Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 18
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted (A7) by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Trouble with Sweeney[edit]
- The Trouble with Sweeney (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 band did not achieve noteworthy success, even at the local level. If minor bar bands that broke up seven years ago qualify for Wikipedia, I don't understand the General Noteworthy Guidelines TheNate (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy-Delete Fails notability requirements.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim Paster[edit]
- Maxim Paster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Never played a match in a fully professional league. Fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:GNG Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But he is now under a contract with a professional team from the top division in his country. -Notaussie
- Speedy keep - per WP:FOOTYN C.1 --- Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 23:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he hasn't actually played at a notable level; being signed to a club is not enough. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG, recreate if/when he makes his pro debut. GiantSnowman 17:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 22:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While he has been contracted to fully pro club, he has not yet played and therefore fails WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:54, 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 22:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Banana Dance (wiki software)[edit]
- Banana Dance (wiki software) (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:GNG and WP:NSOFT Vanadus (talk | contribs) 22:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable - which isn't surprising, since the software has apparently only been around for a month. Yaron K. (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no 3rd party refs to establish notability; created by an SPA so possibly spam/promotional. Dialectric (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google News, Google and Yahoo search.SwisterTwister talk 22:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#Criteria - no awards and no significant independent distribution or coverage of content. Moogwrench (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've attempted to search for reliable sources, and haven't had any luck either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:25, 25 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. Consensus among those that advanced any reasoning is that the article fails CORP. Courcelles 22:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bluebell Group[edit]
- Bluebell Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Fails WP:CORP Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Does not fail WP:CORP. --- Freja Beha Erichsen (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Does not fail WP:CORP. Ctw214 (talk) 06:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All three of you should read WP:VAGUEWAVE and WP:JNN. Would you all care to elaborate on your reasoning? What led you to believe it does or does not meet WP:CORP.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:49, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Does not fail WP:CORP. As editor for this Wikipedia, I am trying to elaborate why I believe the company group is notable. It has significant coverage in secondary sources namely luxury society , Highbeam research, The Seattle Times , Hong Kong Trade Development Center and others. The company also has public award and coverage by Women's_Wear_Daily , an well-known subscriber only site for fashion industry Michael Lam 2011 (talk) 03:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have not reviewed all of the available information but the sources I checked were not enough. This award for example is nothing but a list of companies with little elaboration on why any of them deserved an award or what the process was for deciding this. Many of the other links, like this one, fail WP:CORP because they just profile a list of similar companies by republishing each company's stand blurb in an article without expounding on it. The WWD cite mentioned by Michael Lam, if this is it, seems a bit trite and may not be giving any useful information about what the company does, other than it is expanding to a certain number of offices. Finally the article itself does not indicate notability. This company seems like a mid level distributor with little independent identity and no media coverage. Feel free to point out how I am mistaken. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:
- POV much? - a global importer, agency and distributor of exclusive lifestyle products, managing a portfolio of fashion, accessories, perfumes and cosmetics, leather goods and homewares brands
- You know you're clutching at straws when the article itself attempts to argue business notability: Bluebell has engaged in a number of public discussions, primarily via symposium and press release authorired by Bluebell executives. One of it is for Brand Protection due to the issue with counterfeiters being out of control...
- Petty trade awards and press release references. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:07, 25 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 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Persinas ASAD[edit]
- Persinas ASAD (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 article lacks reliable sources and fails to show its subject is notable. It may be a well-known Indonesian martial art, but this article doesn't show it and I couldn't find good independent sources supporting notability.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertising & unencyclopedic article. Keb25 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no supported evidence of notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:13, 25 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 snow keep; there is absolutely no prospect of this article being deleted on the grounds of non-notability, and absolutely nothing to be gained by keeping this discussion open any longer. BencherliteTalk 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sally Bercow[edit]
- Sally Bercow (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, apart from "Married a Politician" Crisis.EXE 20:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Although she has done some other things, including running for office, most of them have been non-notable gaffes. The article reads like a minor attack page, but even the "controversies" are not notable.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Clearly notable, don't be silly. 188.221.165.193 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - with her appearance on Cenebrity Big Brother she is now, by definition, a celebrity, albeit a very minor one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.21.87 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable and about to be moreso. Johnnybriggs (talk) 22:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article proves she's notable by hyperlinking several of the reliable sources that have noted her: the Times, the Guardian, and the Mail. This is the exact definition of notability. But even if she wasn't very obviously notable, that still wouldn't lead to a "delete" outcome, because "Sally Bercow" would still need to be a redirect to the relevant subsection of the Speaker's article. There's an alternative to deletion so we would need to use that. See WP:BEFORE for the reasoning process editors are normally expected to go through before nominating something at AFD.—S Marshall T/C 23:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because a person receives coverage doesn't in and of itself justify an article. For example, she received coverage for admitting to drinking and having one-night stands in her 20s. But that coverage was in relation to her failed campaign as a candidate and also derivative of her husband's notability. The coverage has to be relevant to her notability. I admit this is not an an easy call, and so far I seem to be in a minority, but, like the nom, I believe that everything stems from her marriage. That's not to say that spouses of famous figures can't also be notable in their own right, but I don't see it here.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After I showed how she meets our notability criteria, the second part of my post was where I explained that by long-established Wikipedian custom and practice, even if she wasn't notable in her own right, that still wouldn't lead to deletion, so this nomination would be inappropriate regardless. Do you see?—S Marshall T/C 07:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Clearly notable, is a current housemate in big brother celebrity edition and is married to the current speaker of the house of commons. This article should never have been nominated in my opinion. Its obvious she is notable. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 03:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Part of the reason she was nominated is exactly because she is the wife of the speaker. Should all participants on the brother show have wikipedia articles? I think the lead in the article says it all - in total: "Sally Bercow (née Illman; born 22 November 1969) is the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow." And the lead is supposed to be a summary of the article's highlights.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep. Her primary claim to fame is being the Labour activist wife of an ex-Conservative speaker. Of that there is no doubt, and that alone would not be enough to warrant a stand alone article. However, while that is the reason she was taken notice of in the first place, in the last year she has received an increasing amount of coverage in her own right, to the extent that she probably met the GNG before entering Celebrity Big Brother. I'm uneasy admitting it, but going on CBB has in my mind removed any lingering doubt over whether she is notable enough. —WFC— 06:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The fact that her notability has emerged for reasons tied up in celebrity and tabloid gossip does not prevent it from being notability. Particularly, her appearances on Have I Got News for You and Celebrity Big Brother push her notability beyond that of 'spouse of John Bercow'. Even before Big Brother, however, she has received significant, reliable coverage from multiple sources, beyond run-of-the-mill news reporting: see here, here, here, and here. In many of these articles, she is the primary topic of the article, not her husband. Pretty Green (talk) 09:06, 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. Courcelles 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urutan makrifat[edit]
- Urutan makrifat (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 new medical practice, the article was written by a User with the same name as the person who supposedly invented the technique. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable: no hits in news, books or scholar.Novangelis (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 22:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any sources on Google and Yahoo aside from their website. SwisterTwister talk 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mostly gobbledigook. Unsourced, no English language sources available for verification. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Come on, guys, this could have been G11'd. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 00:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is unsourced and doesn't present notability. It could be written better as well. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no notability, and practically no content either. Moogwrench (talk) 06:40, 25 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, request by sole contributor to page. —C.Fred (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hush (2011) by Jacqueline Sauvageau[edit]
- Hush (2011) by Jacqueline Sauvageau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable novel, just published. Wikipedia is not a means of drawing an audience to the book: contested PROD. Apparently self-published. Acroterion (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:43, 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. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
N9NE Group[edit]
- N9NE Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another promotional article related to other AfDs hereabouts that doesn't do much to establish notability. The sources are deadlinks, irrelevant or read like corporate press releases. EyeSerenetalk 16:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:COMPANY.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references seem to be adequate. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly the number of hits on google news shows that the company meets and exceeds the expectations of WP:COMPANY. A link becoming dead after being used does not change notability. If you check, you will see that it is a common, albeit regrettable, practice for many news organizations to change the location of their online articles after a period of time. This really is a notable company and I fail to see how the facts and sources support any other conclusion. If for some weird reason this is deleted, then a stub on N9NE Steakhouse will need to be created since that alone is notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 12 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, BusterD (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep firm that operated major resort facilities. Meets the requirements for notability.Dead lkinks sdo not erase notability , and a company becoming less important does not affect its past notability . We're an encyclopedia, not a directory of the currently notable only. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain. Moogwrench (talk) 06:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deadlinks to Dallasnews articles have been fixed. Sources are sufficient for WP:COMPANY. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 14:30, 25 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 Jon P. Diamond. Discussions as to the notability of Jon P. Diamond can take place elsewhere. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jon Diamond[edit]
- Jon Diamond (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 strange article appears to be something of a disambiguation page for one person that has his own article and a second non-notable person. LadyofShalott 20:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any sources for this Jon Diamond, I did however find Google and Yahoo results for a musician by the same name. Notability hasn't been confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore redirect to Jon P. Diamond. This page started out as a redirect. Anon IP editors insist on adding biographies of non-notable people. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert to redirect - There's nothing to disambiguate as there is only one Wikipedia article and no indication the other people listed would be notable with a wikipedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While we're at it, is Jon P. Diamond really notable? After reading his article and its sources (one canned mini-profile from Forbes and two articles about the company he founded) I am tempted to boldly merge/redirect that page to Safe Auto Insurance Company, which appears to be far more notable than its founder. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 25 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 (A7) by admin user:Causa sui. (non-admin closure) Whpq (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeremy Miller (musician)[edit]
- Jeremy Miller (musician) (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 originally BLP-prodded this as the only sources listed are from Twitter, which I think hardly counts as a reliable source. This has been contested however. Rather than argue the point, I thought it best just to come here. While I find hits at places such as MySpace and ReverbNation, I am not seeing significant coverage from secondary sources. LadyofShalott 20:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 20:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeremy is signed with Island Records and should be releasing music shortly. The label have, to date, kept the project under wraps but have now gone public, hence why there is currently a shortage of references to cite from. Whilst we are impressed with the speed in which this article was noticed, we would appreciate a few days in which to gather appropriate references.Union jak86 (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until after he's put out something. Until after the media gets attention of him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete he's not notable yet. Eeekster (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched a database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find anything about this musician. He also does not seem to have an Allmusic bio [1]. For now, there does not appear to be evidence of WP:N notability, nor WP:MUSICBIO, so I recommend delete. I would be glad to revisit that recommendation should anyone turn up some reliable third-party sources. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 23:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, zero indication of any notability, possibly even a speedy A7 since I see no claim of importance in the article. --Kinu t/c 16:53, 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 Speedy deleted. (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PerBlue[edit]
- PerBlue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was tagged for speedy deletion as spam; the speedy tag was removed so taking it to AfD instead. The article, about a software company, lacks a credible claim to notability, and it is written as an advert. bonadea contributions talk 19:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:39, 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) 01:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 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. Courcelles 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voi Jeans[edit]
- Voi Jeans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH — Finemann (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The mention on Drapers magazine is not bad, but it fails to provide any coverage (plus, the current text is misleading: it wasn't named one of the top 10 best menswear brands, the ranking is for "Best-selling brands of the year", and it got number 8 under "Young Fashion - Menswear"). I could only find these two articles concerning a copyright issue [2] [3], and they focus on G-Star instead. Other than that you get retailer's websites only — frankie (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable mentions. SwisterTwister talk 05:04, 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. Courcelles 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Douglas Lorenz[edit]
- Douglas Lorenz (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 subject of the article does not appear to meet WP's notabilitiuy rules at the moment. Herp Derp (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see notable sources for a biography on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 22:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable and unverified. He does not even rate a mention on the website of the caucus whose advisory board is his supposed claim to fame. The sole reference on the page, supposedly a link to his biography at the RLC website, redirects to the website's main page --MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 25 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 22:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marjorie Dannenfelser[edit]
- Marjorie Dannenfelser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be actually independently notable, outside of her position. Her group may be notable, but she does not appear to be. Herp Derp (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Washington Post profile establishes her notability. Too much to merge into the Susan B. Anthony List article. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Washington Post profile is lengthy, detailed significant coverage, and there are a number of other examples of coverage in publications and books. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. The WaPo profile is just one source, meaning that it doesn't meet the requirement for multiple sources; when talking about this some time ago, I admit I kind of just assumed there would be others, but I can't find anything else that meets the WP:SIGCOV requirement. All the hits just seem to be quoting her in her capacity as head of SBA List, rather than providing information about her. (There are a couple of audio/video sources I can't view at the moment due to some technological hiccups, so if anyone can summarize the stuff on Youtube for me and tell me if it's actually about Dannenfelser or just about SBA List or general politics, I may be able to change my vote.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Can you point to the requirement for multiple sourcing, rather than just significant sourcing? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the one hand, I'm not a fan of that aspect of the guideline. On the other hand, it does indeed appear to call for multiple refs. Input from "keepers" on this specific point would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Also, as I said in my comment above, I'm not in a position right now to look at the Youtube hits, but if they are about Dannenfelser herself and not about SBA List/abortion/politics, I will be open to changing my vote, "multiple" being satisfied. Any keep voters want to help me out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but she has written many op-eds in publications such as Politico, Fox News, Washington Examiner, etc. It's very difficult to find in Google something that focuses more on her than the organization as the WaPo profile did, simply because the search engine turns up everything, but I'll keep looking if that's what you're talking about. The significant coverage requirement, at least, is fulfilled by the profile. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Material written by the subject is never admissible for purposes of attesting notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're questioning her notability, it's established by the WaPo profile. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am questioning her notability, since WP:BIO requires multiple sources of significant coverage, not just one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, hundreds of articles have covered her opinions and statements, plus the extensive profile. I don't think we need a second profile to establish notability. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hundreds of articles have quoted her briefly in her capacity as head of SBA List, which, as you know, already has an article. We do actually need more material that is coverage of her, not of her organization. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I simply don't think we do because the Washington Post profile was so extensive. I'll let other editors decide. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hundreds of articles have quoted her briefly in her capacity as head of SBA List, which, as you know, already has an article. We do actually need more material that is coverage of her, not of her organization. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, hundreds of articles have covered her opinions and statements, plus the extensive profile. I don't think we need a second profile to establish notability. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am questioning her notability, since WP:BIO requires multiple sources of significant coverage, not just one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're questioning her notability, it's established by the WaPo profile. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Material written by the subject is never admissible for purposes of attesting notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if it's what you're looking for, but she has written many op-eds in publications such as Politico, Fox News, Washington Examiner, etc. It's very difficult to find in Google something that focuses more on her than the organization as the WaPo profile did, simply because the search engine turns up everything, but I'll keep looking if that's what you're talking about. The significant coverage requirement, at least, is fulfilled by the profile. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup. Also, as I said in my comment above, I'm not in a position right now to look at the Youtube hits, but if they are about Dannenfelser herself and not about SBA List/abortion/politics, I will be open to changing my vote, "multiple" being satisfied. Any keep voters want to help me out? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the one hand, I'm not a fan of that aspect of the guideline. On the other hand, it does indeed appear to call for multiple refs. Input from "keepers" on this specific point would be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BIO. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the rationale for deletion is not very convincing. Wandering Courier (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dannenefelser is the head of a major organization that is very important in American politics. Being head of a major organization makes someone notable. Would you advocate we delete the article on the head of Planned Parenthood?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you think it should be deleted, then nominate it and we will see what people think. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Allow me to remind Roscelese that the notability guideline for people says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It seems that everyone here agrees that the Washington Post source is significant, in depth coverage. I see additional coverage by "multiple independent sources" at ABC News, the New York Times, National Public Radio, the Boston Globe, MSNBC, the Washington Times, the Sacramento Bee, the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and The Telegraph in the United Kingdom. This repeated coverage in a broad range of large, mainstream media outlets convinces me that she is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I, on the other hand, see a bunch of trivial mentions in which she is quoted as the head of a prominent anti-abortion organization which already has an article of its own (which is why I suggested redirecting rather than deleting). What do the sources you linked tell us about Dannenfelser besides that she is the head of SBA List? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the point, we don't need a second profile to demonstrate notability. I don't know what you think a second profile would do to make her more notable. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I, on the other hand, see a bunch of trivial mentions in which she is quoted as the head of a prominent anti-abortion organization which already has an article of its own (which is why I suggested redirecting rather than deleting). What do the sources you linked tell us about Dannenfelser besides that she is the head of SBA List? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Allow me to remind Roscelese that the notability guideline for people says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". It seems that everyone here agrees that the Washington Post source is significant, in depth coverage. I see additional coverage by "multiple independent sources" at ABC News, the New York Times, National Public Radio, the Boston Globe, MSNBC, the Washington Times, the Sacramento Bee, the Spokesman-Review in Spokane, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and The Telegraph in the United Kingdom. This repeated coverage in a broad range of large, mainstream media outlets convinces me that she is notable. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/Userfy The Washington Post article in combination with non-substantial coverage in multiple sources passes WP:BASIC. – Lionel (talk) 07:20, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above, I submit that it might be better to move this article to the Conservatism Incubator, which is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs. Thanks for your consideration. – Lionel (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems like a reasonable suggestion.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Roscelese asked above, "What do the sources you linked tell us about Dannenfelser besides that she is the head of SBA List?" That's a good question. Actually, those sources linked above, and many similar ones, tell us far more than just that she is head of the SBA List.
- Here Newsweek profiled her as one of 10 "Faces of the Christian Right", and we learn that she was raised an Episcopalian and once was a moderate pro-choice Republican, before she "about faced in college" becoming a pro-life Catholic, and that she "has the ear" of Sarah Palin. Here and here, we learn that she "co-founded the Team Sarah social networking Web site popular with Palin supporters", also described in 2009 as "a Facebook-like social networking Web site of about 70,000 Palin supporters nationwide".
- Here, we learn that she is a "a former staff director of the Congressional Pro-Life caucus". Here, we learn that she cooperates with the National Organization for Marriage, and that while participating in a conference call with conservatives around the country from a room at a Days Inn, "A small picture of Jesus and the Virgin Mary rested on top of the television, while the Pittsburgh Steelers game played with the volume muted."
- Here, we learn that she "created "The Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge", which has become an issue separating Republican presidential primary candidates signing the pledge from those declining to sign. Here, we learn that she gave a “State of the Unborn” speech the day before Obama's 2011 State of the Union speech, and plans it as an annual event. Here we learn that she has "paid tribute to the feminist movement of the 70s and 80s for breaking down barriers that conservative women have taken much longer to traverse."
- We learn a lot about her personal political opinions, such as here, where she talks about a "Republican Party apparatus that is wildly out of touch with its base". Here she criticizes John Boehner for what she sees as his failure to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Although a few TV interviews don't establish notability, the fact that she has been interviewed many times by all three U. S. national political networks, namely CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, is an indication of notability. She is repeatedly quoted speaking about her own views in a wide range of reliable sources, rather than just operating as a spokesperson for the SBA list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those mentions that aren't entirely trivial (the Pittsburgh Steelers, indeed) are, again, talking about "head of SBA List," not "Marjorie Dannenfelser." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times added some "local color", but the relevant fact is the alliance with another group on the right. How about the other three organizations the sources mentioned that she's been involved with? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage in the Juneau Empire doesn't even mention the SBA List. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get three? Team Sarah is an SBA List project (ie. yes, the Juneau Empire does mention SBA List), and the only other one I count is the CPLC (which is evidently not notable enough to sustain an article), staff director of which would probably not be a position that conferred notability anyway. You're grasping at straws. Any second article or other news piece of reasonable length (ie. not a photo with a caption) that's about Dannenfelser, rather than being about SBA List or abortion politics and quoting Dannenfelser once or twice, would be sufficient, but no one has been able to produce that. It's not too much to ask that sources actually be about the subject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The third was her alliance with the National Organization for Marriage. Fox News here describes her as a "GOP strategist" without mentioning the SBA List. Both Mother Jones here and McClatchy News here quote her as a representative of Team Sarah, and neither mentions the SBA List. The groups may be closely related but they are described as separate groups by reliable sources, and Team Sarah is often described independently without any mention of SBA List. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". You can call it grasping at straws if you wish, but that is exactly what our guideline allows in cases like this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- She isn't involved with NOM though, it's just that her organization as well as NOM worked together trying to defeat a candidate. And I'm not sure what your goal is in pointing out that not every source that mentions Team Sarah says that it's a project of SBA List - Team Sarah's own website is perfectly clear about this. Likewise, your quoting the guideline on allowing insubstantial coverage is odd to me, since that same guideline specifically states that trivial coverage is insufficient and that an example of trivial coverage is "X said..." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The third was her alliance with the National Organization for Marriage. Fox News here describes her as a "GOP strategist" without mentioning the SBA List. Both Mother Jones here and McClatchy News here quote her as a representative of Team Sarah, and neither mentions the SBA List. The groups may be closely related but they are described as separate groups by reliable sources, and Team Sarah is often described independently without any mention of SBA List. "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". You can call it grasping at straws if you wish, but that is exactly what our guideline allows in cases like this. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you get three? Team Sarah is an SBA List project (ie. yes, the Juneau Empire does mention SBA List), and the only other one I count is the CPLC (which is evidently not notable enough to sustain an article), staff director of which would probably not be a position that conferred notability anyway. You're grasping at straws. Any second article or other news piece of reasonable length (ie. not a photo with a caption) that's about Dannenfelser, rather than being about SBA List or abortion politics and quoting Dannenfelser once or twice, would be sufficient, but no one has been able to produce that. It's not too much to ask that sources actually be about the subject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The coverage in the Juneau Empire doesn't even mention the SBA List. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times added some "local color", but the relevant fact is the alliance with another group on the right. How about the other three organizations the sources mentioned that she's been involved with? Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those mentions that aren't entirely trivial (the Pittsburgh Steelers, indeed) are, again, talking about "head of SBA List," not "Marjorie Dannenfelser." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We learn a lot about her personal political opinions, such as here, where she talks about a "Republican Party apparatus that is wildly out of touch with its base". Here she criticizes John Boehner for what she sees as his failure to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Although a few TV interviews don't establish notability, the fact that she has been interviewed many times by all three U. S. national political networks, namely CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, is an indication of notability. She is repeatedly quoted speaking about her own views in a wide range of reliable sources, rather than just operating as a spokesperson for the SBA list. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Newsweek coverage I linked to above is five sentences long, and in my opinion, is significant coverage. That's not trivial "X said..." coverage and doesn't even quote her at all. Her electoral alliance with NOM is a biographical fact mentioned by the New York Times. The bottom line is that I think the coverage furnished by other editors and by me demonstrates that she is notable, while you disagree. That's all well and good. It would also be good to hear what other editors have to say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The WaPo profile along with smaller minor coverage combined is sufficient to meet notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Susan B. Anthony List. I came here expecting to simple !vote for keep, but after hunting for one more bit of significant coverage to stand next to the WaPo piece, I failed. All other coverage is in passing, or self-published. The biography fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Binksternet (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the Daily Beast Newsweek profile is demonstrably wrong in at least one important regard. It says "Today, she heads the Susan B. Anthony List, which she founded out of her house in 1991." Actually, Dannenfelser was hired in 1993 by the founder Rachel MacNair and the executive board members of the early Susan B. Anthony List. The group was first conceived in 1992 and was initiated in February 1993 with FEC paperwork to make it a PAC, with Rachel MacNair filing the papers and listing her own office in Kansas City as the home base. Even the SBA List website used to say Rachel MacNair was the founder but that practice was soon stopped, likely because peacenik MacNair is embarrassingly leftist in her beliefs. Dannenfelser consistently eliminates MacNair as founder in delivering the history of the group, saying she herself was founder (or co-founder with Jane Abraham), and this profile is another example of a write-up that is uncritical, absent of fact-checking, and therefore unreliable—a shameful showing by Newsweek. Any source which says Dannenfelser is the founder of the SBA List is unreliable, which makes even the WaPo piece stumble. That one says, "In 1991, she ...started running an antiabortion women's organization out of her home. She called it the Susan B. Anthony List..." Actually, MacNair named the Susan B. Anthony List herself, in 1992 when it was still forming. ("Commentary". Fidelity. 12. Wanderer Forum Foundation: 24. 1992.
To counter the influx of prochoice women who have just entered Congress, Rachel MacNair, head of Feminists for Life, has formed a political action committee ... To the consternation of feminist prochoicers, she's named it the Susan B. Anthony List.
) To its credit, the WaPo piece does ask various other people to comment about Dannenfelser, including some who disagree with her, but its fact checking was inadequate. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the Daily Beast Newsweek profile is demonstrably wrong in at least one important regard. It says "Today, she heads the Susan B. Anthony List, which she founded out of her house in 1991." Actually, Dannenfelser was hired in 1993 by the founder Rachel MacNair and the executive board members of the early Susan B. Anthony List. The group was first conceived in 1992 and was initiated in February 1993 with FEC paperwork to make it a PAC, with Rachel MacNair filing the papers and listing her own office in Kansas City as the home base. Even the SBA List website used to say Rachel MacNair was the founder but that practice was soon stopped, likely because peacenik MacNair is embarrassingly leftist in her beliefs. Dannenfelser consistently eliminates MacNair as founder in delivering the history of the group, saying she herself was founder (or co-founder with Jane Abraham), and this profile is another example of a write-up that is uncritical, absent of fact-checking, and therefore unreliable—a shameful showing by Newsweek. Any source which says Dannenfelser is the founder of the SBA List is unreliable, which makes even the WaPo piece stumble. That one says, "In 1991, she ...started running an antiabortion women's organization out of her home. She called it the Susan B. Anthony List..." Actually, MacNair named the Susan B. Anthony List herself, in 1992 when it was still forming. ("Commentary". Fidelity. 12. Wanderer Forum Foundation: 24. 1992.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Kock (1944)[edit]
- Battle of Kock (1944) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As noted on Talk:Battle of Kock (1944), this substub has no claim of notability, and a review of sources in Polish and English yields next to no indicators that it could become a notable subject. I am an inclusionist, but I simply see no proof that this battle occurred, not to mention that it was a notable skirmish. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's hardly anything in this article at all. What's to delete? Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 22:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I could find no reliable sources in English, and if Piotr can't find anything in Polish, I conclude that this "battle" probably never happened, or was trivial if it did. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete <1KB for almost a month - needs expanding and some notability to keep - given that the original contributor couldn't find enough to add, perhaps there is nothing more to add. Ma®©usBritish [talk] 03:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I looked for sources for this article when Piotrus first prod-ed it, but could find nothing, and I trust Piotrus's expertise on Polish sources. Parsecboy (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Whats the big problem? I said it was on the articles waiting to be created in the millitary history page , theres many stub articles on here and theres nothing wrong with them. Besides you guys are from Poland - why not visit the archives? Thats how i find information; you cant always rely on the internet.
And anyway think about it logically there must of been some kind of battle there , its not far off Warsaw and its strategic position is perfect - try going to the archives in Warsaw and it might be there. Goldblooded (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject appears to lack "signficant coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore likely not notable under WP:GNG. IMO its not that there wasn't fighting in Kock in 1944, there likely was as indeed our article on Operation Tempest suggests, its whether or not this was significant enough to warrant an article of its own. At this stage without sources to back it up I don't think it was. Of course if new works become available that cover the events in detail then I would support recreation without prejudice. Archival material would probably constitute OR and would not be enough to establish notability on their own. Anotherclown (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Depends what kind of archival materiel. Maybe there is some book or journal article in Polish on that subject, published locally but reliably, and available in the local library. I've seen this happen. But till somebody can locate it, well, we cannot assume it exists. And I don't know of any Wikipedian from Kock; if Goldblooded really cares, I'd suggest asking on the talk page of the town (in English and Polish) to see if there is any local editor who could research it further. I am certainly not going to fly to Poland to research this, and I don't see Goldblooded volunteering to do this, either :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
I would happily look for it myself and go to the place in question (Warsaw and/or Kock since there has to be a local library or archive there, although it wouldnt be that simple and it wouldnt be cheap either) , Besides i thought you lived there? Maybe we could find a wikipedian from Warsaw because i already said there must be some kind of archival building there and they could take a look if there in that area. Anyway ill ask around where i can. But as ive said there must of been something that happened there because of a major battle there in '39 and it isnt far off Warsaw where the uprisings began. Goldblooded (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found but one brief mention of this action [4] and there is not really enough information for an informative article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That reference is for the Battle of Kock (1939). -- Whpq (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response
You guys clearly havent listend to what im saying, From time to time it helps to get out once in a while ; Dont always rely on the internet , ive uncovered tons of information (Im currently writing a book on the change in British society from 1940 - 1970) about my local area and about the political and social changes that occured in world politics and so on that i could never even dream of finding on the interent , and its more plausible to find information from a library of a archive (preferably in Poland itself and if i get a chance i will fly there to find it out myself if nobody is going to compromise.) Goldblooded (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - What sources lead you to believe that there was a "Battle of Kock" in 1944 that was part of Operation Tempest? I agree that there is more in the world of reference material than that which can be found on the Internet. However, per verifiability, one of the fundamental policies of Wikipedia, we need sources to verify that there was even such a battle. That an editor added an item to a list of articles to be created in a Wikiproject does not excuse it from needing references. -- Whpq (talk) 19:53, 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. Courcelles 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cage Combat Fighting Championships[edit]
- Cage Combat Fighting Championships (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 listing:
No independent third-party coverage to establish notability. Minor regional promotion, now defunct. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found nothing to show the organization or its events are notable. Jakejr (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable, even the lead says it is a minor promotion. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:46, 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. Courcelles 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Courtanet[edit]
- Courtanet (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 company. Yahoo and Google search turns up no nontrivial sources. Part of BGL Group--but notability is not inherited. Blueboy96 19:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleter per Blueboy96's rationale. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Notability has not been confirmed. SwisterTwister talk 02:02, 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 redirect to List of KOTC events. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KOTC Vengeance[edit]
- KOTC Vengeance (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:
Non-notable MMA events. KOTC is a second-tier organization (at best) that hosts scores of events each year. Few, if any, warrant individual pages according to WP:MMANOT and general notability guidelines. Primarily results listings. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are there reliable sources on these events? If there are, would merging into a sortable list not be a better option than deletion? Someoneanother 18:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent coverage is essentially limited to promotion and results listings. Results currently can be found elsewhere. There is already a List of KOTC events. The page isn't frequently updated as the org can have as many as five events per month. I think the list page is worth keeping, but individual event pages are not (at least, for this particular org). There appears to be no reason to merge pages as I see it. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case Redirect all to List of KOTC events without prejudice. I had a look at sources for Arrival, and it was all just match-ups, no substantial coverage. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but when springing articles out like this it's important to bring your sources with you. Someoneanother 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Independent coverage is essentially limited to promotion and results listings. Results currently can be found elsewhere. There is already a List of KOTC events. The page isn't frequently updated as the org can have as many as five events per month. I think the list page is worth keeping, but individual event pages are not (at least, for this particular org). There appears to be no reason to merge pages as I see it. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all These are all minor events with no indication of notability and are already listed in List of KOTC events. I don't even know if the list is noteworthy. Jakejr (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although I don't really feel strongly either way if these articles are kept. I would like to point out that several of them have gotten over 100 hits a month (some even getting over 500) for the last several months according to this tool. Whether its a minor event or not as long as we have decent references and it seems that our readers are interested in reading about it I think we should keep it. --Kumioko (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of KOTC events. Appears to fail WP:GNG, search hits seems to be limited to videos and basic result listing. --TreyGeek (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect There's nothing to show any of these events are individually notable. Rather, they appear to be routine sports coverage. They're already listed in the list of KOTC events so redirecting them isn't a big deal. Papaursa (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Not one of these events meets WP:EVENT and not one meets WP:GNG. Not all sporting events are notable. Redirect after delete is just fine, but pending the addition of multiple reliable sources independent of the subjects, delete all. BusterD (talk) 23:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as per WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 17:36, 26 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 22:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WEF 45[edit]
- WEF 45 (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:
Non-notable MMA event with non-notable fighters competing for a third-tier promotion. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both I found nothing to show either of these minor events are notable. The organization is minor, the articles are simple sports reporting, and the events lacked notable fighters. Jakejr (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, searches only come up with basic fight results and records. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all I found nothing to contradict the previous comments. Papaursa (talk) 00:15, 25 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. Sourcing issues addressed. Whether the article should be made into a list can continue at the article's discussion page. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. state bats[edit]
- U.S. state bats (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 list. The only source cited is a self-published source. Algorerhythms (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I see your concern, but I think possibly that I've fixed it. I eliminated the blog as a reference and found real life references for each bat. also, this list is parallel to numerous other lists of state symbols, most of which can be found in this search. (sorry for not constructing something more refined, but this seems to get the job done). the formatting isn't quite in line with what seems to be the convention, but i will fix that up when i get some time if the article survives this afd. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment oh, one more thing, if the article is kept, i think that it ought to be moved to "list of u.s. state bats" so that it's parallel to all the other lists of state symbols. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment again i just went ahead and reformatted the thing so that it's consistent with all the other ones. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sure. Why not have an article about U.S. State Bats. I don't think that it needs to be a list. Is three enough for a list? Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 23:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I also think its fine to have the information but I wonder if three lonely little bats (one bat is used twice for different states) is enough to constitute a list. --Kumioko (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Now that each bat has been sourced to an official government publication, I think the nomination rationale has been eliminated. While it may be a tiny list, it's verifiable and notable. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 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. Courcelles 22:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Noetic Group[edit]
- Noetic Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vanity article by seemingly non-notable company. Nothing in Google News. Google returns a few thousand hits for "Noetic Group", but nothing that satisfies WP:N. Miracle Pen (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing on my search. SwisterTwister talk 02:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any evidence of notability. Orderinchaos 08:34, 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. Delete arguments, apart from being more numerous, also appear to be more convincing. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Haleigh Cummings[edit]
- Haleigh Cummings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Standard missing person case, one of tens of thousands worldwide. No individual notability about this case. Article added by single purpose user. Some potentially libelous statements. NPOV. Dmol (talk) 09:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this article seems to be more in a need of a re-write than deletion. I get 1 200 000 hits when searching for Hayleigh Cummings on google.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I got over 800k hits on my search, some of which are recent news stories from major network affiliates, os I would say it's notable. Your other arguments for deletion are not valid. Libelous staements are themselves not a criteron for deletion; you should be bold and change them. Also, if the article doesn't have a NPOV; you should be bold and change it. That alone is not a criteron for deletion. 129.139.1.68 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The number of internet hits is not a valid criteria. [See notabililty of people]
- Comment - That 'single-purpose' editor, Allycat1208, referenced by nom above, creates and edits articles on murdered and missing children. I'll take that bit of argument for deletion by assuming good faith and say that I don't think there is anything wrong with being a single-purpose editor on Wikipedia. Roodog2k (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm the writer of this article, and after reviewing it I agree it was not well-written. It was the first article that I wrote and put "live" I believe and I was just starting to learn about citing references, tables, etc. I'm trying to rewrite it now and put better references in it, if you want to hold off deleting it and reviewing it again. I do think it is notable because much news has been generated about all who were involved in this case. Allycat1208 (talk) 01:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENT. Also SPA issues should be addressed, and we should uphold WP:NOTNEWS and WP:MEMORIAL.--Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting to allow all users time to re-evaluate newer version. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Coverage has continued for 2 or 3 years. Meets our guidelines. Article should be renamed "Dissapearance of HC" or something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Neutral per comment directly below. It still meets our rules for notability, but maybe BLP says it doesn't since it's so much about the drug arrests. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm the original writer of this article and I rewrote it. I think I did a better job writing it this time. The article is basically about a missing child investigation that went nowhere since inception. The reason it has gotten media cover for the last few years since the child went missing is that most of the family members of the victim were implicated and charged in drug crimes after the child disappeared. Its basically 2 issues: a missing child investigation and about what happened to the family and their involvement in drug crimes. After reading notability requirements, as to my understanding, I agree it may not be notable but as I'm new to wikipedia I'm probably not the best judge on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allycat1208 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no general public history. I'm reluctant to delete on the basis of oneevent, but this is a case for it. the extreme detail of the article indicate the non-encyclopedic nature. DGG ( talk ) 03:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- for me personally I stand by my Keep as it was both her disappearance in itself but also publizied arrests in the case. making this article pass ONEEVENT. Also seems like a odd reason for deletion that the article brings up extreme details, lets remove that instead of deleting it for that reason.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Much of the "coverage" relates to arrests for drug crimes of and disparaging speculation about the child's family members. Family members should be treated as WP:NPF. Sharktopus talk 01:40, 26 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. Yes, this is prime candidate for non-admin closing. Discussion about article titles belong in the discussion pages of articles, and are not valid reasons for deletion. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Timeline of early modern history[edit]
- Timeline of early modern history (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 what way would the year 1500 be modern?? It barely postdates the time of Christopher Columbus, the oldest important event in U.S. history. How is this article title sensible?? Georgia guy (talk) 14:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. What does "U.S. history" have to do with it? Have you read the article Early modern history, Georgia guy? Deor (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very Euro-centric term. One of the main properties of history before 1492 is that the United States is ignored. Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A regrettable oversight. Should we request an article Pre-Columbian history of the United States? :) --Lambiam 08:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a very Euro-centric term. One of the main properties of history before 1492 is that the United States is ignored. Georgia guy (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- strong, strong keep "early modern" is the standard term among academics in every field in the social sciences and humanities for the years between 1500 and 18xx, as a simple google books search shows. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How is this a more logical title than Timeline of history 1500-1900?? Georgia guy (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment good luck with your project. don't forget to change these too. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Nominator has failed to specify a valid reason for deletion. "I do not understand the article title" is not one of them. --Lambiam 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the article's title as meaning that 1500 is the beginning of modern history. Is this logical?? What's modern about 1500?? It's 511 years in the past! Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That happens to be the commonly accepted meaning of the term "modern history", whether you like it or not. "I don't think it is logical" is not a ground for deletion. --Lambiam 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand the article's title as meaning that 1500 is the beginning of modern history. Is this logical?? What's modern about 1500?? It's 511 years in the past! Georgia guy (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. There is no argument for deletion here. What Georgia guy is proposing is a rename, not a delete, and lack of basic historical comprehension on the part of the nominator is not grounds for one nor for the other. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly the term "early modern history" is an Era that covers a range of periods just as "classical history" or "ancient history" also cover different periods. No point deleting this over nominees apparent confusion 511 years is modern compared to history termed "BC". Ma®©usBritish [talk] 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment silly, silly people... it was before last thursday so it can't be modern! — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a waste of everybody's time. This is the term used by historians, even those in Georgia, to describe this period. Agricolae (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not only do I agree with the post by Agricolae, but this Keep consensus is 100% unanimous, and although I have never ever done it until now, this is clearly an appropriate instance for Non-Admin Closure. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Upon review, what I meant to say was that if no objections are presented by tomorrow, 7 days after the discussion opened, it will then be grounds for Non-Admin Closure (which requires 7 days worth of debate in addition to a clear Keep decision). The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 07:01, 25 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 22:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Razi-ud-Din-Razi[edit]
- Razi-ud-Din-Razi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find reliable secondary sources to verify the existence of or notability of this poet and journalist. I did find a hint that the "essential book for every library" exists, [5] as a book, but there's no clear relationship at all between the listed author there and this author. Language barriers may be an issue, could be a hoax, too, although that's unlikely. Additional sources welcomed, as always. joe deckertalk to me 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am also unable to find sources indicating notability. The article does include some claims of notability, such as "one of the most famous modern Urdu poets of Pakistan", but it is my experience that overblown exaggeration is frequent in articles about people from this region. From the description page of the picture used in the article is appears that the article was written by the subject. Hut 8.5 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing notable on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:04, 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. Courcelles 22:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 Talent Cup[edit]
- 2011 Talent Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Youth football friendly cup, which fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. Thehoboclown (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The cup as whole is not notable, in my opinion. Therefore, one iteration of it is certainly not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:32, 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 22:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2010 Talent Cup[edit]
- 2010 Talent Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Youth football friendly cup, which fails WP:ROUTINE and WP:GNG. Thehoboclown (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — The-Pope (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The cup as whole is not notable, in my opinion. Therefore, one iteration of it is certainly not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:32, 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 22:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talent Cup[edit]
- Talent Cup (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 friendly cup for youth players, that fails WP:GNG. Thehoboclown (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no indication this tournament meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:31, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Anybody here speak Romanian? If so, can you please take a look through these 22 GNews results? There might be some notability in them, but I can't tell for sure. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:30, 24 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. Concerns about indpendent references and promotional tone have been addressed. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Healthcare Information For All by 2015[edit]
- Healthcare Information For All by 2015 (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 worthy organisation but the article is rather short on independent references. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is not a justification for deletion. There are over 100 refs in google scholar [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thank you to Roger Haworth for pointing out the previous lack of independent references. I have added several independent references. (I am the main contributor to this article)(talk)
- Keep so promotional that I thought at first it might qualify for G11, but i removed the background material indicating how important the problem is, along with the repetitive quotes saying that, but providing no actual information about the organization. Such material is characteristic of a web site, not an encyclopedia article. DGG ( talk ) 03:12, 24 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, A3. postdlf (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't knock it until you try it[edit]
- Don't knock it until you try it (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism and dictionary definition. PROD removed. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEO and no evidence of notability. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom and PaintedCarpet. unbelievable. mashed potatoes. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the PROD-tag I added ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 17:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary. Some Wiki Editor (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment already there: knock (verb). — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, Wikipedia not a dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 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 no consensus. AFD is not cleanup, but this does need cleaning up. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of boarding schools[edit]
- List of boarding schools (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 list is entirely unsourced: although it does have external links, they seem to serve more as a directory than anything else. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. It's okay to have a list and a category where both add value; I don't think that's true here and I would keep only the cat. Matchups 03:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We do not delete lists in order to promote categories - see WP:CLS. Warden (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although if the red links don't have articles soon, they should be removed. 174.99.120.98 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or unless redlinks are removed and sources are cited for each entry as is standard for list articles. This is the type of list which will inevitably grow to be too long and impossible to maintain. Alternatively, split into multiple list articles by continent or country. Yworo (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too broad. Impossible to maintain with any level of quality. Dzlife (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If too broad, the solution is to divide it, not delete it. If the list is limited as it should be to schools with a Wikipedia article oobviously qualified for one, it maintains quality and is discriminating, just as much as everything in the encyclopedia. since any secondary school is considered appropriate for a Wikipedia article, the solution to the red links is to write them. Any which are not secondary schools, need to be dealt with by considering whether the article can be written. There should in general be a category as well as a list for such topics--a list can provide context, a category is automatically maintaining. The two are complementary, A possible reason not to have a list is if nobody is willing to edit it--but even in that case, the goal is to get it edited, just like an other neglected article. This one,however, is not neglected. DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 24 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. These keeps are weak, but there is no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Kershaw[edit]
- David Kershaw (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 makes no assertion of notability per WP:PROF sections 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 or 9. This person does not hold a named chair, is not a head of a school, does not appear to be more influential than the average academic, claims no notable prizes or awards or hono(u)rs. Does not appear to have notable achivements outside academe, according to a Google test (this is not the ad man or actor or Vancouver resident). Wtshymanski (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is notable. First, WP:PROF is guidelines, not binding. And second, the page seems to fulfill 1, 2, and 4, seen by citations of his work and the prize cited here. I put him up because there are articles on this website referring to his work. Cheers, Wikidea 17:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: I would argue that he at least fulfills WP:PROF based on criteria 1 considering that he has written a textbook about his subject. He may also pass 2 as well, but I'm not sure if the prize he won is "highly prestigious" or not as I am not in that field. Topher385 (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWeak Keep. On searching GS for "David Kershaw law" I found an h-index of 5, which is not enough for WP:Prof#C1. A better search might improve this. Just publishing a book is not enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- You'll have to speak in English instead of Algebra. Does that index mean that if someone has written fewer articles than the number of times they've been cited, that's good enough? I don't know if I've got that right, but in any case it seems to me to be a pretty lousy test for anything much, and if you're looking on Google Scholar (which isn't determinative of anything: it's bias toward US publications), then he seems to have been cited quite a few times. Btw, a major textbook is notable in itself. Wikidea 23:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is helpful to study WP:Prof before contributing to academic AfD debates. Immemorial policy is that publishing stuff does not make a person notable. It is necessary to show that the stuff has been sufficiently noted by others. In this case I am open to argument. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- You'll have to speak in English instead of Algebra. Does that index mean that if someone has written fewer articles than the number of times they've been cited, that's good enough? I don't know if I've got that right, but in any case it seems to me to be a pretty lousy test for anything much, and if you're looking on Google Scholar (which isn't determinative of anything: it's bias toward US publications), then he seems to have been cited quite a few times. Btw, a major textbook is notable in itself. Wikidea 23:23, 15 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, Cerejota (talk) 07:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I don't think the award is enough by itself, but it at least gives me an impression that his paper on Enron has had some impact despite the low cite count in Google scholar. And his textbook "Company Law in Context" does seem to be widely used in British law/business schools. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 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 speedy keep. The nominator is not asking for deletion, but to change the article to a redirect. -- Atama頭 23:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Omnicon[edit]
- Omnicon (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 am not really voting delete. Previous AfD said "There shall be no prejudice against speedy renomination". Hoping to get better consensus or something this time.I vote to redirect to List_of_Transformers:_Energon_characters#Omnicons with the page history intact, so that any content that might deserve moving can be moved. NotARealWord (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP and SPEEDY CLOSE, the nominator himself admits he doesn't want it deleted, so why is there a deletion nomination at all? If the nominator wants it to be redirected, then propose a redirection, and if no one objects, impliment it. Mathewignash (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Himself? When did I ever tell you people I was or was not male? Also, I wanted to start a deletion review, remember. But King of hearts didn't let me. NotARealWord (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no knowledge or interest in your gender, just the incorrect use of a deletion review. If you want an article redirected, you propose that. Deletion reviews are NOT to be used to strongarm an article into redirecting. Mathewignash (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, speedy close. This is not a proposal for deletion, but a discussion that should take place on the article talk page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:23, 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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collectors Club[edit]
- Collectors Club (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 per WP:BAND, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Gurt Posh (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 13:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to satisfy WP:BAND, even if the statements currently in the article are accurate and can be acceptably sourced. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Of the 5 references currently listed in the article, the first is major. The band was featured on BBC MUSIC SHOWCASE and even if you think that doesn't satisfy point 12 of WP:BAND, it can certainly be considered substantial coverage by a reliable source. The references from Gazette Live, Generator do not constitute significant coverage and can't be used to establish notability. The Red Hot Velvet article seems somewhat substantial but I don't feel that Red Hot Velvet is a reliable source. The Whitby Gazette article is certainly substantial coverage from a reliable source but I'm not sure that such a small news org should be used to establish notability. With such a common used phrase as a name, it's very difficult to find more references but I did find this which certainly can be used to establish notability. I also found this significant and independent coverage but I'm not sure how reliable the source is. Ultimately, I feel that the band satisfies point 12 of WP:BAND with their BBC feature and WP:GNG with the references I discussed above (the ones that I mentioned can be used to establish notability). OlYellerTalktome 21:25, 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) 00:42, 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, Cerejota (talk) 04:59, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fuel cell gas appliances up to 70 kW[edit]
- Fuel cell gas appliances up to 70 kW (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 stub with unclear notability. If anything useful, it may be merged into Deutsche Vereinigung des Gas- und Wasserfaches. Beagel (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment. No any search results by Google News, Google Books, or Google Scholar. There are few hits (other than Wikipedia or its derivates) by Google Search, but they are only mentioning this standard and not giving enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. The article should be deleted based on WP:N and WP:PUTEFFORT. Beagel (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Being poorly written isn't grounds for deletion unless the article can't be rewritten. I'd suspect that the awkward title is the result of a rather dry engineering standard being translated from German. Otherwise, it's just a stub and has room for improvement. Several Times (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The reason for nomination is not that it is poorly written, but mainly lack of reliable sources to establish notability. Also, during last three year there has been no attempt to improve it at all (excluding redirect to other article which was contested by the creator). Beagel (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsalvageable since 70 kW is a completely arbitrary cutoff. WP:PUTEFFORT also applies. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 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) 00:36, 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, Cerejota (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that 70 kW is a not an arbitrary cutoff, but relevant to the point of the article. It is not, however, a decent article, and should be merged somewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Topic isn't notable. The 70KW appears to be just a German industrial standard, its a case of 'so what'. I mean are we going to have articles with other crappy industry standards, regulations, laws. How about 'the euro standard for the colour of bananas'. BTW I didn't make that up. Szzuk (talk) 18:38, 25 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.. Notability concerns by me and other users addressed by Jenks24 per the Walkley Award high commednation. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Hildebrand[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Joe Hildebrand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. News reporter that does not seem to meet the notability criteria for living persons. I was unable to find in-depth information on the individual in independent sources. Only social media places and blogs turned up. A Google News search shows a few stories he wrote. Current sources are his twitter account and a show to which he contributes. Recently, canvassing to "improve" the article (i.e. fabricating details) has appeared on the reporter's Twitter page, so the page has been protected. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:29, 18 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!) 04:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete yes he writes articles for a major newspaper but that does not make him notable. There is insufficient coverage about him as subject to pass WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cannot find any independent sources to support notability. The subject is also using social media to campaign for the article to be kept. ShipFan (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You know, I Jethrobot, it seems to me (based on the Twitter conversations) that you're being a complete arse about this, doing it for completely illegitimate reasons. However, I do agree that Joe Hildebrand doesn't seem to be notable enough. A quick Google search doesn't reveal very much that could be used encyclopædically. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, he was also being a complete arse… maybe your retaliation was warranted. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've only been trying to explain to him and his followers that he needs to be discussed in third-party reliable sources. That's all. I haven't been canvassing people to delete. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 06:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thoughts, he was also being a complete arse… maybe your retaliation was warranted. --Sauronjim (talk) 06:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly notable despite the subject's own actions. Lazy reliance on Google searches is a pretty piss-poor way to assess notability. The article needs improving, not deleting. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's "clearly notable," it'd be nice to see some sources to back up Hildebrand's notability per WP:BLP. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFIXIT. ShipFan (talk) 07:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from nominator I have been contacted on Twitter by many of Hildebrand's followers requesting that I remove or keep the subject's page. Through twitter, I have invited such users into the discussion to provide a case or sources for why the article should be kept, noting policies where relevant such as WP:BLP and WP:NOTPROMO. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Joe Hildebrand is renown for using sarcasm and absurdist puns in his column, so it comes to no surprise that people are making mischief with his Wikipedia entry. He's a journalist for the Daily Telegraph and appears on national television on the ABC, Sky News, and Channel 9.
- Videos here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33ZUGhYUgl8 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wnh-CMTjCC0 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrA1ZSZfB3k
- The page should be cleaned up and stay. I'm *sure* his audience have it in them to promise to not fabricate elements of the entry any further. 202.162.66.2 (talk) 07:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have added the above comment from this AfD's discussion page. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. That the subject is being an idiot on Twitter is irrelevant to the AfD. I can understand why the article was nominated – it's in pretty poor shape, there some excessive BLP vios and it's actually quite hard to search for sources to confirm a journalists notability. For most people, you just use a google news search. Although Hildebrand gets ~1000 hits on gnews, most are articles he has written and no-one wants to wade through 1000 articles in the hope of finding a good ref. As Hildebrand is a News Limited journalist, my solution was to search the Fairfax Media archives to see if he gets any mentions there (and you don't get inundated with articles he's written). He has two mentions in the The Sydney Morning Herald [7] [8], both along the lines of "Daily Telegraph writer says something controversial/humorous". The clincher for me was that Hildebrand received a "High commendation" at the 2004 Walkley Awards, Australia's version of the Pulitzer [9]. In addition, as noted by the IP above, Hildebrand does appear on nationally broadcast programs. Jenks24 (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Bad faith nom. 121.45.205.96 (talk) 08:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Due to the Walkley Awards as noted by Jenks24. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 10:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Walkley Awards winner, notable enough. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Intent to withdraw from nominator per the Walkley commendation (nice find, Jenks24). I recommend that other editors consider changing their stance to support keeping this article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:03, 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. Courcelles 22:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Tolhurst[edit]
- Nick Tolhurst (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 academic, coverage in sources is insufficient to warrant an article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not enough yet on GS, GB, GN. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I couldn't find adequate non-academic coverage of his books to pass WP:AUTHOR, and the article doesn't present any evidence that he passes WP:PROF either. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:29, 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. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Hale (vocalist)[edit]
- Dennis Hale (vocalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Last AFD withdrawn after one !voter turned up sources. However, the sources are either unreliable (Jazz Professional.com) or false positives. Notability is asserted through multiple releases on Parlophone and Decca, but a search for "Dennis Hale" + various keywords turned up nothing. I was completely unable to find any reliable source verifying his date of birth, place of birth, date of death. Nor can I find any reliable sources verifying his 45s for Decca or Parlophone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for same reasons as mentioned days ago in the previous AfD. I find this renom is way too soon. Here is one Decca release: [[10]]. I agree that sources from the 50's are not easy but noms must realize there was no Internet yet and sources DO exist and that is enough reason to keep the article (sources can be found). --DeVerm (talk) 06:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- And what makes that source reliable? Oh wait, IT'S NOT. You lose, try again. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 06:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Exactly... It's obviously very funny to delete this article. So let me explain this: my source makes it very plausible if not certain that somewhere a reliable source with Decca records from the 1950's exists. That is enough to keep the article... at least that is how I understand the guidelines. --DeVerm (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Article creator posted this on the talk page (actually, it was at another AFD page created in error, which I moved to the talk page):
“ | Why is this up for deletion again I spent hours trying to work out how to put a page on and now you want to take it off WHY. Dennis was a member of 5 bands with 2 beening very big bands he was on the tv "off the record" all the info on the page came from his sister so please tell me whats wrong. | ” |
Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weakish keep There are enough snippets here and there to suggest that this may be worth keeping around. Not all of the sources presented in the last AFD were false positives; that Jet article is obviously about this guy. There's not much more out there, although this suggests that he did have some connection with Decca. He's also mentioned several times in Who's Who of British Jazz, although he doesn't seem to have his own entry. As said above, it is important to keep in mind that this guy died long before the Internet (in Rhodesia, of all places), so I wouldn't necessarily expect to find a whole slew of information right away. But I suspect that there is something more out there. Give the article creator(s) some time. Zagalejo^^^ 03:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - Though cited sources are weak, there are sources, and a quick google search reveals some information about Dennis Hale and Decca 45 records. A more detailed search (maybe augmented by the old fashioned paper way) should provide more sources. Truthanado (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He had three double Single albums published by Decca back in 1955. We're not going to be able to find much online. I've added the sources that I could, but I firmly believe that he is both notable and that the majority of sourcees are going to be found offline and in London. SilverserenC 21:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep These online sources were a pain in the neck to sift through. The Gramophone sources seem to amount to mentions, but closer examination does show commentary of his work. I'm not suggesting that we also make articles including the vocalist's discography, but that this clearly helps support notability. The discussion in the "Who's who" jazz book corroborates his associations and work with others, but just citing the fact that he played with a few musicians without some other kind of comment on his style, work, or attitude is not ideal. Together, I think this is sufficient, but it could be better using paper sources as mentioned above. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The many Billboard references shown by GBooks search results, together with the scans documenting major label releases, are sufficient to create a presumption of notability for a 1950's recording artist. An AFD initiated less than a week after the article is created, resting exclusively on a lack of online sources, is therefore clearly inappropriate in this context. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 25 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) 03:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cristian Caraman[edit]
- Cristian Caraman (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 main reason this should go is the usual one: lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I could find nothing of the sort, either in English or in Romanian. (Tellingly, no major Romanian newspaper mentions him.) The "references" do nothing to bolster a claim of notability, either. Footnotes 1, 2 and 4 are meaningless. Footnote 3, even assuming it's legitimate, doesn't demonstrate any particularly significant level of coverage. Footnotes 5, 6 and 7 are also irrelevant: publishing a book (or three) does not automatically make one notable. Let's also point out the obvious: the man's name is Emanuel-Cristian Caraman, and this was created by single-purpose account Emanuelcaraman. He's a relentless self-promoter, but there's no reason to give him a berth in this encyclopedia. - Biruitorul Talk 01:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any links on Google and Yahoo that could help the biography. SwisterTwister talk 04:25, 17 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, BusterD (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is all about his music career, but there is no indication that there has been any media coverage of it. That's true even if you take the sourcing at face value. And the sourcing looks highly suspicious, for example for three books that he supposedly wrote. (No book review to boast of? What kind of book is that?) Kauffner (talk) 16:08, 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 no consensus. causa sui (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carole Post[edit]
- Carole Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is apparently not notable --Nuujinn (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable. Every link in this article comes from one single source: The nyc.gov website. Thus, the neither the "multiple" or "independent" sourcing requirements of the WP:GNG are met. — Satori Son 02:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:11, 4 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!) 05:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've no real interest in whether this article survives or not, but could I just remark that one shouldn't judge the notability of the subject just by the sources currently used in an article. I got a number of GNews hits from sources definitely independent of the subject. For example, from her period in Florida: Palm Beach Post [12] [13] [14] and South Florida Sun-Sentinel [15] and since she came to New York: New York Times [16] [17], New York Post [18] [19], New York Daily News [20] and Information Week [21] [22]. I don't have enough knowledge of the American press to insist that all of these are reliable (though I think most of them are), and most of them are probably routine - I'll admit I haven't looked closely (and several of them are behind paywalls). So I'll leave it to others to decide whether any of them are worth using. PWilkinson (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for those sources. I think they are all reliable sources. I took a quick look at most of them, and it seems to me that they are not so much about her, but rather quotes from her or standard announcements. I do not see significant coverage of her, however. FWIW, --Nuujinn (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the independence of the existing cited sources in the article is questionable, there does appear to be a sufficient supply of truly independent, reliable sources discussing the subject (such as the New York Post coverage of a possible property tax issue in Florida). I strongly recommend the article be rescued ASAP to make the subject's notability clear. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:36, 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) 00:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I'm not seeing significant coverage in reliable sources, just passing mention. Sources which quote her, or only mention her in passing do not, IMO, meet the bar of GNG. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:17, 11 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, BusterD (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This link which is from the NY Daily News is primarily about Ms. Post's mission to find and and deal with folks who owe the city money (2Billion$). So that's significant (the whole article), and from an independent reliable source. Not great, but good enough for #1. Then we have a quote in a short paragraph here in the New York Times. Not awesome, but good enough for #2, and we're getting diversity. Then we click on this link already on the page from Information Week which certainly meets every test for RS which profiles the subject and lists her on their list of top 50 government service CIOs. They happen to list her as the first entry, but that may not say anything about the specific ranking. Let me restate: I'm seeing significant Gotham news coverage from multiple sources, then IW calls her one of the top information executives in her field in the country, and puts her on top of the article. She gave the keynote speech at a professional conference hosted by Information Week. There are lots more articles, but not all of them are complimentary. And this magazine article from this April is headlined "New York City CIO Carole Post Named State’s IT Official of the Year". That's a pretty good case for GNG (which is what we always have left). BusterD (talk) 23:30, 25 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Drama of the Lost Disciples[edit]
- The Drama of the Lost Disciples (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 created this article in 2005 in the hope that it might help control the insertion of British Israelite/Christian Identity propaganda and pseudohistory into genuine historical articles. I now think it was original research and an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. The only only other significant editor of the page claims to be the book's publisher, which is an obvious conflict of interest. Nicknack009 (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:11, 5 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) 00:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's a legit book, ISBN numbers and all, not self-published. I am not confident of notability, but I have heard of the theory discussed in the book from other sources. It sounds really crackpot, but is the book itself notable? It seems to be. Roodog2k (talk) 18:21, 11 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, BusterD (talk) 02:33, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ICT Romulus[edit]
- ICT Romulus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ephemeral project, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google news search yields nothing, but gives more than a few hits on the book and scholar search. How independent these sources are is not clear to me. MakeSense64 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable sources aside from the company's website, I didn't see any notable mentions on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 04:51, 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) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another article about a EU research project, with vague but high aims, written in hyper-optimistic gibberish: improving significantly Java Web Development, in terms of productivity, security and reliability. Romulus approach is based on a metaframework integrated with enterprise systems and IDEs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep . Google scholar search returns multiple academic and non trivial references about the ICT Romulus and the Roma Framework project, therefore WP:NOTABLE. An obscure, badly written article is not alone a reason to delete. Marokwitz (talk) 11:40, 17 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, BusterD (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no independent sources found to support notability.
Keep As per Marokwitz this does appear to be notable among European academics. Article needs work but will be easier to improve from here than to start over.--Kvng (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Really? Perhaps Marokwitz and/or Kvng could point us to some of these substantial sources that they have located? I don't see them, nor do apparently SwisterTwister and Smerdis of Tlön.Crusio (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2011
- Just click the "scholar" link at the top of the AfD. --Kvng (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yet another Europrojectcrufttm non-notable per GNG - chatter among academics is different from significant coverage - if we had articles for everything the boffins discuss and peer reviewed we would might as well have fanfiction published to. Just because its academic doesn't mean its notable.--Cerejota (talk) 23:19, 25 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. WP:CSD#A7. Nominator is right that A7 only requires a credible claim of importance, but the claim here is only that he was an athletics "star" at a particular playground up to the age of 13. Credible or not, I don't see any importance. JohnCD (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parker Ryan[edit]
- Parker Ryan (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, didn't A7 due to strict interpretation of the criteria (only some sort of credible claim of importance needs to be made, and it seems it may be such). No objections to the AfD being converted to an A7 if someone thinks I am playing it too safe with the criteria. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 02:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. I can't find reliable sources for either the athlete or the athletic orginization. PaintedCarpet (talk) 07:57, 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 no consensus. I would suggest that a merger discussion can and should take place on the relevant talk page.Beeblebrox (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Son of Gutbucket[edit]
- Son of Gutbucket (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 comp, PROD denied because although the album wasn't notable, the artists on it were. This, of course, is contrary to WP:MUSIC and would open the door to literally tens of thousands of compilation albums having articles on Wikipedia. If you can find significant coverage, you're better than me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. My comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gutbucket (album) apply here as well, though in this case I might support a merge of the two articles together, as the Liberty series was later than, and arguably less innovative and notable than, the similar CBS, Island, etc., late-1960s UK budget sampler series. By the way, describing this as a "comp" is misleading - it was a sampler of new music, not a compilation of old music - important difference. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response My comments apply here as well: early-ness and innovation are not criteria for articles on Wikipedia, whereas notability is a criterion. To establish this notability you need to provide sources. Do you have any? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 6 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) 00:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or at best Merge) I am not finding reliable 3rd party sources making this specific album notable. The band may be but a specific albums is not because of the band. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 06:30, 11 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, BusterD (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.What Ghmyrtle said !!! --- And it almost (!) makes me sick each time I notice one of those Wikipedia experts trying to find "reliable 3rd party sources" *on the internet*, knowing that in 1969 such a thing didn't even *exist* ;-) --- I bet there were not only mentions, but even reviews of that album by the dozens in the then rock (and blues) magazines, but have neither the time (nor the nerve) to find out where exactly they were published ... StefanWirz (talk) 10:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response The assumption that there are sources is not good enough to establish notability--those sources must be provided. If someone wants to userfy the article and then add sources if and when they are found, that is acceptable, but an article cannot remain in the main namespace without an assertion of notability and verifiable sources to substantiate it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment "What Ghmyrtle said" Well what Ghmyrtle said was a link to previous statements on another related AFD that I assume had policy and guideline based arguments. So are you saying you also have policy and guideline based arguments on the same page or are we meant to believe that those other statements are a word for word example of your own argument? tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- response to Pudge MclameO's comment: Sometimes I'm challenged by those here discussions (e.g. [[23]]), sometimes I'm not --- this time, sorry, I'm not, for actually I got better things to do, like being in the process of building a Howlin' Wolf discography at [24] --- so you'll have to take my vote and my opinion as is ;-) StefanWirz (talk) 10:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but if the question posed is clarification of what exactly your reasoning for your vote is, as you have not provided any policy or guideline related point and simply stated "What Ghmyrtle said...", then you need to provide light on those questions. Simply saying to take them "as is" does nothing to help me understand what your reasoning being used involves. This is a cornerstone of being able to have a discussion. tyvm Pudge MclameO (talk) 23:49, 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 delete. CSD G3 Hoax Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Arthur Brenchley[edit]
- William Arthur Brenchley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is non-notable and not listed in reference given. Possible hoax.
The same editor who created the article uploaded three images on Commons as the same man. None of them match. One is an image of Ulric Dahlgren (File:UlricDahlgren.jpg) where the user merely took the image from here and uploaded it with the new name. He created the article with the clearly-named Dahlgren photo before uploading his renamed version File:Col.William Arthur Brenchley.jpg without citing source. Another version is File:William Arthur Brenchley.jpg. His newest upload is for File:William Arthur Brenchley 1863.jpg.
I'm trying to determine if the article is a hoax. I haven't found anything on the article subject and he doesn't appear to be in the reference cited. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 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. Populaces, regardless of size, are typically kept as long as they can be verified using a reliable source (WP:NPLACE). (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 15:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nangilickondan Village[edit]
- Nangilickondan Village (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 village isn't notable per WP:GNG. Perhaps redirect to Villupuram district Dengero (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There's no such thing as a "not notable" village as population centers are inherently notable regardless of size. This does appear to be an actual population center with many businesses identifying their location as Nangilickondan, Tamil Nadu.[25] Villupuram is over 40km away from Nangilickondan [26] and a redirect there would be totally inappropriate. --Oakshade (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested in seeing which policy states that all population centers are inherently noteable. That seems rather false on it's face. Jtrainor (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no notability "policies", but guidelines. However, one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia is that it contains elements of a gazetteer. WP:OUTCOMES#Places demonstrates this is held fundamental.--Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be interested in seeing which policy states that all population centers are inherently noteable. That seems rather false on it's face. Jtrainor (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As Oakshade said, verifiable villages are generally considered inherently notable per the result of numerous AfDs in the past. Sources which verify the village's existence can be found, though they mostly use the alternate spelling Nangilikondan (see here and here). The page should probably be moved to Nangilikondan, but that's not an issue to be settled at AfD. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation
- Keep. I agree there's been considerable discussion concluding verifiable populated places are inherently notable. This discussion indicates by Snow Keep that even verifiable formerly populated places are notable. Note the keep assertion by User:DGG, and the worthy dissent by User:Uncle G. (Also note the participation in that process of everyone here, except for the nominator, no offense intended). That discussion settled the question for me for good. BusterD (talk) 12:17, 25 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bandarban hill[edit]
- Bandarban hill (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 or redirect to Bandarban District. There is no need for an extra article for a hill. Dengero (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Bandarban (village). It appears the creator was trying to make an article for this village but didn't know what to do when "Bandarban", as in the district, was already an article so they added "hill" to it because it was near a tall hill. I've cleaned it up somewhat. This does appear to be a rather significant village with its own high school and even a stadium. [27]--Oakshade (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Changed to Delete based on Pontificalibus' research below. Bandarban Town can certainly have its own article and if it was a similar town in the United States or the United Kingdom, it most likely would've by now.--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI @Oakshade, you are completely mistaken here. The stadium, high school, as well as the map linked here belong to the town of Bandarban, which is the headquarter of the Bandarban District. If the authors meant that, then the article needs to be redirected to the district page. If not, then the article is either a hoax, or a non-notable village by the same name (I suspect whether the village even exists at all!!). --Ragib (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm just going by g-maps, which is considered a reliable source for verification and it definitely shows a village with the name "Bandarban". Many districts/states/counties/provinces can have municipalities within them with the same name. Veracruz, Veracruz for example. If Bandarban is a town as you say, then it can have an article.--Oakshade (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI @Oakshade, you are completely mistaken here. The stadium, high school, as well as the map linked here belong to the town of Bandarban, which is the headquarter of the Bandarban District. If the authors meant that, then the article needs to be redirected to the district page. If not, then the article is either a hoax, or a non-notable village by the same name (I suspect whether the village even exists at all!!). --Ragib (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Because I can't verify there is a village called "Bandarban" or "Bandarban hill", or that there is a hill called "Bandarban hill". The settlement linked to in Google maps by Oakshade above appears to be Bandarban Town, which could certainly have it's own article, but that's something to be decided outwith this discussion. There is no verified information to merge and we can't redirect if we are unsure of its existence.--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:28, 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 per consensus and as an unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie Wide[edit]
- Eddie Wide (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:NSPORT, as he has never played in an NFL game, and WP:GNG; save for this article on him, I can find no non-trivial coverage. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 01:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Giants27(T|C) 01:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG per nom.--Giants27(T|C) 01:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BIO Secret account 02:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NSPORTS, having never played at highest level. This is a WP:Run-of-the-mill player who does not deserve a standalone article. He also fails WP:GNG with lack of non-routine coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. WP:CRYSTAL would suggest not to speculate on future notability based on whether the undrafted player ever plays in the NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
<redacted> eddie wide ran 1 time for 6 yards this preseason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.116.4 (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Preseason games do not count towards passing WP:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:26, 24 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. BULLSEYE 168 hours, just for you DGG. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Morris (author)[edit]
- Christopher Morris (author) (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 career. No evidence plays were ever produced. Book not in WorldCat. As actor, roles in minor productions, mostly bit parts, with more impt parts only in some local school productions. Contributor deprodded the article, so it has to come here. DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. No evidence this person has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." — Satori Son 01:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 01:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 01:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep per WP:CREATIVE and the verifiability that this author's works have been the recipents of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. While helpful, The GNG is not the final arbiter of notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Struck, Was looking at wrong Christopher Morris. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent evidence of notability, and to judge by an e-mail I received, almost certainly an autobio. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Christopher Morris' bio on his official website states that as an actor, his Actor's Equity (stage name) is "Christopher Nichol". As "Christopher Morris", he fails WP:AUTHOR. But under his stage name he might meet WP:ENT [28] More searching to do. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actor's Equity name: :(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete Armed with his working name, I was able to go through the article and give it a sandblasting and expansion.[29] He's a working actor, and though fixing up the article was good practice, I found nothing that would show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:08, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Levi fridd[edit]
- Levi fridd (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 person, with claim unsupported. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 00:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - I've got suspicions that the tag was removed by the author or a friend of his. --Σ talkcontribs 00:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - The article has been tagged as A7 an hour ago, but I don't see how this should've been brought to AFD instead of tagging it as A7 because the article only consisted of "Levi Fridd is the most awesome person ever!" SwisterTwister talk 01:23, 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archana Sharma[edit]
- Archana Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:PROF does not apply. Few papers with few citations as per GScholar. Coverage in popular Indian media minimal - often just a casual mention. Not famous in her field of research. Does not hold any distinguished position/chair. — Finemann (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. After a long search in GS I find cites of 62, 22, 18, 14, 11, 10, 10.... with an h index of 7. Not enough for a person in a large research group to pass WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:27, 6 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, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of biographical sources on both Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- totally irrelevant reason, contrary to WP:Deletion policy. Scientists are needed for their work, not the the biography, so the absence of articles about their life specifically is irrelevant. (and we judge the work according to WP:PROF). Anyway, a search in google and yahoo only is never sufficient to justify a delete , except for the sort of people one would expect to find sources there. DGG ( talk ) 15:52, 15 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, Courcelles 00:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Xxanthippe that the numbers don't show a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and what else is there? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:51, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31Knots[edit]
- 31Knots (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 music group fails WP:BAND. Lagrange613 (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Jsayre64 (talk) 02:49, 6 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) 00:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a large number of reviews and articles to be found [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40], and AMG has a biography and full reviews for most of their albums [41] [42]. Even if some of those sources were not completely reliable, notability is met overall - frankie (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: my opinion will be changed if the article is expanded pronto with some third-party sources. I searched for news articles (at the link above) and turned up 87 items, but the first five (randomly chosen) are passing mentions. An interested editor should easily be able to cull the wheat from the chaff—if there is any. —EncMstr (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry, but you cannot use the threat of deletion to force volunteers to improve articles you aren't interested in. The only issue at AFD is ascertaining whether a viable article for the subject could exist in accordance with policy and guideline. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I read EncMstr's comment as saying that he doesn't think they're notable but is prepared to change his mind given some evidence. I think he merits a bit more good faith than you're giving. Articles get improved under threat of deletion all the time. This is good for the encyclopedia. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to lobby for an Articles For Improvement process, where articles that do not get improved by interested parties are deleted on the say-so of the disinterested, please do so at the village pump or some such place. If it's really so good for the encyclopedia, you should have no trouble getting it up and running. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 10:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I read EncMstr's comment as saying that he doesn't think they're notable but is prepared to change his mind given some evidence. I think he merits a bit more good faith than you're giving. Articles get improved under threat of deletion all the time. This is good for the encyclopedia. Lagrange613 (talk) 07:16, 20 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) 00:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTE. I have not been able to locate any non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. — Satori Son 01:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per frankie's reliable sources: principally the All Music Guide writeups, but also Sun Herald, Salt Lake City Tribune, The Stranger et al. 86.44.18.93 (talk) 23:50, 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. Given that the second 'Keep' vote was clearly rebutted, there appears to be consensus to delete here. If there are other athletes in the same position with articles, that is a fault with those articles, not this one. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
J. P. Tokoto[edit]
- J. P. Tokoto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Fails WP:NBASKETBALL, specifically WP:High school athletes as coverage are not independent of subject and mostly WP:ROUTINE Vanadus (talk | contribs) 21:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete User seems to be predicting fame for player, but violates WP:NOTCRYSTAL there Ben Kenobi151 (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the standard you following, then Andre Drummond, James McAdoo, Austin Rivers, and Anthony Davis need to all be deleted as well. All of these players have found similar success to J. P. Tokoto at the high school level and have not yet made any contributions to a college program. As such, their inclusion on Wikipedia should also be considered a violation of WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Jeick (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Drummond, McAdoo, and Davis were all rated the #1 player in their class by at least one source, which to me is notable enough for inclusion. Rivers was the Naismith Player of the Year, a notable award. J.P. Tokoto is nowhere near the notability levels of the others you've listed. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 13:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Notability," of course is subjective, and certainly Drummond, McAdoo, and Rivers were arguably better high school players, but we must go by WP:Notability of High school and pre-highschool athletes. I think the subject of this article meets the requirements listed for inclusion. 198.185.18.207 (talk) 17:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the coverage regarding this prospect appears to be WP:ROUTINE, which fails WP:Notability of High school and pre-highschool athletes. He does not have any notable achievements that qualifies WP:GNG. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 18:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a list of Non-routine stories of J. P. Tokoto that I got from a quick Google search. Claiming that all of the coverage regarding him is merely routine is rather disingenuous.
- Raleigh News & Observer: Tokoto eager to play for Tar Heels fans
- Fayetteville Observer: The full book on the newest Tar Heel, Class of 2012 star J. P. Tokoto.
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Investing in his future
- Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Star on the rise
- Charlotte Observer: UNC recruit Tokoto 'ecstatic'
- ACC Sports Journal: J.P. Tokoto's sacrificial style
- Menomonee Falls Patch: North Carolina would be best bet for Tokoto
- Jeick (talk) 19:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The IP who voted keep thinks we must go by WP:Notability of High school and pre-highschool athletes, which specifically states WP:ROUTINE excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes routine interviews as sources to establish notability. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 20:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a list of Non-routine stories of J. P. Tokoto that I got from a quick Google search. Claiming that all of the coverage regarding him is merely routine is rather disingenuous.
Keep JP is one of the best high school basketball players in the country and was recently considered the #1 SF by scout.com. He's notable enough to be on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.109.109.57 (talk) 20:32, 12 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) 00:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge to 2012–13 North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball team. A star high school player committing to a college is WP:Run-of-the-mill, especially if is ranked on average outside of the top-50 nationwide. Notability is not temporary. I don't believe this player would be encyclopedic years from now based on his current coverage if he doesn't also achieve in college and/or professionally. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Therefore, I am not in favor of keeping this article if there is a high possibility it will need to be deleted later.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 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 delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Marinaccio[edit]
- Joseph Marinaccio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
does not meet notability requirements, no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources Warfieldian (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of other sources on Google and Yahoo aside from his website and Linkedin. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is accurate. This individual has tens of thousands of fans who download/ listen/ purchase his media venues monthly. The page should remain. He is young and growing in popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AM330 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC) — AM330 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment If WrestleSlam Magazine is notable,he's notable as he editor of it. But, given that apparently only two issuea have been published, I think that article might need to be discussed also. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The owners of many startups and CEOs of businesses have articles, this is a valid entry and has numerous sources including an interview with him at South by Southwest. They don't interview people who aren't notable at huge conventions like South by Southwest. I have even edited this article multiple times, along with the page on WrestleSlam Magazine. The Editors of other magazines such as Sports Illustrated and ESPN sportswriters have articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.30.31 (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) — 24.45.30.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep - I created this account to say that I am a wrestling fan and have been for years and I subcribe to WrestleSlam Magazine and Joseph Marinaccio is a big name in the wrestling industry. There are also secondary sources listed in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WWEfan78 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 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) 00:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This guy is too young to be anything notable. This article appears to be embellished favorably (without any WP:RS). I can't see any obvious WP:RS on Google. Methinks the above 3 keeps are by the embellisher (note the consistency in the formatting). btw that would make a great name for a pro wrestler ("the embellisher"). Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 23:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm Gregory Hamill, the user who created this article. There are hundreds of articles of individuals (kids, even) who were born in 1994, so the argument that he is too young is simply invalid. I created the article because it does more than meet the notability requirements, and given the younger age, it is impressive. Being that he is an entrepreneur, some sources will be from his created content, however there is nothing that links to personal items such as Facebook or Linkedin. There are also outside sources, including an interview done with him for South by Southwest, which, as stated above, is a major event. As stated above, Editors of other magazines and other entrepreneurs do have articles and this is no different. This article does not take anything away from the credibility of Wikipedia as it does meet the notability requirements. I cannot vouch for the authenticity of the above three keeps, but I agree with them. --MDH326 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I follow the publishing and media industries closely, the delivery of information in these industries is evolving rapidly and even those in these fields are not certain what shape delivery of content will ultimately take. This individual is braking ground and helping to create the new normal of content delivery. The young age of the individual makes this body of work even more relevant as it represents the expectations of the next and possibly most influential generation to the publishing industry. The accomplishments of this individual or not only noteworthy but also timely and possibly foretell trends in the delivery and packaging of content. KEEP......KEEP......KEEP .... many are interested in people who are notable, relevant and on the forefront of multimedia. The accomplishments and body of work are clearly substantial and support keeping this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infoman1717 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Infoman1717 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Comment Searching the subjects name does turns results and from what I gathered he more than meets WP:Creative standards. I couldn't see any blatant instances of embellishment, however it can always be edited. I don't see any reason for deletion. — by 24.45.30.31 (talk) 23:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Note Editors may only !vote once. If you have additional comments, please clearly indicate this is only an additional comment, not a new vote. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I posted above, I do think the article should be kept as it does meet the notability standard. If nothing else, he is the Editor of a legitimate publication (a publication that actually has an article on Wikipedia). I wanted to share this link to an interview done with him at South by Southwest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.30.31 (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — 24.45.30.31 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note to AfD Administrator Very unusual activity on this AfD. Lots of new user IDs with almost no experience making keep recommendations. Suspect that they all belong to one or two individuals. Like-formatting suggests one individual. Have reported at ANI. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 02:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nomination. Google searches do not reveal sources to establish notability. Noformation Talk 02:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There has been some odd activity on here, definitely more than I would have expected on this particular article. However, I don't think that means the article should be deleted. As the user said above, it may be one person, but I think there is a point in that this subject does meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria. I did create this article, so obviously think it should not be deleted, especially just because someone may be overdoing it on here. --MDH326 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to List of tallest buildings in Tijuana, will supply copy of deleted material if requested for a merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Centura Tower[edit]
- Centura Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not seem to pass WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to establish notability. Monterey Bay (talk) 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are no defined guidelines for the notability of buildings. This building is also notable in that it hosts the honorary consulate of Norway in Tijuana, and for being one of the tallest buildings in the city. As a young article, it should be kept per WP:ATD, as it can surely be improved. 08OceanBeachS.D. 23:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with WP:GNG here? And I certanly don't think that every building housing some consulate (not even an embassy) is automatically notable. The consulate of Norway in Tijuana has no Wikipedia page of its own, and probably for a good reason. You're essentially asserting that a non-wikinotable entity makes something else wikinotable, which is so outlandish it's not even mentioned at WP:NOTINHERITED. (Are we going to have an article for every embassy house on Massachusetts Avenue (Washington, D.C.)?) FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a few issues with the WP:GNG in the case of buildings. The primary topic is the issue of significant coverage; buildings do not generally make the headlines of newspaper articles and certainly not the focus of society after initial completion. However, the building does meet the criterion in the case of Reliability, Sourcing, and Independence of the subject. The article adequately supplies reliable sources, some of which are secondary and upon review one would find that there is not blatant advertising. My overall point is that in Tijuana, and even Baja California, it is notable for its height and the companies it headquarters. 08OceanBeachS.D. 10:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of books about architecture and even about the more mundane aspects of building engineering. Reliable sources are not limited to web pages and newspapers. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, your statement is hardly relevant to, nor addresses, any of my above points. If it so pleases the reader, there are books mention the building regarding buildings and their structure in Mexico, in addition to some about buildings in Tijuana, located at the following links: [43], [44], [45], [46], and [47]. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of books about architecture and even about the more mundane aspects of building engineering. Reliable sources are not limited to web pages and newspapers. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see a few issues with the WP:GNG in the case of buildings. The primary topic is the issue of significant coverage; buildings do not generally make the headlines of newspaper articles and certainly not the focus of society after initial completion. However, the building does meet the criterion in the case of Reliability, Sourcing, and Independence of the subject. The article adequately supplies reliable sources, some of which are secondary and upon review one would find that there is not blatant advertising. My overall point is that in Tijuana, and even Baja California, it is notable for its height and the companies it headquarters. 08OceanBeachS.D. 10:00, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What's wrong with WP:GNG here? And I certanly don't think that every building housing some consulate (not even an embassy) is automatically notable. The consulate of Norway in Tijuana has no Wikipedia page of its own, and probably for a good reason. You're essentially asserting that a non-wikinotable entity makes something else wikinotable, which is so outlandish it's not even mentioned at WP:NOTINHERITED. (Are we going to have an article for every embassy house on Massachusetts Avenue (Washington, D.C.)?) FuFoFuEd (talk) 08:42, 14 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) 00:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of tallest buildings in Tijuana because I do not think it is notable enough to meet WP:GNG. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 10:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The building appears notable enough, IMHO, especially for Tijuana. --Aude (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Special pleading? FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. If every building needed to be as notable as the Empire State Building or the Burj Khalifa than there would hardly be any building articles on Wikipedia. This buildling is extremely notable in Tijuana. 08OceanBeachS.D. 21:19, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Special pleading? FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find any coverage surrounding the building, and the only things of note would be the honorary consulates of Norway and Japan [48], but it is still not enough in my opinion to establish notability. On a side note, the article is called Centura Tower, but on nearly every hit I got it was being referred to as Centura Corporate Center, and it seems there is also a Centura Tower in Dallas [49] — frankie (talk) 15:53, 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. Courcelles 18:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LALR Parser Generator[edit]
- LALR Parser Generator (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 prod was removed by an IP. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Based on the many Google scholar hits, this tool has been widely used, including for well-known products such as the Java editor of Eclipse. The name is rather dumb, and I suggest moving the article to LALR Parser Generator (LPG), whereas LALR Parser Generator ought to be an {{R from other capitalisation}} to LALR parser generator. --Lambiam 20:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There may be many Google hits for this, but I strongly suspect they refer to the computing term LALR parser generator and not specifically this software. Concur with the notability argument, and I have some concern that the choice of name is an attempt at advertising without advertising.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then try this search with a disambiguating extra term, or this search using the earlier name. --Lambiam 22:05, 12 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) 00:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is one specific incarnation of a LALR parser generator. Although a useful tool and easily notable by counting gHits, there's just very little one can say about it in an encyclopedic sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 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. The apparent SPA's have been given little weight here, the consensus of those who argued policy, and not the crystal ball, is clearly for deletion. Courcelles 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prophets and Kings (band)[edit]
- Prophets and Kings (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)
Band that appears to have only minor local notability in Chattanooga, TN; sources are blogs or local arts websites. Doesn't meet WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Band actually has minor notability in Atlanta as well, and Carbondale, IL; Notability in Chattanooga is actually quite large. Sources include reputable online independent music magazines (Magnet and Impose Magazine are not minor) Meets WP:BAND's first criteria
Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries
Also, meets criteria 7:
Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city
Jthawkins2001 (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Criteria 7 still says that "all other criteria should be met," and I'm not seeing verefiable sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Prophets & Kings debut album is on rotation at the following stations:
Official adds for Prophets & Kings:
- Bagel Radio San Francisco CA
- KEUL Girdwood AK
- KRUA Anchorage AK
- KTCU Fort Worth TX (P1) (M)
- KUMD Duluth MN (P1)
- KWUR St. Louis MO
- WIDB Carbondale IL
- WRBC Lewiston ME
- WRKC Wilkes-Barre PA (M)
- WUML Lowell MA (P1)
- WXAV Chicago IL
- WXCI Danbury CT (P1)
RPM (electronic) format adds for Prophets & Kings:
- Aggie Radio Logan UT
- CHMR St. Johns NL-Canada
- CILU Thunder Bay ON-Canada
- CJLO Montreal QC-Canada
- KAOS Olympia WA
- KBRP Bisbee AZ
- KDNK Carbondale CO (A)
- KFAI Minneapolis MN (P1) (A) (M)
- KGLT Bozeman MT
- KRUA Anchorage AK
- KTUH Honolulu HI (P1)
- KWCR Ogden UT
- Radio Phoenix Phoenix AZ
- WMXM Lake Forest IL
- WNRN Charlottesville VA (P1)
- WRRG River Grove IL
- WXOU Rochester MI
(P1) - Priority-1 Stations
(M) - Mediaguide Stations
Jthawkins2001 (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The purpose of having articles with notable coverage is that way there's enough verification for them, and I didn't see any third-party sources on Google and Yahoo. SwisterTwister talk 19:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Do you mean these third party source?
- http://teamclermont.com/roster/10927/prophets-kings
- http://redandblack.com/2011/08/03/listen-up-prophets-kings/
- http://www.indierockcafe.com/2011/08/rock-singles-albums-hot-songs/
- http://www.campuscircle.com/review.cfm?r=13760
- http://www.indierockcafe.com/2011/08/rock-singles-albums-hot-songs/
- http://www.nooga.com/1150_local-bands-offered-new-opportunity-to-play-to-nightfall-crowds/
- http://chattanoogapulse.com/music/music-feature/music-feature-hot-time-late-summer-in-the-city/
- http://www.imposemagazine.com/bytes/reviews-dmzlyre-split-prophets--kings
- http://chattanoogapulse.com/music/music-feature/music-feature-who-will-win-the-road-to-nightfall/
- http://bonnaroo.sonicbids.com/BandDetails.aspx?b=27976&sr=false&bn=Prophets+&+Kings
- http://weheartmusic.blogsome.com/2011/08/03/31/
- http://indiemusicpr.blogspot.com/2011/07/prophets-kings-release-debut-lp-august.html
- http://www.wnrn.org/feed/
- http://blog.kexp.org/blog/2011/08/09/out-this-week-89/
- http://tunein.com/radio/WUTC-881-s23441/
- http://alliedartschattanooga.org/site/pages/local-arts/calendar.php?p=3
- http://issuu.com/brewermediagroup/docs/pulse_8_7
- http://mcboom.ru/08/prophets-kings-prophets-kings/
- http://chattanooganewspress.org/category/chattanooga-entertainment/chattanooga-music/
- http://movementnews.blogspot.com/
Jthawkins2001 (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 12 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, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sourcespam above isnothing but personal blogs, incidental coverage of local performances, or otherwise unreliable junk. There is no way to verify that the stations in question are playing them, nor can I find anything of substance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as at least the 'Beginnings' section is WP:COPYVIO of one of their sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon closer inspection, it looks as if most of the wiki is a cut-and-paste job from the blog I referenced above. PaintedCarpet (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely Keep these guys are huge in Chattanooga and represent the only electro-bash style to make serious waves. Just because they aren't U2 doesn't invalidate them. Keep --BeardfaceMBeard (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — BeardfaceMBeard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep While the above links are all GOOGLE search links there are many notable indie review sites in there such as spinner and impose that I believe do lend credibility to the band. They have also been reviewed by a fairly well know blogger on www.the1stfive.com Stratparrott (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Stratparrott (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete. The wall of links above didn't provide anything of substance, and actually almost nothing from outside Chattanooga. I cannot find any solid sources online to establish notability — frankie (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely Keep If this bands page is deleted now it will just inevitably need to be recreated as their fan base especially in the Southeast is rapidly growing. Between the radio play, the positive journalism their just released debut is consistently earning and their rabid fan base it's the wrong move to delete this page just as the band is starting to pick up some serious momentum. Very much hope these facts will be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misenscenester (talk • contribs) 17:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC) — Misenscenester (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep These guys are showing up on our official CMJ charts and are being played across the U.S. Their record was the #1 most rpm added record the week of it's release. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2619846/RPM%20Adds%20Chart%20Issue%201212.pdf Allenhamilton (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i do not usually give an opinion on articles in this field but the arguments given above amount to "They Will Become Notable Soon". When they are, there can be an article. DGG ( talk ) 03:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Again, I'm trying to communicate that these guys are notable. I'm sure they'll start showing up on the web more or however you are judging their notability. In the meantime, however, they have broke onto the CMJ top 200 at 198. Not an easy task. They are just behind other such notables as Wilco and Blink 182. I work in the radio industry and I can assure you that the CMJ top 200 is notable. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/2619846/Radio%20200%20Chart%20Issue%201214.pdf Allenhamilton (talk) 15:58, 24 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) 03:37, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trial By Error[edit]
- Trial By Error (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 play, performed by amateurs only, can find no WP:RS to satisfy WP:GNG. PROD declined without explanation Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 12 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, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. seems like nothing more than promo for theatre company, probably NN in and of itself. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 13:36, 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.