekend of the festival: "La Traviata" tonight; and "Madama Butterfly" on Sunday, both at the Mercedes Edwards Theatre in Clovis. Nearly all the institute's singers are in both fully staged productions. This is the first year the festival has two big titles performing in one weekend. Why wait till this year? Simple. Because she thinks her singers can, Garabedian says. "I felt they were capable of doing this," she says. "If they're going to be successful professionals, it's going to be something they have to do. (my bolding)
Incidentally, Golden Gate Opera explicitly describes their Madame Butterly performance as "Golden Gate Opera's Emerging Artist Program" and uses virtually the same cast (and director) as the California Opera Association one. An "emerging" opera artist is not synonymous with "young" artist, "untrained" artist, or "amateur" artist. It means that the artist has not yet achieved a significant career at the highest professional level, singing many leading roles with fully professional companies which perform operas with a full orchestra and chorus and a completely professional cast. I know this response is very long, but I want the new editors participating here to understand a bit more about this process, what the criteria are, what a "delete" opinion means, and that it is not taken lightly. If it helps, here are some AfDs for opera singers which closed as "keep" [17], [18], [19], and some which closed as "delete" [20], [21], [22]. Voceditenore (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2010 (UTC) Updated by Voceditenore (talk) 15:28, 10 November 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 deleted under WP:CSD#G11. lifebaka++ 22:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Titas Food Point[edit]
- Titas Food Point (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)
Pure spam. DB tag removed twice, by two different IP editors. A cleanup would be in order if this company were in any way notable, but it does not appear to be. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - this is obvious sockpuppetry to try to game the system. --Triwbe (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:25, 9 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Equinox NC (band)[edit]
- Equinox NC (band) (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 restored this article as a contested proposed deletion. I see no indication that the article is anything more than an advertisement for a non-notable subject. In Google News the text strings "equinox north carolina" and "equinox band" (both far broader than would be necessary to drill down to the subject) get no hits relavent to any North Carolina band. Searching in google web for "equinox north carolina band" gives you very little apart from some social media sites, us and the band's website. I added the word band because there are a few companies in NC with the name equinox and they swamp the general results. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - could and should have been speedied. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not a whiff of notability, either for the general guidelines or the specific band/musician one. The UNC chancellor, Holden Thorp, is a member, and even searches with his unique name + Equinox turn up very little. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 9 November 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) 01:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cam Valley Wildlife Group[edit]
- Cam Valley Wildlife 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)
This stub is unreferenced, and I can't find any sources. It appears to be a small local organisation which doesn't meet notability requirements. — Rod talk 17:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly delete. This article has somehow evaded attention for eight years, but it appear the purpose was never anything more than directing people to their own website. Third-party coverage tiny. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 16 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Third Form at St. Clare's[edit]
- The Third Form at St. Clare's (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)
A massive plot summary of a book that isn't very notable. I don't see much coverage of the book out there... most hits are booksellers selling it. Would nearly need a fundamental rewrite to become an encyclopedia article. Gigs (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly an informative article. It has about one sentence of context, and even that doesn't make it clear who the author of this book is. Uncle G (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- per Gigs, it would need to be rewritten from scratch to be an encyclopedia article and I just don't see enough sources to enable this to be anything more than puffy plot summary. Reyk YO! 01:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Pamela Cox (book author) for search purposes.--PinkBull 16:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I note that Pamela Cox is also at AfD. Maybe a better redirect target would be St. Clare's (series)? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that appears to make more sense, even if Pamela Cox survives the afd.--PinkBull 16:59, 16 November 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. Arguments for delete and keep are both well stated. Some of the ref's are weak. However, at this point, there is no consensus to delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dogme language teaching[edit]
- Dogme language teaching (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 evidence that this particular method is notable, and so he article is best seen as promotional for the method and the associates material. . Essentially all the references come from the two originators.
There's a related AfD , Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Thornbury -- where I give the opinion that Thornbury , the co-inventor of this methodology, himself is notable. Ironically, he's notable in large part for his textbooks for elementary learners, and such textbooks are what his methodology described here strongly deprecates. . Possibly some of this is mergeable into the article on the author, if kept. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At 13:29, 24 January 2011, I transcluded this previously non-transcluded, active discussion AfD to the log.[23] -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Thornbury may be notable, but this method is not. We are under no obligation to advertise his products. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is so much confusion and contradiction about what dogme is, it's hard to take it seriously as a teaching method of note. — Spacedwarf (talk • contribs) 09:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This deletion seems strange to me (but I'm not a Wikipedia expert, just a language teacher). There're quite a few people involved in the movement, including some prominent bloggers. IH Online Teacher Training Institute (OTTI) is going to run a five-week workshop on Dogme. If you think that this should be deleted, then delete things like Task-based language learning. And anyway, it's a movement rather than simply a "product". Michael Grinberg (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response - sounds like you're saying it's an up and coming concept; in other words, not notable yet. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I had a look at the references, and the article by Simon Gill in IATEFL, Christensen's article in The Language Teacher, and the ELT Journal piece all seem to fulfil the notability criteria. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have also been reviews of his book published in various journals. Take a look at them on the book's page at Delta Publishing. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher's websites are notoriously not reliable, since they are advertising vehicles, not information sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to the individual journals that published the book reviews, not the site itself. It appears that most of those aren't published in reliable sources, though (with the possible exception of the Modern English Teacher piece), so this is could be distracting people from my original point. This point is that if there is just one article mainly about Dogme language teaching published in a respectable source, then it is notable. I have listed three such articles above that were already included in the article's references. This seems an obvious reason to keep the article. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 21:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Publisher's websites are notoriously not reliable, since they are advertising vehicles, not information sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There have also been reviews of his book published in various journals. Take a look at them on the book's page at Delta Publishing. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I found this comment on the article's talk page. It was left by User:Taiguofeng (talk, Contribs) at 11:02, 9 December 2010:
I believe that It should be kept. Dogme ELT-related works have won some awards for teachers on languages and methodology, including the 2004 Elton Awards Winning Natural Grammar and 2010 Elton Awards Winning Teaching Unplugged. http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-eltons-2010-winners-4.htm#uk-award-nominees Teaching Unplugged – Book By: Delta Publishing The Product: Teaching Unplugged is the first book to deal comprehensively with the materials-light, conversation-driven approach to English Language Teaching known as Dogme ELT. It challenges not only the way we view teaching, but also the way we view being a teacher. Judge's comments: ‘The approach is practical, simple, easy to understand. Focus on teaching the people, not the subject’ The Team: Scott Thornbury, Luke Meddings, Lindsay Clandfield, Mike Burghall
— Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 06:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This book "Teaching Unplugged" is specifically about Dogme language teaching, and it was one of the winners of the 2010 ELTon "UK Award for Innovation". This looks like clear evidence of notability to me. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 06:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: DOGME is not a product. It's an approach to language teaching, which in my view is as valid as any other approaches that have characterised language teaching in recent years, e.g. communicative language teaching and constructivism. The general philosophy of DOGME is that students should be the basis of materials rather than any third-party source. GroovyGuzi (talk) 10:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More evidence on the pros and cons of language teaching using the DOGME approach: [24] [25] GroovyGuzi (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I think the article should be kept, I should point out that the two sources you mentioned are not reliable. Sources must be reliable to prove notability. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 14:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Personally, I think the two sources are reliable. The Avatar Languages website is maintained by a well-known language teacher of English called Howard Vickers, who is a prominent advocate of the DOGME approach to language teaching. He has lectured on this topic at international conferences all over the world. There are some very prominent names among the contributors to Yahoo Groups too. I am not a fan of DOGME myself, so I have no axe to grind, but it's an interesting concept and deserves a mention in Wikipedia.GroovyGuzi (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I think the article should be kept, I should point out that the two sources you mentioned are not reliable. Sources must be reliable to prove notability. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 14:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per DGG's nom argument. This is a possible search term and there is mergable content, but there is no reason to have a stand alone article on this topic. -Atmoz (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Before you assert that this topic isn't notable, could you give a reason for the sources I mentioned not proving notability? I'll link to them now to make them more obvious. [26] (pp. 15-18) [27] (from IATEFL Issues 154) [28]. These are all cited in the article. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:40, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found some additional coverage in The Guardian: [29], [30], [31], [32]. I also see coverage in books ([33], [34], [35]) and journals ([36], [37]); this, coupled with the existing sources, makes me think this subject is worthy of inclusion. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that all the articles in the Guardian are by Luke Meddings, who is one of the founders of the Dogme movement, and mentioned in the article. Although, of course, there is the fact that the Guardian thought that the subject was notable enough for them to publish the articles. — Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 09:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Dogme is too fuzzy to be called a methodology, too small to be called a movement. It is kept going by a group of fashionista bloggers and tweeters.User:browserbutton —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nomination withdrawn upon significant improvements by Jclemens (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avery Stafford[edit]
- Avery Stafford (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 BLP is completely unsourced and has been since its creation in December 2008, and I am unable to find even one mention in a google news source. I see a few mentions/short pieces on websites but nothing I could claim to be a reliable source, so subject fails WP:GNG unless sources can be found. This is nominated as part of the Unreferenced BLP Project's current drive to source all BLPs tagged as unsourced in December 2008. Please help us! Milowent • talkblp-r 16:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unsourced, did not establish notability. Creator is an SPA: Averymusic (talk · contribs), and wrote most of the page. (diff of first edit to now.) OSbornarfcontributionatoration 17:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw delete vote, Jclemens has drastically improved the article. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 03:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've removed or toned down the colloquial/puff parts of this, added a ton of citations. He still doesn't appear to have charted, but he appears to have met WP:BAND numbers 1 and 7, based on my research. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 9 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K-9 (card game)[edit]
- K-9 (card game) (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 first discussion was closed in August as no consensus (probably because only one other person commented on it). Since that time, with the exception of a modified wikilink, nothing has been done on this article at all. It appears to violate WP:MADEUP, and although Googling for the name is difficult, I did and I still can't find any reliable information about it. Erpert (let's talk about it) 16:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One reference, no others forthcoming, and though Google Books is little help (no preview for the title), the fact that only the use of a 52-card deck is cited to that source makes me dubious that the game gets more than a passing mention there, or is even actually mentioned by name. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 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. Courcelles 07:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2008 Binghamton Mets season[edit]
- 2008 Binghamton Mets season (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)
Also included:
- 2008 Akron Aeros season
- 2008 Altoona Curve season
- 2008 Bowie Baysox season
- 2008 Connecticut Defenders season
- 2008 Erie SeaWolves season
- 2008 Harrisburg Senators season
- 2008 New Hampshire Fisher Cats season
- 2008 Portland Sea Dogs season
- 2008 Reading Phillies season
- 2008 Trenton Thunder season
Same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1980 Lynn Sailors season; individual minor league seasons aren't by themselves notable, any resources we have should go to the main team article and improve that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all and I believe there's a whole lot more where that came from. See Category:Akron_Aeros_seasons, Category:Canton-Akron Indians seasons, Category:2009 Eastern League season, possibly Akron Aeros seasons and Harrisburg Senators seasons as at least merge candidates. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. None of these articles make any kind of assertion of notability. The only one that might even have such a claim might be the Thunder as league champions, but even that would be dubious at best. -Dewelar (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all None of the seasons are individually notable, including the of the Trenton Thunder, which won the Eastern League title that year. These things are tolerated while the season is going on, serving as someone's personal sports page that can be updated whenever they want it to be, but once the season is over, even the people who created the article get bored with it. Sometimes it's even sooner, as with this page and several others that stopped after a month or two upon the realization that it wasn't a good idea to begin with. With incomplete pages, there's no point even in doing a redirect. Mandsford 17:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as non-notable. Secret account 17:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as non-notable, per above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As the creator of this article, and I believe the rest of them listed, it doesn't matter to me if they get deleted. However, I would like to note that the reason I feel this way is because of the article's incompleteness, not because of the articles not being notable. If Major League seasons are considered notable and not subject to deletion, then minor league seasons should be as well. There is no difference between the two in notability, except maybe popularity. Say the NFL is more popular than the NHL, does that mean we should not have season articles for the NHL? Wikipedia was not founded to serve the purpose of simply NFL fans. It was founded to be an open online encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a book of reference. These articles nominated for deletion are reference articles, and they are notable. The problem is they are incomplete, they haven't been edited, because I personally was unable to commit myself to the time of adding the details of every game. I personally believe it is unfair to call these articles non-notable. If the MLB team season articles follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then these articles nominated to be deleted absolutely follow Wikipedia's notability guidelines. So like I said, I don't really care about the outcome of this AFD, because I haven't even edited Wikipedia in over a year. I only care that everyone realizes that these articles deserve to be deleted for their incompleteness, not because of their notability. Thanks for considering, and please provide your input. Branson03 (talk) 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a significant difference in the level of play between the Eastern League and Major League Baseball, as well as between any other minor league and its major league. Regardless of the popularity of the NFL versus the NHL, they are the highest level of play in those sports. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point. However, the highest level of football is the NFL, and smaller football league called the UFL has team's season articles. Why are you so against the articles anyway? Wikipedia was founded to be inclusive. The purpose was to create a remarkable pool of human knowledge. If you delete these articles, then you are working against the founding principles of this site. I honestly don't get why you all are against minor league season articles. Wikipedia users should welcome new ideas. Not crumple them up and stomp them to the ground. And to Mandsford, I think what you said about serving the purpose of the creator for the season is horrible. Wikipedia page's are not someone's personal project. All users work together to further and improve the content of this encyclopedia. These articles nominated for deletion are not my personal project. All users have every right to edit them. These articles were not created for my purposes. I created them for the people who Wikipedia is really here for, the readers. It was supposed to be a reference for minor league fans. It was supposed to be a collection on information from different sources all on one page. It was exactly what Wikipedia was founded for. I completely understand the purpose of AFDs, and I feel that these article merit their AFD because they are incomplete. If they were complete articles, then they should not qualify for AFD. Wikipedia is all about the collection of knowledge, as Jimbo says in his personal appeal at the top of every page. We are working against this purpose if we reject new ideas. Anyone who rejects an idea, such as minor league team season articles, is not working towards the goal of this website. Branson03 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are working from several mistaken premises here. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate informaion, nor is it supposed to include everything. Simply saying other similar stuff exists isn't enough either. Existence ≠ notability. For articles whose notability is not presumed to be inherent, like MLB season articles, notability needs to be asserted within the article, to the degree that they pass the general notability guidelines. None of these articles do that, and that would be true whether they or not they're "complete". Such articles also need to have sources that offer more than routine coverage, and none of these articles meet that threshold either. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to these types of articles, but they have to actually meet the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia, which are higher than you give them credit for being. -Dewelar (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles do not fall into any of the six categories presented by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. They are not a plot only description of a work, a lyrical database, list of statistics (statistics are not the same thing as baseball statistics), a news report, a who's who, or a faq. If you believe that it does fall into any of those categories, then all MLB team season articles do not meat "Wikipedia's inclusion standards." Now, you call say my argument is in the arguments to avoid, but if you read the guideline, you will see that just because it is listed does not mean that the argument is invalid, so, your argument against my argument is flawed. That is an essay, not a rule, its something to follow, not to cite. According to WP:FAILN, deletion of articles of questionable nobility should be a last resort. There has been absolutely no discussion prior to the AFD as to the notability of these articles. It is obvious that if I created an article about myself, that the article would not be notable. However, if the notability of an article is questionable, which it seems to be in this case, then deletion should be a resort after a discussion involving editors. Editors who routinely edit on the subject of the article (in this case, minor league baseball), should all be notified of the discussion to avoid pro-deletion editors who rarely edit articles on the subject from controlling Wikipedia's stance on that subject. So as I've said before, my main concern is that you are assuming notability in this case. No one has ever tried this before, and it has never been discussed before. Should I have started a discussion before I created the article? Sure, but it was not needed if following WP:BEBOLD. The editor who believe this should be nominated for deletion with questionable notability should have done exactly what I suggested above. Discuss the problem with other editors, notifying editors who edit regularly on the subject of the problem, and attempt to reach a consensus. If anyone is against this approach (for automatic deletion without prior discussion), then Wikipedia has changed, and it's for the worse. Lastly, your arguments about MLB being more important then MiLB are invalidated by WP:POPULARITY. Branson03 (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been discussion on this topic, both at the baseball project talk page and, more recently, at the sports notability guideline talk page (a discussion I personally started, and which was prompted by the precedent-setting AfD linked above) in an attempt to establish guidelines under which they might be notable. As it pertains to minor league season articles such as these, it has been long established that they are not inherently notable, as MLB season articles are presumed to be, and as such are required to pass WP:GNG. I still see no evidence that any of these articles do so, nor are you making any attempt to present such evidence. This entire argument would be rendered moot if such evidence were brought forward. I appreciate your passion for this subject, but without bringing evidence to bear, I predict it will prove quixotic at best. -Dewelar (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles do not fall into any of the six categories presented by WP:INDISCRIMINATE. They are not a plot only description of a work, a lyrical database, list of statistics (statistics are not the same thing as baseball statistics), a news report, a who's who, or a faq. If you believe that it does fall into any of those categories, then all MLB team season articles do not meat "Wikipedia's inclusion standards." Now, you call say my argument is in the arguments to avoid, but if you read the guideline, you will see that just because it is listed does not mean that the argument is invalid, so, your argument against my argument is flawed. That is an essay, not a rule, its something to follow, not to cite. According to WP:FAILN, deletion of articles of questionable nobility should be a last resort. There has been absolutely no discussion prior to the AFD as to the notability of these articles. It is obvious that if I created an article about myself, that the article would not be notable. However, if the notability of an article is questionable, which it seems to be in this case, then deletion should be a resort after a discussion involving editors. Editors who routinely edit on the subject of the article (in this case, minor league baseball), should all be notified of the discussion to avoid pro-deletion editors who rarely edit articles on the subject from controlling Wikipedia's stance on that subject. So as I've said before, my main concern is that you are assuming notability in this case. No one has ever tried this before, and it has never been discussed before. Should I have started a discussion before I created the article? Sure, but it was not needed if following WP:BEBOLD. The editor who believe this should be nominated for deletion with questionable notability should have done exactly what I suggested above. Discuss the problem with other editors, notifying editors who edit regularly on the subject of the problem, and attempt to reach a consensus. If anyone is against this approach (for automatic deletion without prior discussion), then Wikipedia has changed, and it's for the worse. Lastly, your arguments about MLB being more important then MiLB are invalidated by WP:POPULARITY. Branson03 (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are working from several mistaken premises here. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate informaion, nor is it supposed to include everything. Simply saying other similar stuff exists isn't enough either. Existence ≠ notability. For articles whose notability is not presumed to be inherent, like MLB season articles, notability needs to be asserted within the article, to the degree that they pass the general notability guidelines. None of these articles do that, and that would be true whether they or not they're "complete". Such articles also need to have sources that offer more than routine coverage, and none of these articles meet that threshold either. As I've said before, I'm not opposed to these types of articles, but they have to actually meet the standards of inclusion in Wikipedia, which are higher than you give them credit for being. -Dewelar (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have a point. However, the highest level of football is the NFL, and smaller football league called the UFL has team's season articles. Why are you so against the articles anyway? Wikipedia was founded to be inclusive. The purpose was to create a remarkable pool of human knowledge. If you delete these articles, then you are working against the founding principles of this site. I honestly don't get why you all are against minor league season articles. Wikipedia users should welcome new ideas. Not crumple them up and stomp them to the ground. And to Mandsford, I think what you said about serving the purpose of the creator for the season is horrible. Wikipedia page's are not someone's personal project. All users work together to further and improve the content of this encyclopedia. These articles nominated for deletion are not my personal project. All users have every right to edit them. These articles were not created for my purposes. I created them for the people who Wikipedia is really here for, the readers. It was supposed to be a reference for minor league fans. It was supposed to be a collection on information from different sources all on one page. It was exactly what Wikipedia was founded for. I completely understand the purpose of AFDs, and I feel that these article merit their AFD because they are incomplete. If they were complete articles, then they should not qualify for AFD. Wikipedia is all about the collection of knowledge, as Jimbo says in his personal appeal at the top of every page. We are working against this purpose if we reject new ideas. Anyone who rejects an idea, such as minor league team season articles, is not working towards the goal of this website. Branson03 (talk) 21:51, 15 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paramount Centennial Collection[edit]
- Paramount Centennial Collection (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)
Previously deleted page and contested PROD. Non-notable collection of otherwise notable films - essentially an advertisement. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article does not contain advertising copy, prices, or locations on where to buy the products. The article is used for informational and educational purposes only; helping people become aware of films that are connected by genre, studio, or filmmaker and can only help to promote the film community at Wikipedia. Similarly themed articles in content and style have existed on Wikipedia for years; see: Midnite Movies, Dragon Dynasty, The Criterion Collection, 20th Century Fox Cinema Classics Collection. Wikipedia can have product pages if they are used for the aforementioned reasons; see: Proactiv Solution, Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Ibanez AW Series. If this article were to be deleted based on the proposed reasoning, then thousands of Wikipedia articles would have to be deleted for the very same reason. Mlamarre79 (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a compendium of companies' product lines and branding initiatives. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty much regular release DVDs with an annoying black box on the packaging commemorating an event of little interest beyond anniversary buffs and ignored by everyone else, who just want to buy the movie. We'll get the same thing in 2019 from Paramount to commemorate their 110th anniversary on SuperBlu-Ray or GoldVOD or whatever format they have then (and even in 2014 for the 'wow, there are people who care about this?' 105th anniversary). Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteI see no evidence of notability, and Mlamarre79 is almost certainly right that there are other articles that should be deleted for the same reason. The solution is not to keep a bad article because other bad articles exist, but to deal with the other bad articles as well. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 10 November 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. Tone 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron Hawkins[edit]
- Aaron Hawkins (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)
Candidate for mayor in a local election. Came fourth with just over 3% of the vote. Also ran for councillor. Was not elected. Does not seem to satisfy either WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dunedin mayoral election, 2010 per WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing to merge, really. RayTalk 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No notability. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:A7. Adabow (talk · contribs) 19:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak redirect to Dunedin mayoral election, 2010 per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:CHEAP. Location (talk) 20:32, 12 November 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. Courcelles 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RivieraJet[edit]
- RivieraJet (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)
Failed airline, which never became operational. To my knowledge, this is enough to fail tp pass the general notabiliy criteria. What is more, there is no significant reliable third-party coverage of this company, so it also fails WP:CORP. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 13:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. Quite literally never got off the ground. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Planned-only companies are inherently non-notable unless there is a specific reason and substantial third party coverage to make such a company especially notable - which I cannot find in this case. Travelbird (talk) 17:39, 9 November 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 per criteria G4. The article began as a copy-paste recreation of the version deleted at AFD on 31 October, and thus qualifies for Speedy Deletion. Subsequent edits have not sufficiently remedied the problems noted at the previous AFD. If you disagree with that deletion, please refer to the procedures at Deletion Review. I am also salting for two weeks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I add that a really good way to make the case for this article would be to create a userspace draft of it, showing how the new version complies with the relevant policies. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of countries by statehood[edit]
- List of countries by statehood (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)
What a terrible article. It is almost entirely original research. A state is a modern concept dating back to the 17th century but here we have "states" going back to 3200 BC?? Also what does the Roman Republic have to do with the modern Italian state? And the Sumer civilization with today's Irak? Laurent (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Laurent (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- STRONG DELETE, wasn't this or a very similar page just AfD'ed and deleted a week ago? Yes, here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of countries by statehood. Why is this article back? Delete and Salt. Heiro 05:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is a list like this: List of countries... but every possible permutation of that list is not at all helpful for readers, creates confusion, unsynchronizes topics, and is generally a classic example of the desire to create pages rather than information. All of this would be much better covered in the list that already exists... which would be enough, but in this particular case there's almost no data here in any case. Keep in mind this is Articles for deletion, not Topics [ideas or possible moved page permutations] for deletion. Shadowjams (talk) 10:41, 10 November 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. (non-admin closure) Tofutwitch11-Chat -How'd I do? 01:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Byron Hardmon[edit]
- Byron Hardmon (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)
Never played professionally, fails WP:ATH and WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Prior recent AfD ended with a "Keep" vote and nobody voting to delete. Not sure what the basis is for re-opening this. He appears to be notable based on non-trivial coverage of his college career. Examples: UF LINEBACKER HARDMON AMONG 12 SIGNEES, FOLLOW THE LEADERS; BOOKEND 'BACKERS MIKE NATTIEL AND BYRON HARDMON SET THE TONE FOR GATORS' DEFENSE, Former Gator Hardmon Signs With Tampa Bay, Future rivals team up for Florida-Georgia prep all-star game. Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not see that this was previously discussed, but I still stand by my nomination. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have substantially expanded/revised the article, incorporating information gleaned from multiple sources. He was a defensive anchor for Florida Gators teams from 2000-2002, including the #3 ranked 2001 team, and led the team in tackles in 2002. He also was a key defensive player for the Hamburg team that won the 2007 World Bowl. The press coverage puts him well above the general notability bar. The prior "Keep" ruling should be affirmed. Cbl62 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the same reason I said keep last time. (side comment: I think Eagles247 is making good faith nominations, just ones that I happen to disagree with).--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per prior AfD; I see nothing suggesting we should reconsider the decision made two months ago. cmadler (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although it seems to be constantly changing WP:ATHLETE would appear to apply to NFL Europe players in the same way that it does to fully professional baseball and basketball leagues outside of the United States (or for that matter, soccer leagues inside the United States). The six teams of NFL Europe not only represented the highest level of American football in Germany and other nations at the time, but were also comparable (or higher) to the quality of play in the Canadian and Arena leagues. Mandsford 17:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NFL Europe is equivalent to the minor leagues for the MLB. Per WP:NSPORT, it is not a "fully professional league." Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. NFL teams don't have a farm system. In baseball, each of the 30 MLB teams have a direct relationship with specific teams at the AAA, AA, A, etc. level. None of the six NFLE teams had a deal with any of the 32 NFL teams; a Philadelphia player could just as easily have ended up in Amsterdam as Frankfurt. NFL Europe may not have been of NFL caliber, but the same is true of the Canadian Football League and Arena football. As with the CFL, it was the highest level league in the nations where it was located. Mandsford 22:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See List of leagues of American football#List of defunct American football minor leagues around the world. And at NFL Europe it is considered a developmental league owned by the NFL, unlike the CFL and AFL, which are not owned by a parent league. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure whether NFLE should be treated the same as CFL or AFL under NSPORTS, but it does appear that the NFLE talent level was at least as good (or better) than in the CFL or Arena Football League. Major talent competing in NFL Europa included Kurt Warner (2-time NFL MVP), Jake Delhomme (Pro Bowl), Eric Crouch (Heisman Trophy winner), Danny Wuerffel (Heisman Trophy winner), Brad Johnson (Pro Bowl and Super Bowl), Brian Waters (4x Pro Bowl, 2x All Pro), Adam Vinatieri (NFL All-Decade Team), Marcus Robinson, Lawrence Phillips, Gaston Green (Pro Bowl), Darren Bennett (NFL All-Decade Team), Michael Sinclair (3x Pro Bowl), Jon Kitna, Damon Huard, Scott Mitchell. The talent level is also shown by scanning the players in categories of NFL Europa players, such as [Category:Frankfurt Galaxy players], [Category:Amsterdam Admirals players], [Category:Barcelona Dragons players], [Category:Scottish Claymores players], and [Category:Rhein Fire players]. Cbl62 (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are the success stories. For example, Anthony Armstrong, currently a starting wide receiver for the Redskins, played for the Odessa Roughnecks of the Intense Football League in 2006. Because a notable player came out of that football league, does that mean all players who played in that league are automatically notable? The bottom line is, NFL Europe is not a professional league. It was a developmental league for NFL players at the bottom of offseason roster to gain playing experience. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what the right answer is. A few random success stories certainly wouldn't do it. But the overall talent level in NFLE vs. CFL/Arena Football does seem pertinent. I guess your point is that the talent level isn't relevant, e.g., baseball's AAA might have a higher talent level (as most of MLB's stars played there at one time) than the Nippon Professional Baseball league, but that doesn't matter because AAA is still a minor/developmental league for MLB. Cbl62 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- During their time in NFL Europe, none of these players were as good as their legacy in the NFL was. They aren't known for their careers in NFL Europe. But let's get back to Hardmon. The only criteria Hardmon meets (possibly) is GNG, since he certainly does not meet ATH or NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep while playing in NFL Europe doesn't mean he meets WP:ATHLETE, Cbl62 already shown there are plenty of reliable sources on this article. (note I was the nominator of the previous article). Secret account 03:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erwin Sniedzins[edit]
- Erwin Sniedzins (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 may have been copied and pasted, but none of the sources shown are independent to the subject. A founder of a non-notable company. Minimac (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete founder of a company that itself does not appear to pass WP:CORP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:18, 9 November 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 Juvenile delinquency. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 04:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Teenage crime[edit]
- Teenage crime (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 cleanup since September 2009 with no progress. Not only is the article extremely USA-centric, but it cites no references and lacks enough notable sources. Ashman05 (talk) 08:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
- I'd suggest a redirect of this title to juvenile delinquency as a fairly obvious Right Thing to Do here. No compelling reason to erase these contributions from the history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to juvenile delinquency per the above sounds good. Location (talk) 15:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to juvenile delinquency per the above. This article is hopeless. Racepacket (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to juvenile delinquency per Smerdis. —chaos5023 (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brainless redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 00:08, 10 November 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. Courcelles 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Lackey[edit]
- Matt Lackey (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 fails WP:BIO. Notability is based solely on a "Riptide Peer Poll" being a sufficient award to address the criteria, this is neither a nationally or internationally recognized award and the magazine it is from Riptide (magazine) does not appear notable (the current link is an apparently incorrect re-direct). Raising for discussion rather than PROD as the article has been around since 2005. Fæ (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Global Surf News doesn't strike me as a reliable, independent third party source.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of notability. --bonadea contributions talk 07:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 12 November 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) 04:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Thornbury[edit]
- Scott Thornbury (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 evidence of notability. No sources, despite being tagged for a year and eight months, and the author of the article having been alerted to the lack of sources 10 months ago. Nothing in the article suggests anything other than a run-of the-mill academic.The article was previously proposed for deletion, with the reason "Non-notable academic. No suggestion of meeting WP:PROF". The PROD was removed with the edit summary "apparently a major figure in his field. Necessary to look for reviews." However, no evidence was given to support the statement that he is "apparently" a major figure, nor was there any indication that reviews had been looked for. I have searched, and found Thornbury's own site, Twitter, Wikipedia, an autobiography submitted by Thornbury himself, etc etc, but very little in the way of independent coverage; much less, in fact, than I would expect for an average academic. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepProbably notable under PROF as produce of widely used textbooks. I infer the widely use from that fact that OUP & CUP publish many of them. Notable as AUTHOR from writing multiple book published by major publishers.(at least one of the translated into other languages). But getting some exact refs that to supplement our common sense may take a while on this one, at least for me, for these are books designed mostly for a UK audience some are outside the scope of the review sources I generally use. Even so, three of his books have over 200 holdings each in the US-centric WorldCat. His website omitted a number of his books, and did not mention that one was traslated in Chinese and another one co-written (or translated with a different title) in Japanese--such translations are major factors in notability of an author. His website did include, however, mentions of numerous published reviews, so I do not know why the nominator did not notice them; I added only the one I could identify exactly elsewhere. The reviews and the publication of books as verified by standard reference sources such as WorldCat are the references from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. Speaking generally, and not necessarily respect to this particular AfD, I have observed over the years a tendency at Wikipedia to be very reluctant to accept notability for anyone involved in education of school-teachers. We've rejected professors of education , or people in solid subjects like math whose specialty has been teacher education, .where we would not have done so if they had been involved in other fields. Does this indicate the conventional social bias, or perhaps the more specific bias of those who have recently been recipients of the educational system, and may therefore reasonably feel a certain amount of skepticism? DGG ( talk ) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IThere's a related AfD that I just placed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dogme language teaching. This is his trade name for his version of teaching a language. I don't think it's notable, since almost all the articles about it are written by him or his coworkers. It seems on of one of the less important elements in his own notability and the mention in the present article is sufficient. I am not uncritical on material like this. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's probably a bias in the world at large. Human knowledge is notoriously unfair and uneven. If the world at large doesn't document someone's life and works, we aren't in a position to rectify that here at Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per DGG's analysis. The wide holdings of his books in major libraries per Worldcat and the multiple translations of his books into other languages suggest that his work is influential. If someone had the patience, the interesting material in Dogme language teaching might be merged into this article, and the other article converted into a redirect. The present article is rather terse, and unless you go and look up the references you won't learn very much about what his teaching method consists of. EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the sound arguments above subject has a GS h index of 12 so is heading for pass of WP:Prof#C1. I am puzzled by the nominator's inability to find independent sources since I have been able to find around 1000 of them by clicking on the scholar link. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Perhaps the nominator has actually read them where you have not. Looking at the first page of results that I see, I see things written by the subject, not things written about the subject. Only things written about the subject are sources for an encyclopaedia biography … that is about the subject. Please demonstrate that your Google Scholar search really did involve reading the things found, by citing two such sources that you found that document this person's life and works, independently of the subject xyrself, from which a verifiable and neutral encyclopaedia article can be written. So far we have, and continue to have despite your Google Scholar search (and indeed mine, although I didn't go beyond the first page), no sources at all as JamesBWatson (who also searched, making three people) observed. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the "cited by" tags to find them. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- You claim to have already found them. Please demonstrate this by telling us what you found. We're still at zero sources. Zero sources means zero article, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Why are you avoiding citing two of the biographical sources about this person's life and works that you say you found? That would be fairly incontrovertible evidence for a keep argument. So why is it like pulling teeth to get you to provide just two out of the thousand things that you say you have found? Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The lead pioneer of the industry is Stephen Krashen with his principles that emanated from the 1980s. Following suit, Rod Ellis, Paul Nation, Scott Thornbury and David Nunan, inter alia have lead the way with critical theories, insights and principles." from [38]. Abductive (reasoning) 09:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the level of sourcing, then that's pretty much clutching at straws. Think about it. How can you build a biography from that? It's a passing mention in a discussion of Teaching English as a foreign language. We're still awaiting a mere two out of the thousands of sources that Xxanthippe stated above xe had found, though. Perhaps they are substantive. Uncle G (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The lead pioneer of the industry is Stephen Krashen with his principles that emanated from the 1980s. Following suit, Rod Ellis, Paul Nation, Scott Thornbury and David Nunan, inter alia have lead the way with critical theories, insights and principles." from [38]. Abductive (reasoning) 09:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim to have already found them. Please demonstrate this by telling us what you found. We're still at zero sources. Zero sources means zero article, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Why are you avoiding citing two of the biographical sources about this person's life and works that you say you found? That would be fairly incontrovertible evidence for a keep argument. So why is it like pulling teeth to get you to provide just two out of the thousand things that you say you have found? Uncle G (talk) 02:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Click on the "cited by" tags to find them. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Perhaps the nominator has actually read them where you have not. Looking at the first page of results that I see, I see things written by the subject, not things written about the subject. Only things written about the subject are sources for an encyclopaedia biography … that is about the subject. Please demonstrate that your Google Scholar search really did involve reading the things found, by citing two such sources that you found that document this person's life and works, independently of the subject xyrself, from which a verifiable and neutral encyclopaedia article can be written. So far we have, and continue to have despite your Google Scholar search (and indeed mine, although I didn't go beyond the first page), no sources at all as JamesBWatson (who also searched, making three people) observed. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 10 November 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. Courcelles 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twee vaders[edit]
- Twee vaders (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 song. See also my comment on the talk page of the author. theFace 09:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the notability of the song is that it is a pioneering song in support of gay parenting. It is even more significant because of being targetted to children rather than adults. The lyrics have been translated into many languages and promoted in a way that no other Kinderen voor Kinderen featured song has ever been. In fact people who can't understand one word of Dutch actually know this all-Dutch song. Translations from Dutch I have seen to: English [39], Portuguese [40], Spanish [41], Hungarian [42]. Ive also seen translations in French, Russian and Latvian.. The song appearing in the official album of "Kinderen voor kinderen" that year, was also featured in the EuroGames and Amercan Jay Brannan has performed it many time in Dutch. werldwayd (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Everyone could pick some song video and put English/Portuguese/Spanish subtitles into it. As I also said on your talk page, it is true that this song gained international attention, but on a small scale (blogs and forums and such). The fact that it was performed on EuroGames 2007[43] and played by Jay Brannan[44] is interesting, and further raises the notability meter, but not even close to WP's standards. Cheers, theFace 12:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the criteria set out at WP:NSONGS Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to pass our songs criteria. Not a charting single, and being performed a handful of times hardly makes it an enduring standard. I note none of the other dozens of songs from the same show have articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. This title, of course, is not English and misleading; I really was hoping that this would prove to be about sickeningly cute chibi Darth Vaders. That would be a promising subject for an article, somewhere, maybe not here. But Wikipedia is not here to publicize your noble cause, and this song just doesn't seem to be notable otherwise. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:37, 9 November 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. Courcelles 00:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anima Animus Animal[edit]
- Anima Animus Animal (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 appears to be largely a promotional/vanity piece for a non-notable act. Google searches return gig listings, social network sites etc, but no reliable sources. A google news search returns zero hits. I cannot find any evidence that this band meets WP:MUSIC. Thanks sparkl!sm hey! 06:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —sparkl!sm hey! 06:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:BAND as there is no WP:RS that allow for inclusion - Pmedema (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BAND. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BAND, non-notable without any reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:54, 9 November 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. –MuZemike 06:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Pumroy[edit]
- Chris Pumroy (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 per WP:BIO and WP:ONEEVENT, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources, apart from two stories by one journalist in the local press on his fundraising bike ride. Prod contested by creator. Top Jim (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am sure that this gentleman is a wonderful and well meaning person. However, the notability claimed is for participation in a single fundraiser. The two references were written by the same journalist, before and after the event. We need multiple references from independent reliable sources, and we need more more of a claim of notability than participation in a single fundraising event. Cullen328 (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom and previous argument. --Triwbe (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete, Triwbe I am a mother of a child that has leukimia and is being treated at Kadlec Hospital in Richland, Washington. I did not know Chris Pumroy until he literally came out of nowhere and began fundraising for children with cancer, accepting no money for his actions, not one cent. All fundraising was paid for by him in full. Although the article says he raised $23000, the total now is closer to $60000. I cant begin to explain what this act of generosity feels like, and what it has personally done for children fighting for thier lives, as my daughter is now. This is a grass-roots community movement that has gained much momentum and will continue to grow. Chris is currently planning other fundraising events, again, out of the kindness of his heart. He is also an Iraq Combat Veteran and was wounded in Iraq. He is a disabled veteran. I unequovically understand the Wikipedia guidlines, and I believe that this article falls well within those guidlines. If Chris Pumroy is not a notable person, then certainly, no one on Wikipedia is. How many people are on here for far less impacting actions for the good of humanity? This man is a hero to many. He gives us hope to continue this painful journey. I pray that you will see this. You were the first person to attack my original article attempt. Perhaps this Wikipedia watchdog act is a hobby? I am begging you please, exercise special care and interest when you consider the deletion of this article. Im not sure that Chris Pumroy even knows that this is going on right now. And frankley, he probably dosent care if he is on Wikipedia. He is not that type of person. On the contrary, he is the most selfless person I have ever met. Put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself again if he is notable? Ask if he meets Wikipedia standards? Ask yourself if allowing this article to stay would degrade the integrity of this site one with millions of articles? If your a parent you will feel my pain and understand my frustration concerning this proposed deletion. I cant understand this. Please confirm his sources which are from a reputable mainstream media firm. Although one journalist wrote them, he has a website with video feeds concerning his efforts. He is on another well known web site as well. He is a hero in our community and an angel to people like me. I am pleading with all of you please reconsider your stance on this issue. Understand where I am coming from. Think about all of the children this selfless person is helping. If he was a child molester with articles from many sources would he be on here? Would that make him notable? I imagine it would. It sickens me that his efforts are not worthy in your opinion and your so quick to say delete. Please reconsider. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry for not signing, my apologizes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC). sorry again, Im trying! talk (talk) (Calimonster (talk) 12:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Calimonster, you say that you understand Wikipedia policies, but you seem to be arguing that we should ignore the requirement for multiple, independent, reliable sources in this case. What other Wikipedia policies support your viewpoint here? You should read the policy called arguments to avoid in deletion discussions because it seems that you are begging for mercy because you like the article very much and consider it a very useful article to have. None of these are valid reasons to keep an article in Wikipedia.
- My "hobby" isn't deleting articles. If you look at my user page, I've created lots of articles, added to lots more, and in debates about deletion, I vote "keep" more often than "delete", when the articles comply with standards.
- You've told us about you personal situation, so let me mention mine. I have a deaf wife and a son with developmental disabilities. I have participated in the American Cancer Society's Relay for Life for seven years, as a significant sponsor of the event in my hometown for the past five years. I don't have a Wikipedia article and don't expect one anytime soon. I met a guy through the Relay for Life who walks 24 hours straight for the event each year, and raises lots of money. He was just elected to our city council. There's no Wikipedia article about him because mayors are usually considered notable but city council members aren't.
- Whether there's an article on Wikipedia is not in any way a judgment as to a person's worth. We have a lengthy article on Adolf Hitler but very few articles on the saintly people who spend decades volunteering in soup kitchens, but aren't usually covered in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Perhaps you should consider whether you have an emotional conflict of interest here, and whether you can write about this gentleman from a neutral point of view. Warm regards. Cullen328 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of significant outside coverage. It's great that he is doing all this good stuff, but he hasn't achieved notability for it. --MelanieN (talk) 04:47, 16 November 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 Kushiel's Dart. –MuZemike 06:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bitterest Winter[edit]
- Bitterest Winter (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)
Yet another fiction article with no real world significance D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Kushiel's Dart as currently proposed. Not independently notable. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:47, 9 November 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. Courcelles 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bell Markets[edit]
- Bell Markets (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 grocery chain is defunct. Yet, it doesn't seem like it was that significant in the first place, with locations only in the San Francisco area. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Google found nothing but social media and directory listings. Google News found a few stories [45] but not enough to establish the notability of this small grocery chain. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 10 November 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. Courcelles 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of the Three Princes[edit]
- Battle of the Three Princes (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)
It could be merged, but why? This is pretty darn crufty and not encyclopedic D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, I agree completely, Sadads (talk) 19:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. It doesn't have to be merged, it can be redirected, and someone's bound to search for it. See WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5.--hkr (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I should point out that the nominator could do a better job making their point, using guidelines instead of expressing frustration. But I do agree with his point. The article isn't encyclopedic because it covers a non-notable event in some random fictional universe. You need to WP:verify notability of this kind of thing, and only in extraordinary cases do fictional events warrant their own article beyond the plot summary in the main series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:44, 14 November 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. Courcelles 00:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barquiel L'Envers[edit]
- Barquiel L'Envers (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)
Fictional character with no real-world significance. Note that the suggested merge page is also up for deletion D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 19:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. It doesn't have to be merged, it can be redirected, and someone's bound to search for it, which means it meets WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5.--hkr (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no real world significance. I tried to find sources to WP:verify notability and concluded that they simply do not exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:45, 14 November 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 Kushiel's Legacy. –MuZemike 06:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
House L'Envers[edit]
- House L'Envers (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)
Fictional group with no real-world significance D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. Someone's bound to search for it, which means it meets WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5. I understand that you don't see the point to merging cruft, but why not just redirect it?--hkr (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cause changing an article into a redirect is the exact same thing as deleting it, for all practical purposes. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redirect and delete are somewhat different... and I'd accept a redirect. But we can agree on the problem. No real world significance because no sources exist to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kushiel's Legacy per WP:CHEAP. No demonstration of independent notability. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isabel L'Envers[edit]
- Isabel L'Envers (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)
Fictional topic with no real-world significance. The suggested merge article is itself up for deletion D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Kushiel's Legacy. Same reason as all the other AfDs. Someone's bound to search for it, which means it meets WP:R#KEEP Criteria 5.--hkr (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect... article lacks real-world significance because there is no way to WP:verify notability. If there are no third-party sources for a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:48, 14 November 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I-Fly[edit]
- I-Fly (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 notability. Small charter airline with an unsourced claim to 3 aircraft. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was actually a disputed speedy deletion, not a disputed proposed deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot an airline, so much as an aircraft-owning company. If it only has three planes, surely it is NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC) :[reply]
- see later vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trivially small charter airline company; the best the article can say about the company is that it is connected to two other non-notable companies. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. The nominator is just wrong claiming that there is no reference that the airline operates any aircraft. So far, I found three (and at least one of these websites is included in most other airline fleet sections): [46] (which is given as a source in the article), [47], [48]. The aircraft are also operated under the airline's name and livery [49]. There is nothing wrong with the notability and significance of this airline, there are also independent sources (that is, I could find this one): [50]. There are plenty of airlines around here on Wikipedia that only operate three aircraft, sometimes even less (Air Italy Polska, just to name one). As I understand, there is consensus on the WP:AIRLINES project that an airline is notable once it posseses any aircraft and offers any flights.Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see that you are an expert with regard to airline articles, and I respect that. However, I can't find where the discussion about airline notability provides automatic notability for all airlines. On the contrary, the consensus there seems to be that usual notability criteria should apply. According to this, "IMO it would be very hard for a company operating a small number of aircraft on charters to be notable," and the criterion to be used is the "number of non-trivial reliable sources". --MelanieN (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, you touched a weak point of the airline project. There are many enthusiasts there, who just aren't able to agree on a notability standard (some include even proposed airlines or airlines that were around for less than a year) - that's what you've just cited. As a guideline, airline editors usually include fleet tables into airline articles (or will start an articles once an airline shows of at an online fleet directory like the ones I gave as sources above). Another reason are airport destination lists: If an airline operates a certain flight (consensus is that even charter flights may be included), it is added to a list at the airport's article, usually (in oder to get rid of red links) followed by the creation of an airline article. As this is clearly the case with I-Fly, it is considered "includeable".
All I meant to say is that compared to other airline articles (for example those on this list or Baltia Air Lines - whose deletion is also discussed-, as well as all those proposed airlines), I-Fly is not exceptionally un-notable. Therefore, deletion of this article would be a test case resulting in the deletion of hundreds of airline articles. As a guideline to how low inclusion criteria for airlines are, look for example at this deletion discussion. Also note that the Airlines Project is informed, so we will surely get further opinions on the general question when an airline is to considered notable. (edit was expanded several times) Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Indeed, you touched a weak point of the airline project. There are many enthusiasts there, who just aren't able to agree on a notability standard (some include even proposed airlines or airlines that were around for less than a year) - that's what you've just cited. As a guideline, airline editors usually include fleet tables into airline articles (or will start an articles once an airline shows of at an online fleet directory like the ones I gave as sources above). Another reason are airport destination lists: If an airline operates a certain flight (consensus is that even charter flights may be included), it is added to a list at the airport's article, usually (in oder to get rid of red links) followed by the creation of an airline article. As this is clearly the case with I-Fly, it is considered "includeable".
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep Generally I would agree that airlines are per se notable as long as they have or are currently flying and serving passengers in a commercial and (semi)-scheduled manner, i.e. are not private-charter-only airlines. On sources: simple search on Googl shows a number of pertinent links 10:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 03:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Just because WP:ITEXISTS does not make it notable. There is nothing that makes me think this is notable and encyclopedic. - Pmedema (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to Keep - I don’t normally find WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a valid argument for inclustion, but in this case a precedent seems to have been set in discussions and in the acceptance of airline information. At least this one has references. - Pmedema (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -No English language sources, and I don't know how to locate Russian langauge sources.I can't evaluate the Russian langauge sources which were added, so I will withdraw my vote. Good luck on saving the article. Racepacket (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Please note: I have just expanded the article, with some more sources I could find (as well as an image). I quite guess that the company now is quite reasonably referenced with information from reliable third-partiy sources, which should be enough to pass WP:CORP. As stated before, I cannot see why I-Fly should be not notable comapared to all those other Russian airlines. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Airline is notable and sources exist. Yes they are in Russian (except for the fleet list) but the name of the company makes searching and finding sources for the company inherently hard to find. Ravendrop (talk) 04:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (after expansion) Comment -- No view now-- It still seems of limited notability
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Italian post in Saseno[edit]
- Italian post in Saseno (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)
POV fork of Sazan Island. The stamps itthemself appears non-notable. Bongomatic 03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC) Bongomatic 03:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. All postage stamps are notable as are all postage stamp issuers. The Italian postal service is notable and so is the separate issue that it made for Sazan Island during its government's occupancy of the territory. The article complies with all other postal history articles of a similar scope and, although it is currently a stub, its key information is verified by a major source. I presume the strange term "POV fork" means that the nominator is suggesting original research derived from an existing article but, if so, that is nonsense as the article is sourced and does not present any point of view, original or otherwise. As for it being a "fork", is he seriously suggesting than any and all information about Sazan Island must be in the one article? The nominator must explain his reasoning as it is difficult to understand his issue at present. ----Jack | talk page 08:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the basis for saying that "all stamps are notable"?
- There is no topic-specific notability guideline for stamps.
- There are no threads in the WT:N archives discussing notability of stamps.
- There is nothing at WikiProject Philately or its associated talk page or talk page archives that suggests that suggests that all stamps are notable, and indeed there are a number of threads in the philately project talk page archives that acknowledge explicitly that not all stamps are notable.
- As for what I mean by POV fork, I mean that the information in this article is insufficiently notable to qualify as a standalone article topic (while calling attention to the stamp or postal history of Italian Saseno might not be undue coverage in Postage stamps and postal history of Italy). I agree that the term is not especially apt in this case, but I don't have a better one. Bongomatic 09:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article is not about a specific stamp so it is fatuous to try and argue that "the stamp itself appears non-notable". The article is about a stamp issuer which is unquestionably notable and, therefore, entirely appropriate for a standalone article. ----Jack | talk page 17:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The issuer—which is not explicitly identified in the article—has an article already. Indeed, there is already an article of the postal history of the issuer (as identified in the previous comment), hence the description of this article as a fork. Bongomatic 18:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So why don't you search through the philatelic history categories, not to mention the categories of numerous other projects, and prepare a long, long list of these "forks" to be deleted? Although it is true that Saseno issued Italian stamps, it was an issuing entity in its own right as the stamps were overprinted, and thereby effectively reissued for local use, by the local postal authority. This is the approach taken by Gibbons and all major philatelic sources when considering the constitution of a stamp issuer, and the same approach is taken throughout Wikipedia where one entity may have a parent-child relationship with another but does nevertheless have a separate existence in a key aspect. ----Jack | talk page 19:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article is not about a specific stamp so it is fatuous to try and argue that "the stamp itself appears non-notable". The article is about a stamp issuer which is unquestionably notable and, therefore, entirely appropriate for a standalone article. ----Jack | talk page 17:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the basis for saying that "all stamps are notable"?
- Keep. These stamps are given their own section in every stamp catalog because they are not exactly Italian stamps and not exactly Albanian stamps either. Because of the way that WP articles, categorization, and cross-linking work, it makes the most sense for occupation issues and foreign post offices to have their own articles - the article can be both "Philately of Albania" and "Philately of Italy" and not force the overally country surveys to get categorized into other countries' categories. We've gradually evolved from omnibus articles to smaller interlinked articles, deletion of this one would require us to merge dozens and dozens of other similar articles. Stan (talk) 16:07, 5 November 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, Spartaz Humbug! 03:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. None of the "keep" arguments so far refers to any policy or guideline. The convention described by Stan Shebs is not documented in the philately project page (or, as far as I can tell, the talk page or archives). Bongomatic 04:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Notability is a policy / guideline and if you read my input again you should be able to see that I am arguing that the subject is notable. You have also completely missed the point of Stan's contribution which is to outline accepted practice and to reiterate the point that it will not help our readers if we merge all articles about a given subject into a single article. I think one guideline we need to bear in mind here is WP:COMMONSENSE. ----Jack | talk page 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Post WWI protectorate and occupation issues have always recieved some noterity in philatelic circles. As they are listed in major catalogs and most probably they are discussed in Italian philatelic journals, they are notable. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Italian post in Saseno existed and print stamps why delete it?User:Lucifero4
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ousterhout's dichotomy[edit]
- Ousterhout's dichotomy (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 page is based off of only one source (in the IEEE magazine, but not their scientific journal). Does Wikipedia really support pages for low impact magazine articles? Tt's low impact in the sense that no external references besides the original article are provided. If you 'google' Ousterhout's dichotomy the major results are this wikipedia article and other public editable sources.
Moreover, it include a significant amount of research not in the original article viz. - How is Java compiled to machine code? In fact, it compiles to object code. But, so does Perl, Ruby (as of 1.9), and Python. - How do any of the scripting languages mentioned not support advanced data structures? Perl, Ruby, and Python all support any data structure that you can contrive in C.
Finally, it has been cited as having problems, that haven't been resolved, since 2008.
This needs to be removed.
Sirmacbain (talk) 16:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it's two sources. The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, as cited in the very first revision of the article, is the other. Uncle G (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source you mention is also a publicly collaborated site. Seriously, this only exist in its original article and on publicly collaborative sites. I wonder if the reason it's on FODC is because it has a Wikipedia page - ad nausea.Sirmacbain (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FOLDOC is not user-created content. And the article's history page indicates it was copied from FOLDOC, so your second accusation is incorrect. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The second source you mention is also a publicly collaborated site. Seriously, this only exist in its original article and on publicly collaborative sites. I wonder if the reason it's on FODC is because it has a Wikipedia page - ad nausea.Sirmacbain (talk) 22:23, 7 November 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) 03:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 05:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per nontrivial number of Google Scholar mentions. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:19, 8 November 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, Spartaz Humbug! 03:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Cybercobra's link appears to provide evidence of the depth and range of coverage required by WP:GNG. Together with the two sources already in the article, there seems to be enough. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:57, 9 November 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. While 'keeping' this AfD, I'll make a mention of WP:BLPEDIT which we should take note of before admonishing the ip/editor attempting to blank out information. At the same time, I am leaving a note on the ip's page for support in case she wishes her BLP deleted. Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle Kaufmann[edit]
- Michelle Kaufmann (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)
BLP that has been subject to a lot of COI editing by its subject. She's currently engaged in an edit war to try to remove unflattering material that has cited references. Notability seems pretty marginal, but there is a little coverage out there. I think we should consider deletion in this case of a marginally notable person who has a problem with the article as a neutral encyclopedia article. Gigs (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - questionable notability, although presence of secondary sources precludes CSD:A7. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
- Change to Keep per Cullen328; brief literature review supports notability, although Realkyhick raises valid concerns as well. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This architect is clearly notable as she has received a significant amount of coverage in recent years. I read several articles about her before becoming a Wikipedian. She has had business setbacks due the recession, so there are biography of living person concerns about how to accurately characterize the winding down of her modular housing venture. Those concerns should motivate careful editing, not deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We do not delete articles merely because the subject of the article doesn’t like them. Also, we have absolutely no evidence that the IP-only editor was in fact the subject of the article. We only know that it was someone claiming to be her. It may very well have just been a vandal or a POV-pusher. Otherwise, my rationale for keep is per Cullen328 above. — SpikeToronto 03:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week delete. This article reeks of self-promotion, and most of the references are primary (controlled by the subject). It might could be fixed, but not with the edit war going on now. I strongly suspect this article was created by the subject. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Article already contains adequate secondary sources to meet our notability guidelines. The COI/promotional issues are not a reason for deletion in this case. VQuakr (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, I'm not saying that she necessarily fails notability, or that the current state of the article is a reason in itself to delete. But when you have someone who isn't particularly notable who has a problem with an encyclopedic article about them, I think we should consider deletion as a courtesy to them, and as a practical matter. Gigs (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with this. However, if the presumption that the two editors who have been deleting less-than-flattering sections of the article are in fact the subject of the article, there are much better and more effective ways of having the article either properly edited or, if necessary, removed. WP:BLPSELF covers the process and options. In the meantime, though, I think Cullen328 spells out the primary issues regarding the article itself, pending any direct (and verified) request from Ms. Kaufmann herself to have the article removed. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The discussion of the actions of 98.248.141.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was deferred to here in this edit with Edit Summary "98.248.141.18 - let AFD decide the matter", and I have reproduced it below. I have already invited the user here. Also, Col98umbus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for similar behavior 14:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC) and has an unblock request pending at User talk:Col98umbus. — Jeff G. ツ 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from AIV
- 98.248.141.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, including 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – — SpikeToronto 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Autobiographer per the Edit Summary for this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 03:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IP-only editor claiming to be subject of article, and is removing material that s/he does not consider flattering. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 03:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article in question, Michelle Kaufmann, is the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Kaufmann. — Jeff G. ツ 04:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Also, we have no evidence that the IP-only editor actually is the subject of the wikiarticle. Even so, since when do we allow the subject of an article to extract large tracts of content because they don’t like it? At the very least this is disruptive editing. — SpikeToronto 04:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I am Michelle Kaufmann. I have been trying to revise a few sections of this page. Not because they are not flattering, but rather because they are untrue.
There was no bankruptcy. That is completely false. The company closed, but there was no bankruptcy, so that title should be deleted.
I do not work with mkDesigns or Blu Homes, so that part should be deleted.
I did not add the 5 eco principles, and another company is not wanting me to talk about 5 eco principles (and they are probably the ones to have added it to this page), so I request that part be deleted. It is not unflattering, just not needed.
I am barely notable, and request the entire page just be deleted completely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.141.18 (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I wrote on your user talk page, please review Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ 17:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if you are serious about wanting this page "deleted completely", you should have no problem with making the link "Michelle Kaufmann wikipedia page" disappear from your page "http://michellekaufmann.com/about/". — Jeff G. ツ 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Sometime ago, there was a deletion discussion regarding a wikiarticle on the British artist, Ashley West, in which I participated. (See here.) At that time, there were two issues: verifiability and notability. Regarding verifiability, everything that was said about him was verifiable from the listings that accompanied gallery showings, but a great deal of the material came from the artist’s website and CV, not the best sources. Regarding notability, if those were the only sources with material about the artist, and there were no reviews, write-ups, etc., about his work, then was he notable? At that point, I personally wrote the artist enquiring whether he had any clippings of reviews, etc., from his shows. I received back from him that he really did not want the article on Wikipedia as he did not think he was that notable, and that the article had been put up by some appreciative students. (I believe that an OTRS ticket was created for the email.) Did his not wanting the article on Wikipedia mean that it got deleted? Short answer: No. It got deleted because the dearth of independent, third-party articles about him meant that he was not sufficiently notable. Long answer: His not wanting the article on Wikipedia would not have gotten the article deleted by itself. However, coupled with the dearth of independent, third-party material about him, deletion was ensured. — SpikeToronto 05:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is the architect Michelle Kaufmann, subject of this wiki page. Someone brought the current state of the wiki page to my attention a few days ago, and i saw what I believed to be violations on the policies of living people, so I tried to edit the page to what I believed to be truthful information. I did so without reading the various relevant polices on neutral editing. I am now learning so much more on this :) and am consulting with a more experience neutral editor (Cullen328). I am committed to helping gain consensus rather than just doing things "my way" (although "my way" is just so darn tempting). If I can help in anyway, please let me know. Although, the page looks truthful and accurate at this point. Otherwise, if deleting the page completely makes sense to you all, that is fine with me. (and thanks, Jeff G for the heads up on the link from my site to the wiki page. We just deleted it in case you choose to delete this page all together.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkmichelle (talk • contribs) 17:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An 'attaboy': Notable or not and delete or not, kudos to the various editors who have worked on this rather difficult case. Y'all have busted your butts on this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:11, 12 November 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. At the outset, let me mention that the editors who believe this delete close is not right, should contact me on my talk page for further clarification. Given our particular efforts on BLPs, I'm leaving clarifications for some votes here. Wizardman, J04n, Brewcrewer, all three have focused on the appropriate issue of non-citing of reliable sources that could have verified notability of this BLP. Debresser's tentative keep, logical in essence, does not quote or cite any sources for the books or notability thereof; perchance the reason Debresser's ivote is 'tentative keep'. While iZAK (note: multiple votes; still, per J04n, has done good reliable sourcing in the past) and Yoninah do give their points of view, they fail to mention any clear cut reliable source (offline inclusive). While they mention that not everything is available on the Internet (they mention the Jewish perspective), Wikipedia doesn't require online sources to prove notability; yet, our project definitely requires that even offline sources be cited appropriately. Cullen additionally mentions that we should Ignore all rules in this case (so does iZak in one of his arguments); unfortunately, in BLPs, that's not possible. At this juncture, I should implore the keep voters to re-read the following imperative policies and guidelines of Wikipedia: BLP, Notability, Reliable sources, Verifiability and Neutral point of view. The import of Verifiability mentions that the question is not what is true (it may well be true that Moshe Sacks is notable), but what is verifiable. To that extent, I close this AfD as delete. I need to mention that there is no prejudice to an early re-creation of this BLP provided the BLP is re-created with reference to reliable sources, either offline or online (kindly read WP:CITE on how to cite reliable sources in articles). If any of the editors so require, I would be open to userfying this BLP (that is, transferring the BLP contents to the requesting editor's user page). Wifione ....... Leave a message 10:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moshe Sacks[edit]
- Moshe Sacks (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 since 2008, a search came up with nothing relating to him. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative keep He seems to have written a series of books. That would seem a reason to keep this article. If there is not much information about those books on the Internet, that might be because of their subject matter. Debresser (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for a number of reasons: (1) This article is about a WP:NOTABLE Haredi rabbi and spiritual leader who does not seek or get much publicity, see "NOTE" below. (2) (As the article correctly states): Being a dayan (religious judge) and posek (decider of Jewish law) affiliated with the key Edah HaChareidis rabbinical council of Jerusalem is a rare and high position in Haredi Judaism that makes him automatically WP:NOTABLE, just as an appointment to a local supreme court would be notable even without additional sources. (3) (As the article correctly states): He is the WP:AUTHOR of famous Responsa in Jewish law known as the Matnas Moshe (his name) based upon the multiple volume commentary by that same name he authored on the Torah, Shulchan Aruch, and Talmud. This qualifies the article per Wikipedia:Notability (academics), albeit it relating to Jewish religious texts within religious communities. (4) He belongs to a community that is cut off from the media and academic circles, so a search for his name will be futile in those SECULAR places, and it would be a loss to Wikipedia to lose even this minimal (yet clear) biography, therefore please note the application of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH and needs a WP:CHANCE. (5) The need for more sources is genuine and can be dealt with by having Template {{Refimprove}} and requests can be made at WP:TALKJUDAISM to get help from Judaic editors to improve it, and it can still wait. (6) There is no "statute of limitations" on how long articles should wait to be improved, especially when its creators fulfilled WP:BEBOLD yet are no longer as active. (7) Bottom line, it would not help Wikipedia to lose this start to good work that is not easy to come by and would result in a gaping hole in areas that deal with information pertaining to a tough world to shed light on. IZAK (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: Question: Given that tens or hundreds of thousands of people consider a Haredi rabbi as a spiritual leader, is there a reason that google-searching "____ ____ ____" yields so few useful results? Should I be googling using Hebrew characters, for example? Response: You have hit upon a huge dilemma perhaps without realizing it. I would say that you lack two fundamental insights into modern-day Haredi life in general, especially to those in Israel, that pertain to your question. One is that Haredim and their leaders do not function like Western leaders. They literally despise the media and the academic world. They do not allow their children to study secular studies. That is just a fact one must accept about them and their chosen lifestyle. The second factor is that they are vehemently opposed to the Internet and certainly to any form of mass publicity through it, and they have outright banned its presence in Jewish homes and allow it only very sparingly for business purposes under very tightly controlled environments. Parents are warned that their children will be kicked out of yeshivas if they allow them any Internet access. See Of ostriches and cavemen; Can Israeli rabbis enforce their ban against the Internet? and Bezeq to launch ‘Kosher’ internet. This is the same way that they have dealt with TVs in homes for decades with great success as no-one wishes to defy these rabbis and face social ostracism in those communities that they preside over. The net result of all this is that you will often find very little information on the Web about some of the presently most notable and highly-regarded rabbis, Hasidic rebbes and Jewish sages. Thus one must often rely on the barest of crumbs that would minimally satisfy Wikipedia's standards and criteria for how to verify notability. There is also the odd phenomenon on Wikipedia that some persons who are actually rogue "rabbis" and may have no standing in any Jewish community, can get articles because of the publicity that has been generated about them, but truly humble publicity-shy personalities may get shunted aside in the media blizzard. Actually, Haredi rabbis would probably be very happy that no articles are written about him anywhere on the Internet and certainly not on Wikipedia, so even though the author of this original article may be blocked from Wikipedia, he was actually sticking his neck out and taking a huge risk writing up any article about such a notable rabbi. So these kinds of situations require great care and inspection so that one does miss the forest for the trees. Thanks for giving this your considered attention. IZAK (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per IZAK. Rabbi Sacks is a well-known and notable personality in Jerusalem, but as IZAK explained, his Hasidut, Satmar, is not going to publish information on the internet. Perhaps someone who understands Hebrew or Yiddish could do a search for some references. Alternately, someone could add references from a yeshiva dinner bulletin or speaking program. But the page should be kept, and the picture is very good. Yoninah (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Side Comment. There is an over-reliance (for obvious reasons) on internet sources in Jewish Wikipedia articles. Googling is not always a good marker for notability. Another thing to note is that when noted Jewish legal authority and Yeshiva head Shlomo Zalman Auerbach passed away, his funeral was one of the largest in Israeli history, but since he was not political, the secular journalists had never heard of him. (Der Yid would be a good start, although a bit too internal.)Mzk1 (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to closing admin While I understand where the keep rationales are coming from, my main problem remains. There are still no sources noted in the article at all, let alone any of the information verified. I understand that it's more difficult, but presuming it's kept, this will have to be stubbified as well until we can verify the info. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand on the above statement, User:IZAK has done a terrific job sourcing similar articles. I'm going to drop him a line to see if he wants the article moved to his userspace to allow more time for finding sources or perhaps it could go to the incubator. As the article stands now it is an unreferenced WP:BLP. J04n(talk page) 23:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: It's obvious that Wizardman and JO4n are saying different things. Wizardman, the original nominator of this AfD is being gracious, by taking an important step back from his original proposal, and is definitely deferring to the input of knowledgeable editors not to delete this article at this time for the reasons they have all cited and he is offering the positive option of "this will have to be stubbified as well until we can verify the info" (with "stubbified" not really defined here since the article itself is barely more than a elongated stub) -- while on the other hand JO4n seems to be following a more narrow interpretation of WP rules and clearly seems to be favoring deletion, which would be counter-productive for editors connected with WP:JUDAISM who have been working long and hard to get such key biographies started and many are still works in progress even after a couple of years (life moves at a snail's pace on WP quite often). Therefore, and I almost never do this, it is completely correct and valid to invoke WP:IGNOREALLRULES at this time because the rules are going to kill something good which is not what they are meant to do. IZAK (talk) 14:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I'm afraid it's even more complicated than this. There's another Moshe Sacks, or at least, there was: in 1836, one Moshe Sacks was the first to propose mass Jewish settlement of the Holy Land. He was supported by Baron Rothschild of Vienna and he's mentioned in the Encyclopedia Judaica, vol 9., p. 514.
I've also found this source, which isn't exactly a brilliant one but it does confirm that a 21st century Moshe Sacks was prominent enough to meet the Pope.
Bottom line is that we need some content on this page, but I'm not sure whether it should be the 21st century Moshe Sacks, the 19th century Moshe Sacks, or a disambiguation page between the two. This needs expert input.—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No reason to delete this because it's not a problem, just create a disambiguation page for persons, when and if an article is written for the 1836 one. There could be dozens of people with the same name and WP finds ways of noting them differently such as ____ _____ (philanthropist); ____ _____ (rabbi); etc etc. IZAK (talk) 14:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: The notability of this subject is further reinforced, he is linked at the Edah HaChareidis#Affiliated rabbis, all valid and true. IZAK (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sorry, but just saying "he is for sure notable" does not conform with our encyclopedia's policies, especially WP:BLP. The article still lacks something even resemebeling a source.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Brewcrewer: This is not what is being said, do not misrepresent. He is a leading author of key published and used books of present-time Rabbinic responsa, as the article states, anyone who knows this subject of Jewish law can affirm it to be true. That TIME or People magazine did not write him up does not make him not notable as a posek, as you you should well know. In the meantime we are searching high and low for a good outside ref, and that in itself should win the article a reprieve for now. A dilemma should not equal "publish (a source) or perish." IZAK (talk) 07:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added a reference[51] identifying him as a resident of Kiryat Mattersdorf and citing him as a major posek and scholar. Yoninah (talk) 11:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Brewcrewer: This is not what is being said, do not misrepresent. He is a leading author of key published and used books of present-time Rabbinic responsa, as the article states, anyone who knows this subject of Jewish law can affirm it to be true. That TIME or People magazine did not write him up does not make him not notable as a posek, as you you should well know. In the meantime we are searching high and low for a good outside ref, and that in itself should win the article a reprieve for now. A dilemma should not equal "publish (a source) or perish." IZAK (talk) 07:41, 8 November 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, Spartaz Humbug! 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I relisted to give some time to find sources but a real estate site isn't a source for a BLP and there has to be something at the end of this discussion or it has to be deleted per policy. Spartaz Humbug! 03:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Spartaz: There is no purpose to "relisting" when what's going on in this AfD is stated clearly, there is a good rapport between all participants, and has been progressing with some limited progress. A number of good editors familiar with this topic, including myself are citing relevant WP policies. Kindly withdraw your relist. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think this is one of the rare instances where we really need to be bold and ignore all rules in order to improve the encyclopedia. There remain notable cultures and societies that reject the Internet and this man lives in the midst of one of them. Please remember that nothing in our policies about reliable sources say that such sources have to be instantly available online. Nothing in our policies says that reliable sources have to be in English either. Paper sources in Yiddish or Hebrew are potentially just as reliable as English journalistic sources that can be pulled up on a Google search. This man is an author with numerous published works over many years. I endorse IZAK's argument and urge other editors to oppose deletion in this case. Don't let your own infuriation with the Satmar worldview cloud your judgment. They infuriate me too. I would make a similar argument about an article on a prominent Amish religious leader, or an article about a leader in any other culture that rejects the Internet. Wikipedia should cover such figures. Cullen328 (talk) 05:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Moshe Sacks is profiled in a recent book called "Hasidic Rabbis In Israel" published by General Books LLC in May 2010, ISBN-13: 97811564340, ISBN: 1156434041. Don't be surprised that no author is listed - this community values anonymity, as does Wikipedia. I can't add it as a reference as I haven't read it, but the book exists, and a chaper is devoted to Moshe Sacks. Cullen328 (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand I just learned that Wikipedia itself appears to be the source for the information in the book I mentioned above, so it can't be used as a reference here. That would be circular, wouldn't it? Sorry. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, for all the reasons I have outlined above. IZAK (talk) 05:44, 10 November 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. Courcelles 00:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of indie punk musicians[edit]
- List of indie punk musicians (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 list reeks of original research, there is no reasoning behind most of the entries and there is not enough entries to warrant a list. the originating editor has attempted a similar list in the past and has had it get deleted for similar reasons. ViniTheHat (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I PRODed this page for this reason "I dispute this page as original research. If you try looking for a page on this subject on wikipedia you will be redirected to the indie rock page. I propose that this page be merged with List of indie rock musicians" and I stand by that statment. I personaly can't see a way that this list could be something more then WP:OR --Guerillero | My Talk 04:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The question is whether there is a basis for differentiating Indie punk from Indie rock. I am not knowledgable in this, but I realize that there are many related genres,even if I can not tell them apart personally, and the page at Indie Rock confirms this. The article Indie punk was brought up for AfD in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indie punk and kept, the closer specifically saying it was not ruling on a possible merge. Subsequently, it was redirected but without any discussion I can find. But I see it being redirected and then the redirect being reverted several times by several unconnected editors over a two-year period--most recently, Oct.19, 2010 [52], I therefore conclude there is no consensus for the redirect, and consequently there should be no consensus about a separate list either. As for the musicians, they have to have been described as such , and there ought to be refs for that in their individual articles. ~
- Comment I think the editor and writer of this artical is using this list to refer to punk rock bands on independent record labels. The other list of indie rock bands doesn't include the bands on this list because they are punk bands. This list refers to Punk bands on indie labels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.172.114 (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment There is an artical on indie punk on the indie rock page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.172.114 (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was made after this AfD discussion started. It was was PRODed then was tagged to be merged into indie rock. The article has no sources to exert its notability.--Guerillero | My Talk 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment A majority of the bands on the list as it stands are either on major or pseudo-indie labels. The page (created by the same person) states: "It is use to describe punk bands on an Indie label or bands the fuse indie rock with punk." --Guerillero | My Talk 23:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Instead of removing the list let's just merge the artical with rock indie rock artical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.56.172.114 (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I really think the whole page should be deleted and everything associated with it eliminated from Wikipedia. The list looks like a list of random indie, punk, and alternative bands that have NOTHING to do with each other and don't even sound similar in any way. They also can often be grouped into other, more fitting genres such as post-punk, pop punk, grunge, emo, etc. I really don't think the genre of indie punk even exists, and from reading Jaysonclinkscal's edits on this and other pages, it seems that he focuses almost exclusively on articles about bands of that sort and makes many edits to various pages supporting the genre of "indie punk". I've never even heard the term before and am sure it's just OR and his pet category. The page is also very unprofessional and poorly handled, which detracts from Wikipedia's overall quality. The faster it gets deleted the better. 71.175.230.110 (talk) 16:53, 12 November 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 deleted by myself. Pure vandalism, no need to waste time. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of worst-selling game consoles[edit]
- List of worst-selling game consoles (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)
Mostly personal opinion. Frozen Windwant to be chilly? 01:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as CSD G3, blatant misinformation. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research of unusually poor quality. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete just vandalism. A well-sourced article on this topic would be fine, but this nonsensically claims the worst-selling game console was the PS2(?). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 9 November 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) 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leo LeVox[edit]
- Leo LeVox (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. Claims of significance on page (albeit weak), so not CSD not applicable. Lack of reliable sources. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leo LeVox has featured on musicians of note's material and his own material also features a known artist, and is widely regarded as a 'hot' breakthrough artist in the UK urban music scene. Ali Campbell of UB40 (70 million+ record sales) fame champions the competition he won on the references list. St Helier, the sponsor of Music Crowns, feature him on their press releases which go out to the whole of the UK and Ireland, Western Europe, China and South East Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastreblig (talk • contribs) 11:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC) — Mastreblig (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 28 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) 00:05, 2 November 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) 01:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:MUSIC, with a nod to WP:UPANDCOMING. May be notable someday, but that day is not today. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 9 November 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 Jeopardy!. Merge to Jeopardy! or maybe list of the events. In any case, the consensus is that there is no need for a separate article. Tone 15:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeopardy! Kids Week[edit]
- Jeopardy! Kids Week (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 a separate television program—article subject is merely about sporadic weeks of episodes of Jeopardy! that would normally air during the course of the program that happen to feature children as contestants. WP:NOTINHERITED, and a handful of special episodes over the course of a season are not notable enough to warrant an entirely separate article.
Bulk of article (and all statistical information about individual episodes and scores) is unsourced and article has been tagged with {{refimprove}} for 2.5 years. Sottolacqua (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There has been a kids version of Jeopardy and Wheel of Fortune for that matter. If this article can't be improved enough to be kept, then I would suggest moving any and all appropriate content to the main Jeopardy article and redirect. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 16:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to clarify, Jep! and Wheel 2000 are the articles for the separate versions which always featured children as contestants. The subject of the article nominated for deletion is merely a special week of shows for the parent program (Jeopardy!) that occasionally airs sporadically during the year. It is not an entirely separate television show like Jep! and Wheel 2000 were. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep--this nom follows Sotto's pattern of dozens of his recent AfD nominations: content gets spun off of the main article because it is too large, then Sotto nominates the spun-off article for deletion. Child articles are permitted as a way to reduce the size of parent articles. This is simply not a case of "notability not inherited". Robert K S (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—The content in this spin-off article is not noteworthy and can easily be summarized in a few sentences which would not increase the size of the main article. A random week of episodes featuring children as contestants, otherwise no different than any other week of episodes of Jeopardy! during the year, is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. The bulk of the article is entirely unsourced, and three of the four references in the article as it stands now pertain only to the Jeopardy! Kids Week#Kids Week Reunion section, which at best should be included in List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#Special Tournaments and Events. This article is nominated for deletion in order to better organize content related to Jeopardy! Every minute aspect of this television program is not notable, and there have been an abundance of articles created that were classified as cruft and/or not notable that were later merged into the main article in a concise, appropriate manner, including the following:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Clue Crew
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Masters
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Jeopardy!
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Seniors Tournament
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Tenth Anniversary Tournament
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Million Dollar Celebrity Invitational
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest single day Jeopardy! winnings
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! recurring categories
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Brain Bus
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! set evolution (3rd nomination)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Clue Crew
- Since this television program has been airing episodes in various incarnations since 1964, obviously there are many notable aspects of the program that deserve more detailed descriptions. However, every minute detail about the program does not need a separate article if the information can be concisely summarized within the main or subsidiary articles. Additionally, many of the subsidiary articles lack what any editor would consider basic sources based upon WP:Verify and WP:Citing sources and contain large amounts of unverified original research. Jeopardy! Kids Week is simply another article that is not a notable aspect of this program in terms of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and does not warrant a separate article outside of the main article or summary of tournaments. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:18, 9 November 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) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Jeopardy! per nominator. TomCat4680 (talk) 03:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Jeopardy!. I disagree with statistical information being unsourced; the episodes themselves can be sources per WP:SELFPUB. (Although some of the statistics seem rather trivial...) RJaguar3 | u | t 03:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and reference better.
- Merge into List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events. The subject is not independently notable, but would suffice as a fine entry to a list.--hkr Laozi speak 04:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per above; reasonable to merge to the list of tournaments because it's not quite standalone notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Keep I agree that it should be merged into the main Jeopardy article as it's own little section (with a link to this article), but I strongly believe it's notable enough to merit it's own article. That being said, the article in it's current state needs some better refs. --Addihockey10e-mail 05:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per the above reasonings; also agree with TenPoundHammer's concerns. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Perseus!Talk to me 18:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The fact that the show has a kids' week could be summed up in about one sentence. I don't think lists of winners are needed for winners of TV game shows. That's more the job of the shows' own websites and/or dedicated fan sites. Steve Dufour (talk) 08:10, 10 November 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) 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain[edit]
- Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain (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)
BLP unsourced since May 21, 2007 Morgankevinj(talk) 03:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and add references. A member of Pakistan's National Assembly is certainly notable. Cullen328 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'd tend to agree, though sources may be thin on the ground. I'll see what I can dig up. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:04, 8 November 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) 01:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've added references to some of the readily available sources confirming notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 10 November 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) 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imagination Institute (place)[edit]
- Imagination Institute (place) (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)
Contested PROD. Non-notable fictitious organization based on throw-away gags at two (one defunct) Disney theme park attractions. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:31, 2 November 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) 01:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ideally I guess we could redirect this to Journey into Imagination with Figment, but it's a pretty unlikely search term especially with "(place)" behind it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom, indeed. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 18:55, 9 November 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 Joshua Corin. Tone 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear Winter Wonderland[edit]
- Nuclear Winter Wonderland (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. Non-notable book. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:01, 2 November 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) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a line to author page in order to give some breadth to the author article, Sadads (talk) 01:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Sadad's suggestion.--Milowent • talkblp-r 19:08, 10 November 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) 00:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
K Ningleithing[edit]
- K Ningleithing (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)
Partly per the issues raised in the article itself. Partly on notability. Regardless of whatever arbitrary nonsense we have on this area, it stands to reason that if we don't know a living person's first name, it is very unlikely that he is notable. —WFC— 08:44, 2 November 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) 00:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 01:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it is common for Indians to be known by just an initial; however, there is still no evidence this player meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 01:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but is his full name "K Ningleithing P Ningleithing Ningleithing" as shown by the reference ;-). The "P" stands for "Pungcham" although some references use "Phungchem" and he has scored in the Goa professional league which is fully professional according to RSSSF here, and possibly the played in the AFC Cup.--ClubOranjeT 11:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no indication he meets the relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:38, 9 November 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) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Breath of Love[edit]
- Breath of Love (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 fails to establish notability for films. article fails WP:GNG & WP:NF. the source on the page is unreliable. Amsaim (talk) 10:14, 2 November 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) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - neither an allegation or evidence of notability. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 10 November 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. A merge is also an option. Tone 15:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Air Comores International[edit]
- Air Comores International (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)
Failed airline project, without any deeper significant coverage by third party sources, thus failing WP:CORP. I could not find any references that this airline ever possessed any aircraft or operated any flights. The only reliable source lists the airline as "failed project". Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [53][54][55][56] all document the airline's history and goings on.--TM 18:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the sources, somehow must have missed them. After having read them, it comes to mind that instead of deleting, merging and redirecting to Air Bourbon may be the best choice. Still, Air Comores International is a failed airline project (never operated any flights), which was in a close co-operation with Air Bourbon. I cannot see any stand-alone notability. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:06, 4 November 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) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per sources & reasoning provided above by TM Travelbird (talk) 17:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Air Bourbon. From the sources listed by Naimba very much looks like this airline was almost wholly controlled and financed by Air Bourbon (though I recognize that because this is never admitted to in the sources, this claim could be contentous). Only thing saving this from a delete in my mind is its connection to Air Bourbon. Ravendrop (talk) 04:51, 10 November 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Legends of Kallisti[edit]
- Legends of Kallisti (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, unsourceable (tried and failed), fails WP:GNG. chaos5023 (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) chaos5023 (talk) 01:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I was unable to find any reliable sources necessary to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wow, this was an unexpected sight on the AfD list for today. This may stretch the bounds of credibility a bit, but I am actually the "Izzy" person named in the article...or at least I was, a lifetime ago. I can safely and confidently attest that our notoriety never reached beyond simple directory listings at places like TMC (mudconnect.com) and the like. Being the one of (perhaps the) still-running DikuMUDs is nice, but we were never discussed or covered in any way within the MUD community for it, much less the wider world of true reliable sources. I'm wonder if I'm still banned. :) Tarc (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Mud and website is still active and people still play the game. You can always reach the administrators of the game by following the link included in the article and using the 'contact us' link which will send email to actively monitored list. Izzy your not banned, unless Sam decides to reinstate that. I am Flux the current head coder/admin. 10 November 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Flux. I'm afraid none of this is relevant. You should probably read Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, which is about a fallacy regarding what topics Wikipedia is supposed to have articles on (that you seem to be under a mistaken impression regarding, here and in the request where you contested the previous proposed deletion of this article). What you mainly need to know in order to work effectively toward the retention of this article is in Wikipedia:Notability, but in a nutshell it's that we need reliable sources, independent of LoK, that discuss the MUD in some degree of depth. I do a lot of work sourcing MUD articles, and I tried to find sourcing for LoK and failed, so I personally don't anticipate you're going to be able to turn up much, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. If references and reviews from mudstats, mudconnector and active public facebook group page are not adequate then remove at will. I did a simple search for mud games here on Wikipedia, and see pages for specific individual MUDs (that aren't active any longer) that only have external references from mud lists without even a review that are not scheduled for deletion. Perhaps it's not intended but your comment comes across a little haughty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User-submitted content of any kind doesn't contribute to notability, so no, mudstats, TMC and facebook are no use, unless you had an official (staff-generated, not user-submitted) TMC review or a Mud of the Month article, which I would say helps with notability. The "other muds" thing is one of the canonical "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", generally known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and doesn't have any bearing on this AfD, but still, I'd like to know what articles you're talking about, because completely unsourced ones should be somewhat thin on the ground at this point. (Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/MUD for the best extant survey of MUD-related articles and what kind of shape they're in, though; the ones you found may already be in the "in need of urgent attention" group.) Sorry you don't like my tone; whatever's coming across in it, it's nothing personal. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User-submitted reviews do not contribute to notability but staff provided reviews do seems a little odd to me but it does not matter. TMC page for Kallisti is a staff provided summary/review: http://www.mudconnect.com/mud-bin/adv_search.cgi?Mode=MUD&mud=Kallisti+MUD . My reference to other mud pages not meeting the stated criteria was intended as a note of perceived inconsistency in the policy stated and reason for my own prior confusion on the subject, not a reason for keeping the LoK page. A very quick search found these articles that would seem to follow your criteria for deletion, most of which at least mention the need for citation but seem to have avoided the proposed-deletion fate:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequent_(MUD)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avatar_(MUD)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MajorMUD
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkness_Falls_(computer_game)
- I believe the LoK wikipedia page had informational value (albeit historical and very minor), but I will no longer protest the removal so go ahead and delete the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 21:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User-submitted content of any kind doesn't contribute to notability, so no, mudstats, TMC and facebook are no use, unless you had an official (staff-generated, not user-submitted) TMC review or a Mud of the Month article, which I would say helps with notability. The "other muds" thing is one of the canonical "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", generally known as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and doesn't have any bearing on this AfD, but still, I'd like to know what articles you're talking about, because completely unsourced ones should be somewhat thin on the ground at this point. (Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/MUD for the best extant survey of MUD-related articles and what kind of shape they're in, though; the ones you found may already be in the "in need of urgent attention" group.) Sorry you don't like my tone; whatever's coming across in it, it's nothing personal. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. If references and reviews from mudstats, mudconnector and active public facebook group page are not adequate then remove at will. I did a simple search for mud games here on Wikipedia, and see pages for specific individual MUDs (that aren't active any longer) that only have external references from mud lists without even a review that are not scheduled for deletion. Perhaps it's not intended but your comment comes across a little haughty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, Flux. I'm afraid none of this is relevant. You should probably read Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability, which is about a fallacy regarding what topics Wikipedia is supposed to have articles on (that you seem to be under a mistaken impression regarding, here and in the request where you contested the previous proposed deletion of this article). What you mainly need to know in order to work effectively toward the retention of this article is in Wikipedia:Notability, but in a nutshell it's that we need reliable sources, independent of LoK, that discuss the MUD in some degree of depth. I do a lot of work sourcing MUD articles, and I tried to find sourcing for LoK and failed, so I personally don't anticipate you're going to be able to turn up much, but I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:50, 10 November 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. Courcelles 07:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Glosserman[edit]
- Scott Glosserman (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. The article is about a documentary film producer, however, the subject does not meet criteria presented at WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. Subject is not regarded as an important figure; is not widely cited by peers or successors; is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique; has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews; and finally, subject's work has not become a significant monument, has not been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, has not won significant critical attention, nor has been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. Please note that the subject has produced the documentary Truth in Numbers? Everything According to Wikipedia, which is also at AfD. Cindamuse (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: At the above-mentioned AFD, the film Truth in Numbers? Everything According to Wikipedia had its notability established and the AFD closed as a keep on November 5. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The film Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon won the 2006 Audience Award at the Gen Art Film Festival in New York and a few other awards (Best Film at the Toronto After Dark Film Festival, and so on) [57]. Koko90 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This film has a separate article. However, these film festival awards do not equate to significant critical attention to establish notability of the subject of the Scott Glosserman article. Cindamuse (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Satisfies criteria 3 of Creative for me. Creating a significant "well-known" work which has been the subject of multiple independent reviews. [59][60][61][62] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While "significance" is subjective, I doubt that a film lacking a starring cast and generating revenue of only $69,136 qualifies as significant or well-known, in order to establish the notability of the director. It's really a stretch. Cindamuse (talk) 16:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Money is not really one of my factors to determine well known or significance. I look more at the amount of publicity a movie receives from reliable sources. The number of reviews by large circulation newspapers is more controlling to me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Netflix lists 117,704 ratings and 472 written reviews for Behind The Mask. http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Behind-the-Mask-The-Rise-of-Leslie-Vernon/70061490?strackid=5d42a653a905149_0_srl&strkid=980499057_0_0&trkid=438381#height1741 - Also, last week the Alternative Chronicle (cinema blog) had 11 prominent horror bloggers list their top 10 all time horror films and Behind The Mask made 3 of the lists: http://alternativechronicle.wordpress.com/2010/10/31/horrortop10/ - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.179.211 (talk) 03:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. While "significance" is subjective, I doubt that a film lacking a starring cast and generating revenue of only $69,136 qualifies as significant or well-known, in order to establish the notability of the director. It's really a stretch. Cindamuse (talk) 16:58, 2 November 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) 00:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Criteria #3 of WP:CREATIVE has been met. Wikipedia has absolutely no mandate that only major blockbusters with A-list actors can be found notable. Wikipedia does not rely on a studio spending lots of money on their films and advertising in order to attract the monies of consumers... but it does rely on WP:GNG in determing notability of film projects... even for lesser-financed films from independent filmmakers. As this individual's works have received the attention required by WP:CREATIVE#3... and he even modestly approaches WP:ANYBIO, his notability has been established. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Satisfies notability due to the awards, well known works, secondary source coverage, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Added sect to article = Awards, see [63]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:37, 10 November 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) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Big Heed and Alien[edit]
- Big Heed and Alien (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 per WP:BAND, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. There's a link to what's labelled a video clip of a television appearance on BET at their MySpace site, but the caption and intro describe the band as "Heed", and the drummer's name isn't mentioned in the clip, so it's not clear whether this is a television appearance of the band named in the article. Taking this to AFD in lieu of a WP:Prod. Top Jim (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 15:41, 2 November 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) 00:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As the nominator above, I found no evidence of coverage in reliable sources. While the appearance on BET seems to be the group in question, Wild Out Wednesdays is a viewer-voting talent show, and this band seemingly won that week. While I think they put on a good show, they were not the "subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network" which would confer notability as per WP:BAND. Without additional sources, this should go. -Addionne (talk) 16:45, 9 November 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) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Advances in Renal Cancer Journalists' Award[edit]
- Advances in Renal Cancer Journalists' Award (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)
Recently established award. No independent sources establishing notability. Has been prodded before (and was deprodded by an editor with only that single edit), but no improvement forthcoming. Crusio (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I still would like to object the deletion. The article "Advances in Renal Cancer Journalists' Award" describes the award as well as the conditions of participation. It´s descriptive and not commercial. The award exists since 2008 and is regularly announced every year. Like all the other Wikipedia-articles about journalism awards it is of interest for (medical) journalists and users that are generally interested in kidney cancer and (journalism) awards. I also added another secondary source (European Urology Today). If there´s something else I can do to keep this entry, please tell me what it is. Claudia MS (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC) — Claudia MS (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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) 00:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The award does not appear to have attracted enough mainstream attention to qualify as WP:NOTABLE. The listed references mostly appear to be press releases or otherwise self-referential on the part of the sponsor, Bayer Healthcare. --MelanieN (talk) 03:28, 9 November 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. I fully expect this to go to DRV, and I don't mind if it does because it'll highlight a possible problematic issue; like User:Courcelles, who relisted it, I am uncomfortable with retaining this. Our notability guidelines in this area are not clear. This person clearly doesn't have any "prolonged or substantial coverage', the only reference is to the medal win, and it's a BLP about a minor. I'm going to err on the side of safety here, I'm afraid. If/when it can be decided that Youth Olympics medal winners are specifically notable even if they don't pass WP:GNG, then restoration would be indicated. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Olli Petra[edit]
- Olli Petra (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)
User:AngChenrui is currently adding dozens of articles on children that won medals at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics. Most of these do not have any coverage except for this one win. While Wikipedia:Notability (sports) does include athletes that won medals at the Olympic Games, but this refers to the adult version. In addition Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#High_school_and_pre-high_school_athletes states that people competing at under-college level should only be deemed notable if there is "substantial and prolonged coverage" Travelbird (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, just wanted to add that its not just athletes who have won medals at the Olympic Games, but any athlete who has participated at the Olympic Games. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 12:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NSPORT: "Sports figures are ... presumed notable if they have participated in a major international amateur ... competition at the highest level". As Olympic medal winners - most individual NOCs refer to them as such - they are inherently notable. StrPby (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 28 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) 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we come to a consensus that the Youth Olympics should be treated as a major international amateur event like the Olympics? If we did, then this seems to be an easy keep; if not, it's a delete. Either way, whether we should delete this turns on the results of the last debate. Bds69 (talk) 20:20, 4 November 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, Courcelles 00:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really uncomfortable with this one. It seems a lot of hand-waving equating this person with a medallist in the "normal" Olympics is going on, without regard to the precedent this establishes for lots of stubby articles on children. Can we discuss this, please? Courcelles 00:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't agree that the Youth Olympics should be considered "as good as" the Olympics in terms of qualifying its participants for notability. They are inherently a lower level event for younger competitors. As WP:NSPORT says, "Sports figures are presumed notable (except as noted within a specific section) if they ... have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics." The Youth Olympics are not the "highest level" relative to the Olympics. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, the notability issue is a grey area here, and it also pertains to all Youth Olympic athletes. It is possible to base notability on whether the athlete in question has been noted in publications independent of the organisers. So for example, if say Olli Petra's career or performance was reported (beyond just a few-words mention) in a newspaper, thats it. ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE♨ 11:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Senior Olympic athletes are considered inherently notable because they will have - almost invaribly - received significant media coverage before reaching the Olympics and will very often have competed in a range of other high level events prior and after appearing in the Olympics. Therefore such athletes should generally be assumed to be notable.
- The same however does not apply to junior athletes, a substantial number of which never end up competing at the senior level. Thus it cannot be assumed with the same level of certainty that they will have/ will in the future receive a comparable amount of media coverage and athletic presence that participants at the (senior) Olympics have. Travelbird (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Senior Olympic athletes are considered inherently notable because they will have - almost invaribly - received significant media coverage before reaching the Olympics and will very often have competed in a range of other high level events prior and after appearing in the Olympics. Therefore such athletes should generally be assumed to be notable.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chip Template Engine[edit]
- Chip Template Engine (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: no third-party coverage, so fails the general notability guideline. Article appears to have been started and principally edited by the software's creator. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of the original author, as well as a lack of independent, reliable sources needed to establish notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:58, 9 November 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Troentorp clogs[edit]
- Troentorp clogs (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)
Speedily deleted on 28th October and now recreated company appears to fail WP:CORP. Paste Let’s have a chat. 18:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Hegvald (talk) 19:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no strong view on this, but here are a few Swedish sources I found when looking about: [64], [65] (articles in Helsingborgs Dagblad), [66] (link to sound file, radio report from the factory). Not much, I guess. (There may be more in paywalled newspaper archives.) --Hegvald (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not looked at the above refs yet, but I feel this company is notable enough for an article. Been there for over 100 years - still going - and mentioned in the Business History timeline is enough for me to say keep and hope for more refs. Will check the Swedish ones when I come back. Peridon (talk) 20:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Peridon (talk) 21:10, 4 November 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, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The 100 plus year history of this company seems significant. An internationally known product from a small village in SwedenTonysoprano11 (talk) 17:12, 12 November 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) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verge (gaming)[edit]
- Verge (gaming) (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)
Could not locate any reliable, independent sources for verification. Probably does not meet our notability requirements for inclusion. (WP:V, WP:N) Marasmusine (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per lack of reliable, usable coverage. --Teancum (talk) 14:01, 5 November 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) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of reliable sources, and per common sense that a game engine used in absolutely zero notable games is extremely unlikely to itself be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – There was nothing I could find, and it doesn't look like there is anything notable produced by this game engine, either, which doesn't help much at all. –MuZemike 07:25, 10 November 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Javier Willy[edit]
- Javier Willy (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 music artist per WP:BAND. Possible conflict of interest in self-creation of article for promotional purposes. No significant coverage in reliable sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uncle Dick's info. HeartSWild (talk) 13:36, 3 November 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) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lacks the coverage needed to verify any real claim of notability beyond what (given appropiate weight) can be included in articles on the soundtracks of the shows he may of helped with the music of (if and when the soundtracks are covered). duffbeerforme (talk) 16:26, 13 November 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) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jenn Rivell[edit]
- Jenn Rivell (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. Her claim to fame is being Bam Margera's ex-girlfriend. Not notable at all without a single piece of sourced information. Endlessdan (talk) 20:03, 2 November 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) 00:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, and apparently not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sourcing, looks non-notable. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 19:16, 9 November 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. Tone 15:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Chart[edit]
- The Chart (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 asserted. Only sources are press releases. Related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Bundy Jr. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:15, 2 November 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, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above, doesn't appear to have captured the attention of the press enough for us to have sources to build an article around, which is probably not too suprising as it's 3 minutes (!) long. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Does not seem to warrant its own article. —Half Price 17:58, 12 November 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 1972 Michigan Wolverines football team. Apparently, Comedian1018 has already attempted part of the merging. Wifione ....... Leave a message 08:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1972 Michigan vs. Navy football game[edit]
- 1972 Michigan vs. Navy football game (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 game doesn't seem significant enough to warrant its own article; see: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability. It can be covered at 1972 Michigan Wolverines football team and 1972 Navy Midshipmen football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize I didn't see the standard before I wrote the article. That being said, while it's not the most complete article as of yet, isn't the point of Wikipedia so we can continue to add on at a later date. Plus, this way the team pages do not become overcrowded with information and the games can be linked with the schedules on those pages. The games can go into greater depth for those looking for the information out on the web. Comedian1018 (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comedian1018, take a look at some of the more complete Michigan season pages like 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team and 1997 Michigan Wolverines football team. We should be able to integrate the content about the 1972 Michigan-Navy game into 1972 Michigan Wolverines football team. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, can the scoring summaries and individual stats be included in some fashion? Comedian1018 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They certainly could. I wonder, though, if we really need the box score for this game or for each and every game. If we included them for every game, a season page could get unwieldy, as you suggest above. To date, game box scores and stats generally haven't been detailed on Wikipedia except in cases where there was a dedicated page for that game, e.g. bowl games, conference championship games, games of particular historic note. You raise a good issue here. I'd like to get some input from some others involved in WikiProject College football. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the 1972 Michigan Wolverines football team article. Cbl62 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Cbl62 (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the respective team's years, as no reason is given within the article explaining notability. Nolelover It's football season! 01:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Yeah, I'm pleased in the effort in gaining the information. At this time I don't see it as a focus for us as a stand-alone article. That said, the information could easily be mreged into other articles. I'm not sure if there isn't so much as a "notability" argument for this as a "practicality" argument. I think we'd be better off as a project getting our higher-level articles assembled first before going to such granular detail.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Jweiss11. While individual regular-season games can be notable (see, for example, 2005 Texas vs. Texas A&M football game), there does not seem to be enough written about this game (going beyond a box score) to establish notability and merit its own article. cmadler (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've moved the information to the Michigan page, so this page can now be removed. Comedian1018 (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now it would be great if you could do the same thing for all the other games in that season. :) Nolelover It's football season! 01:37, 12 November 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 FT2 (Talk | email) 22:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wez and Larry's Top Tens[edit]
- Wez and Larry's Top Tens (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, no secondary sources. Co-host Guru Larry is also at AFD; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Bundy Jr. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:16, 2 November 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, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm pretty inclusionist when it comes to TV shows, but this is a uber-obscure show on a now-defunct uber-obscure satellite channel way up in the hundreds. Just how obscure was it? They made 10 episodes and only bothered to air 6 of them, according to the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in terms of British Television shows on Satellite TV, it was very popular and was went into re-runs for well over a year. Also there was very few British video gaming--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC) shows around that time.[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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
Larry Bundy Jr - Delete without prejudice to recreation if suitable evidence exists
- Principles that carry weight include the correct statement of WP:NOTINHERITED (per TenPoundHammer, which covers assertions that he works for notable companies, shows or products), and lack of good evidence via reliable sources of notability or even of enough to allow writing of a neutral encyclopedic article.
- Notability criteria such as WP:GNG and topic-specific guidelines appear to be appropriately considered too. Coverage needs to be significant and about him, and none is presented, much less any meeting that criterion to a good standard from reliable independent sources with significant topical coverage.
- Claims of being "pretty well known" or "quite popular" do not imply notability, the world is full of interesting or popular things that are not notable here (WP:INTERESTING refers). Concerns that he is not being considered due to cultural ignorance also fail - editors on Wikipedia come from England and the US, and what is needed in any case is reliably sourced evidence and not personal statements of support, which anyone could present (but did not).
- No evidence and delete assertions well founded. SPA views noted but as usual no extra points raised as a result that changed anything of the above.
Guru Larry's Retro Corner - No consensus - default to keep without prejudice to any future discussion
- The article here is much better founded. The series lasted, there are cites in the article, there is a visible reason why it might be notable. There is almost no discussion at this AFD either to show any consensus to delete.
FT2 (Talk | email) 22:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Larry Bundy Jr[edit]
- Larry Bundy Jr (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)
- Guru Larry's Retro Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Damn it, Twinkle, quit failing on me.
Anyway, no sources found anywhere. No hits at all on Gnews for the creator or his website. Simply being part of That Guy with the Glasses and several other shows isn't enough — you'll notice far more prominent names like Linkara don't have articles. Only sources are TGwtG wiki and a YouTube video. Absolute failure of WP:WEB. Game Network may be notable, but I see no evidence that Guru Larry is. Also, none of the shows he's worked on seem notable, so they're going to AFD as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Linkara doesn't appear on several TV shows. I would say that since he has presented several notable shows, TV channels and video games that have Wikipedia articles would ergo make him notable also.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 08:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSE, WP:NOTINHERITED. Sorry, you lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? "Sorry, you lose, try again"? Did I stumble on Wikipedia or Encylopedia Dramatica?--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OSE, WP:NOTINHERITED. Sorry, you lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:47, 8 November 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, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N, WP:ENT. Doesn't inherit notability for appearing on non-notable shows either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI still say keep again, as he is credited working on shows such as Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe & Gameswipe (which I see someone has added since) amongst notable televisions shows, websites and networks. I would use the adage, "what difference does his article have from other TGWTG members like Spoony or The Nostalgia Critic? or even other gaming presenters such as Robert Florence"?, But I know the reason why I can't add it, so no need to quote me. But I shall look out for more information to make this concrete. I've seen numerous press releases about hjim Etc.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 06:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You cannot vote twice; you can make more comments like this, that is fine, but I have stricken the bold part at the beginning. Tarc (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Besides, That Guy with the Glasses itself was up for deletion recently and only missed deletion by a hair. It likely wouldn't survive another vote and certainly nobody can claim notability by being associated with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? I did not know that. But my vote was for this second round. considering the first time it passed. But you have to realise that he is a UK television presenter as well, not just one the web. He's on TV right now even on Showcase TV and Information TV (coincendentially the showcase TV article appears to be incorrect as it is on TV still, unless it's another channel of the same name).--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable web presenter. Tarc (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, he's a Television presenter in the UK --FirecrackerDemon (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of curiosity, is anyone voting here from the UK at all? As it seems slightly unfair to vote on someone from another nation/culture, just because you've never heard of him, nor any knowledge/experience.--FirecrackerDemon (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has appeared as a presenter for numourous national TV shows, for broadcasters which themselves are notable. He has also produced videos for the biggest game retailer in the UK. While I argee that only being part of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses doesn't make the person notable enough for an article, Larry Bundy has been the host for a portfolio of professional TV shows. Anyone who says he has only been part of webshows is uneducated on his career, and shouldn't be discussing notablity because of it. The article does need a clean up, but it is notable, and it should stay. --User:ImNotADoctor5 —Preceding undated comment added 07:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC). — ImNotADoctor5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep Larry is a pretty well known UK presenter. Just because he is only known in the US from his web videos doesn't make him a 'web personality' who deserves deletion. Are you going to try and delete every non-American minor celebrity on the grounds they're not well known enough? Ehdee — Ehdee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep Larry is quite popular in the UK and as even appeared on the prime time consumer program, Watchdog. He is also a video game artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.9.234 (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — 92.8.9.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. I haven't checked for sources, so won't offer a recommendation, but I must point out that "has even appeared on Watchdog" is far from an indication of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Larry has been on many different Websites and TV shows. Not Even the AVGN has been on TV, bar that one time "You know whats bullshit" was on the news. Larry HOSTED TV shows, 3 on XLeage alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeWaffle (talk • contribs) 15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC) — SnakeWaffle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 01:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moishe's Moving Systems[edit]
- Moishe's Moving Systems (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)
Spam Insert your name here (talk) 21:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New York Times, Newsday, New York Post, Daily News, mentions in major Hollywood films. That's notability. Rewrite to eliminate spammishness. Don't delete. Cullen328 (talk) 22:13, 2 November 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) 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep largest moving company in tri-state area including NYC, overwhelming amount of media coverage. Notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:55, 9 November 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Australasian College of Phlebology[edit]
- Australasian College of Phlebology (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. nothing in gnews [67]. google search indicates mainly directory listings and the occasional event this organisation is involved in. but nothing to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 07:21, 3 November 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) 00:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only significant coverage appears to be from Phlebology, a publication that is "media of limited interest", wghich WP:ORG says "is not an indication of notability". Lacks further coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only references itself Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:34, 15 November 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shake It Up! with a Chance of Charlie[edit]
- Shake It Up! with a Chance of Charlie (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 article about a supposed TV episode that is not mentioned at reliable sources. AussieLegend (talk) 00:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Reads like a hoax as Shake it Up premiered last night. Let's wait for them to establish themselves for more than a month (and have a source beyond fanforums) before we create more of this cruft, please. Nate • (chatter) 07:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. It's "a supposed Disney Channel Crossover"? This is an encyclopedia, not a place to post WP:V-violating unsourceable speculation/fan fiction. --Kinu t/c 18:04, 14 November 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Differentia Consulting[edit]
- Differentia Consulting (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 fails to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. Being one of the many Oracle or IBM partners is not sufficient for encyclopaedic notability and no independent sources show impact on the historic record. Previous PROD removed (by an account using the name of the company CEO) so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 00:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Yet another software services consulting company. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 02:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and as spam. Can't imagine why it wasn't speedied after I tagged it as such. WuhWuzDat 17:16, 10 November 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) 00:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasant Little Kingdom[edit]
- Pleasant Little Kingdom (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 title is the wrong title of Desperate Housewives. It fails to meet the criteria of WP:ORG. AdamDeanHall (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because I don't understand the nomination at all. This article purports to be about an upcoming episode of Desperate Housewives which will air next month. If the title is wrong, what is the correct title? And why can't the page just be moved to the correct title? And what does WP:ORG have to do with this? Television episodes aren't organizations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Aside from the fact that the nomination doesn't make much sense, per Metropolitan90, every other episode appears to have its own article, so this one probably ought to as well. Incidentally, I don't think this AFD has been set up properly - there seems to be no notice on the article. I shall see if I can fix it.--KorruskiTalk 10:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, All the other episodes of this series have their own articla, many of which were created by the very user who nominated this article for deletion. I wonder if that user is just upset because someone else created this article before he could? BurienBomber (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per nominator's past indications of ownership over articles dealing with Desperate Housewives; title is sourced here, nomination rationale is incorrect. Nate • (chatter) 23:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And now for the spanner in the works. The nominator's rationale, which takes some decoding I have to say (Mind you, I had to prod the nominator into even giving a rationale at all.), appears to be that there's nothing known about the subject yet, not even its name. In other words: There's no verifiable information to be had on this subject. Mrschimpf's purported source falls down when one notices the handy little "edit this" hyperlink next to it. I'm tempted to go in and edit it to change the episode title to "Mrschimpf's tomato fondling paradise" just so that the next person who wants to register a "keep" opinion is confused as to why everyone before them seems to be thinking that this article is correct and should be kept. ☺ Reliable sources, people! Uncle G (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Edit this" is in regards to the episode summary (which currently does not exist because networks don't release that until a few weeks before), not the title itself. That cannot be changed at all by the site except for an administrator on that site. Nate • (chatter) 02:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The episode title has been confirmed by an ABC press release and here at TV.com [68]. BurienBomber (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And here is said confirmation from ABC's press site. Nate • (chatter) 02:45, 10 November 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.