Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 16
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 23:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
404 attacks[edit]
- 404 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, appears to be a WP:OR essay analyzing the origins of this apparently unsourceable meme. Kinu t/c 23:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No context (when / where) and no information that can be verified Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't make out from the text what this is supposed to be about, and according to the creator's comment on the article talk page, it's supposed to be a secret. In this respect they have been spectacularly successful: no Google hits at all (outside Wikipedia). --Lambiam 08:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:OR grows inexorably without commensurate addition of any useful secondary sources. Elizium23 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Incoherent and unverified. Either the author is pulling our collective leg, or else (I'm trying to WP:AGF) he/she is writing about a concept so obscure that it fails Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:26, 23 August 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. Whilst it clearly needs work, there's no consensus that it should be deleted. GedUK 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors[edit]
- List of Puerto Rican scientists and inventors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly written overlong essay full of non-notable individuals. The topic itself is laden with original research. Why Puerto Rico? Why random academics? What do these inventors and scientists really have to do with one another? Provides no new information that the articles of the notables provide. Soundsboy (talk) 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are the nom. You shouldn't !v twice, its implied you support delete in the nom.--Cerejota (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite This is not an acceptable list article, but there could certainly be one, as for other groups. It would, as usual, be limited to those with Wikipedia articles. Normally I'd suggest Boldly replacing the text with such a list, but it would surely be reverted--the simplest way might possibly be to delete the present content. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. One notes several BLPs included in the list that seem ripe for AfD or prod. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep - It is a "list" 3written within Wikipedia policy. Those mentioned in the article are notable and even though some of those on the "list" do have thier own articles, many don't. The "list" is both informative and educational which is within the funding ideals of Wikipedia, our project, to share our knowledge with others. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite/keep as per DGG. As a member of WP:PUR, I will try to bring it to WP:L standard. If any listed person's article is ripe for AfD, that has no bearing on the list, and should be discussed in each article.--Cerejota (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rewrite to satisfy wikipedia guidelines. Valid list per WP:LISTPURP. No valid deletion criteria listed; apparently just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RJH (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This would suggest to me you don't know what WP:IDONTLIKEIT means. An essay posing as a list, full of non-notables and puffery for something that has no documentation to support it; yes, that would sound like valid deletion criteria. (A cursory glance of online resources shows zero results for "Puerto Rico" and "inventions"). Soundsboy (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rewrite - per "DGG" and all of the above - Antonio Martin (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - but only for those with Wikipedia articles, replace the mini-bios for one-liners and clean up the lead. Make something similar to List of Welsh inventors or List of Russian inventors. It's an acceptable topic but developed in a way that's incompatible with Wikipedia. Savable. --damiens.rf 14:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rewrite - See no valid reason for it's deletion as it is not violating any key rules in article writing. Possibly adding more notable personalities will be suffice in eliminating any doubts by those who want to delete it.--XLR8TION (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Rewrite - While the article currently has many areas for improvement, they are rewritable and savable. I see no reasonable criteria to support deletion. Once again, going back to the basics, will this help a student in Puerto Rico or elsewhere do his homework? The answer is a solid "Yes!" and thus, from my point of view, the main reason to keep and make it worthwhile whatever time we invest to improve it. Pr4ever (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment Cejota suggested to me that it might well be turned into an article "History of Science in Puerto Rico," or perhaps "History of Science and Invention in Puerto Rico". This would be in essence be a subject fork, in addition to my original suggestion of keeping this a a proper list in the ordinary sense. I think this would be done by, first, removing the bios of the people who have article here as notable, and either removing or making articles for the other bios here. Then, by rewriting it properly, they would be simply linked when mentioned. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there such a knowledge field as "History of Science and Invention in Puerto Rico"? Have enough people written about that so that we can be our article on reliable sources, or we would have to mash together events characterized as "Science and Invention in Puerto Rico" throughout history in an original research endeavor? --damiens.rf 20:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody has ever written about "Puerto Ricans and invention" except, well, Wikipedians. Which is why this comes off as an essay, not a list of notable people. Soundsboy (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is implicit that there is such a field as it is a descriptive name, not subject to WP:OR - which generally refers to content, not actual articles per se. It is not OR to say History of Science and Invention in the People's Republic of Albonia, one can, however make an argument that the contents might be OR. Since the article doesn't exist, it is a moot point to make now... but I think that in your zeal to have the Puerto Rico topic are conform to the house rules, you are bending the stick too far to the other side and forgetting that WP:IAR is also a policy, as valid as any other policy. In my view, you do a disservice to the encyclopedia by not seeking, as we are advised to do in our deletion policies, alternatives to deletion, when it is obvious that such alternatives are better than deletion. Have some common sense: is an encyclopedia a better encyclopedia because Pokemon meets the rules and is included, and a history of science in a notable cultural area doesn't? Perhaps it would be better if we deleted Pokemon, even if it met every rule, and had articles such as this one, even if their rule conformance is iffy. Encyclopedic content over rules, everytime, is a good policy, and its also the house rules. In addition, countering systemic bias suggest caution with how strictly we apply GNG and other criteria for inclusion - one thing is trying to puff a business or a non-notable band, another is to question basic encyclopedic information of a place simply because language and internet availability skew sourcing availability in what are obvious encyclopedic valuable topics. Hell, History of science in Puerto Rico is of encyclopedic value even if a stub. There are people who disagree with the views I express, but they are not against the rules either, so trying to wikilawyer is futile. We are not unfeeling robots as Jimbo recently said. We do make choices based on common decency, rather than following rules. Not always, not generally, but we do. --Cerejota (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "you do a disservice to the encyclopedia by not seeking, as we are advised to do in our deletion policies, alternatives to deletion..." - You do a disservice to my patience by not noticing I voted keep.--damiens.rf 14:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there such a knowledge field as "History of Science and Invention in Puerto Rico"? Have enough people written about that so that we can be our article on reliable sources, or we would have to mash together events characterized as "Science and Invention in Puerto Rico" throughout history in an original research endeavor? --damiens.rf 20:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - to clarify, I mean using the prose parts for another article, I think this is a useful list to have, and are in my userspace making improvements to meet WP:L standards. I do not support moving this to a "History of" article unless it is an alternative to deletion.--Cerejota (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sounds fine to me, Cerejota. I'll at least create some "stubs" for those who are notable in the list without an article. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consider, however, that so many of these individuals have no actual "inventions" to their name. It would be extremely difficult to format it like List of Russian inventors if the "invention" column is always blank. A "vaccine" or a scientific breakthrough is not an invention. Soundsboy (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are plenty of articles just like this for listing the scientist, inventors, and sometimes scholars of a race, country, continent, or a religion. List of African-American inventors and scientists, List of African scientists, inventors, and scholars, List of Cornish scientists and inventors, List of Cornish engineers and inventors, List of Muslim scientists, List of Puerto Ricans in the United States Space Program, List of Scottish scientists, List of Brazilian scientists, List of Russian chemists, List of English inventors, and so on. We even have a list for people that don't really exist at List of fictional scientists and engineers. Every nation has awards for its notable scientists and inventors, and this gets coverage obviously. Dream Focus 02:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples you give are lists. This AfD is a blurb full of extraneous detail and puffery. I would have no objection if it were a genuine list. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Question What does this article do that categories can't?Curb Chain (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason why all list are superior to categories, is that they list information so you can find what you are looking for. Its always best to list why the person is notable, why achievement they did specifically, then to just have a vague category for them. Dream Focus 17:35, 21 August 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 delete. — Joseph Fox 01:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Birdemic II: The Resurrection[edit]
- Birdemic II: The Resurrection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per WP:MOVIE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Birdemic I only achieved notability by being one of the worst films ever made. Similarly, this one must wait until it has been released, panned by the critics and achieved cult status. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. This article may come back later by the time it gets released, but not today. Minima© (talk) 12:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now to the one place where per WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE this film merits a sourced mention (and IS already so mentioned): Birdemic#Sequel. I agree, it does not yet merit a seperate article. A redirect serves the community just fine. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:13, 17 August 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. Courcelles 23:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adrift: 76 Days Lost At Sea[edit]
- Adrift: 76 Days Lost At Sea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable book, this article has been here for several years and yet has no sources. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 21:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- 36 weeks on NYT Best Sellers list is 'non-notable'? Dru of Id (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The only question is whether an article on the book is sufficient, but in this case the events giving rise to the book are also significant, so we can justify having two articles. I am however open to the possibility of merging the article on the book in here. That can be discussed on the talk p. later. I note the article at the time of the AfD had a number of sources, several of which are certain;y RSs for notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Am I missing something? I don't see a single source on the page. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the New York Times best seller lists are here (number 11) and [1] (number 10) . There's also mention of a re-issue of the book here with the suggestion of a review by NYT having already taken place ("The book is 'highly readable,' Jules Koslow said here last year,"). It looks from this as if the book may also have been made into a play of the same name. I haven't seen any reviews of the book itself yet, though. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further to above, it looks like it was reviewed by Jules Koslow in NYT Review of Books on 12 January 1986 but the text of that review doesn't appear to be available online. See the record here. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by way of common sense. 36 weeks on the bestsellers list, makes the book notable. Dream Focus 06:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Steven Callahan. The author's wikipedia entry mostly concerns the book and actually has better information on the book than the page itself does. The author is really only notable for this one book so a merging and a redirect from the title entry just makes more sense than keeping the book entry separate. 208.31.209.179 (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of films with alternate titles[edit]
- List of films with alternate titles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Practically every film has had an alternative title. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of content. BOVINEBOY2008 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is a train wreck waiting to happen. Will never be even remotely complete. Blueboy96 21:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Soundsboy agrees with Blueboy. Endless unencyclopaedic list. Soundsboy (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Never being complete is not a criterion for a list of things which are inherently ongoing ; it is not indiscriminate, being limited to films with Wikipedia articles. Our coverage of films will never be complete either, nor any of the lists of films (except for those limited in time period). Should we delete all of them also? DGG ( talk ) 00:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The fact that this doesn't distinguish between foreign-language titles, subtitles, and actual alternate titles, and that it is not sourced, means that there is nothing to keep here, and the topic is not particularly encyclopedic. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The fact that it will never be complete is less of a problem to me, the main issue I have is that it doesn't serve an encyclopedic purpose. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an indiscriminate non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Verifiability does not automatically guarantee suitability for inclusion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. I think the criteria is too open-ended for a detail that will be frequently minor. I'm trying to think of how the criteria could be re-defined so we could list noteworthy alternate titles somehow. Any ideas? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:20, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice for return. I agree with DGG's points that such lists of onging events never being "complete" is not a valid reason to delete. Precedent and practice allows many such "incomplete" lists, and does not care that they will never be complete. And just as are the films in this list, inclusion is based upon the sourcable notabilty allowing articles ON the items on the list. But in agreement with Erik, we need to have the article lede better define incluson criteria, to include as one of the discriminate requirements that the included films should have existing an article which sources the alternate names. As the list grows, it could have sections for film by year and language. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:09, 21 August 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 delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Luis Muñoz[edit]
- Luis Muñoz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Alex (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable former minor league baseball pitcher. Spent eight years in the minors, but only a handful of games at the highest level of minor league baseball, Triple-A. Fails WP:GNG. References are lacking. Alex (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes this case interesting is that Muñoz was promoted to the majors, but never appeared in a game before he was demoted.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was looking for reliable sources other than passing mensions or local newspaper and I couldn't find much that deals with this particular individual. Even if you get called up, you still have to play in a Major League game in order to qualify for WP:SPORTS notability guideline. Secret account 05:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:BASEBALL/N having never played a game in MLB. Lacks non-routine coverage is multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. This WP:Run-of-the-mill player does not deserve a standalone article. Since he is not active in 2011, there is no option to merge to a related minor league player article. —Bagumba (talk) 09:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The notability guideline is about playing at the highest level, not being on the roster. Matchups 01:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Spanneraol (talk) 15:58, 21 August 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 delete. Courcelles 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Call of Duty: Iron Wolf[edit]
- Call of Duty: Iron Wolf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No confirmation that this game even exists; the only source is one blog which itself seems to indicate that it is a rumor. Ultimately a WP:CRYSTAL failure and possible WP:V violation. Kinu t/c 20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No solid sources yet. Article was made too soon MadCow257 (talk) 23:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reason it was nominated for speedy delete. Violates WP:CRYSTAL and the only source is some random person's blog who admits himself that it's a rumour. 2.27.4.161 (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Should have been CSDed. How can we have an article on a game that has not even been announced, let alone one that is only referenced to somebody's blog. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:20, 17 August 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 Withdrawn per improvements. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pac-Man clones[edit]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pac-Man clones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Primary sources. Loaded with non-notable, redlinky examples (shame, since Best Before Yesterday's Maniac was very good — I have fond memories of playing that on my LC520 in the 90s). Any that are notable enough can be merged to the Pac-Man article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This was split for length in a more innocent age, and a re-merge shouldn't be controversial. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 23:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten Pound Hammer, could you tell us exactly what part of WP:DEL#REASON applies? (Also see WP:PGL.) It seems that you want a merge with redirect (one of the alternatives to deletion listed in the link above) rather than deletion. I think a merge with redirect would be appropriate, especially with some general cleanup. In my opinion, deletion without merging would not. Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want it deleted because very few of the listings is independently notable (WP:SALAT), and a merge would be pointless as I think that only one or two are notable enough for a mention on the Pac-Man article. For instance, Hangly-Man is definitely standalone notable, but I doubt most of the others are. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten Pound Hammer, could you tell us exactly what part of WP:DEL#REASON applies? (Also see WP:PGL.) It seems that you want a merge with redirect (one of the alternatives to deletion listed in the link above) rather than deletion. I think a merge with redirect would be appropriate, especially with some general cleanup. In my opinion, deletion without merging would not. Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing the above reason for deletion listed in WP:DEL#REASON.
--Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: "I want it deleted because very few of the listings is independently notable", WP:LSC says that this is a reason for putting items on a list: "Common selection criteria ... Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be WP:CIVIL. Ten Pound Hammer, when asked exactly what what part of WP:DEL#REASON applies, listed as a reason something not found in WP:DEL#REASON. My hope was that asking specific questions might result in an answer to the question asked. Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You delete your own uncivil comments and have the gaol to call me uncivil for pointing them out? Szzuk (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's entirely possible for a valid deletion rationale to fall outside WP:DEL#REASON. Why not turn that around. What do we get from keeping a list where maybe two entries are notable? Two entries is not a list. WP:IAR and WP:COMMONSENSE apply here. Not everything has to be chiseled in stone — it seems too many process wonks like you go nucular over the slightest deviation from OMGPROCESS. And posting an equally pedantic tl;dr filibuster ain't helping your case either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be WP:CIVIL. Ten Pound Hammer, when asked exactly what what part of WP:DEL#REASON applies, listed as a reason something not found in WP:DEL#REASON. My hope was that asking specific questions might result in an answer to the question asked. Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could have replied saying that you have some other reason for deletion the first time I asked, thus avoiding my asking again in more detail.
- OK, so you say you have some other reason for deletion. What is it? The only reason you have given so far is specifically listed as a reason for putting items on a list. What you fail to grasp is that I am trying to help you. I could have stayed silent and watched as the deleting admin denies your nomination on the grounds of it not being listed in WP:DEL#REASON, but instead I encouraged you to explain why you wish to delete this. Responding by firing up the flamethrower is unlikely to convince the deleting admin. Sound policy-based reasoning is. So please stop engaging in personal attacks and incivility and please explain in a calm, cool manner, on what grounds you wish to have this page deleted. Also, when someone asks a question, please try to answer the question. Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a content fork, that doesn't add anything to WP.Szzuk (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Please list the other article(s) that you believe to be on the same subject as this article. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pedantic much? [] YES [] YES. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't engage in personal attacks, and please don't collapse legitimate questions with titles that are uncivil. Such collapsing is controversial, so please review WP:TPOC and list the specific reason why you think the collapse is appropriate in your edit comment.
- I've told you. This is a special WP:IAR case. Lists are supposed to have five items in them, and with all the non-notable entries removed, this has only four. Listing all of them would violate WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO, and listing only the most notable ones would not leave enough separate notability since there only appear to be a very small number of individually notable clones. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for explaining your reasoning. Why do you believe that every entry in a list must be notable or be deleted? WP:LSC mentions legitimate lists where "every entry in the list fails the notability criteria". WP:N specifically says "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." (emhasis in original). Again thank you for discussing your reasoning and for remaining civil.
Also, assuming that the items are deleted and the list becomes only four items long, do you believe that is a reason for deletion rather than for merging the four into Pac-Man? Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further thought on the "This is a special WP:IAR case." argument above: Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means says that:
- " 'Ignore all rules' does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times."
and
- " 'Ignore all rules' is not in itself a valid answer if someone asks you why you broke a rule. Most of the rules are derived from a lot of thoughtful experience and exist for pretty good reasons; they should therefore only be broken for good reasons."
--Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's really very little to merge, particularly since the article is now unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, the above assertion appears to be factually incorrect. I count five Pac-Man clones with Wikipedia pages, all of which appear to be properly sourced. The are: Hangly-Man, Lock 'n' Chase, Snapper (video game), Munch Man, and Ms. Pac-Man ("Orginally called Crazy Otto, this unauthorized hack of Pac-Man was created by General Computer Corporation and sold to Midway without Namco's permission.") --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Pac-Man clones have indeed been cited in copyright court cases, cf. Atari v. North American Phillips Consumer Electronics (672 F.2d. 607 (7th Cir. 1982)), about K. C. Munchkin, and Midway Mfg. Co. v. Dirkschneider (543 F.Supp. 466 (D. Nebraska 1981)) about Mighty Mouth. The court opinions have verifiable information about those games, which is more than enough for a list entry (in fact, Munchkin (video game) already has an article). RJaguar3 | u | t 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per RJaguar3's argument above, and because niether of the supporters of deletion have provided a reason for deletion that conforms to Wikipedia policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Perhaps this article has been improved since it was nominated, but at the moment it appears to be a perfectly good article, if a little short. Powers T 13:57, 21 August 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 delete. — Joseph Fox 20:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mashad Carpet Company[edit]
- Mashad Carpet Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of encyclopedic relevance, though article has been tagged since 2009, but could not be speedy deleted due to previous Afd. Racconish Tk 20:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I didn't see notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from the company's website. SwisterTwister talk 21:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence this company is covered by reliable secondary sources. Marokwitz (talk) 10:11, 17 August 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 redirect to Achal Prabhala. Seems to be that consensus is for deleting the article, but it has been noted that some decent information is in here which may be used in its new target article. — Joseph Fox 20:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People are Knowledge (film)[edit]
- People are Knowledge (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable film. PROD denied. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a link to the NY Times article about oral citations that references the film. It was funded with a $20k grant from the Wikimedia Foundation. I know it hasn't been released for wide consumption, but I think it is going to be an important part of the debate around citations on Wikipedia as it expands further in countries like India, Brazil, etc. Should it still be considered for deletion? Matthew (WMF) 20:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per WP:NotJustYet until the film has wider release and critical review. Interesting Catch-22. What we have is a film by an expert uniquely qualified to create such a film. We have Achal Prabhala, an adviser to the Wikimedia Foundation, making a film about Wikipedia's impact and import in a changing world, using a grant from the foundation itself. The New York Times article is quite informative and enlightening of the problem.[3] But as Wikipedia itself needs to mind its own caveats toward COI and ADVERT, we have a quandry. Looking to the applicable guideline, the film is weak on meeting WP:NF. But as it does speak toward the foundation and the project, we can have a reasonable expectation that when it gains wider release, there will be more written about the film itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The film is non-notable and I can't infer any reasonable intent for it to ever be widely released so that it may one day meet WP:N or WP:NF. If it is widely released and meets any notability criteria, I will hold no prejudice towards the article's recreation. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But as a topic in the news, "things Wikipedia" do get independent attention, and it is my thought that if this never has wider release or critical commentary, it will never return from incubation... and will be deleted in a few months for that lack and with my blessing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Projectify not notable enough for a mainspace article, but of internal interest. jorgenev 20:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:NFF and WP:FUTURE to Achal Prabhala where this film for and about the project NOW has a sourced mention.[4] In agreement with User:Big Bird, it does not yet meet WP:NF and can be undeleted if it ever does. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 17 August 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 merge to Six Flags New England. v/r - TP 18:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Attraction 2012 (Six Flags New England)[edit]
- Attraction 2012 (Six Flags New England) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mainly fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:N. There is a reliable source on this article that states that a roller coaster called the "Giant Inverted Boomerang" is now in the planning stages at Six Flags New England. However, as far as I can tell, the claims that this coaster is a relocation of the Deja Vu roller coaster at Six Flags Magic Mountain are rumors and/or speculation. Even if these rumors are true, Wikipedia's standard is "verifiability, not truth", and I can't seem to verify in reliable sources. As always I am willing to reconsider if others have better luck finding sources. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you are getting and I have took off the rumors on the page and redid it!--Jpp858 (talk) 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge: to Six Flags New England; a separate article is unnecessary. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 02:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would not necessarily be opposed to merging the sourced content of this article into Six Flags New England; my problem, though, is that I found no sources, reliable or unreliable, that call this ride "Attraction 2012", making this title an implausible search term. There are plenty of hits on "Attraction 2012", but most if not all of them refer to something at Hersheypark. Searching on "Attraction 2012 Six Flags" doesn't turn up anything. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There is a better source now! Since the ride was approved last night!--Jpp858 (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:There is no point in having this thread consider to be deleted, since the ride has been approved for the park and the announcement will be on Septeber 1, 2011 and doesn't mention any rumors, so it doesn't break any rules that I know of and I put a bigger source than the last one. So I will remove it, but if I am wrong and you have a better reason why then you can add it back on it!--Jpp858 (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC) struck repeat !vote; one !vote per user please. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]Keep:The LA Times have now confirm the coaster being remove! More sources now!--Jpp858 (talk) 00:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)struck repeat !vote; one !vote per user please. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment - just to point out the above three keep votes have been made by the same user and should only be considered as one. Themeparkgc Talk 04:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is nothing in this article that is not already covered in Giant Inverted Boomerang. I don't see why the content needs to be split and duplicated between the articles. Also, as Kuyabribri said, the name "Attraction 2012" is a term coined by Jpp858 (I assume since there are no sources, reliable or not, to support this) making a redirect to the Giant Inverted Boomerang article, as opposed to deletion, pointless. Themeparkgc Talk 04:43, 20 August 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 no consensus. v/r - TP 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OUTeverywhere[edit]
- OUTeverywhere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable and reads like an advertisement Teppic74 (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article mainly consists of unverified POV information. A request went in for this to be fixed in 2007 after the last afd nomination, but nothing has changed. The main problem is notability. This article describes a commercial website, with no valid citations, original research and largely irrelevant information. For example, the only working link to express notability is to a very old BBC article about an entirely different subject (not this website), that makes a passing comment to an unnamed website; the lack of even a name if anything emphasises a lack of notability, rather than proof of it. Were all the unverified, POV and irrelevant information removed from this article, it would essentially be, 'This is a website'. Teppic74 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Since raising this, a number of references have been added. However, out of those that work (some are dead links), it still appears incidental or not significant (anonymous blog entries cannot stand as citations). I don't see evidence of 'significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources', so do not see this meeting ORG. Teppic74 (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to blogs, when they reproduce material from a third party source they can be quite useful as a means to see the original material and such use falls under the SPS guidance. This page http://www2.disappointment.com/old/blaine/030911.htm reproduces a scan of a letter published in the Metro which otherwise would not be available on-line (it could be quoted as an offline source but would be much harder to verify). The fact that the person writing owns the blog and has written under his real name makes the criticism that this is an "anonymous blog" rather misplaced. By the way, this was one of the dead links mentioned, it did not take much effort to fix it and no links have been added since your nomination that were broken only some pre-existing dead links are still dead. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that you have improved the article's quality by adding some extra links, but these on the whole confirm the notability of David Blaine. The multiple articles on the same topic concern coverage of him, the information regarding this website is incidental. This is exemplified by the BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3139726.stm. I would adjust my original comment to say that essentially this article would read, 'This is a commercial website, and it was mentioned a few times in coverage on a one-off David Blaine stunt'. Teppic74 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has plenty of valid articles about commercial websites, that's why WP:ORG exists to help provide some consistency. Issues such as improving the prose to read more neutrally are covered by improvement, not deletion. --Fæ (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting that the article should be deleted because the site is commercial, but because there is no evidence of notability, and the article comprises original research and advertising. Teppic74 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, "no evidence of notability" is rather over-egging your case. The Guardian states "Outeverywhere.com, Britain's largest networking site for the gay community, which has signed up more than 200,000 people," in the 2006 article footnoted which is a sufficient pointer for notability and far better than "no evidence". Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this is reliable; it doesn't give a source for those figures, and they may well have been sourced from the wikipedia article itself (since it previously has quoted similar figures without citation). The 'largest networking site for the gay community' would be expected to at least register on Google Trends (this site does not), and have a high Alexa ranking (it is 485,942). Other gay websites in the UK far exceed these figures: compare fitlads.net (Alexa ranking 77,850, it has enough volume for Google Trends), so any claim of being largest or most popular is clearly untrue. Teppic74 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way are you comparing like with like? The 2006 figure and statement is sourced in a well respected national newspaper with a strong editorial policy. Though I can see recent statistics, I see no way of using Alexa to provide ranking data to examine comparative site traffic in 2006, could you provide a link? Please remember that encyclopaedia articles are for the long term view, not just today's marketing feedback. A website that may no longer exist may have an encyclopaedic entry as it meets the general notability criteria for its historic impact. For example we have articles on GeoCities and Encyclopedia Dramatica for which Alexa would give you disappointing results. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe this is reliable; it doesn't give a source for those figures, and they may well have been sourced from the wikipedia article itself (since it previously has quoted similar figures without citation). The 'largest networking site for the gay community' would be expected to at least register on Google Trends (this site does not), and have a high Alexa ranking (it is 485,942). Other gay websites in the UK far exceed these figures: compare fitlads.net (Alexa ranking 77,850, it has enough volume for Google Trends), so any claim of being largest or most popular is clearly untrue. Teppic74 (talk) 11:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I see that Google Trends goes back as far as 2004, and there is not enough volume in any year for this site to register any data. This would make a suggestion of 200,000 members in 2006 really rather unlikely. The lack of notability means that single Guardian source appears to be the only thing written about the site, so there's nothing to compare, and may never be. Isn't this part of the reason why one single source is not suitable for notability requirements? Teppic74 (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, "no evidence of notability" is rather over-egging your case. The Guardian states "Outeverywhere.com, Britain's largest networking site for the gay community, which has signed up more than 200,000 people," in the 2006 article footnoted which is a sufficient pointer for notability and far better than "no evidence". Thanks Fæ (talk) 09:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not suggesting that the article should be deleted because the site is commercial, but because there is no evidence of notability, and the article comprises original research and advertising. Teppic74 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has plenty of valid articles about commercial websites, that's why WP:ORG exists to help provide some consistency. Issues such as improving the prose to read more neutrally are covered by improvement, not deletion. --Fæ (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand that you have improved the article's quality by adding some extra links, but these on the whole confirm the notability of David Blaine. The multiple articles on the same topic concern coverage of him, the information regarding this website is incidental. This is exemplified by the BBC news article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3139726.stm. I would adjust my original comment to say that essentially this article would read, 'This is a commercial website, and it was mentioned a few times in coverage on a one-off David Blaine stunt'. Teppic74 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't !vote in your own nomination. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With regard to blogs, when they reproduce material from a third party source they can be quite useful as a means to see the original material and such use falls under the SPS guidance. This page http://www2.disappointment.com/old/blaine/030911.htm reproduces a scan of a letter published in the Metro which otherwise would not be available on-line (it could be quoted as an offline source but would be much harder to verify). The fact that the person writing owns the blog and has written under his real name makes the criticism that this is an "anonymous blog" rather misplaced. By the way, this was one of the dead links mentioned, it did not take much effort to fix it and no links have been added since your nomination that were broken only some pre-existing dead links are still dead. Thanks Fæ (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets the GNG and ORG. The issues raised in the nomination are matters of improvement rather than deletion. Fæ (talk) 21:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
- While edits to the article are welcome, so far they have not been at all balanced. For example, the only original research content to be removed is that which is unfavourable in its description of the website. Dead links repaired include information not verifiable on the Internet. It appears these are edits with a very close association with the site, and I think a more balanced approach in editing the article is required, if notability and appropriateness is to be viewed fairly. Teppic74 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, particularly as the "Criticisms" section I removed was particularly non-neutral and had been already marked as unsourced for four years. But this is a matter of improvement that can be usefully discussed on the talk page rather than in the middle of an AfD, particularly now 5 different improvement tags provide an immense and unwelcoming merged header to the article. If you feel I have an association with the site, why not consider using WP:COIN rather than just making vague insinuations? Fæ (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was trying to be polite rather than make vague insinuations. Since the edits have all come only after the AfD, I thought it was relevant to mention the concern here. Teppic74 (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree, particularly as the "Criticisms" section I removed was particularly non-neutral and had been already marked as unsourced for four years. But this is a matter of improvement that can be usefully discussed on the talk page rather than in the middle of an AfD, particularly now 5 different improvement tags provide an immense and unwelcoming merged header to the article. If you feel I have an association with the site, why not consider using WP:COIN rather than just making vague insinuations? Fæ (talk) 11:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete consistency? fitlads has been deleted as not notable but has a lot more traffic and much better known. Why keep one but not the other? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.248.186 (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No idea, was there an AfD? I would be interested in reading the opinions. Unfortunately most social website articles of this type are embarrassingly advertorial rather than focussing on social impact or historic impact and tend to set themselves up for deletion for that reason. Fæ (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (off topic but closing the comment out) Now checked the history, there was no AfD, the Fitlads article was speedy deleted several times in recent years due to being virtually unsourced and making little claim of notability. It would be a good article for a user to draft and improve if there is verifiable social impact in reliable sources (there was a claim of more than 200,000 members in 2009). Fæ (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a prime example argument to fit in WP:OTHERTHINGS. OlYellerTalktome 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable, with coverage in Guardian, Timeout and BBC News. "Deletion is not cleanup". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An incidental reference to 'a gay website' in a BBC article about something else counts as notable coverage? As far as I can see the only thing that has any direct relevance to the site is the Guardian link, but how does that alone indicate significant coverage? It looks more like a press release. Teppic74 (talk) 13:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article's included reference constitute significant coverage from reliable and independent sources. Satisfies WP:GNG. Nominator may wish to read WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion. Your nomination reasoning includes not a single piece of evidence that it's not notable (what's required for the article to be deleted under WP:N) and I don't see the rampant advertising that you do but that's just my opinion. In the future searching for sources would be worthwhile to the project. Additionally, AfD's are not for cleanup. They are to determine if the subject is notable so suggesting that because a change wasn't made after the last failed AfD is directly contrary to goals of an AfD. OlYellerTalktome 15:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article deals with a commercial website which is of limited interest to a niche group. Similarly niche sites have had their entries removed for not being notable. The 'references' that are used to support notability are passing mentions to the site in the context of other events that are newsworthy in their own right; a fleeting mention does not provide notability. 94.195.193.171 (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — 94.195.193.171 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I think the first point (a niche group) is irrelevant here, but I agree with the second -- the references being used to show notability are not in line with ORG ("Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.") Teppic74 (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only "substantial" coverage is Doward in the Guardian. And using the word "substantial" is a stretch. The Blaine stuff amounts to trivial mentions. If someone has an independent source with more than 1 or 2 sentneces then bring it. Right now with respect to WP:N this is a fail, big time. – Lionel (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the article has changed so much since the nomination, and given the above discussion, I want to clarify my opinion. The reason for the nomination has not changed, the article does not meet WP:ORG or WP:N. The one-sentence mentions in the BBC article, Guardian and Time Out are trivial ("Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability."), leaving a short Guardian article (that could constitute a press release) as a single possible notable source written about the site ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability"); ("A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization."). The references about David Blaine are trivial, and concern press coverage of him, they are not about this site. Since its advertisement creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OUTeverywhere&oldid=38442053) the article has relied almost entirely on unsourced claims (the bulk, including the introduction, is still unsourced), leaving the article largely an unsourced description of a website. Its lack of notability means this is unlikely to change. Teppic74 (talk) 10:02, 21 August 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. per Novickas whose rationale refutes 5 of the 7 delete !votes. v/r - TP 18:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michigan State University student riot[edit]
- Michigan State University student riot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe this is a notable subject. Article was nominated for deletion before; perhaps we were more inclusionist in 2006. If you go through the history, you'll find that in 2006 there actually were two references to the supposed subject of the article--right now there are only links for the completely non-notable "other" riots. We are not the news, and I did not find any references to suggest that this riot was notable by our standards. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A campus with 40,000 or so students can only turn out this few for a riot and teargassing? Pretty lackluster compared to antiwar protests of the 1970's. A flash in the pan news story.And the title is inappropriate, being singular and then describing one riot as the most notable one, with two others also mentioned. There have been previous riots in the school's long history. Edison (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- DeleteThis article seems to suffer from recentism. The 1999 MSU student riot appears to have not created lasting effects, was limited in notable coverage and received no lengthy duration of coverage. The previous debate regarding deletion included commentary from a person who supposedly attended the University of Michigan (a rival institution within the state of Michigan) suggesting that they wanted to keep the article in wikipedia because and I quote "Heh, anything to make MSU looks bad =) - User Earth". While indeed comical, engaging in the production of Wikipedia articles for the sake of poking fun at rival institutions is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Joparkticular (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rework to cover all Michigan State student riots. Michigan State is known for student riots (see [5]). cmadler (talk) 14:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a student newspaper at the university, which manages, in 2005, to mention the 1999 riot. Even the ARS couldn't argue that it establishes that MSU objectively has a reputation for riots, and that therefore this particular riot was notable. Thanks for calling in the squad, by the way--I wish them luck. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete. US campus riots following sporting events with minor property damage (<$10K) are routine. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:EVENT. Events like these after victories or losses by college and professional sports teams are relatively commonplace (e.g. 1953, 1984, 1993). I would be OK with a mention of the event at 1999 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament. Location (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Listing all the riots that took place there, is notable. Thousands of people participated each time. Dream Focus 22:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thousands of people participated each time because these were after sporting events with thousands of people already gathered. The amount of damages is usually a good indicator of how much of a riot it really was. Sourcing here is at best state-level media, and mostly local. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. News of these riots was published in national media, making this a notable story worthy of a Wikipedia article. Marokwitz (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per marokwitz clearly notable by riots published in national media.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: routine WP:NOTNEWS, with no indication that this meets WP:EVENT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can be adequately handed in the history section of the Michigan State University article. Neutralitytalk 14:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not meet WP:EVENT for long standing notability. LibStar (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The 1999 one was covered in the national media, especially its legal aftermath, because local authorities subpoenaed a number of news media outlets for their footage, some refused, the case ended up in the Michigan Supreme Court, and wasn't resolved till Sep 2000. [6] You can see the opening portions of full-length articles about the legal issues in the American Journalism Review [7], article in Thomas M. Cooley Law School Review [8]. Coverage in non-local media: articles in the Chicago Tribune [9], the Philadelphia Inquirer [10], Sports Illustrated [11]. New York Times pieces: ‘After last month's riot at Michigan State University, the city of East Lansing posted pictures on its Web site of suspects it said had been involved in the violence and asked for tips to help track them down.’ [12], ‘March Madness bottomed out 15 days ago after Michigan State lost to Duke in a semifinal game of the Final Four.’ [13]. Noted in a Rowman & Littlefield book as an example of ‘social-emotional contagion’. [14]. Novickas (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC) P.S. One lasting impact is that a state law was passed 'giving judges the power to ban college students from school for up to two years. The law was enacted after 1999 riots, when thousands swarmed East Lansing and campus streets, causing nearly $500,000 in damage'. [15]. (The newspaper article mentions this was invoked in 2003). Novickas (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my vote to keep based on what Novickas has found, which shows some long-term relevance of the 1999 event. Please add the info to the article as well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 17:32, 23 August 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
D N Himatsingka High School, Kokrajhar[edit]
- D N Himatsingka High School, Kokrajhar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
less than a stub. Zero references, zero information once personal opinion and original research was removed. Not even an official webpage to include. Likely a notable subject but not in it's current form, nothing worth saving here. No prejudice towards recreation at a later date if an article with sufficient detail could be created based on reliable sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the reason why we keep high schools is given in the essay WP:NHS. I think that too much content was removed by the nominator; the POV stuff was correctly taken out but facts and claims should be left in for now to see if they can be sourced; with suitable tags as usual. I have added a ref to verify the existence of the school. Many Indian schools use Blogs or Facebook as their official webpage. Indeed, Indian schools have a notoriously poor Internet presence so, to avoid systemic bias, time should be given for local sources to be found. TerriersFan (talk) 03:45, 17 August 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. v/r - TP 18:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
John Baldoni[edit]
- John Baldoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page should be deleted. Is self promotion. Subject is not notable. Does not meet Wikipedia article requirements.— Realitycheck29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment - possible bad faith nomination. Nominator's first edit was to vandalize the article. That being said, the article does appear to have some COI issues (due to the edits from Jbaldoni52v) and needs some serious editing, but the references from the Harvard Business Review (if real) would lead me to say Keep this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs some cleanup and rewriting for neutral POV but does appear to meet notability guidelines. Several Times (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I apologize. I did not initially intend to "vandalize" article. I was not familiar with procedure for removing pages. This article is about a "leadership development consultant" without notability. There are thousands of "leadership development consultants", does each one get a Wikipedia entry? Notability does not come from self publishing things on the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notability_in_Wikipedia This article does not meet the characteristics for an encyclopedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopedia#Characteristics. Subject is not notable enough to be in an encyclopedia, and appears to be self promoting.
- Questions of notability aside, self-promotion usually isn't grounds for deletion unless the article really wouldn't survive removal of all the material written from a non-neutral point of view. Several Times (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information. It seems that the entire article about this subject was written by the subject. I don't think there can be a real neutral point of view writing this subject since it is probably not a notable subject. Majority of information about subject available on internet appears to be published by the subject. These entries are what I consider notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams_%28disambiguation%29 Would you make another section on the John Adams page for "leadership consultants" if a John Adams who does that type of stuff wants a page? Hypothetically, I meet a janitor at a museum. I think he is very interesting, so I make 30 different webpages about him and then make a wikipedia biography of him. Does that article meet notability requirements?
- If you think John Adams the janitor or John Adams the leadership consultant are interesting people, sure, your opinion alone probably isn't enough to justify inclusion in Wikipedia. I won't debate that. The qualities and accomplishments of any John Adams need to be backed up by proof from verifiable sources. That being said, this article does contain plenty of poorly referenced material, if only because some of them are simply blog entires. These are not the only sources available nor are they the only ones provided. With some work - potentially even reducing the article to a stub - this material could be encyclopedic. Several Times (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the information. It seems that the entire article about this subject was written by the subject. I don't think there can be a real neutral point of view writing this subject since it is probably not a notable subject. Majority of information about subject available on internet appears to be published by the subject. These entries are what I consider notable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams_%28disambiguation%29 Would you make another section on the John Adams page for "leadership consultants" if a John Adams who does that type of stuff wants a page? Hypothetically, I meet a janitor at a museum. I think he is very interesting, so I make 30 different webpages about him and then make a wikipedia biography of him. Does that article meet notability requirements?
- Questions of notability aside, self-promotion usually isn't grounds for deletion unless the article really wouldn't survive removal of all the material written from a non-neutral point of view. Several Times (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject fails WP:AUTH and WP:ACADEMIC. I cannot see that blog posts on the Harvard Business Review's website constitute notability as an author or academic. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This author is published by AMACOM and McGraw-Hill - comments about just being self-published on the internet are misinformed. Please see bibliography and check the references for confirmation. homermcness —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The fact that he's published doesn't indicate that his writings are significant enough to meet WP:AUTH. The subject is a blogger who has written a few text books. That doesn't convey notability. In university I was taught by professors who'd had a number of books published but I wouldn't consider them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 21:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I feel the subject fulfills the notability guidelines within his field. The article would improve if it were better sourced. Asav (talk) 10:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Article seems to have been turned down[16] several times at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John Baldoni. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 14:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References cited in the article check out. Author in published in multiple languages, including Mandarin, Korean, Japanese, Vietnamese as well as Hungarian and Spanish. His work is timely and cited in management circles. [User:MonicaReview|MonicaReview] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monicareview (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thanks to all for comments. Please note I am a leadership development consultant with 10 published books by notable publishers. Yes, I blog for reputable publications, including Harvard Business Review, CBS/BNET, Bloomberg/Businessweek. My publishers view me as an authoritative source. I also consult with leading companies and have been recognized internationally for my work. All of the work cited in this article is substantiated with citations, e.g. books, periodicals, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.218.150 (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a joke. The last 2 entries saying keep are from the author of the subject or his representatives. This article subject is not notable and is obvious self promotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realitycheck29 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — Realitycheck29 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. I'm having trouble finding any clearly independent, reliable sources. Most of the hits in my Google search seem to be copying each other or some other promotional source. Someone needs to find multiple independent reliable sources, or else I'm inclined to label this a self-promotional spam article. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment I suspect there is some sock/meat puppetry in this AFD. Some of the "Keep" !votes are based on hypothetical future verification of the Harvard Business Review publications. Those sources need to be actually found. causa sui (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP after deleting the 50% of this article which is purely self promotional and unsourced self-description I think that subject can meet notability, including via. 9 published books. North8000 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable author: 5 books published by McGrawHill/Amer Mgmt Association--with translations into Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Thai, & Korean; the most widely held, "Great communication secrets of great leaders" in over 1000 WorldCat libraries in English alone. it really puzzles me that the other 5 are essentially self-published, with minor library holdings, but that seems to fit with the mixof notability and puffery in the article. I get a certain satisfaction editing articles like this down to reason, Mike Wazowski did a first round, I'm about to do a second. The reviews will need to be added. DGG ( talk ) 01:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changing vote to Keep from Weak Keep after recent cleanup. Asav (talk) 13:31, 22 August 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. Procedural speedy keep: new user who doesn't understand deletion policy or AfD. (non-admin closure) —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Protolira valvatoides[edit]
- Protolira valvatoides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is incomplete. Shroffameen (talk) 16:33, 16 August 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 Speedy keep, obvious bad-faith nomination, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsway Christian School (Orrville, Ohio)[edit]
- Kingsway Christian School (Orrville, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why the page should be deleted Mmaglott (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no reasons given for deletion. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, no rationale for deletion. The AfD creator's only edits and nomination appear to be WP:SPA vandalism. --Kinu t/c 15:32, 16 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Watashi ni xx shinasai[edit]
- Watashi ni xx shinasai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article recreated after it was deleted via prod. Original prod rational continues to stand. Subject does not appear to pass WP:BK or WP:NOTE. A search for reliable third-party sources only comes up with very brief mentions from Anime News Network, but nothing else. —Farix (t | c) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from manga websites and blogs. SwisterTwister talk 21:52, 16 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A New Birth of Freedom (alternate history novel)[edit]
- A New Birth of Freedom (alternate history novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has no independent sources, Fails the notability guideline for books and the general notability guideline. See also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/You_Say_You_Want_a_Revolution:_Rock_Music_in_American_Culture, another article on a book by the same author (Robert Pielke) created by this editor (User:Rpielke). I did look for more sources, but all the citations I could find were to other books with similar titles - mostly nonfiction about the life of Lincoln. MrOllie (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some sources:
The Publisher:
http://www.sciencefictionpaperbackbooks.com/ http://www.sciencefictionpaperbackbooks.com/a-birth-of-new-freedom
Sample Reviews (Amazon's collection and Kirkus):
http://www.amazon.com/New-Birth-Freedom-Visitor/dp/1936021234/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313508514&sr=1-1 http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/indie/robert-g-pielke/a-new-birth-of-freedom2/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpielke (talk • contribs) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another source:
A Second Publisher:
http://www.mcfarlandpub.com/book-2.php?id=978-0-7864-4865-4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpielke (talk • contribs)
- Kirkus is not independent, since books in the indie category (such as this one) have paid Kirkus in exchange for being reviewed. - MrOllie (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take Kirkus at their word (Plus their review accords with virtually all of the others):
"Just like the experts who review the major publishers' titles for Kirkus, all Kirkus Indie reviewers are experienced professionals who give honest, impartial evaluations of the titles they receive. The resulting reviews can be positive (even earning a Kirkus Star), negative, or anywhere in between. But one thing is guaranteed - you'll receive a fair and unbiased assessment of your work and its value potential in the marketplace that you can use for marketing your book or catching the attention of a literary agent or publisher."
I doubt if Kirkus would sully their reputation by allowing authors to "buy" a good review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpielke (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What we're interested in here is not if the reviews are good or bad, but if the book is being written about by independent parties of their own volition. In Kirkus's case, it seems they would not have written a review at all if they hadn't been paid to do it. - MrOllie (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy (if someone wants to work on it) otherwise delete No indication of wp:notability. Possibility of establishing wp:notability is unclear. This would give them a chance to find and add suitable sources if they exist. North8000 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: MrOllie's "In Kirkus's case, it seems they would not have written a review at all if they hadn't been paid to do it." I can hardly argue against that! Hahahaha... That's the whole point of "paying for attention." It's like advertising: You pay to get noticed. It doesn't guarantee that anyone will like your produce or buy it, but it gets the product noticed. That's what new and small publishers have to do. However, in this case attention has been generated, and the attention has been positive. "How" the book gets into reviewers' hands is irrelevant when the reviewers' reactions are not a result of the "how" -- as they are clearly not in the case of Kirkus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.129.226 (talk • contribs)
- Delete Kirkus is reasonably reliable, but actually almost no libraries have any book in this series (the most widely held title, The Visitor has only 10 holdings. That's enough to show it has never been noticed and is hence not notable Furthermore, the promotional nature of the bio permeates the article: I would have been likely to delete it via Speedy G11. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- Delete - Just a few more of the 1,000,000 books published every year. No claim to notability, listing of excessive biographical and bibliographical details on author (including his notable relatives), even were they to make the author notable, do not make the book notable. Further, this is a page for the series, not for an individual book, so even if the reviews of the individual books might qualify one of them, that does not necessarily qualify the series. Looks like self-promotion for the author. Agricolae (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability. No independent sources. (Agricolae is right about listing of excessive biographical and bibliographical details, but that is a reason for editing the article, not for deletion, so I have removed the irrelevant material. It is also perhaps worth mentioning that if the article is kept it will need to be renamed, as it is about a series of novels, not about a novel.) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Google news archive search for "A New Birth of Freedom" AND "Robert G. Pielke" shows four results, [17] all of which are press releases. Don't see any other mention of this anywhere. Dream Focus 19:21, 20 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Umemaro 3D[edit]
- Umemaro 3D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO and WP:NOTE. This is a self-published "game" creator/animator. However, none of the games/videos are notable. Sources are all by the subject himself or a download/retail site that may be a WP:COPYLINK violation. —Farix (t | c) 15:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While not notable in America, he's quite well known in Japan. Further, a subject like Monty Oum is similar (though he did free work while Umemaro built a business from his work) but has a page none the less. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If its quite well known in Japan, can you do a Google news archive search in that language, and find some coverage? Or search for magazine articles about it? Dream Focus 09:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nothing at all in GNews for 梅麻呂 without the 3D 梅麻呂 without the 3D gets plenty of hits, but from forums and torrent sites and so on. First one is the person's/product's own website. Is not having your own domain name for your product prima facie evidence of non-notabilty? Not my area, so no !vote from me either way. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a ranking for Lewd Consultation Room: http://ha8.seikyou.ne.jp/home/omega/doujin/dos_rank2007.html Alucardbarnivous (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 同 dō literally "same", 人 jin, literally "person", ソフト sofuto, "software". 同人ソフト means "self-published software" - see Dōjin soft. The listing is on some individual's personal website. I don't see how assists this article's retention. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Found a ranking for Lewd Consultation Room: http://ha8.seikyou.ne.jp/home/omega/doujin/dos_rank2007.html Alucardbarnivous (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nothing at all in GNews for 梅麻呂 without the 3D 梅麻呂 without the 3D gets plenty of hits, but from forums and torrent sites and so on. First one is the person's/product's own website. Is not having your own domain name for your product prima facie evidence of non-notabilty? Not my area, so no !vote from me either way. --Shirt58 (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo aside from pornography sites featuring videos. SwisterTwister talk 21:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hi, SwisterTwister. At least as it's worded here, the justification for your deletion recommendation seems nonexistent. You say that you saw no "notable sources" "aside from" certain sites. In other words, you did see "notable sources", but you for some reason discounted those "notable sources" (because they're "pornography sites"?). Perhaps you meant something more along the lines of "I didn't see any notable sources on Google and Yahoo; all I saw was pornography sites featuring videos"—? But surely certain pornography sites can be used to establish the notability of certain pornography (or things related to pornography)—just as some sports websites help establish the notability of some sports stuff, right? So the question is (1) what porn sites were mentioning this topic and (2) whether they were giving it some focus or simply making passing references; what did you find? Those answers are the type that help us ascertain (non)notability. (By the way: not that I advocate an encyclopedia's citing itself; but this topic also appears in "List of Japanese erotic computer games".)
- As to Farix's description of the cited sources: a quick investigation of the sources (a website "by the subject himself" and "a download/retail site that may be a WP:COPYLINK violation") reveals
- (1) that the first sources are at a website by the creator of the subject itself (in that the Wikipedia article, though nominally about the creator, obviously has its focus actually on the creator's works) and
- (2) that the latter sources
- (A), being linked to from the creator's own website, are unlikely to be WP:COPYLINK violations at Wikipedia and
- (B) are some testament to the actual topic's popularity (∴ notability?) (e.g., the first game linked from the Wikipedia article has been sold there at least 335 times for presumably a total of at least ¥527,625—and, counting all the titles linked from the Wikipedia article, we find at least 5,825 instances of people paying for these artworks (at an average price of ¥2,307 for each instance, a total of more than thirteen million yen). (I believe my quick math is right.)
- — President Lethe (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that there wasn't anything else to make the video notable, in other words....No other sources. SwisterTwister talk 22:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The ANN link is good but weak since it's a DLSite press release; otherwise, there's nothing showing him to be notable. I cleaned up the CSE results looking for something besides ANN, but didn't really find anything - some of the Japanese hits might be relevant, but I don't know Japanese. --Gwern (contribs) 17:31 18 August 2011 (GMT)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Live Evil (film)[edit]
- Live Evil (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film appears to be a more modern version of direct to video. I haven't been able to track down any coverage in the press. No professional reviews listed at Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic. Fails WP:NFILM Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I never saw the article by this name that was deleted in 2008 for blatant copyvio. I have no doubt that THAT deletion was proper, however THIS one is NOT that one and does not suffer from copyvio. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per adequately meeting WP:NF. While it would be nice to find a review in The New York Times, the NYT does not usually bother with independent low-budget horror films. I did however find a nice article in The Tampa Tribune [18] Nor are Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic the only other review sites to consider. Using perhaps different search parameters than the nominator, I found suitable independent reviews in genre sources DVD Talk [19] Bloody Disgusting [20] Fangoria [21] Fatally Yours [22] 10,000 Bullets [23] FIlm Critics United [24] 411mania [25] and a great number of others.[26] The film has received the attention of those who review its genre. Yes, the article will benefit from expansion and improvement through use of available sources, but we do not delete what can be so easily fixed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update Over the last 3-1/2 hours,[27] the article has gone through cleanup, expansion, and sourcing to turn what was originally nominated into a comprehensive and sourced article that properly serves the project.[28] Can more be done? Sure. Has notability been asserted and sourced? Yup. Shall we toss something that has been proven AS improvable? I would think not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on sources found. Dream Focus 08:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nomination per improvements made by Schmidt. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 23:13, 18 August 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. Courcelles 00:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels[edit]
- Tropes in Agatha Christie's novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research. Wahwahpedal (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Rangoon11 (talk) 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or send everything to TV Tropes. Original research is accepted (and welcomed vibrantly) there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because we need a "Wikipedia is not TV Tropes" listing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - notable topic concerning the biggest-selling novelist in history. The article needs the addition of citations but there is no shortage of possible sources (e.g. [29]).Rangoon11 (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And which of those actually talks ABOUT the tropes? None that I see. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots, but you have to go through the various pages of results.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't tell me to find it myself. You added the link, you prove that it has sources (WP:BURDEN and all that). I'm seeing only false positives out the ass. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A quick search of JSTOR reveals two example articles that provide substantial coverage of these common themes:
- Mezei, Kathy. "Spinsters, Surveillance, and Speech: The Case of Miss Marple, Miss Mole, and Miss Jekyll". Journal of Modern Literature 30.2 (2007): 103-120.
- Beehler, Sharon A. "Close vs. Closed Reading: Interpreting the Clues". The English Journal 77.6 (1998): 39-43
- Both journal articles discuss important themes in Christie's writings of the type covered by the Wikipedia article that's been nominated for deletion: the topic need not be pure original research. I'm not enough of a literary type to be able to integrate the journal articles into the Wikipedia article, but looking through them was easy enough that I can see that multiple reliable sources provide substantial coverage of this subject. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the JSTOR findings. TPH, BEFORE applies to deletions, BURDEN applies to specific facts within an article--saying you can't be bothered to read a source isn't helpful here. Jclemens (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Jclemens. Another example why the essence of WP:BEFORE should be required. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 17 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Science Fiction Theatre Records[edit]
- Science Fiction Theatre Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable record label which has already been speedily deleted once, and since a PROD would most likely be challenged, I am bringing this article to AFD. The article creator has a strong connection to the company. None of the references in the article do not establish the notability of this company. A Google search turns up just 8 hits, which means that there is not enough significant third-party coverage to justify a listing here for this company. Fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG, and WP:MUSIC. ArcAngel (talk) ) 14:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no assertion of notability per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I believe differently, we have been part of the Manchester music scene for 6 years and have physical releases and a reputation to back that up, I don't believe the lack of an internet presence means something is not notable. This page has been created as i strongly believe it is just as relevant as so many other labels on wikipedia that go unchallenged. I have been impartial, attempted to provide as many refs as possible and I believe informative. The official website had 50 hits yesterday alone from all around the world and the podcast which has been live only today has had over 40 listens already.Michaeldcoates (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.4.35 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue here is - has your company been covered by reliable, third-party sources? Google says no, and popularity doesn't equal notability in Wikipedia. ArcAngel (talk) ) 23:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Courcelles 00:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Banner of Truth Trust[edit]
- Banner of Truth Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced stub on obscure religious publisher. I could find no evidence of any substantive coverage, just the very occasional passing mention, and somewhat more frequent citation of this or that book that they are listed as the publisher for. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 13:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet the guideline for companies. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly meets WP:NONPROFIT (if that applies), and the citations given satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not need to meet the guideline for companies as it is not a company, but a (non-profit) charitable trust. The alternative guidelines (for nonprofits) i.e. WP:NONPROFIT is what we need to apply. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It certainly meets WP:NONPROFIT (if that applies), and the citations given satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The problem is trawling through the 46,000 mentions on Google Books to find out which mentions are about the publishing house. But there are a number, and they connect the BoT (along with Iain Murray and Martyn Lloyd-Jones to a revival of interest in the Puritans in 20th century England. E.g. Alister McGrath's biography of J. I. Packer mentions the "revival in Puritan spirituality that had been borne aloft on the wings of Banner of Truth's inexpensive paperbacks." Streams Of Civilization: Cultures In Conflict Since The Reformation Until The Third Millennium After Christ by Garry Moes has a section on British Evangelicalism and refers to the BoT in context of the "revival of evangelical Calvinism." So I can get two references without too much trouble - I am sure there are many, many more. StAnselm (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google News finds a number of stories discussing this publisher, and several books discuss its role in raising the profile of Jonathan Edwards and Puritan theologians among evangelicals, and its influence more generally. See, for example, Timothy George's J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of His Life and Thought (p. 1874, 1898, 1900, 1904-1908). -- 202.124.74.52 (talk) 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future never gives the Banner of Truth Trust more than passing mention, not significant coverage. If you have found news stories giving the topic more than passing mention (I could find none) then I suggest that you cite them -- vague claims that 'they exist somewhere' are never compelling at an AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are a great many such mentions, in a range of books; in aggregate, these constitute significant coverage, I believe. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" explicitly requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail" -- passing mention does not provide that detail, particularly when (as most frequently happens) many of these mentions are making the same superficial points. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess there's a difference of opinion here: in my view, since the book mentioned above discusses the Banner of Truth Trust on at least half a dozen pages, it is providing significant coverage (and it's not the only source). It also seems clear, on the basis of the cites so far, that this publisher has played a large part in shaping not only English, but also American Evangelical thought, and is notable in that regard. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" explicitly requires that "sources address the subject directly in detail" -- passing mention does not provide that detail, particularly when (as most frequently happens) many of these mentions are making the same superficial points. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are a great many such mentions, in a range of books; in aggregate, these constitute significant coverage, I believe. -- 202.124.75.168 (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It meets WP:NONPROFIT, which does apply in this instance, because: (a) it is a non-commercial enterprise (being a charitable trust); and (b), the scope of its operations are international; as it trades (i.e. publishes and sells books etc) in both the UK and North America (under separate trust structures), and exports to other parts of the world; and (c) information can be verified from third-party, independent, reliable sources. Apart from the references mentioned above, the independently audited accounts are freely available online from the national charities regulator in the UK viz. the Charity Commission for England and Wales. These accounts confirm that Banner is indeed a non-commercial organisation and that the scope of its operations are international. So, using WP:NONPROFIT, we should keep the Banner article. Torquil Sorensen (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, publisher with significant influence within a sector of UK Christianity. The article has a good number of incoming links, and it is helpful for readers to be readily able to identify the publisher's editorial leanings. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:34, 23 August 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 Kept. Since Bridgeplayer's rewrite it's clear the article just needed clean up, and the arguments presented about sources clearly meet the requirements of the general notability guideline. Several of the delete arguments fail to address policy or point to issues that could be mitigated by work on the article, rather than pointing to core notability or verifiability problems. Steven Walling • talk 06:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drop Stop[edit]
- Drop Stop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The product described in the article doesn't seem notable enough, it's more of an advertisment than an encyclopedic article. Plushy (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete almost speedy delete as G11, the article does sound too much like an advertisement. I didn't see any third-party sources that were notable on Google and Yahoo searches, their website even sounds like an advertisement "Amazing New Car Invention!" Ha. SwisterTwister talk 22:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WIkipedia has no issue with having articles about notable commercial products so long as the article isn't written like an advertisement. This article includes several major third-party sources which justify WP:N. Quoting from the talk page:
- This stub article is completely referenced with several reliable secondary sources, including two television news outlets (KABC-TV and KCBS-TV), a notable newspaper (The Miami Herald), a publication from one of the largest American automobile insurers (American Automobile Association) and one of the most notable automobile magazines going (Car and Driver).
- The notability threshold is met for this subject, having received significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject...
- ...And as far as the blatant advertising claim, are there any specific instances which aren't written in an objective and unbiased style? If so, please point those out here and let's discuss. Alternatively, feel free to go ahead and rewrite those instances.
- This commercial plays ad nauseum and is very much part of pop culture. See the 1400+ comments on a single thread of Reddit. I suggest that where there is consensus that the article reads like a advertisement, that those sections be rewritten. Personally, I don't see any instances of that kind of writing in the current stable version of the article. 67.127.102.77 (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Reading through the article seems to be mainly advertising, does not specify how product is notable. My search on Yahoo resulted in links from the products website, and a few links from networking pages like facebook, myspace, etc. More self promotion, rather then general interest I'm affraid. 122.104.214.67 (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The essence of unencyclopedic triviality. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, First, why is the tone here so polarized? Is it really necessary to use words like "strong delete" for this rather trivial article? Second, other editors who claim that it should be deleted due to no third party sources are just not credible. How about: CBS Broadcasting Inc, The Miami Herald, ABC Inc., About.com., AAA Homeandawaymagazine.com, Car and Driver. (from the reference section). It is also relevant for WP to cover new products, technologies and startups. Keep. MaxPont (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I have rewritten the article from a NPOV viewpoint. The problem with the sources is that even reliable media uses advertorial material. However, my rewrite, I think addresses the promotional concerns and this just squeezes over the notability bar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:44, 23 August 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 speedy delete. U1: Author requested here. —SpacemanSpiff 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prakash K. Mansinghani[edit]
- Prakash K. Mansinghani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
CSD A7'd yesterday. Recreated today with slightly more information to satisfy the requirements laid out in A7 that prevent that criterion from applying, although imo still a non-notable person under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Simply being an elector does not confer notability of any kind, nor does leading any university group. Delete. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are 535 electors for each major party (and probably an equal number for many smaller parties) in each US presidential election, and virtually all of them get virtually no coverage. An elector can be notable, but aside from those who are notable for completely different reasons (e.g. one party chooses a popular celebrity to be an elector), the only way you can be notable is if you get significant coverage for your vote — which this guy never cast, since Texas voters chose the Republican-nominated electors, and he was nominated by the Democrats. Barbara Lett-Simmons gets an article because of the truly distinctive nature of her vote; there's no way that this guy could be notable simply for being on the losing side of a vote or for anything else that he's done. Nyttend (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Zero sources on Google and Yahoo aside from candidate listings.SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Absolutely zero notability. Failed nominee for Presidential elector. Leader of a college group. Safiel (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I created this page for as a project for class, I now understand that I should have added this as my user page info, and not a full Wikipedia page. Elector85 01:58, 18 August 2011 (CST)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. causa sui (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Racket features[edit]
If you came here because of the ongoing discussion on the Racket mailing list, 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}} . |
- Racket features (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Overly-detailed description of features of a not very notable programming language. Wikipedia is not an how-to guide or programming manual. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wonder how RHaworth reaches a conclusion that Racket is not notable compared to, for example, Haskell, where a similar page exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs) 16:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's a split-off page from Racket (programming language). Racket is the new name of PLT Scheme, which is the absolute opposite of "a not very notable programming language", it's the main implementation of Scheme (programming language) which is a historically significant and extremely influential (especially in academic/programming language theory circles), not to mention widely documented, programming language. Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide/programming manual: and this isn't a how-to entry or programming manual, it's a syntax/features description that's been forked off the main Racket page (just like, say, Java syntax is). "PLT Scheme" comes back with 248 results from Google Books (a few are Books, LLC - i.e. Wikipedia - books, but the majority aren't) and loads more resources in academic and web sources. Scheme and PLT Scheme have heaps of notability. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Racket is one of the two or three most prominent implementations of the indisputably notable Scheme language, and the one with probably the greatest current momentum; as well, this is a language with a strong pedagogical focus and community. This is not an obscure language. This page (if I recall correctly) was split off to avoid cluttering the main Racket page, in a pattern which closely parallels the similar Haskell_features page. This page isn't a 'how-to' (which I agree shouldn't be on Wikipedia), but intended to illustrate, with code, the notably broad range of uses that the language can be turned to. This flexibility and strength are important things to be aware of when consulting an encyclopaedia article about a programming language.
Quick list of some example publications:
- Typed Racket: Tobin-Hochstadt and Felleisen, The Design and Implementation of Typed Scheme ref ref
- Scribble: Flatt et al, Scribble: Closing the book on ad-hoc documentation tools ref
- The web server: Krishnamurthi, et al., Implementation and Use of the PLT Scheme Web Server ref
All of these papers (and citations for more things) are available here: http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/ NormanGray (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: To explain the list of publications above, all Lisp-based languages are known for their meta-programming and macros, which Racket has taken to a whole new level. The module system (http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/macromod.pdf) is a magnificent piece of design, and allows a piece of Racket source code to specify the language that it is written in (this is the `#lang' line that appears at the beginning of the examples). This facilitates the creation of arbitrary programming languages within the language itself, such as TypedRacket (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/popl08-thf.pdf), a statically typed version of the Racket language, Scribble (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/icfp09-fbf.pdf), a language designed for documentation, and even a language in which the implementation of a web-server is possible with minimal amounts of code (http://www.ccs.neu.edu/scheme/pubs/hosc07-sk-mf.pdf). These are all features of note, and distinguish Racket from other Lisps, and should be documented here as such. — William Turtle, Brown University '13 14:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for 'how to' articles, especially not for articles bristling with quotations in source code. This might be an appropriate candidate for transwiki to Wikibooks or another sister project, but most readers aren't going to get much out of text like:
#lang racket/gui ; A GUI guessing game
(define f (new frame% [label "Guess"]))
(define n (random 5))
(send f show #t)
(define ((check i) btn evt)
(message-box "." (if (= i n) "Yes" "No")))
(for ([i (in-range 5)])
(make-object button% (format "~a" i) f (check i)))
Also note that the title is mildly disconcerting; the article seems likelier to be about tennis, or maybe about racketeering, anything other than .... whatever this is. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- So, new rule time? No code samples in programming language articles...? Time to AfD Java syntax, C syntax, PHP syntax and semantics, JavaScript syntax? Or should the "most readers aren't going to get much from this rule" also apply to most of our more advanced mathematics articles too? —Tom Morris (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such a rule as "every reader should be able to understand every article". It is normal for a lawyer not to understand the previous example, while most readers interested in the Racket programming language will certainly consider it meaningful. Jarnaldich (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a how-to article -- it's a technical illustration of features. And if you don't like the title, suggest a new one. Racket (programming language; features) perhaps? NormanGray (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd probably want to call this something like Sample Racket source code. That at least would clue readers in that what would be found here was a set of samples of computer language source code. That name also explains why I'm still not convinced that this page can thrive here. At wikibooks, an elaborate tutorial on this language could be created, and my sense is that the article wants to be just that. Here, WP:NOT dooms the page to be something far less valuable, too rudimentary for experts and too unintelligible for beginners. As computer language goes, this seems even more arcane than most. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a notable programming language actively used in research at a number of universities with a significant presence at the leading conferences in the PL research. For those not familiar with the field, CS papers are conference-driven, with journals being significant but secondary.
Racket(PLT-Scheme) is also a siginificant player in secondary school CS, via 'teach scheme'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spdegabrielle (talk • contribs) 16:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: First, the page is clearly not a how-to (how to what? how to run the examples?), but a page with examples for a programming language. Most readers interested in a language will actually want to see some code before deciding wether to learn more or not (that's the kind of reader I expect for this kind of article), and the code can easily clutter the main article. Again, it's not a pattern I invented, but something done in other programming language articles, as stated above. What bothers me is the statement that the language is not notable, since most references given above are already in the Main page for Racket (programming language). So either the editor didn't read the main article or is not using the concept of notability properly. In both cases, the least one should do before proposing for deletion. Furthermore, there is no such a rule saying that a "less notable" programming language is not allowed to have an examples page, and "Overly-detailed" is a subjective statement. The level of detail should not depend on notability in any case, but in structural complexity of the thing being described. And Racket is far more complex than many other computer languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarnaldich (talk • contribs) 16:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete this programming language is notable but this is not an encyclopedic article it's a collection of examples and the like. Not notable on their own, either merge in or delete.weak keep as changed. Language is notable, spinning out a list of notable/compelling/defining features to keep from bloating the main page is probably acceptable. HominidMachinae (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- The examples demonstrate features of the language -- this language has been in very active development since 1994, and as a language with academic research project it is loaded with many notable features. However, cramming such features into the main page makes it too verbose. In fact, that has already lead once to an "advert" tag. A separate page will make it possible to write about these features in a more appropriate context.
- Again, as already stated above, this "examples and the like" pattern is very common inside wikipedia for documenting programming languages, and is well motivated not to clutter the more descriptive, main article. The deletion proposal seems to be based in the fact that a "less notable" (according to the editor) programming language is not allowed to have a page with examples... and that is certainly not a Wikipedia rule. Jarnaldich (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as much of this article appears to be a Copyright Violation of the Racket home page. Please take a look at the '<', '>', and '?' buttons under the "Start Quickly" section. There you will find that this article has reproduced, word for word, not just the examples, but the descriptions of these examples. i.e., you will find exact text like "Racket makes it easy to use TCP sockets and spawn threads to handle them. This program starts a server at TCP port 12345 that echos anything a client sends back to the client" and "The 2htdp/image library provides easy-to-use functions for constructing images, and DrRacket can display an image result as easily as it can display a number result. In this case, a sierpinski function is defined and called (at the same time) to generate a Sierpinski triangle of depth 6." Even text from within the example code, such as: "Time to go out an move your car" has been copied. There is no statement on the Racket home page that this material is properly licensed for use on Wikipedia. Steamroller Assault (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) The intention is to use these examples as seed that will be expanded, and many more added; (2) there is no copyright issue: the source for the web page in question can be found in the Racket repository, and as such, it is licensed as the rest of the code -- under the LGPL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs) 07:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples were copied here to make them more accessible to the interested Wikipedia readers, who will see them in one page inside Wikipedia, instead of having to get out of the page and then browse. The already existing examples and explanations at the home page are a very good starting point for such a page, and even if it wasn't strictly needed due to the LGPL license, I asked for permission to the authors through the mailing list before reproducing them here. Also note there's somewhat more in the article than the examples in the home page, and that not every example in the home page has been copied. The pages should diverge as more users contribute to this page... but of course that can only happen if it stays.Jarnaldich (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anyone here say with any certainty if LGPL is compatible with CC-BY-SA and GFDL (the required licenses for Wikipedia)? If it is, there should be a note in the References section describing that the majority of the content was taken from a site with a compatible license (I see there is a note at the top of the article, but it doesn't go into sufficient detail). If the creators have given permission, then they should follow the procedures set out at WP:DCP to avoid any perceived copyright problems. Additionally, if the instructional text written between the code is not subject to copyright, some of it still needs to be rewritten anyway so it is less spammy and more neutral. Language like "The 2htdp/image library provides easy-to-use functions" and "Pulling out a foreign function is easy" is not all that appropriate for an encyclopedia. Also, since the text has been lifted directly from the Racket home page, there is the issue of voice. The article needs some rewriting to fix passages like "Racket distribution comes with a range of different task-specific languages, which we will present here." 'We' made sense coming straight from the mouths of the creators, but is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Steamroller Assault (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about subtle issues with CC, but I know that covering documentation and prose by the LGPL is fine and is compatible to using the GFDL. When the issue of text copyright came up in the project, we chose to leave it all covered by the LGPL only to make things simpler. So I think that this is sufficient in addressing the copyright issue, but if it isn't, I'll be happy to do whatever's needed. (I'm one of the developers, and wrote some of these examples.) As for the language being inappropriate, you're absolutely right about that: I certainly noticed the "voice" problem and the overall spam-like text (since it comes from a context where such text is appropriate). I've started a complete overhaul of the page a few days ago, and will do the edit soon. There's little left from all of the original texts as a result, just the general explanations. I'll add a note here when I finally commit the change. Elibarzilay 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs)
- Without a definitive answer on CC-BY-SA (which is required), I think the best thing to do (as the developer) is to follow the instructions set out here so as to avoid any future issues. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The language problem is entirely my fault, not the original authors'. I am not a native English language speaker and sometimes have problems with the register. Anyway, IMHO, this particular problem is probably orthogonal to the deletion process and could be discussed in the article's talk page...Jarnaldich (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about subtle issues with CC, but I know that covering documentation and prose by the LGPL is fine and is compatible to using the GFDL. When the issue of text copyright came up in the project, we chose to leave it all covered by the LGPL only to make things simpler. So I think that this is sufficient in addressing the copyright issue, but if it isn't, I'll be happy to do whatever's needed. (I'm one of the developers, and wrote some of these examples.) As for the language being inappropriate, you're absolutely right about that: I certainly noticed the "voice" problem and the overall spam-like text (since it comes from a context where such text is appropriate). I've started a complete overhaul of the page a few days ago, and will do the edit soon. There's little left from all of the original texts as a result, just the general explanations. I'll add a note here when I finally commit the change. Elibarzilay 16:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs)
- Keep: As has been mentioned already, other languages of similar notability (e.g. Haskell) have extra pages detailing features. Not only that, the WikiProject for Computing has assessed articles like Python (programming language) with "good article" status despite the existence of multiple spin-off pages that are mentioned in-line such as Python syntax and semantics. This is a double standard.
The copyright issue is orthogonal to the original AfD nomination and should be easy to address. The contributions made to both the main Racket page and this spin-off are known to the community–there is an ongoing discussion on the mailing list–and nobody is concerned about a copyright violation.Eli has clarified the copyright status in a comment above. --Takikawa (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have finished a complete overhaul of the page.
- This addresses the language/spamminess issue.
- I've addressed the above copyright issue: I think that there's no problem, but I'll be happy to do whatever's needed (I'm a developer, and can contact all the relevant authors).
- Update: following Steamroller Assault's advice, I've added a copyleft notice to our website. (And now I'll type four tildes, and it will probably still add an "unsigned" note.) Elibarzilay 20:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs)
- AFAICT, the only issue that is left is RHaworth's original "not very notable" determination, which is yet to be explained. I can provide various numbers to support notability, for example: number of articles, textbooks, CS departments that use Racket, website traffic stats, downloads/day, people on the various mailing lists, people who commit to the racket repository, people on the core team, number of commits per day, code size, code age, contributed packages, etc etc. However, it seems pointless for me to post all of this without knowing what's relevant—and as noted earlier, I couldn't find any wikipedia rule on PL notability that would clarify RHaworth's judgment.
Elibarzilay 19:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs)
- I think the issue is not actually the "not very notable" determination at all, but rather the question "how is an indiscriminate collection of code examples, features, and snippets, many of which may be a copyvio, encyclopedic?" No one here is arguing that the language is non-notable, my concern is that this all-and-sundry collection of code examples not in the main article is unsuitable to an encyclopedia. HominidMachinae (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But this issue appears to have been addressed several times above, by referring to the various other wikipedia articles with this same pattern (and after which this page was explicitly patterned), and by noting that this is not a 'how to' article (the examples are too short/noddy for this), but an illustration of the range of functionality. Is there anything missing in these various rebuttals? Would it be better to just state 'Racket can do X' than actually illustrate Racket doing X (serious question)? This is not 'all and sundry' or 'indiscriminate', but a carefully chosen display of range. The copyvio issue has been very comprehensively addressed above. NormanGray (talk) 08:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually do think it would be better to simply state "Racket is notable for being able to do X" and listing unique features or selling points, with a link to a source that talks about it and provides code examples. The excessive use of code examples seems to be what makes the page unencyclopedic and overly detailed, as it's entirely primary-source material, usually unsuitable for Wikipedia purposes. I could see a valid page that has a listing of unique or compelling features and a brief discussion of their importance. The problem here almost reminds me of the problem you sometimes get with fiction articles where it's hard to see the forest for the trees because of the inclusion of overly abundant detail. For instance, the entire first section seems to be dedicated to proving that Racket can function as a fully-functional scripting language. I'd rather see the section talk about why that's important, or why it's unique, than on examples of how it's implemented in Racket. I would prefer those descriptions in the main article but if it becomes unwieldy there, then here's a good place for it. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The main page has already been slapped once with an advert, so it doesn't work there. As for this page, it is no longer a list of examples, I've added a lot of text that is explaining the features that are discussed, and added new discussion of features. Folding all of that into the main page is going to be inappropriate: this is a very mature language with a ton of stuff in, so no matter how it's presented on the main page, it will draw more advert complaints. As for your first section complaint -- I don't know what you're referring to. Section 1 is talking about runtime features of the racket vm, which is very distinct from linguistic features of the language. Or maybe you're talking about the top section, which could be improved since I didn't find a good way to introduce it (one thing that looks odd there is the "greatest strength" comment -- this is because it's a major Racket feature that can make reading the page weird if you don't know in advance that these languages are all implemented as part of Racket). Elibarzilay 20:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs)
- I was referring to the first section. And your edits have come a long way in addressing my concerns. There's a ways to go yet but now I at least can see the direction the page is going and what it's supposed to mean. As a result I'm striking my delete vote. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I'm not really used to this kind of writing, but that's exactly what I meant when I said that there is enough material, and it should shape up in time, as usual. Thanks for the comments. (And now I'll see if it's "customizing" my signature that will avoid getting the automated thing to sign my unsigned comment even when it's signed.) Eli Barzilay 01:45, 20 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs)
- I was referring to the first section. And your edits have come a long way in addressing my concerns. There's a ways to go yet but now I at least can see the direction the page is going and what it's supposed to mean. As a result I'm striking my delete vote. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The main page has already been slapped once with an advert, so it doesn't work there. As for this page, it is no longer a list of examples, I've added a lot of text that is explaining the features that are discussed, and added new discussion of features. Folding all of that into the main page is going to be inappropriate: this is a very mature language with a ton of stuff in, so no matter how it's presented on the main page, it will draw more advert complaints. As for your first section complaint -- I don't know what you're referring to. Section 1 is talking about runtime features of the racket vm, which is very distinct from linguistic features of the language. Or maybe you're talking about the top section, which could be improved since I didn't find a good way to introduce it (one thing that looks odd there is the "greatest strength" comment -- this is because it's a major Racket feature that can make reading the page weird if you don't know in advance that these languages are all implemented as part of Racket). Elibarzilay 20:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elibarzilay (talk • contribs)
- I actually do think it would be better to simply state "Racket is notable for being able to do X" and listing unique features or selling points, with a link to a source that talks about it and provides code examples. The excessive use of code examples seems to be what makes the page unencyclopedic and overly detailed, as it's entirely primary-source material, usually unsuitable for Wikipedia purposes. I could see a valid page that has a listing of unique or compelling features and a brief discussion of their importance. The problem here almost reminds me of the problem you sometimes get with fiction articles where it's hard to see the forest for the trees because of the inclusion of overly abundant detail. For instance, the entire first section seems to be dedicated to proving that Racket can function as a fully-functional scripting language. I'd rather see the section talk about why that's important, or why it's unique, than on examples of how it's implemented in Racket. I would prefer those descriptions in the main article but if it becomes unwieldy there, then here's a good place for it. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:16, 19 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thicker[edit]
- Thicker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod was removed without explanation. Concern was: Film is in pre-production per WP:NFF. BOVINEBOY2008 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No news indication that it has started filming. Also not listed as being in-production by Seven Arts Link MadCow257 (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
* Keep Reference in article cites Seven Arts news site with article from last year indicates it is in the bullpen.Srobak (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "In the bullpen" is not synonymous with "in production". WP:NFF clearly states that "films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" and goes on to state that "sources must be used to confirm the start of principal photography after shooting has begun". Not the case here, so a clear delete. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON. If there had been persistant and ongoing in-depth coverage of the events surrounding its production, it might, repeat "might" have had merit as one of those rare and allowed exceptions to WP:NFF. But we do not have the required persistance or depth. As its pre-production is sourcable, and had there been an artcle on the director, I might have suggested a merge and redirect per WP:FUTURE and WP:Planned Films. We can delete now without prejudice and bring the article back once principle filming has been confirmed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:29, 16 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Wall[edit]
- Bill Wall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A RfC (see Talk:Bill Wall was initiated on this page. It was an autobiography (by User:Billwall2, hence WP:COI and had issues: read like a resume, and the sources were self-published. I like chess so I wanted to help. I sat down, edited out the CV-like bits, and removed self-published references. Then I removed the references that didn't support the cited statement (they were mostly just links to the website of the organisation mentioned). See the pre-Puchiko version here. It looks okay, has a decent reflist and is quite long, but once you look closer, it's Geocities, blogs, user profiles, or homepages of chess organisations that don't mention him. Once I saw what happened of the article after my edit, I began to believe WP:BIO is not met. The presidency of said chess organisation (North Carolina Chess Associations, many chess clubs) isn't verifiable, nor really notable. If as anything, Wall is notable as an author, definitely not as a player or organiser. Puchiko (Talk-email) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No objective sources to support notability. Additionally, Mr. Wall has linked dozens of articles to his blog [30], at the very least a conflict of interest, and perhaps a mass-spamming. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep RS sources mention him such as [31], [32] shows "Chess Enterprises" publishing a book. See [33] showing The most unique of small American chess publishers is surely Bob Dudley's Chess Enterprises. Mentioned in other books? [34] Yes. World's most notable chess expert? No. Article formerly puffy? Yes. Sufficient for WP notability standards? Yes. Collect (talk) 12:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All the above are peripheral mentions, and the reference to Bob Dudley doesn't appear relevant. If there existed a single article about him it would be a start, but a few mentions of his blog don't nearly suffice. The publishing of a book doesn't establish notability, unless that book has been the subject of multiple reviews in major sources. 99.155.206.229 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The mention of the publisher was to make clear that at least one book was not SPS. WP does not require multiple reviews of books to establish notability for the author as far as I can tell. [35] shows mention of him in a clear RS. [36] shows an RS book citing his blog page as a source for chess deaths. [37] shows an RS book quoting extensively from one of his books. And so on. So we have the fact that his work is cited and extensively quoted in RS sources. We have RS sources referring to him directly. Seems that he may not be the world's most noted person, but that is not a requirement on Wikipedia <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that he doesn't have to be the most noted person--the latest links are helpful, though I think the strongest one is the lengthier reference from the Boston source. In total, these may establish a meeting of the first guideline of WP:AUTHOR, though my interpretation is that most of these mentions are essentially footnotes. Best, 99.155.206.229 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The mention of the publisher was to make clear that at least one book was not SPS. WP does not require multiple reviews of books to establish notability for the author as far as I can tell. [35] shows mention of him in a clear RS. [36] shows an RS book citing his blog page as a source for chess deaths. [37] shows an RS book quoting extensively from one of his books. And so on. So we have the fact that his work is cited and extensively quoted in RS sources. We have RS sources referring to him directly. Seems that he may not be the world's most noted person, but that is not a requirement on Wikipedia <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. There isn't adequate reliable sourcing to write an article. - MrOllie (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being the author of several chess books, many of which are in my possession, should be sufficient to ensure his notability. Bill Wall is also one of the most reliable sources on the history of chess, particularly in the 20th century. As an example take this detailed account if the history of chess in Russia Chess in Russia. His page should really be maintained. All the best, --Gabodon (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:AUTHOR. Subject would meet requirements of point #1 if there was secondary coverage, which there is not. Google Scholar has barely a handful of citations from his books. As Puchiko notes, most of the sources that mention him are not reliable sources. Nothwithstanding his many e-books and print books, there is not much to make this subject notable per Wikipedia standards. Yoninah (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The references used are not authoritative, notable sources. And the reason for that is: the subject himself is not notable. SyG (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A search of ""Bill Wall" chess" returns almost only user-
summit edsummited content sites. No reliable sources could be found to salvage this article.Curb Chain (talk) 14:03, 23 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SpringPublisher[edit]
- SpringPublisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very new software. This one gets a fair number of google hits, but they are all to press release type posts on various blogs, nothing rising to what I would consider a reliable source, so it fails the general notability guideline. PROD was removed by the article author without comment, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 11:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable mentions on Yahoo, but again it could be to the company being is new. Perhaps Wikipedia:TOOSOON would apply here. SwisterTwister talk 02:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I do not see any coverage except PR/promotional non-independent variety. VQuakr (talk) 04:54, 19 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SecureChange[edit]
- SecureChange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was dePRODded. PROD reason was "Non-notable ephemeral project. Most of the references in the misleadingly-impressive-looking list were published before this project existed and obviously do not even mention it. The remainder are not independent (the project's website or brief presentations at meetings by project members)." Most pre-project references have now been removed, but the lack of notability has not been addressed: Project members have produced some scientific articles or presented some results at scientific meetings. That is what academics do routinely and nothing out of the ordinary. No evidence that this project has generated any interest from outside of the circle of participants. Crusio (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just as little evcidence of notability as the other similararticles we've been deleting. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I found very little other coverage aside from this mention here.SwisterTwister talk 05:03, 23 August 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 merge to Doctor Doom. — Joseph Fox 16:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of devices used by Doctor Doom[edit]
- List of devices used by Doctor Doom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just an completely in-universe list of things that Doctor Doom has invented - nothing encyclopaedic about it at all, no reliable sources, belongs on a wikia or a fan site. Cameron Scott (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Doctor Doom. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 18:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki the lot, then Merge significant devices to Doctor Doom. They properly belong there, because of Doom's status as a notable fictional inventor. Jclemens (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as a compromise to deletion. Inadequate sourcing to support an independent article. Shooterwalker (talk) 12:10, 19 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doctor who monster invasion trading card game[edit]
- Doctor who monster invasion trading card game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic isn't notable: Google test brings back only fansites, Google News search brings back no results. Cannot find any independent, reliable sources to establish notability of this trading card game. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG independently even though Doctor Who does. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't seem to find anything usable source-wise on these, they're listed at Doctor Who merchandise which seems to be where the info belongs. I'd !vote redirect but the 'trading card game' qualifier makes it a less likely search term than plain old 'Doctor Who Monster Invasion', IMHO. Someoneanother 23:40, 20 August 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 Speedy deleted due to copyright infringement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs)
Elena Liliana Popescu[edit]
- Elena Liliana Popescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced BLP, tagged for lack of notability since 2008. The article reads like a CV and becomes highly evasive whenever it almost touches subjects that may prove notability - where she was published, by what literary critics was her work reviewed and commented, what exactly those prizes are worth in the literary world etc. - Andrei (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable links that could help the biography bloom on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Smacks of pure vanity page. No independent coverage given, just a large collection of works. But mere quantity is not sufficient to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. FuFoFuEd (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Something odd here:
- 1) As the article stands, there are clear grounds for deletion, not only as an unsourced BLP but as an apparent copyvio of the 'About the author' page from the subject's website.
- 2) However, a look at Google Scholar results suggests that the subject could possibly pass ACADEMIC - as a mathematician. The identification may at first seem unlikely, but the article provides just enough information to make it very plausible (but far less information than would be needed to assert, let alone establish, notability as a mathematician).
- 3) Finally, the (admittedly rather thin) Google News results do suggest something of an international reputation as either a poet or a translator, though probably not to the extent of demonstrating notability. Note that none of these results are in English, so Google News may not be giving complete coverage - and we may be missing something.
- In brief - the subject may in fact be notable but if so, the current article does a very bad job of showing this. PWilkinson (talk) 23:27, 20 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Brooks (American football)[edit]
- Chris Brooks (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
American football player fails WP:NSPORTS for college athletes and there is no evidence that he ever played in an NFL game. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill offensive lineman who did not receive non-routine coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. —Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ——Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Confirmed that he never played a meaningful down in the NFL--doesn't come up in the NFL player database. Possible COI to boot--author is Cdmtbrooks (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 21:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NFL.com deleted all of the bios of retired players, so even if this guy was notable, it wouldn't have come up.--Giants27(T|C) 01:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The statement about retired players bios not being on NFL.com is inaccurate. For example, Courtney Hall, an offensive lineman who last played in 1996 is still listed on NFL.com. A search at another reliable website, pro-football-reference.com, brings up a different Chris Brooks, Chris Brooks (wide receiver). Chris Brooks, the offensive lineman and the subject of this AfD, has not played in the NFL, pain and simple. —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment NFL.com deleted all of the bios of retired players, so even if this guy was notable, it wouldn't have come up.--Giants27(T|C) 01:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Retired player who never played in the NFL. Carrite (talk) 04:13, 22 August 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 with no prejudice to a renomination if GNG is not met soon Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foldaskóli[edit]
- Foldaskóli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability for an elementary school. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the exception that proves the rule; a new component in the national curriculum was developed at the school, by two of its teachers, so there are in fact substantive mentions of the school in reliable sources. Also it is not just an elementary school: it is a Grunnskóli or Compulsory School, years 1–10, ages to 16, and therefore should fall under the well established more lenient notability policy for "schools that educate teenagers." I've rewritten the article (which was based on the history section of the school's official website) bringing it up to date, adding references and external links, and including a paragraph on the connection to Innovation Education. I've also added that to the lede. I haven't really rooted around in search of newspaper coverage in Icelandic; the alt. chars. and inflected forms make Google's coverage very poor there, plus many of the newspapers have taken their archives offline. But I'll see what I can find over the next few days to cement the case. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: There are numerous mentions of the school in Morgunblaðið, including about its being the largest and the second largest school in the city in various years. I added information from there from an article about the annual competition in Innovation Education, which the school apparently began hosting years before the national curriculum was developed there, and it is still given as the location of the final invitational round in an undated English-language page on the Education Ministry's site, which I have also added as a ref. I believe there are now enough quality independent references to demonstrate notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An important school because of the link with Innovation Education as described above. Dahliarose (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - played a significant part in Icelandic educational history. TerriersFan (talk) 02:12, 18 August 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 delete. Courcelles 04:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Naseeruddin Naseer[edit]
- Naseeruddin Naseer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Questionable notability. References seems to just be blogs Rabbitfang 06:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Only sources seem to be social networking, I didn't see notable mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 18 August 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 delete. Courcelles 04:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compliance hacker[edit]
- Compliance hacker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD reason was "no evidence that anybody uses this term" Nominating because looking for such evidence the only "reliable" source I could find that uses the term seems to be the xcyss website, which just happens to sell a "XCySS Certified Compliance Hacker" certification. Outside of this, there appears to be no use of the term. - SudoGhost 05:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Also, the term appears to be the same as white hat hacker.--Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems a neologism that the editor (who happens to be User:Xcyss) is trying to push by getting a wikipedia article on it. That editor has not done anything except this article and links to it. W Nowicki (talk) 22:35, 18 August 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 delete. Neutralitytalk 01:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spirituality/Indian Spirituality[edit]
- Spirituality/Indian Spirituality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not the place for essays. If the creator wishes it, it could be moved into the user's userspace. --Σ talkcontribs 03:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Presumably an original essay. The creator already has it on his page User:Chinmoy_biswas60/Sandbox MadCow257 (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unencyclopedic essay. Acroterion (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom- NOT. Should have just been speedily deleted. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Matthew Thompson talk to me bro! 08:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article is not original research and is notable. The banners on the page suggest that the article be wikified and that internal links be provided to existing material already available in the Wiki. I would agree. I will add that the style of writing also be modified to be more factual in approach. Currently the article reads like a manual (WP:NOTMANUAL). Extensive references and inline citation are needed. The article does have potential (WP:POTENTIAL). Should the article be deleted the author might consider moving it here[38], for instance. --User:Warrior777 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Creator already has it on their talk page.
- This article is not an original research; because wellknown books, Vedas, Upanishads, 6 Indian Phylosophies (Darshans) and Great Epics: Ramayana and Mahabharat, cover Indian Spirituality among other matters of interests. This not an essay as such, since writing an essay was never the objective of this article. As I did not find material in Wikipedia which has focus on Indian Spirituality, I thought it necessary to write on this for Wikipedia. Good material is there on Hinduism in Wikipedia, but there the focus is not on Spirituality. Most people do not distinguish between Religion and Spirituality; these two subjects are closely related but are not exactly same. Spiritality do not depend on faith on God, but Religion depends. Spirituality is a search for truth, universal truth and understanding the Truth. Religion's focus is on worship of God. So Wikipedia must have material written with focus on Spirituality.
- I sometimes did write articles, but for Wikipedia this is my first artcle. I am not aware of some terminologies used in the discussions. As I am new to this. So I expect, there will be mistakes and the writeup has to be modified, I request all to read the article critically and suggest specific modifications.
- Chinmoy Biswas - writer of article: Indian Spirituality.
- The article is further modified, based on user talk made available so far. I request all to see this critically and make suggestions for improvements. Again I request all to see the importance of the subject. Much material could not be found on Indian Spiritulity; or under 'Spirituality' head covering this subject. There are some material in Wikipedia on Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhaism etc. as Religions; but none have been found focused on Spirituality as a subject. So this article is felt necessary.
This is not an original research work, as the material is available in the original Sanskrit books like, Vedas, Upanishads, six Ancient Indian Books of Phylosophy (Shada Darshanas) etc. Some translations have also been published on them. This should also not be considered as an essay writings as such. It is felt useful for people refering Wikipedia. Chinmoy biswas60 (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Chinmoy Biswas - writer of Indian Spirituality.[reply]
- comment I commend you on the depth and work you have put into this. I have no argument that this is not a notable subject for an article and would greatly like to see more depth in these articles on this particular wiki. That being said while I believe it should be deleted from main-space (article) as it stands at the moment, I think you should keep it in user space and be made encyclopedic as well as wikified. That is to say given how large it is and the nature of the article subject matter "wikifying" most likely can't be done overnight so to help avoid more deletion issues make this an encyclopedic article. Right now it reads as an essay and even a textbook at times. This is what in meant by not being encyclopedic. This includes, citations, proper sourcing and written style. Check out these links for guidelines. Just pop me a line on my talk and I'll elaborate more for ya. We'll see what we can do to help. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 08:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete promotional POV essay I suggest that most of the material we could use is already here. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 22 August 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. Courcelles 04:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christian Maramatanga Society[edit]
- Christian Maramatanga Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't think this church has much notability. It appears to be an insignificant split from the Rātana movement D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Two books reference it. No news results or other coverage, definitely appears insignificant MadCow257 (talk) 03:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography has an article on the founder Ngapiki Hakaraia. I think any article appearing there is considered a notable topic by Wikiproject New Zealand. Apart from the book referenced in the article, there's also coverage in Ratana revisited: an unfinished legacy by Keith Newman, 2006, and in Maori times, Maori places: prophetic histories by Karen Sinclair 2003. Prophetic histories:the people of the Māramatanga also by Karen Sinclair 2002 may be the same book as above. There appears to be some coverage in Asia Pacific viewpoint, Volume 45, p 289, 2004. A Reflection on the relationship between the Māramatanga Movement and the Catholic Faith by P J Cullinane, 2004, appears highly relevant too. There may be a case for renaming to Ngapiki Hakaraia or to Te Maramatanga Christian Society.-gadfium 09:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any comments on the merge suggested on that page? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I believe that this topic is notable and the references are likely to be found. http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ and http://www.nzdl.org/cgi-bin/library.cgi?a=p&p=about&c=niupepa seem like a good places to start for coverage. Disclaimer: I'm an active member of Wikiproject New Zealand and have edited the closely-related Rātana pages. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable, but development of the article would be admirable. Moriori (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or at the very least merge per previous comments. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Given the NZ NB article, there's enough material to write a separate article about her. A merger can be subsequently discussed. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 17 August 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandella's Flatbread Café[edit]
- Sandella's Flatbread Café (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy. I could find no reliable independent sources which would indicate that this business meets the general notability criteria or the business criteria. All the hits I found were either promotional or based on press releases. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is another mess of an article, however I found several sources in major industry magazines:
- This one establishes notability - Scarpa, James (18 August 2008). "Sandella's blazes own trail, in part with high-tech kitchens". Nation's Restaurant News. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
- WP:V, can be used as a source describing its expansion - Killifer, Valerie (4 December 2009). "The fast casual gold rush". Fast Casual Magazine. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
- WP:V, can be a source for discussing its advertising programs - Elliott, Stuart (29 September 1998). "The Media Business - Advertising, Addenda". New York Times. Retrieved 4 August 2011.
- Delete, weakly. I'm slightly surprised not to see solid sources for a consumer restaurant chain, but I am not finding them. Only the "Nation's Restaurant News" cite found byh Jeremy seems to be an in-depth source, and it is in a trade publication for restaurant owners, and consists mostly of an interview with the founder; independent story, but a non-independent source. (The NYT source is a sentence announcing that it's a client for an ad agency. Fast Casual is an online trade publication; the sentence there announces that three locations have been opened in Chicago. I found lots of similar coverage at Google News, but only routine announcements of openings, franchises, or permits awarded. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - NRN is an independent trade magazine specializing in the restaurant and foodservice industry, it is not an advertising service or publisher of press releases like Fast Casual.com is. The other two sources do not establish notability, just verifiability. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cafe has received coverage from reliable independent sources as noted above. HeartSWild (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2011 (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) 00:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - This is an odd situation: a large (150 sites) chain restaurant, with virtually no sources that describe it. I see the one source identified above, Nation's Restaurant News, which is okay. But if that is the only source, I just dont feel that is enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --Noleander (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've never before heard of a restaurant chain which, on the very same web page, claims to have over 100 open locations yet only lists 21 of them (plus 19 college locations where they work with vaguely identified accounts). Furthermore, the same "locations" page provides such "addresses" for some of its restaurants as "Retail Center Location, Al-khobar, Saudi Arabia"; "College Location, Dubai, UAE"; "Office Building Lobby, Dubai, UAE"; and "Residential Shopping Center, Dubai, UAE". No street names, no telephone numbers. I can only conclude that this chain either doesn't know, or won't say, where some of its restaurants are located, and that it is not as large a chain as it claims to be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The address format you claim as being problematic actually is very common in many parts of the world. Not every country follows the Western world's street name/number format. I encountered this issue with international franchises for the list of countries with Burger King franchises article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- While it's true that restaurants in Dubai typically don't use the "123 Main Street" address format, they do usually have at least a building name or street name to enable customers to find them. But Sandella's web site doesn't even provide that information (nor a telephone number for these locations). When I see a restaurant being listed as located in "Office Building Lobby, Dubai, UAE," I tend to imagine someone having to wander from building to building in the 104°F (40°C) heat of a Dubai summer, asking at every stop whether the Sandella's is located there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The address format you claim as being problematic actually is very common in many parts of the world. Not every country follows the Western world's street name/number format. I encountered this issue with international franchises for the list of countries with Burger King franchises article. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per Metropolitan90 there appears to be something fishy here. Either this isn't a chain in the normal sense, or there has been some radical organisational restructure or some of the apparent sources are misleading (or being misled). Stuartyeates (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lot of sources to be found at the News link at the subject's official site. I'm reading another article at Nation's Restaurant News which describes the company's switch in equipment and reheating foods (yum!). I've applied the above sources and some new ones to the page. I'm seeing why the disparity and the description of locations is confusing (serving from kiosks fed by a central hub bakery inflates the location numbers, but that's OR by me). Is there fluffery here? Probably, but it appears there are sources, though mostly industry trade magazines and local newspaper business sections. I'll let others decide if what I've added is enough. BusterD (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Allowing credence to BusterD's request for responses to his/her additions, relisting this AfD. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--the sources listed in the article satisfy WP:GNG. There's enough there for a decent neutral article about this restaurant chain. Meelar (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources are there (though they need to be converted into inline citations). Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 August 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 no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Hatton[edit]
- Tom Hatton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Prod restored) Non-notable actor; fails WP:ENTERTAINER. IMDb shows no major roles, no awards, no substantial 3rd party sources etc Tassedethe (talk) 03:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable sources that could help this biographically, as I didn't find any good mentions on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 05:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes he appeared in notable TV series... as "hippie #2" and "fratboy #4". Wikipedia doesn't do spear carriers. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete: complete lack of sources to establish notability. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage. Minor roles. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Lack of notability described above. Delete per WP:NotJustYet. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Note that this had been AfD'ed six minutes after I'd restored it from PROD, with no explanation forthcoming by the nominator as to why he didn't allow time for promised improvements to be made. Hatton has had at least one current lead role that is not reflected in the article in its current state, described reliably and non-trivially here. That role was disclosed on my talk page during the PROD restoration request, but was not mentioned by the nominator. It may be that he's not ultimately notable yet, but the poor sportsmanship of the insta-nom without disclosing new sources troubles me. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment Despite the editor's concern about speed I saw this comment and as per WP:BEFORE I investigated. There is no article on In the Qube and IMDb shows that he was the host for 2 episodes. Even if this counted as a notable role WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple major roles. Tassedethe (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The original PROD contestor has now added sources to the article, which indicate 3 additional RS'es in addition to the one I mentioned above. Thus, the question is not whether he meets ENTERTAINER, but whether he meets the GNG for coverage. Again, it's far from assured that that standard has been met, but every !vote prior to this one was made without reference to the source I found or the additional three added to the article by the requesting editor. Since the content has so substantially changed, I've contacted every above !voter and asked them to reconsider their position. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Qube has no article = It is notable and could be created. Host of two episodes = since multiple articles mention him as the host, I think that it is safe to assume that IMDB just wasn't updated. I don't find the sources enough to meet WP:GNG, but enough to meet WP:ENT. Joe Chill (talk) 18:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The original PROD contestor has now added sources to the article, which indicate 3 additional RS'es in addition to the one I mentioned above. Thus, the question is not whether he meets ENTERTAINER, but whether he meets the GNG for coverage. Again, it's far from assured that that standard has been met, but every !vote prior to this one was made without reference to the source I found or the additional three added to the article by the requesting editor. Since the content has so substantially changed, I've contacted every above !voter and asked them to reconsider their position. Jclemens (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment Despite the editor's concern about speed I saw this comment and as per WP:BEFORE I investigated. There is no article on In the Qube and IMDb shows that he was the host for 2 episodes. Even if this counted as a notable role WP:ENTERTAINER requires multiple major roles. Tassedethe (talk) 13:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the show hosting and the sources for that are enough for me. Totnesmartin (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator comment re updated article. I don't find the additional sources particularly persuasive. The Variety ref is a brief article about an upcoming TV show that mentions him.[39]. The Designtaxi ref is about the designers of the show that mentions him briefly.[40]. The OnScreenAsian ref is a brief article about the upcoming TV show which mentions him briefly.[41] The sum total of these mentions: "Hosted by Maria Sansone and Tom Hatton"; "The concept behind the television show was to place hosts Maria Sansone and Tom Hatton within an actual 3D environment"; "Hosted by Maria Sansone (LX TV New York, TV Guide Channel, PopTub on YouTube) and Tom Hatton (Law & Order SVU, Life on Mars)". As already noted the Law & Order SVU and Life on Mars parts were Frat Boy #4 and Hippie #2. As to the video game that is sourced to IMDB. The List of Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony characters article doesn't show any character of that name (British Prince), nor any mention of the actor. I don't see how this can be regarded as a major part. (In the IMDB listing[42] this part comes just below Hotdog Vendor). I see no need to change my nomination. Tassedethe (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was notified that the article had been improved and invited to look at it again. When there, I went ahead and wikilinked some of the terms within and added the actor's filmography. In consideration, he has had a few un-named descriptive roles in a few productions: Hippie #2, Frat Boy #4, Mystery Guest Poker player, and British Prince (voice) do not meet WP:ENT. He did host 2 episodes of In the Qube, but IMDB only lists 2 episodes and notability of that series is not established. Even IF that series were determined as notable, that would still make only 1 notable production for which his role "might" be seen as significant. I am discounting all other roles where his role was simply a descriptive rather than a named character. His minor work can be verified, but he does not have reliable sources that speak about him in any detail: Design Taxi about In the Qube has only one sentence that simply mentions Hatton. The Variety article is about the Animax series, TheOn Screen Asia story about In the Qube simply states that he hosts. The Flicker page contains photographs. The Nominetwork (page 9) shows a picture of him as a fashion model. The Variety artcile about Animax simply confirms him as host and says nothiong else about the individual. The article also uses both IMDB and a personal website for sourcing. My opinion has not changed. Fails GNG. Fails ENT. Fails BIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time for that analysis; I substantially agree with it. My point in arguing for the retention isn't to artificially inflate the article subject's notability, but rather to give it a fair trial in a way that the nominator seemingly went out of his way to avoid. As near as I can tell, the PROD contestor is actually Mr. Hatton himself or someone else closely associated, who's doing his honest best to make this article meet notability guidelines. I don't disagree that he's probably not there yet, but I do want to give him props for trying to work within our framework. I don't like Wiki-bullies who use process to obstruct misguided but sincere efforts like this. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Consensus is unclear. Rather than closing as no-consensus (which was a possibility), I've given this the benefit of doubt and relisted it for further comments. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:47, 16 August 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 no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Serbs of Croatia timeline[edit]
- Serbs of Croatia timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This looks like a valid article on the face of it, but the content is essentially a POV fork of the mainstream description of the Croatian War of Independence - see also Talk:Serbs of Croatia timeline. It's also generally incoherent to have the history of an entire people in a location (one that spans over four centuries IIRC) summed up in a period of a single decade. This is probably salvageable, but it would require an amount of effort that is effectively the same as starting a new article from scratch. Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeall applicable items into either Timeline of the Croatian War of Independence or Timeline of Yugoslav breakup. "Serbs of Croatia timeline" is a valid subject, but the original content (i.e. the content that isn't covered elsewhere) is missing. GregorB (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Ah, not sure if there are any, but the format of the Timeline of Yugoslav breakup looks more promising for a merge. I'll see what I can do. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did that. Does anyone mind that we delete the article now and close the AfD? I don't see that a redirect with possibilities would make much sense here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:54, 9 August 2011 (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) 00:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Either
mergeto Serbs of Croatia or keep, expanding to include every era of Serb presence in the region. This could actually stand as a timeline article in its own right. Serb History in Craotia did not begin and end with the 90s. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Exactly, but there effectively is no article content - even if we undo my last merge, there is no actual standalone content. Replacing it with a redirect to Serbs of Croatia would work, but it would still be an implausible redirect (it's doubtful that anyone will look up such a term). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's delete or expand, then. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, but there effectively is no article content - even if we undo my last merge, there is no actual standalone content. Replacing it with a redirect to Serbs of Croatia would work, but it would still be an implausible redirect (it's doubtful that anyone will look up such a term). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:44, 16 August 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 no consensus. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Express Yourself (TV series)[edit]
- Express Yourself (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pointless page. DisneyFriends (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 1. The NOM's criteria is vague. What defines "pointless"? 2. The article admittedly needs a lot of work — it probably should be marked as a stub, and the lists of names should possibly be shortened and summarized in paragraph form such as "Among those appearing on ...." However, the show itself is notable along the lines of other Disney Channel shorts with articles, such as Leo Little's Big Show and Mike's Super Short Show — perhaps moreso, because it contains more content than simply promotion of other Disney products, as the two aforementioned
articlesshows do. — Michael J 15:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the recent commercials, it is more of PSA rather than a short series. They are presented in commercials. --DisneyFriends (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This RfD is total waste of time since it only provide the nominee's POV. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2011 (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) 00:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a long-running public service announcement series on the Disney channel. Unfortunately, I dont see any sources that satisfy the WP notability guidelines. I've done a moderate amount of searching, and found nothing of significance. Maybe someone else can find something. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what I meant when I wrote pointless on the reason for deletion. It is just a public service announcement that runs for about a minute or two, but it is not actually a TV series. Now it only focuses on awareness for events happening, not for common themes amongst preteens and teens. --DisneyFriends (talk) 01:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione ....... Leave a message 02:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Thank you for expanding on your nomination statement, DisneyFriends. Just saying "pointless" has no meaning. You make interesting points worth considering. However, length does not necessarily define whether something is or is not a TV series. You have made a good argument, just note one enough for me to change my !vote. — Michael J 10:32, 16 August 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strap it On (Phrase)[edit]
- Strap it On (Phrase) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From the article, "*Neologism: ..." Wikipedia is not a place for neologisms. Enough said. --Σ talkcontribs 02:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Take it to another wiki. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 04:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fast. It's awful. Its very existence is hurting Wikipedia. Per nom. Atomician (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:NEO. There are few people even using it, much less any reliable secondary sources MadCow257 (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a term with no subject. North8000 (talk) 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nonnotable neologism, unreferenced stub. Edison (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:59, 17 August 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 redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Whitton[edit]
- Matt Whitton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In my opinion, this is a perfect example of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. This person is known for one event only: being part of a bigfoot hoax in 2008. While the hoax garnered national attention and possibly deserves an article unto itself, I don't believe this person is notable is his own right, as he is not known for anything other than the hoax. I should note that a merge tag has been on the article since its creation in 2008, but I couldn't find any discussion of it in the talk page archives, and anyway I don't think merging to the Bigfoot article is an option. One hoaxer is just not notable in the grand scheme of the bigfoot legend. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We could rename this article and edit it into an article about the hoax which would give us a place to redirect the current name to. Is the hoax significant enough to keep if we did? RJFJR (talk) 17:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly I don't know. For a 2-3 week period in 2008, the event received a HUGE amount of news coverage, but it does not appear to have gotten any significant coverage since then (news coverage pretty much dropped off immediately after it was discovered to be a hoax), making me think it doesn't have any lasting notability. But I tend to lean to the deletionist side of things, so take my opinion with a grain of salt :) It's also worth noting that the hoax is mentioned in some detail in the Tom Biscardi article, because he basically was the mastermind behind it, and he is known for perpetuating bigfoot hoaxes in the past. Would redirecting Whitton to Biscardi's article be an option? SheepNotGoats (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes, where he's already mentioned. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename, yes it is a hoax that should be having its own article in my opinion.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bigfoot#Hoaxes Stuartyeates (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (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) 01:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Agree with the OP. He had a burst of news in 2008 but is otherwise low-profile. There is not extended coverage of him in any books or a documentary that I have found. MadCow257 (talk) 02:21, 16 August 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 delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Susan May Warren[edit]
- Susan May Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The coverage of this author fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BIO/WP:GNG. The awards she has won are not of the caliber to establish notability per AUTHOR (like a Pulitzer would, I think). And the lack of reviews or other coverage means the subject fails BIO. And the article was created last month by a person claiming to be the author's son. Novaseminary (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (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) 00:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I dont see sufficient sourcing to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. --Noleander (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any links (no news mentions either) that could help the article biographically.SwisterTwister talk 02:28, 17 August 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 delete. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
K-1 Holland GP 2001 in Arnhem[edit]
- K-1 Holland GP 2001 in Arnhem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
also nominating:
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2001 Preliminary Melbourne
- K-1 Gladiators 2001
- K-1 Burning 2001
- K-1 Italy Grand Prix 2001 Preliminary
- K-1 Survival 2001
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2001 Preliminary Ukraine
- K-1 World Grand Prix 2001 in Nagoya
- K-1 New Zealand Grand Prix 2001
- K-1 Oceania 2001
here we again with another useless series of sporting results. WP is not a repository for these non notable events that fail WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2011 (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, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - For the same reason as the other forty K-1 related sporting event articles were deleted. --Noleander (talk) 01:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete almost nothing outside of these sources: http://liverkick.com, http://www.k-1sport.de, http://www.k-1.co.jp, http://www.headkicklegend.com, http://www.fightmag.net MadCow257 (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as non-notable. Neutralitytalk
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Wifione ....... Leave a message 04:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ysmay[edit]
- Ysmay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources listed are all primary. I'm not finding evidence of her being renowned or meeting our notability standards at all. LadyofShalott 00:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability, no third-party sources. This does not satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ARTIST. freshacconci talktalk 21:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any sources for a biography on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 01:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Revise - I think the problem is Ysmay wasn't born "Ysmay." It appears to be a professional and/or stage name. I found evidence of a name change. — Elsiedoll talk 04:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand - there is a fan page that shows up if you look on Facebook. http://www.facebook.com/TheRealYsmay if she's being published by Virgin and over 2,000 people recognize her as a person of interest, perhaps she really is. can anybody find out any actual information about her? User:MertylMay
- Comment - During the course of this discussion, the article was moved to Ysmay (artist). I have moved it back in accordance with our naming conventions, because no disambiguation is needed. Whatever the consensus here, the redirect should also be noted. LadyofShalott 09:26, 17 August 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 merge to Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark. Courcelles 04:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark[edit]
- Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person is not notable. Notability is not inherited, of course, not inherited with marriage. Wikipedia is no directory. See precedent at already-deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark (2nd nomination). Takabeg (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Takabeg (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete: Insufficent third party coverage to establish notability. Notablity of family is not inheritable. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The coverage of her wedding alone meets WP:GNG and let's face it she's not invisible outside of the wedding either. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 22:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The wedding is not a notable event for the purposes of this article. There's a HUGE difference between notable and "not invisible". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge into Prince Nikolaos' article and delete the rest. The Family and early life section can be summarised and merged, the rest is a duplication of content in her husband's article. Nightw 08:08, 10 August 2011 (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) 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and merge - into Prince Nikolaos of Greece and Denmark, because of lack of independent sources that discuss her specifically. --Noleander (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge as suggested by Night w; and based on well-reasoned precedent (even if I'm not in 100% agreement). Bearian (talk) 00:48, 23 August 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 delete. — Cirt (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discipline (band)[edit]
- Discipline (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I could find no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Σ talkcontribs 23:13, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was surprised that this band wasn't already represented on Wikipedia. To me, there is no question of notability, but there is regrettably very little info on the band online. I couldn't find any reasons in the rules and guidelines to exclude this subject, but there is a problem with good third-party sources. Is that the main reason for proposed deletion? Please specify what ought to be changed in order to keep the article on Wikipedia. I haven't had any of my articles deleted before, so I'm new to this process. Jaaakesnake (talk) 11:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the following pages: WP:RS, WP:BAND, and WP:42. My search for reliable sources was limited only to Google - if there are any mentions of Discipline in a magazine, or a newspaper, that could be notability enough to result in a keep decision. --Σ talkcontribs 20:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Removed non-independent sources Jaaakesnake (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Improved the paragraphs of the article, added info on Parmenter's solo career and more sources. Jaaakesnake (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2011 (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) 00:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sources are mostly trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:55, 16 August 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.