Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 August 22
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Bonus Army. Courcelles 23:55, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
William Hushka[edit]
- William Hushka (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 person was a participant in the Bonus Army. Not only is this a biography of a person known for only one event, he doesn't even seem very significant to that one event. This article is almost a WP:Coatrack for the Bonus army. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 23:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He is mentioned in the other article so a redirect is another possibility.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge to Bonus army, along with Eric Carlson. The two men killed were an important part of the history of the demonstration. Cullen328 Let's discuss it</ont> 02:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge. He probably deserves a mention in the Bonus Army article, but it doesn't look like he was notable himself. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:27, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Get Hot New Stuff[edit]
- Get Hot New Stuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely non-notable and reads like an advertisement. This was originally created as a redirect, but I do not see how a redirect to KDE 4 is relevant. Joe Chill (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The redirect was also done by a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No third-party sources and reads like a brochure. SilverCity 23:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unreferenced, no indication of notability. Dialectric (talk) 19:49, 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 close, no deletion needed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Smashing Pumpkins 1991–1998[edit]
- The Smashing Pumpkins 1991–1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Merge has been completed. (Didn't know how to tag this with speedy deletion as the result of a merge.) Lachlanusername (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment- For legal reasons, once a merge has been completed, a deletion is impossible. Simply re-direct this article to the target this has been merged to. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:16, 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. — Joseph Fox 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hank Smith (Speaker)[edit]
- Hank Smith (Speaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for a speaker of questionable notability. References are all primary or affiliated with the subject or his church. Little independent coverage found in independent sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mike, thank you so much for your input. How is this reference any different from the "John Bytheway" or the "Bradley R. Wilcox" reference? The references meet the independent guidelines written by Wikipedia: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent." None of the sources listed in the article were created or resulted from advertisements by Mr. Smith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsuser (talk • contribs) 04:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this is a promotional article. The Deseret News and Deseret Book are perfectly fine references. One is a major newspaper and the other is his publisher. The Daily Universe' is BYU's student paper. The other references don't matter as they don't deal with Smith as they review his books or mention him in passing. That being said, the Deseret News articles are reviewing his material and Deseret Book isn't an independent reference. Then we are just left with the Daily Universe article that could be argued as not an independent reference as Smith is studying and teaching at BYU. I can find blogs, reviews of his books and speeches, and announcements of his talks. However, I'm unable to find any reliable references (WP:SOURCES) that talk about him, therefore delete. Bgwhite (talk) 06:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Another independent reference has been added (Davis County Newspaper). Deseret Book is not Smith's publisher, his publisher is Covenant Communications. All of the Deseret News articles, reviews or otherwise, are independent. The article meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Similar to this article, the "John Bytheway" article (referenced above) references only BYU publications, Bytheway also works for BYU.
- Comment Covenant is owned by Deseret book. The Deseret News articles are indeed independent. The problem being is in order to meet WP:GNG, there has to be "significant coverage" and "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail". The Deseret News article has a review of his book as its subject and not Smith. So, it's a good reference to confirm he wrote a book, but does nothing to satisfy WP:GNG.
- I just looked at the Bradley R. Wilcox and John Bytheway articles. Without doing much research, the Wilcox article should also be nominated to be deleted as it suffers the same problems as Smith's article. The Bytheway article has no reliable references either. Bytheway has done an impressive amount of publications that might make him notable. After the outcome of this debate, I'll look at these two articles more closely to determine if they should be brought up for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In reading the "significant coverage" guideline, we also read that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It seems to me that the Deseret News reviews meet that standard. Similarly, the articles repeatedly mention Smith's background and talk about him being a well-known speaker for the LDS faith. Therefore, I think the article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.218.170 (talk) 01:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — 174.52.218.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I agree with the above comment. The article should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldsuser (talk • contribs) 04:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) — Ldsuser (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete I have to say that I consider the Deseret News articles in this particular case as promotional and unreliable, and its reviews are the best of the refs. Any number of such references does not provide evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not DeleteJust because the reviews are positive does not make them promotional or unreliable. Again, please refer to the Bradley R. Wilcox and John Bytheway articles for the precedents.— 174.52.218.170 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.- Comment - Those other articles are not precedents. Pretty much anybody can create an article on anything on Wikipedia. Whether the article should exist depends on it meeting Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a difference between this article and the Wilcox and Bytheway articles. To delete this article and not the others seems to me to be inconsistent application of Wikipedia guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.218.170 (talk) 22:44, 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. Per votes on this page and WP:CSD G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. Materialscientist (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lawrence H. Fisher[edit]
- Lawrence H. Fisher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiographical article about a self-published author of questionable notability. References are not about the subject - he is only mentioned in passing for a quote. Book published through Tate Publishing, a known fee-to-print publisher. Google search for "Lawrence H. Fisher" "Memoir of a Milk Carton Kid" only shows the Wikipedia article. No significant coverage found. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The book is scheduled to be published in September. An article from the associated press in this regard will be added as a reference. All other references pertain to quotes from the author who was counsel of record in the high profile cases of interet. Also, the author is reference on the Wikki page of the current Mayor of Pittsburgh, Luke Ravenstahl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence H. Fisher (talk • contribs) 21:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC) — Lawrence H. Fisher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Strong Delete Autobiography. No sign of sufficient notability as an attorney or an author. Promotional tone. Safiel (talk) 00:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - I had actually speedy'd it but the COI creator removed the tag. Nothing notable on Google, Google News and Yahoo search, unsalvageable article. SwisterTwister talk 01:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Maintain Author and attorney more than qualified for a personal Wiki page. When you search author/attorney in conjunction with the names of his client's listed in his references -- i.e., "Pat Ford Lawrence Fisher" or "Tanya Kach Lawrence Fisher" -- numerous notable articles on Google, Google Images, Google News, Yahoo and others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence H. Fisher (talk • contribs) 14:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — Lawrence H. Fisher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note - the above editor tried to remove the delete votes from this article. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the within apologizes for inadvertantly deleteing any materials from this discussion.
Strong Maintain- Aurthor and attorney has added references to CNN transcripts where he was interviewed on Anderson Cooper 360. Also, author and attorney is not part of any so-called "fee-to-print" publication and the publisher disavows the same. www.tatepublishing.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence H. Fisher (talk • contribs) 15:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC) — Lawrence H. Fisher (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - I have tried to locate significant reliable source coverage. What I have turned up are passing references in a few local papers about cases he is involved in. A rather typical example is an article like this one: [1] where the extent of the coverage is a single quote about his case saying, "We haven't specified damages...We're going to leave that to a jury to decide." That type of passing quote is not significant coverage, it is routine for any attorney on any case in a local newspaper. For the record, even if a case he is involved in is a major case, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. He also fails WP:GNG. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain-- Page has been updated to include a case of precedential value. Furthermore, significant reliable source coverage contained in reference 8, the Associated Press article about the book, which meets Wiki guidelines listed above. Additionally, references 1, 7, 8, and 9, when viwed in totality demonstates significant coverage of a major case that establishes this attorney/author as qualified for a personal Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence H. Fisher (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop adding multiple keep/maintain votes, Lawrence. We go by content, not numbers, and even though you don't sign your posts, we know it's you adding these additional comments. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would have speedied this self-promotion Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the way that Wiki seems to have orchestrated a complete asault on this qualified professional Wiki page, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE delete this page. All of this nonsense is absurd. Some ruse will result in the site being posted eventually. It's apparent from this page that the Wiki police know no honest bounds.--Lawrence H. Fisher (talk) 03:23, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony jones and the cretin 3[edit]
- Tony jones and the cretin 3 (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 removed a CSD, as I think there's at least a claim to notability with them being signed, but they still appear to fail WP:BAND with barely any coverage, awards, or even much music. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious not a notable band, and the page is completely unsourced. I support a speedy delete. JDDJS (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:BAND, no coverage in WP:RS, apparently "signed" to non-notable label. Appearances on local television programs/radio, local gigs, etc., do not convey notability. --Kinu t/c 21:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No claim to notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that the band passes WP:Notability (music).--SabreBD (talk) 12:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Even the nom admits notability in Nigeria, which is of course sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Augustus Aikhomu[edit]
- Augustus Aikhomu (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: Little apparent notability outside certain circles in Nigeria. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He meets not one but two notability guidelines, WP:POLITICIAN as vice-president of Nigeria and WP:SOLDIER as a flag offficer (admiral) in the Nigerian navy. This is a worldwide encyclopedia, not an American/British encyclopedia. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 04:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per Cullen328. A national vice-president, who was also a flag officer and ran a major national political party is clearly notable (on any of the three counts). The article needs to be cleaned up, and it needs a lot more references, but its subject is plainly notable. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Speedy Keep - this is a totally uncalled-for nomination. This officer is unquestionably notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:53, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A brief google books search shows that the subject has recieved coverage in a range of seemingly reliable sources. As such he seems notable under the WP:GNG. Hopefully some of these can be added to the article. Anotherclown (talk) 11:22, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lalaloopsy[edit]
- Lalaloopsy (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 appears to be a non-notable line of toys. The only possibly useful reference I see is from a trade publication, and does not really establish notability. The article has been highly promotional in nature at times, listing the entire line with excessive details. LadyofShalott 20:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. there is nothing notable here at all. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - I didn't see anything notable on Google, Google News and Yahoo that would be appropriate for Wikipedia, this small mention here wouldn't be enough for the article. SwisterTwister talk 21:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. No sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH and no evidence any even exist. Msnicki (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. improved sufficiently to meetthe original objections. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Narcissistic abuse[edit]
- Narcissistic abuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Bizarre WP:SYNTH subject that no substantial work has been deovted to examine thus failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has a decent number of references in Google Scholar and Books. Also the fact that different people have attached varying meanings to the phrase is entirely typical of an evolving concept of that nature (as for example Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury or True self and false self) and has nothing to do with synthesis. --Penbat (talk) 08:02, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:51, 1 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, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - "has come to mean any abuse by a narcissist." ... isn't all that explained in Narcissistic supply ??? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - no different concept. Narcissistic supply is affirmation, approval, or admiration that the narcissist expects from others. Narcissistic abuse is effectively the opposite, abuse metered out by narcissists to people who dont provide narcissistic supply. I think both articles narcissistic abuse and narcissistic supply could do with clarifying.--Penbat (talk) 07:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redir - 2 sides of the same coin should be explained in 1 place. The Narcissist wants something. If they get it its supply, if they dont its abuse. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 23:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - "has come to mean any abuse by a narcissist." ... isn't all that explained in Narcissistic supply ??? Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 03:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No you misunderstand. I was being simplistic. Not getting supply doesnt necessarily lead to abuse, it just may lead to abuse. They are separate processes. They are not conceptually exact opposites (or two sides of the same coin) and the two concepts were developed at different times by different people. Narcissistic abuse is actually conceptually quite closely related to narcissistic rage, being the type of anger that leads to narcissistic abuse, but dont think of merging the two as anger isnt the same as abuse.--Penbat (talk) 08:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I believe that all the references contain the ngram Narcissistic abuse, but I don't believe that there is substantial coverage.
The apparent confusion above leads me to think that I'm not in thinking that the definition also needs to be substantially rewritten.Stuartyeates (talk) 08:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what does "The apparent confusion above leads me to think that I'm not in thinking that the definition also needs to be substantially rewritten." mean ?--Penbat (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction replace with "The apparent confusion above leads me to think that the definition also needs to be substantially rewritten." Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have just informed User:Jacobisq, the editor who did most of the work on narcissistic abuse of this AFD. He should have been informed before. --Penbat (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User_talk:Jacobisq#Narcissistic_abuse_.26_Sycophancy may also be relevant to editors considering the (pre)history of this page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that discussion doesnt have any direct relevance on the merits of this AFD. I was convinced from the start that "narcissistic abuse" is an important subject but apart from the widely available Vaknin work, I didnt personally have access to other relevant sources while User_talk:Jacobisq himself later found more sources and was able to find enough to develop it into a new article. The fate of this article should be left to editors who understand narcissism and narcissistic abuse not to editors who dont understand the subject and make glib assertions.--Penbat (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Absolutely not! This article should not be left to editors who understand narcissism and narcissistic abuse. This is not a specialist publication, it is a general reference encyclopedia. Every page (and particularly every lead) needs to be readable and understandable by someone with high-school level reading and comprehension. If there are topics that can't be explained at that level, they're not suitable for inclusion. I'm willing to admit that Narcissistic abuse might be notable if I understood it; it's the role of the page to give me enough understanding to make that call that it's notable; currently it doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the article has been viewed 6148 times in the last 30 days, so the subject obvious has some general interest - but I'm not sure as a newbie whether this fact is relevant. Rereading the article - which I mainly worked on in January - I take Stuartyeates's point about intelligibility - as currently set out, the arguments might well seem a bit arcane. I certainly think myself the subject is notable; but would personally favour retention with a tag for cleanup/wikification Jacobisq (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the numbers are probably inflated by this AfD proposal. As to arcaneness / intelligibility, the main point in my opinion is the lead---those crucial first sentences which give readers an introduction and establish the field, context and notability of the subject. In my experience the lead is where most specialist articles fall short; partly because the subject experts (who are needed to write the page as a whole) have too much context to be able to write an introduction for a general audience. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted to "wikify" the lead a bit more; but no doubt there's still room for improvement - and this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, after all! All improvements gratefully received. Interestingly the numbers do seem to have roughly doubled with Afd, as you surmised: April figures are 3,366, May 3,4004 and June 3,440, so steady interest, but at a lower level, before the big August jump. I suppose numbers will (at best!) drop down again when the debate closes.... Jacobisq (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the numbers are probably inflated by this AfD proposal. As to arcaneness / intelligibility, the main point in my opinion is the lead---those crucial first sentences which give readers an introduction and establish the field, context and notability of the subject. In my experience the lead is where most specialist articles fall short; partly because the subject experts (who are needed to write the page as a whole) have too much context to be able to write an introduction for a general audience. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see the article has been viewed 6148 times in the last 30 days, so the subject obvious has some general interest - but I'm not sure as a newbie whether this fact is relevant. Rereading the article - which I mainly worked on in January - I take Stuartyeates's point about intelligibility - as currently set out, the arguments might well seem a bit arcane. I certainly think myself the subject is notable; but would personally favour retention with a tag for cleanup/wikification Jacobisq (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Absolutely not! This article should not be left to editors who understand narcissism and narcissistic abuse. This is not a specialist publication, it is a general reference encyclopedia. Every page (and particularly every lead) needs to be readable and understandable by someone with high-school level reading and comprehension. If there are topics that can't be explained at that level, they're not suitable for inclusion. I'm willing to admit that Narcissistic abuse might be notable if I understood it; it's the role of the page to give me enough understanding to make that call that it's notable; currently it doesn't. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that discussion doesnt have any direct relevance on the merits of this AFD. I was convinced from the start that "narcissistic abuse" is an important subject but apart from the widely available Vaknin work, I didnt personally have access to other relevant sources while User_talk:Jacobisq himself later found more sources and was able to find enough to develop it into a new article. The fate of this article should be left to editors who understand narcissism and narcissistic abuse not to editors who dont understand the subject and make glib assertions.--Penbat (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User_talk:Jacobisq#Narcissistic_abuse_.26_Sycophancy may also be relevant to editors considering the (pre)history of this page. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Jacobisq has kindly now made major improvements to the article which should help with intelligibility of the article. The article now has 19 different cited sources which should dispel the lack of sources criticism. User:Stuartyeates misunderstands my point about experts doing the writing - the article should be written for the benefit of the general non-expert public but on the other hand people who think that the moon is made of green cheese shouldn't be writing about the moon.--Penbat (talk) 08:21, 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, BusterD (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having felt I'd rather hastily "cobbled together" my earlier input to the article, I'm glad to have been prompted to have another go.
On the substantive point of WP:GNG, I feel more convinced, not less, after the further digging around involved, that this is an important subject with wide ramifications, on which Wikipedia should have a unique page. Er, "No change" Jacobisq (talk) 09:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Joseph Fox 20:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yawn. I think this AFD is way over due to be put to bed. Towards the end of 2 weeks of no consensus, User:Jacobisq made some major improvements to the article. It seems most unlikely that consensus would now suddenly move to delete. --Penbat (talk) 08:24, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Foodiepalooza[edit]
- Foodiepalooza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Event of questionable notability - claimed to be "annual", but has only happened once so far. Previously deleted as promotional. Of the five references provided, two make no mention of subject - the rest are simple calendar listings reprinting a press release. Google news search shows no coverage. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - Too soon for an article on this event. The original author mentions Las Vegas Uncork'd as an example of a similar event, I'd like to point out to him - that in addition to blog & local media coverage - the event received coverage on a national tv show and in a French magazine. (eg: multiple independent sources). --Versageek 21:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A bit optimistic to describe an event that has occurred once only as "annual". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:52, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Promotional, and WP:CRYSTAL like with a single event being called annual. I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 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 delete. Courcelles 23:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mikey Way (musician)[edit]
- Mikey Way (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)
not notable outside of the band, possible redirect to My Chemical Romance. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 19:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to band article; Mikey Way already redirects there, and the "(musician)" part is not necessary for disambiguation, since this is the only mikey way around. the fact that "Way was bullied at school, and was an outcast" may explain why he's not notable apart from his band. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete duh, sorry. since Mikey Way already redirects to band, and since there's no other mikey way, we don't need to redirect this there, but to delete it instead and let the existing redirect stand. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mikey Way. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with the page it isn't hurting anybody and gives people information about him — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsTylerPosey (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Since Mikey Way already exists as a redirect, this one with a disambiguator is not needed. -- Whpq (talk) 14:54, 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. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Niehaus[edit]
- Jeffrey Niehaus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deproded by an anon IP without addressing the underlying concern. Still appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. I have been unable to find reliable sources to satisfy the notability requirements for an academic. The google scholar search turns up some citations, but not significant enough number to quality for WP:ACADEMIC. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete the two sources cited are (a) his faculty page at school and (b) a blog. his books are not published with academic houses, except (marginally) zondervan, and his hits on google scholar show few citations (i included link to search because he doesn't seem to publish under name jeffrey, so autogenerated link isn't helpful). 22 is the top, and that's for the zondervan book, and even that's not that many. clearly, clearly fails wp:academic. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. GS cites above are 22, 6, 5, 2, 2, 1. Seems to be not really enough for WP:Prof#C1, even in a very low cited field. Is there anything else? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PROF, and also WP:GNG. Other articles of GCTS faculty have been created recently, but they are Presidents and occupiers of named chairs. Niehaus is neither. StAnselm (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —StAnselm (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am just not seeing anything significant enough in the record to indicate passing WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 02:27, 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 23:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Santos[edit]
- Henry Santos (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:MUSICBIO. only reference a dead link to website of band he was in. note: declined speedy delete. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I was a little hasty in believing the deadlink tag on the reference. evidently what was meant was this page. however, see duplication detector results. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 04:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 03:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — Status {talkcontribs 07:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google and Yahoo that would be appropriate for this article.SwisterTwister talk 20:30, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Torbjørn Agdestein[edit]
- Torbjørn Agdestein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Player fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Tedaram (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tedaram (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Tedaram (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it defies common sense to delete article for the number 23 shirt on a Championship (second level of English football ... 4th level is fully professional). We'll only be recreating it in a few weeks. There's lots of chances of deleting the article in a few months ... but it's a waste of resources to worry about these articles now. Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Actually playing for the team and just being under contract are slightly different. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No professional appearances, no significant coverage, does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 14:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. If he ever makes an appearance for Brighton, he would be notable, but until then he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, being given the prestigious #23 shirt does not confer notability. Quite clearly fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. --Jimbo[online] 21:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Obscure player who has never made a single professional appearance in any club. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. How exactly shirt number #23 is notable, that's what i want to know... Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 20:32, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
James Barnes (entrepreneur)[edit]
- James Barnes (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No assertion of notability per WP:BIO; no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. indeed, there are even fewer reliable sources than usual. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I didn't see notable links on Google and Yahoo that would aid this article according to Wikipedia guidelines.SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical thinking vs. Lateral thinking[edit]
- Vertical thinking vs. Lateral thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Personal essay, almost completely unsourced and much original research with heavy use of WP:Synthesis per WP:No original research. What's left when you remove the essay and reflection is already covered in lateral thinking. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. Several Times (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Original research and unsuitable for inclusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom, per !voting other editors, and per fact that this borders on wp:nonsense anyway. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The purpose of thinking is to collect information and use it in the best possible manner. The mind works to create fixed patterns from the surroundings, after which they can be used, and they become firmly established. Thus, the mind provides a special environment for information to organize itself effectively. The presence of vertical thinking and lateral thinking also suggests that this may be a content fork, although those articles are not much better than this one. No prejudice to creating and unifying all of those articles somewhere, and this title may be the logical place. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:OR. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 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 speedily deleted per G3 by RHaworth (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rashid Ansari[edit]
- Rashid Ansari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced WP:AUTOBIO, can't find anything online backing up his claims of awards or any sort of notability per WP:BIO, speedied twice A7 in two months. The photo supplied with the article does not suggest the level of skill in the graphic arts that one would normally expect from an award-winning animator. Gurt Posh (talk) 16:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Gurt Posh (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, even if this isn't just a blatant hoax/vanity article, there is zero evidence of notability. --Kinu t/c 16:41, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Beck[edit]
- Taylor Beck (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 by WP:NHOCKEY standards. Jim Mahon trophy is not a major award. Coverage of the subject is not independent and/or significant. Mileworth (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. — Cjmclark (Contact) 17:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The Jim Mahon Memorial Trophy is awarded to the top scoring right winger in the Ontario Hockey League–that is, only one player per season achieves it. The article is primarily sourced to the Guelph Mercury, one of the oldest newspapers in Ontario, which should serve as an adequately independent source. At least three of the articles are written about Beck specifically, therefore coverage should be considered significant. Cjmclark (Contact) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Top scoring right winger is not a major award. If it were the top scoring player period then maybe. However when it comes to scoring feets NHOCKEY requires the player to be in the top 10 scoring ever in the league for junior players. As for the coverage, its routine coverage of a local player. He might be notable in the future but he isn't yet. -DJSasso (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with nominator. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Beyond the above, WP:NHOCKEY has recently been adjusted to eliminate "major awards" from the criteria. As such, there are no criteria under which Beck can remotely be considered as having met. ῲ Ravenswing ῴ 15:13, 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 23:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Carly Barnes[edit]
- Carly Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly does not meet the notability guideline. Slashme (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find any secondary sources that discuss Ms. Barnes. The sources provided are either primary sources or tangentially mention her. I also cannot find any sources on my own search. Seems like a vanity page. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 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, Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A lack of independent sources coupled with some very difficult-to-unravel COI and NPOV problems suggest this isn't more than a vanity page and/or spam. Several Times (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, having notable clients doesn't make her notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:05, 29 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan bond[edit]
- Jonathan bond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
nn soccer player who has only made 1 appearance in the Welsh national football team nymets2000 (t/c/l) 15:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a redirect to John Bond could be potentially be a good idea.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 00:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no, he has not made any appearance for the Welsh national football team, nor for any other team of note meaning he fails WP:NFOOTBALL, as well as WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 00:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Move to Jonathan Bond first of all. Second, it appears he has made an appearance for the Wales national team, satisfying WP:FOOTYN. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. The appearance for Wales is complete fabrication. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 13:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No evidence of playing for Wales at senior level, no appearances in fully professional league, does not meet WP:NFOOTY or WP:GNG criteria. Deserter1 14:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Should be recreated as Jonathan Bond if player meets criteria. Tedaram (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unreferenced BLP. The international cap for Wales appears to be a fabrication. Without it, Mr. Bond clearly fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The outcome of this AfD seems to depend on whether his Wales cap actually happened or not. Watford and the Watford Observer both mention he was selected by Wales. According to football.co.uk though, perhaps he played the first half in a match? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Welsh Football Association notes under Under-19 and Under-17 caps[2]. No evidence that he has played for the national team. Tassedethe (talk) 03:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - can find no evidence to support football.co.uk's claim that he played in a (helpfully unspecified) match for Wales -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. football.co.uk claim likely refers to U-21 45 minute debut last August, no verifiable source to show full national team appearance. Disappointing to see challenged information left unsourced in a BLP.--ClubOranjeT 07:21, 27 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xurmo Technologies[edit]
- Xurmo Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:NCORP. I would not usually nominate so soon after the article being moved into main space, however, I believe that the article has no hope of being notable in the short term. Author has been warned that the article does not meet the notability guidelines, and that reliable sources are needed by several people at User talk:Sandeep999#Gaming the system, a good analysis of the citations provided can also be found there. My research via google has produced nothing reliable. Quasihuman | Talk 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sandeep has elected to blank most of his user page. Information referred to in the nomination is available in the history - User talk:Sandeep999#Gaming the system. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read the vengeful tone with which that section has been written even after the issue was settled with the Lifebaka's moderation by Tabish. It is to be read also in the context of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers guidelines which Tabish seems to have no regard for. My first article which was removed of any promotional content after it was nominated for speedy deletion was deleted even thought it had been sanitized carefully to not qualify for speedy deletion. I am not sure if the idea is to ensure that an army gets ready to "bite the newcomer". — Sandeep999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment. Lovers of drama will find the AN/I referred to in my post on Sandeep's page here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Delete per nom. A good deal of time has been spent seeking to inform and alert the author, on his talk page, to the issues associated with the article whilst it was under development in user space; all apparently to no avail. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and discussion on creator's userspace. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not delete: After the first speedy deletion, I have worked carefully with Wiki Administrator Lifebaka on User talk:Lifebaka to make the article as neutral as possible. As in life and a good portion of articles in wiki, life is not perfect, especially in the beginning. Over time, it starts getting better. That is the spirit of evolution. It is something administrator: Lifebaka appeared to understand as well, which is why he helped re-write the article and change the context too to make it more credible. I would request the committee to give the article a minimum time of one month, within which I assure that the utmost effort shall be made to achieve notability. If we decided to kill all articles which were not perfect, wiki would be a lot poorer today. Please give the time required for the article to try to meet the norms Sandeep999 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lifebaka has kindly commented below. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the speedy deletion referred to was for "A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Article about a company, corporation, organization, or group, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject"`". See also speedy deletion of TURF Insight for "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tagishsimon#Ears_burning.3F , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Thanks and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tagishsimon#York_meetup to further my ganging up and biting the newbie concerns. Both links show that Tagish, Andy and Tom Morris are editors who know each other well and have ganged up together for a common objective of teaching a newbie a lesson. Am I to still assume good faith? Sandeep999 (talk) 16:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Meanwhile, please explain how my comment on Tagishsimon's talk page breaches any Wikipedia policy, or is in any way evidence of malpractice? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who's Tom Morris, and how does he fit into the scheme of things? I've known Andy on Wikipedia for years; he's ace. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. You're not so bad yourself. ;-) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom's only involvement in this case, seems to be the three "This debate has been included in" listings. Clearly, Jimbo should bar him. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I didn't spot the name. Sandeep, when articles are listed for deletion, they get included in topic specific lists which are then, as far as I know, displayed on various wikiprojects with a view of bringing them to the attention of people who may be more knowledgeable or interested in the subject matter than the average user. It's part of an effort to ensure as wide an interest in deletion discussions as possible. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (ec) I should note that this is a discussion about the notability of the article in question not the motivations of various editors, there are other places for that. I must admit that I'm a little curious as to how I fit into this evil cabal. Quasihuman | Talk 17:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: Perhaps it's time to go back to AN/I as this seems nothing more than the original article that was G11'd, which was already discussed at AN/I. Additionally, he has, in a recent image upload and in other comments regarding this, indicated a COI with this topic. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's much doubt about the COI. This article differs from the deleted version in that it is about the alleged parent company rather than the alleged subsidiary/product, TURF Insight; and it has five more citations seeking to meet the notability problem. Although Sandeep is a little pissed off right now, and wandering around wikipedia alleging a conspiracy exists, I think the sensible admin response would be that we deal with the article on its merits, or lack thereof, here. Besides, another speedy deletion will merely fan the conspiracy flames. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I don't think that it is a clear G11 candidate. But the personal attacks may need to be dealt with. Quasihuman | Talk 18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah... single purpose account, who thinks notability is implied because competitor products have articles, who is canvassing, making baseless accusations (as noted above[3] and elsewhere), has "rewritten" the article to still focus on their product they wish to "advertise", and while though working with an admin to make it inclusion worthy (and didn't even wait for a response), has moved it into article space before dealing with all of the notability issues or the fact it still reads like a promotion for TURF (vast majority of it are the same advertising claims prefaced with "claims to" sourced to the primary)... got it. In that case, since there seems to be little interest on addressing the details... ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I don't think that it is a clear G11 candidate. But the personal attacks may need to be dealt with. Quasihuman | Talk 18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete based on above. ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 19:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- After a review of the sources provided in the article, and a few Google searches (for "xurmo technologies") in which I found nothing but a single patent, I'm not inclined to believe the Xurmo is notable according to our guidelines. I said as much on my talk page. lifebaka++ 21:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lifebaka, I agree on the notability. But sometimes we also have to look not only at the letter of the law but also the "spirit of the law". As I said before, As in life and a good portion of articles in wiki, life is not perfect, especially in the beginning. Over time, it starts getting better. That is the spirit of evolution. If we decided to kill all articles which were not perfect, wiki would be a lot poorer today. Please give the time required for the article to try to meet the norms. Is a month too much to ask?
On the advt: If you deem the article as advertisement from the two or three sentences that comprise the product description, is it not true of any product description that exists on wiki. Products promise and exist to do "stuff". That would not be advertisement. The best you can do is to say that the product "claims so" and keep a fair distance from the claim. Would you not agree Sandeep999 (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sandeep, we have a guideline for AfD that articles should not be deleted if they can be fixed by editing, so perfection is irrelevant here. The problem is that the topic has not been covered enough in third-party reliable sources, that is something that neither you nor I can fix. Quasihuman | Talk 10:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quasi, I agree. You are right as per the letter of the law. I have already said so. Any topic shall accumulate more sources of info as they go along with new sources starting to cover them. I am only asking for it to be retained for a month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeep999 (talk • contribs) 11:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I will leave it to the closing admin to decide on this, however, I should note that we do not normally keep articles which are in anticipation of the topic becoming notable. I wouldn't object if the article is recreated in a month with high quality, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Quasihuman | Talk 12:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless you have a good reason to believe that the availability of sources will change some time in the next month (perhaps a paper about to be published or some such), then yes, it is too much to ask. Because the likelihood of new sources appearing, barring a few special circumstances, is slim to none. lifebaka++ 13:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Thinly disguised spam for a non-notable company. A Google News search yields exactly one press release. MER-C 12:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: as some may consider it relevant to this matter (since it's relevant to this matter), I've addressed some of this in response to a talk page conversation initiated by Sandeep999 on my talk page. You may find it relevant, irrelevant, wish to comment or simply don't care; but I felt it correct to indicate an external discussion was taking place so each of you could decide that on your own. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | TK/CN 18:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt:
- The current text qualifies for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising: an enterprise software company....
- Buzzword bingo: ...develops a variety of enterprise search, knowledge management, insight generation and predictive analytics applications using semantic technology, artificial intelligence, data-intensive computing, natural language processing, information retrieval, Language modelling, Domain Specific Language based modelling and machine learning technologies under the brand TURF Insight.
- Floridly non-neutral: ....claims to provide Extremely Personalized Knowledge Discovery for employees in knowledge-led companies through its patent pending technology.
- Only claim to notability made in the article is that they didn't win a minor trade award: Xurmo Technologies showcased TURF Insight for the Qualcomm QPrize business plan competition organized by Qualcomm Ventures. Xurmo Technologies was one of the eight ventures that was shortlisted for the final round, from the over 70 business plans that made to the competition.
- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The awards section in particular is an almost painful attempt to contrive notability where it doesn't exist -- it that's the most that can be said, non-notable. And I can conceive of no good reason to wait a month when there's no evidence any improvement in sourcing is likely. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't find any notable sources on Google, Google News (Archive as well) and Yahoo searches aside from this small mention here. SwisterTwister talk 02:54, 28 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. Essentially almost a week keep, being equal discussion for retention or deletion after an appropriate period of time, with significant argumentation pointing out coverage in secondary sources in addition to noteworthy associations and management. — Cirt (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eurogene[edit]
- Eurogene (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 project. One of a number of articles created in an effort to promote the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Hardly any of these have notability independent from their organizers/participants and this one is no exception. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Crusio, The reason for deletion of this article seems to me invalid. The Eurogene project was and is a significant step forward in the area of providing Open Education Resources in the area of human genetics. Please have a look on eurogene.open.ac.uk and eurogene.eu. Eurogene is definitely not a private or a for profit organisation. It is a not for profit project being run by a network of European Universities in particular The Open University, European Genetics Foundation and European Sociaty of Human Genetics. Please have a look at the video http://eurogene.open.ac.uk/about-eurogene on what Eurogene actually is. To give you an example of an educational resource that is provided by eurogene please go, for example, to http://eurogene.open.ac.uk/node/3598 . These resources are being used by thousands of people wordwide! In addition, there has been a significant research that lead to the development of Eurogene: please have a look on the list of the scientifically referred publications that were written during the project at the bottom of this page: http://kmi.open.ac.uk/projects/name/eurogene . These papers were presented at an internationally approved high profile conferences. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Petr
petrknoth (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.40 (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, being "important" or "used by thousands of people" is not an issue here, unless this is documented by reliable third party sources. --Crusio (talk) 15:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia uses coverage by reliable, secondary sources as its watermark for inclusion. Eurogene does not have significant coverage in third-party sources. Angryapathy (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Crusio, dear Angryapathy, Matteo Dutto from the European Genetics Foundation speaking. There are indeed secondary sources about Eurogene and they are available at the following link http://www.eurogene.eu/?t=page.php&p=16 The first and most reliable one is an article called Gene genie's treasure trove by Mark Frary, which was published on The Times, Wednesday March 23 2011 paper edition. Also, a post about the Eurogene project by Bertalan Mesko was featured on the Science Roll blog and the portal has been included as a reference for genetics education both in the epractice portal and in the Scientix Portal. Should we include all these independent sources in the description page? --Matteo.dutto (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing on Google, Google News and Yahoo that would be notable for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 20:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry to say this, but I do not thing that Google, Google News nor Yahoo should be considered respectable authorities - contrary to your claim these authorities are not independent!. What matters is the acceptance within the scientific community, thus you should be referring to the third party evidence, such as newspaper articles, scientific articles, opinion of the European Society of Human Genetics etc. According to the suggestions above, it seems to me that if we paid money to Google for appearing higher in the result list, there wouldn't be a problem ... This type of argumentation puts me very much off.
petrknoth (talk) 9:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
- I can see your point, but I still disagree with the deletion. According to the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines sources can encompass all forms of published media, including non-online sources. It seems to me that an article on the The Times paper version is to be considered both reliable and independent from the subject.Also, given the depth of the coverage and the quality of the source I really cannot see what else can be expected in terms of sources from an entry about a free Open Access initiative like Eurogene. In my opinion the problem can be easily solved by including the list of external references in the entry. --Matteo.dutto (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of that Times article. Of course print is usable, and verification from a online copy of it is adequate for a topic like this. I do not compare this with many other european project articles--this particular one is much more specific and is actually producing something other than PR-talk DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much for this decision! Can we now remove the deletion box from the page? I think we should follow Matteo's advice to improve the article by including references to the third party evidence. Hope this is OK. petrknoth (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @petrknoth: DGG's !vote is a !vote, not a decision. And there is nothing against editing an article that is at AfD to try to improve it. @DGG: I agree that the Times article is a good source. However, GNG specifically states that multiple sources are needed (and the blogs/portal sources given above by Matteo.dutto don't qualify as reliable sources), so that at best, this means that some info on Eurogene could be included in an article on a broader topic (such as the one on the Framework Programmes itself). So for the moment I am not withdrawing the nomination. --Crusio (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Crusio: Would you agree that articles published at respectable international peer-reviewed conferences are a valid evidence? I agree that we can include some info about Eurogene to the more general Framework topic. Petr Knoth (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, of course they are, if they are independent. I do not doubt for a second that project members have produced publications mentioning the project, but publishing is what academics do, so that is nothing out of the ordinary. If other people have published scholarly papers about this project, that would be good evidence of notability. Barring that, per analogy to WP:PROF, if articles about the project written by project members were heavily cited, that would also constitute evidence of notability. However, for a citation-dense field like genetics, several hundred citations would be needed at the least (that would probably not even be enough to make a single researcher notable, let alone a consortium of 21 groups). --Crusio (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This sounds completely unrealistic. Our group at the Open University is doing research into the models of Open Access publishing and the citation behavior. It is well know that it takes years to develop a significant amount of citations. Hundreds of citations are completely unrealistic as this will happen to only a very low proportion of papers usually at least after a decade of its existence. In addition to that, it is known that papers regarding fundamental research will attract more citations than papers describing specific application areas, such as in the case of Eurogene. Moreover, metrics such as h-index have been found unreliable and have been significantly criticised. Based on them, Wikipedia should not inform about the discoveries made, for example, by Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index#Criticism (had he died after publishing his groundbreaking results). Shall we suggest to delete the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein ? I agree that academics do publish papers, but not everybody is successful. Therefore, I believe that even the fact that papers had passed the peer review process at high impact conferences should be considered as an independent evidence. For example, one of my Eurogene related papers was published at the COLING 2010 conference which had that year less than 19% acceptance rate and is considered the best conference in the world in the area of text processing. Petr Knoth (talk) 11:52, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You misunderstand. I am not saying that having hundreds of citations is necessary for notability, only that if all else fails, then hundreds of citations might help to establish impact/notability (and, yes, it usually takes years to accumulate that many). Albert Einstein's bio is in no danger of being deleted, regardless of the number of citations to his papers (or his h-index), because there are tons of articles and even books about him and his life. Having a paper accepted in a highly selective journal/conference is a worthy accomplishment, but in itself not enough to establish notability, because many papers (even in high profile journals such as Science or Nature never get cited even once (have a look at WP:PROF for more details about this). --Crusio (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree on this, because Wikipedia does specify that ideal sources for e.g. medical claims are published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field and others. The reason is that if Nature or Science publish an article it does not matter if it has been cited or not, it means that the publication/claim has been approved as valid by a third party (in this case Nature or Science). If this was not accepted, it wouldn't be possible to claim on Wiki that publisher N published an article A about topic T before this article had been more than n-times cited! This sounds ridiculous as the evidence is the existence of the article. Thus, in case of Eurogene the only claim we are making is that there is an Open Access portal for genetic materials. The evidence that this is true is: the presence of the portal and the educational materials, the fact that the people who worked on the project provided materials, the fact that the project has been funded by the European Commission (see the CORDIS website), the existence of the Times article etc. I wonder what else might be needed to support our claim. --Petr Knoth (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You nail it on the head: such an article shows that something exists. It does not show, however, that something is notable. An article in Nature that never was cited obviously did not have much impact on its field. Nobody denies that Eurogene exists, the discussion here is about something completely different: notability. --Crusio (talk) 10:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion is obviously not leading anywhere. I understand that in your personal view The Times, respectable journals or European Commission do not establish notability. I strongly disagree with your claims and feel they are unsupported by the text here reliable third party sources , but that is all I can do. Btw. it is not true that articles that are not cited in the first years after they were published do not have impact! Many discoveries were completely rejected at the time of their creation and it took a long time until people realised their benefits. So, I understand that to establish notability in your eyes the portal would have to exist for years regardless of how useful it is. Therefore, the only thing I can do is to vote Keep as in my opinion the the sources presented are notable as well as independent.'--Petr Knoth (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any subject can be notable shortly after coming into existence provided there are good (and independent) sources (EU sources are not independent here). The discoveries that you mention that were initially ignored have been heavily cited since. In contrast, there are articles published in Nature or science over 40 years ago that have never ever been cited, not even by their proper authors. I maintain that there is no evidence that such articles ever had any impact at all. --Crusio (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- From an academic perspective, I would like to ask you to prove that they will not have any impact in the future and that they will not be cited. Please also delete all the Wiki articles about the non notable villages that do just "exist" and are not cited (thus have no impact), the thousands of articles about sportsmens and sport events that just took place and did not have any impact nor were widely cited. --Petr Knoth (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.108.145.40 (talk) [reply]
- This discussion is getting ridiculous. I don't have to "prove" that they'll never be cited, you have to show that they are cited (see WP:NOTCRYSTAL). As for all those other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, not really a good argument in this kind of discussions. and could you please log in and sign your contributions to keep the edit history here clean? --Crusio (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've just realized that I didn't cast my vote yet. I do not wish to enter the discussion about the sources and academic articles, as it's up to each user interpretation of the guidelines to decide what makes a source "independent" and "reliable". I would just like to go back to what we previously agreed on. There is at least one source we all recognize as such (The Times article). What the guidelines would suggest now is to include this entry into a broader topic, but I do not agree with this solution. Given the peculiarity of the project it would be difficult to include it into the Framework Programmes section as previously suggested and it is also true that, unlike most EU project, the portal is still online after the project end and providing free access to a collection of educational materials which cannot be found elsewhere. I guess that when it comes to discussing articles deletion the first question should always be: "Can this entry be useful to Wikipedia Users?". I would say yes in this case and therefore apply an occasional exception to the multiple sources principle.--Matteo.dutto (talk) 14:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am a medical geneticist and from my experience with many patients organizations and professional organizations in the medical fields, I can declare that genetics is the most interesting fields because today with genomic studies is present in all field of the medicine. Education is very much needed because the field is very raplidly moving! Although it is quite easy to read the important new discovery in biotechnology and genetics, it is more and more difficult to understand the real impact on the patients and on society, unless your basic knowledge in genetics in mantained linked with the news.
I believe that EUROGENE is a good tools for professionals (and very skilled patient organizations) to have the correct education to follow this rapidly moving field of genomic into personalized medicine. Domenico Coviello, MD, PhD Director of Laboratory of Human Genetics Galliera Hospital, <personal information redacted> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coviello (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC) — Coviello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Weak delete The main source is the Times story, and going by the logo, that appears to be a press release from the Open University (one of the project participants), rather than an independent news story. An additional confusion is that there are at least two unrelated companies called "Eurogene," and an unrelated European organisation (eurogene.org). However, if the projects picks up steam, there should be a more news coverage. -- 202.124.74.113 (talk) 10:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A nearly full-page article in the Times of London is sufficient to establish notability. Sandstein 06:32, 30 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 Transwiki, if Wikibooks wants it, otherwise delete. (I'll go ask the WB people if they want it). Courcelles 23:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Windows bugcheck codes[edit]
- List of Windows bugcheck codes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pointless list of no encyclopaedic value. Fails WP:NOT andy (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a programmer's manual. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 0xDEADDEAD. Wikibooks would probably be a better fit for a manual page like this. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to wikibooks per Ihcoyc. Looks useful, just not encyclopedic. Several Times (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 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 merge to Parity problem (sieve theory). JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karatsuba phenomenon[edit]
- Karatsuba phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability. Of the three references, two are papers written by Karatsuba, and the third was published 95 years before the "phenomenon" is stated to have been discovered, so it can scarcely demonstrate notability. Searches have likewise failed to unearth evidence of notability: for example, Google scholar gives no hits at all, and virtually everything I have found is from unreliable sources. PROD was contested with an edit summary saying "2 published paper by an eminent mathematician in good journals seems enough for notatbility", but unfortunately that completely misses the point of the notability guidelines: a person's work is not shown to be notable because that person has written about it. Almost every one of the goodness knows how many academics in the world publishes papers in academic journals, but they are not all notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No hits in Google books as well. Perhaps a brief description of the subject could be added to Anatolii Alexeevitch Karatsuba.
- Comment While the topic of the article is a minor but respectable result related to the notorious parity problem for sieves, the title is a neologism which is not really acceptable. I have therefore merged the article into Parity problem (sieve theory). I suggest making "Karatsuba phenomenon" into a redirect to this article to preserve the history.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
EternalS Project[edit]
- EternalS Project (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 project. One of a number of articles created in an effort to promote the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Hardly any of these have notability independent from their organizers/participants and this one is no exception. No independent sources (those sources present are presentations/articles by project participants, none of them are thrid-party publications about this project). Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. And, most of the articles created as a result of the offsite canvassing to promote these projects have a deeper problem than notability. They are created by the proponents, and as such tend to be written in very "forward looking" and promotional grant application bafflegab rather than English. They're full of grand unreferenced claims about what they hope to achieve, but are deliberately uninformative. This one is typical of the genre:
EternalS creates the conditions for mutual awareness and cross-fertilization among the 4 ICT-Forever Yours - FET projects : LivingKnowledge, HATS, Connect and SecureChange. These projects are currently conducting research in key ICT areas: (i) automatic learning of systems capable of analysing knowledge and diversity with respect to their complex semantic interactions and evolution over time (e.g. diversity of opinions due to sequences of events), (ii) exploitation of formal methods for the design and networking of adaptive and evolving software systems, where security policies and fully connected environment represent fundamental properties of effective present and future systems. Thanks to the indirect participation of the above-mentioned projects, EternalS will actively involve many researchers from both academic and industrial world in its action. This will allow for (a) thoroughly studying eternal systems' dimensions such as diversity & time awareness and selfadaptation & evolution by automatic learning, in fields of relevance, i.e., Knowledge, Software, and Networked and Secure Systems; and (b) writing the roadmap for interesting and successful future emerging technology.
It all sounds grand and technical and complex, like they're proposing a grand unified theory of semantic security whatnot, but all I got out of it is that they hope to hold more meetings sometime in the future. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And when I read text like "there is growing demand for systems capable of evolving in time to meet future changes in the user requirements and application domains. However, time is only one dimension of the adaptability problem: time, location, legacy of decisions made in the past, and so on, are relevant aspects, where the diversity of the context plays a major role for the system ability of adapting to changes. Based on the awareness of context, systems must exploit the ever-emerging diversity of open environments, which also require the management of changes in their security conditions" I'd normally be thinking that an IT student had uploaded a term essay. But in this case it has the power of institutional, indeed multi-institutional funding behind it. AllyD (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A substantial part of EternalS_Project#Project_at_a_glance is a copy from [4] which suggests there are WP:COPYVIO or more likely WP:COI concerns. AllyD (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article is essentially documenting the framework for a research project; it has no evidence of notability in achievement. AllyD (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perhaps something is lost in translation. I was going to suggest you get the domain Bafflegab.org, make up a buzzword-filled backronym, get a half-milion Euro project grant, and then cut-n-paste the proposal into an article, but there already is one. :-) W Nowicki (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Residences and businesses in Emmerdale[edit]
- Residences and businesses in Emmerdale (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: This article suffers from a number of problems. Most egregious is the complete absence of any citations for any of the material in this article. There's more than 100kb of text here, more than 18,000 words. Not one single element of it is referenced. This fails our Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability standards. Another serious failing is the article being written in an in-universe style, which violates Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.
I attempted to get a response from interested parties to fix these serious problems. In March of this year, I posted to the article's talk page noting the serious problems. I also tagged [5] the article with {{in-universe}}, {{Fictionrefs}} and {{refimprove}}. I also posted to the Emmerdale project in an attempt to get some attention to the article. All were ignored for four months, with the silence being broken on the article talk page by an IP who wanted to do a rewrite, but didn't know how.
In late July, I noted that more than 100 edits had been made to the article [6] since I posted the various threads and warnings, with >1000 words being added to the article. Nothing was done to address the issues; in fact it was worse. I examined edits to the article this year, and identified non-IP editors who had made >1 edit to the article, and sent a message to the talk page of each of those contributors (example). They were Solidsandie, JMRH6, Nyttend, Benny1982, Beckindale, Tassedethe, and Matt162009, a total of 7 editors. Since then, there's been 36 edits [7], again with none of them addressing the serious issues plaguing the article, while adding another ~600 words to it.
The only substantiative attempt to address the concerns was by Nocrowx, who edited to remove two warning tags and add two sentences trying to explain why it is ok for it to be written in-universe style and with excessive trivia. I explained the serious issues and restored the {{refimprove}} tag, though the {{Fictionrefs}} certainly still applies. Nocrowx has returned to editing and ignored the issue.
At this point, the article has serious problems that none of the interested parties or the Emmerdale project itself seem at all interested in addressing. I've made every attempt to spark interest in fixing the serious problems to no avail. As is, it is nothing more than a fan page accumulation of fiction-cruft, with no encyclopedic treatment whatsoever. I see no hope for the article being improved to meet Wikipedia's standards. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A list of non-notable in-world places that fail the real world notability test(s). Lugnuts (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Got to agree with Hammersoft and Lugnuts here. There appears to have been no effort to add sources or real world information to the article and it just looks like one big pile of WP:FANCRUFT. - JuneGloom Talk 20:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a mass of in-universe information. No effort has been made to source this article. It reads like a fansite too, it just isn't needed really. The general reader would not be interested.RaintheOne BAM 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- I agree with Hammersoft's well-researched nomination. This article fails basic notability and verifiability requirements, and amounts to an indiscriminate accumulation of fancruft. Reyk YO! 19:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even by my rather inclusive standards for this sort of article, this is too detailed & indiscriminate for Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DARIAH[edit]
- DARIAH (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 project. One of a number of articles created in an effort to promote the EU Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. Hardly any of these have notability independent from their organizers/participants and this one is no exception. The article demonstrates this by talking about future plans, discussion the philosophy behind the Framework Programmes, etc., but nothing tangible about this project itself. No independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is near-impossible to glean tangible content from the article other than that there is a funded project involving a variety of institutions and that its preparatory phase has run beyond original expected timescale. Turning to the website for enlightenment, one finds "Just like astronomers require a virtual observatory to study the stars and other distant objects in the galaxy, researchers in the arts and humanities need a digital infrastructure to get access to and join together the information and the knowledge that is embedded in digital content." A debatable cosmic comparison at the least, surely. Anyway, in the absence of delivered outcome, this is non-notable. AllyD (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepBeing non-European and technically minded, I don't quite get this but I don't assume that makes it non-notable. Here's a mention in Wired. Don't delete this until someone able to properly assess it weighs in. --Kvng (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wired article is a satirical column, pricking the solemn pronouncements of the DARIAH press release: "One quails at the awesome power of state-supported European digital culture" Entertaining column, but hardly sufficient to demonstrate notability of the project itself? AllyD (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted but I daresay that's more attention than most press releases get. --Kvng (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Negative coverage is coverage, too (and should be included in a "criticism" section or something like that in the article). However, [[WP:GNG]) is quite explicit about the need for multiple sources of independent coverage, which we don't see here (and it's debatable whether the Wired piece constitutes significant coverage, it's just stuff taken from the DARIAH website interspersed with a few sarcastic colmments). And what do you mean with "Don't delete this until someone able to properly assess it weighs in"? AllyD has over 8000 edits here (and so do I), so that would seem like enough qualification to "properly assess" an article and its sourcing. --Crusio (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted but I daresay that's more attention than most press releases get. --Kvng (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another EU research project. As noted above, it is full of patent nonsense like many such articles: nonsense, because its ponderous prose goes to great lengths to conceal this project's lack of tangible achievements:
The overall objective of the preparatory phase of the project is to move the initiative forward and be ready for the construction of DARIAH by late 2010. The preparatory stage is intended to set up the physical, strategic and human elements of the research infrastructure, and to ensure it is on a firm legal and financial footing. The work in the preparatory project addresses coordination, strategic, financial, governance, logistical, legal and technical issues, as well as management and dissemination activities to support this work.
Wikipedia is not a free web host for EU resarch projects, even if there's offsite canvassing seeking to make it one. Being mocked for bullshit, even by Bruce Sterling, does not really make the underlying project an encyclopedia subject either, especially since his subject for commentary is not the project itself but rather the pompous and deceptive prose it emits. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:42, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: article temporarily restored until WP:Articles for deletion/Plonker is closed, because it is referenced from that AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slag (slang)[edit]
- Slag (slang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. The lead section is entirely dictionary content -- usage, definition, and history. The second section is a pseudo-disambiguation page that discusses two completely unrelated meanings of the word "slag". The entire article is unreferenced. There is nothing here worth keeping in an encyclopedia. Powers T 12:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This just doesn't deserve an article to itself. It's already well covered on Wiktionary, so why do we need an article that doesn't come close to being as accurate? Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. Another dictdef article on a polysemic word. This one isn't even sourced, not that it would matter much given its current contents. FuFoFuEd (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Slut, the two are pretty much synonymous. GiantSnowman 12:27, 29 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arran McCarthy[edit]
- Arran McCarthy (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. Does not play in a fully-professional league, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Without significant coverage, he fails WP:GNG. Football in the Dutch Antilles is clearly not fully pro, so he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:18, 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. Courcelles 23:59, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rob Rasner[edit]
- Rob Rasner (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 fails WP:BIO with lack of third-party references, aside from a conviction for a misdemeanor this year. Yoninah (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Yoninah (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. This appears to be an autobiography with plenty of puffed up credits in attempt to bolster the appearance of notability. It trumpets movie roles in The Cable Guy, Mercy Streets and Lay It Down which upon inspection from his IMDB profile would indicate that he played the roles of "Serf #3" (uncredited), "Concerned Passerby", and "Angry spectator". -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. (Also fails WP:NOTFACEBOOK.) No persistence in sources. Clear autobiography or COI. Personal section includes information about relatives and pets. Too soon to see if this actor is notable, based on coverage. Search for sources doesn't help the case much (I think we can safely put aside the camera hiding incident as local coverage). BusterD (talk) 21:25, 29 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. both JohnCD (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kingsley Boateng[edit]
- Kingsley Boateng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, as he did not make any official first team appearance. Luxic (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Luxic (talk) 08:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons:
- Rodrigo Ely (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Luxic (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Luxic (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:GNG, he is the subject of several articles in prominent Italian football newspapers which I have linked in the external links. Anyone familiar with the club would know who he is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.165.199 (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. They fail WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL, having received nothing but routine sports coverage. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 15:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Boateng has a fairly broad media coverage. My guess is even if this is deleted, it will have to be rewritten in a month. He will play first team football — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.16.24.235 (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - There is no indication that either of them pass WP:GNG, and since neither of them have made their first team debut, both fail WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 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 Userified as User:PF4Eva/Sebastian (2011 film); ok to move back when there are reliable published reviews or other sources . DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sebastian (2011 film)[edit]
- Sebastian (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small independent film with no second-party coverage and no evidence of release. It is probably WP:TOOSOON for this article. BOVINEBOY2008 16:29, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Second-party sources right here:
“ | More recently Wilcox worked on the film Imago and teamed up with several other final girls for the upcoming thriller Sebastian, which is expected to be released this summer [2010]. | ” |
“ | Williams decided to shift gears around 2000, focusing more on her family life than her her acting career. She returned to the horror genre with a small part in Rob Zombie’s 2009 Halloween II (proving once again, she really is the ultimate “Sequels Scream Queen”) and since then filmed Sebastian with fellow final girls Dee Wallace Stone and Meg Foster.
While Williams didn’t want to give away too much on Sebastian, what she could tell us is that the psychological thriller promises to deliver “so many twists and turns that you won’t even know what to expect when you’re watching it.” |
” |
“ | Foster, who took a sabbatical from acting for about seven years, is now back working in Hollywood. The actress recently [article is from 2010] completed the thriller Sebastian alongside Williams and Dee Wallace Stone. I asked Foster how it felt to be back in front of the camera.
“I had gone out into the world on my own for a bit,” explained Foster, “but now it feels wonderful to be back to work. It’s really special for me to be working with Caroline again, even though we don’t have any scenes together in Sebastian. But to be on a project with her and Dee is just exciting for me. It felt like home.” Foster tried to give us her take on Sebastian, describing it as “definitely horror, but there is something about Sebastian that is a bit sci-fi with a bit of a karmic flair that makes the film very haunting to watch. That’s all I will say so I don’t give too much away.” |
” |
- (March 2, 2010 interview with director Gregori J. Martin, who talks about his projects, including Sebastian.)
- From the Examiner:
“ | Horror, sci-fi, drama, comedy, and now a thriller that Daeg Faerch has been cast for, Sebastian (2010).
Sebastian is an independent thriller film [that was supposed] to be released fall 2010. |
” |
“ | He went on to star in other films such as “Hancock” alongside Will Smith and [Oct. 4, 2010] is going to star in the upcoming horror film “Sebastian” alongside Dee Wallace and Caroline Williams. | ” |
- As for no evidence of release, good luck. It was supposed to be released April 22, 2010, and now who knows when of even if it will be released. It wasn't "too soon" back when the article was first written. Also, there is very little evidence that any Gruntworks films have been released, except Raven is on Netflix, and another film allegedly got a theatrical release from Universal Pictures, according to Gregori J. Martin's MySpace. I say there's enough to keep the article.PF4Eva (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These "secondary coverage" articles have merely trivial mentions on the film. Is there any coverage of the actual film as the primary content? I haven't found anything. It might be worth merging to another article, perhaps the director or one of the actors, but I don't it has notability for a stand-alone article. BOVINEBOY2008 18:53, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate for a short time. The article depends heavily on the producer's own twitter page. We have a completed film that has some smattering of coverage, but not enough persistant or in-depth coverage to merit being an exception to WP:NFF as an unreleased film, specially as its release date continues to be postponed. Incubation should be fine. However, per WP:FUTURE and WP:NFF I would also be okay with it being redirected to director Gregori J. Martin, and we can revert the redirect when the thing is actually released. ANd to User:PF4Eva: Your work is not unappreciated. I would ask that you read WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, and WP:TOOSOON. And I do expect that upon release of far more coverage, the article will be welcomed back quite gladly. And having myself worked with Daeg Faerch in a film, and being aware of his abilities, I anticipate we will have that greater and more in-depth coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking it could be redirected to Daeg Faerch, because more people have heard of Daeg than Gregori J. Martin, and more people will recognize it as a Daeg movie. Let's say a film is drected by Joe Jones, but stars Tom Hanks. Nobody knows who Joe Jones is, so you would redirect to Tom Hanks, because everybody knows him. You just never know if an indie is gonna meet its deadline or not. PF4Eva (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That would work as well. Perhaps as author, you might consider sourcing something about the film in both those articles? I would gladly support a redirect to either, and a revertion of the redirect when the film is released. (In an aside: as an actor I had heard of Gregori J. Martin long before I worked with Daeg Faerch, but that's only me saying so.) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy to sandbox space of User:PF4Eva or incubate as suggested by User:MichaelQSchmidt. Right now the page has exactly one independent source, and that's an interview of one actor in the film. Until film's release, this is all just WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR (since nobody's seen the film). I have no problem with the page moving to user space or article incubator so that it might be improved when the media has a chance to review and discuss. BusterD (talk) 23:27, 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, Cerejota (talk) 00:28, 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, BusterD (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy for now. Seems to be gaining steam. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:33, 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. — Joseph Fox 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UserInfuser[edit]
- UserInfuser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only apparent coverage appears to be on TNW which is a not about it's release without any content that suggests the write has used or seen the software in action. Can't find any independent coverage on either the product of the company on google. In short fails completely to meet WP:GNG Stuartyeates (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination clearly it was for the wrong page.Stuartyeates (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry for the confusion between User... and User:... Stuartyeates (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content into Gamification. There's not enough sourcing for a stand-alone article but the system technical description (the article's last paragraph) is interesting. Diego (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 8 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, 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, BusterD (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and oppose merge. There is no coverage in reliable sources about this particular bit of software. -- Whpq (talk) 15:23, 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 merge to Victor Kelleher. Seems a reasonable solution. DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Red King (novel)[edit]
- The Red King (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
May not meet Wikipedia:Notability (books). Currently just an unreferenced plot summary. RJFJR (talk) 15:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Possible copyvio from Spiritus-Temporis.com though it's hard to established who copied whom.
The article's main claim to notability is The Red King was shortlisted for the 1990 Australian Children's Book of the Year Award and was at one point runner up in the 1990 South Australian Festival Awards for Literature, but I've been unable to find reference of this. However, these nominations do count for something. Puchiko (Talk-email) 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (books) talks about winning an award, it says nothing about being nominated, which at least for extremely prestigious awards might need to be expanded. RJFJR (talk) 15:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (unless unfixable copyvio is established). Also nominated for a well-known/significant genre award [8] and reviewed in significant publications [9] [10]. Presumably much more in offline print sources. Cited in reference works, too. [11] [12] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 8 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, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Victor Kelleher, at least for the moment. Kelleher clearly meets AUTHOR, so the question is whether the book merits a separate article - the article as it currently stands doesn't demonstrate this, so can it be improved? Quite likely - in my experience, books nominated for multiple similar awards to the ones mentioned often meet criterion 1 of NBOOKS. But they are not certain to do so and, in this case, it is still not clear whether this book does or not. Of the reviews located by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the GBooks snippet for the first one, from Kirkus Reviews, suggests something substantial enough to count towards notability, but I'm less convinced by the snippet for the other review. Of the two reference work citations, the second, from The Encyclopedia of Fantasy, is one short sentence in the article on the author and the first, I suspect, is no more substantial. We do need to find further reliable sources which, as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says, quite likely (though not certainly) exist but are probably offline. As I see it, the best interim solution is probably to incorporate the award nominations into the author's article, and leave this article as a redirect to it until someone has done the search for sources. PWilkinson (talk) 22:08, 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, BusterD (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Victor Kelleher. The book itself doesn't really have enough notability to warrant an article. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One Nation Under Surveillance[edit]
- One Nation Under Surveillance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Chesterman; this is basically an article written by the author of the book the article is about! The same Wikipedian who did this also wrote an article about himself. The book's author is hardly going to be a neutral contributor, conscious or unconscious. (For example, the author would be unlikely to include negative reviews.) In addition, the article smacks of wikipuffery. I move for deletion. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 04:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This recently published book has been highly praised by Gareth Evans, among others. It should be noted that the nominator of this AfD is currently accused by many editors of having an extreme POV on Singaporean matters: here and here. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- This book has nothing to do with Singaporean politics, and I am Singaporean myself. Please address Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. In addition, my real passion is fighting COI; my POV happens to be the opposite of whoever happens to have the conflict of interest. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 06:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The subject of this article is not notable enough or has enough coverage to be an independent article, so I suggest merging it under Simon Chesterman#Other books Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Book-flap praises like the Evans quote, which are selected by the publisher, are usually not enough for WP:N. There is however a review on a LSE blog [13], and one in Times Higher Education [14] [15]. There's also a review in the (2010 launched) JIPITEC open access journal. So, it can be fixed through WP:EDITING; for now I've tagged the problem. The book has been listed in the "received books" section of a couple of more prestigious journals [16] doi:10.1017/S0020589310000801, therefore I suspect more reviews are likely. FuFoFuEd (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on coverage found. Dream Focus 06:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A full THE review is enough to establish the notability of a book; it is reasonable that after that, there will be others. Already in 213 libraries, a/c worldcat. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Contigent upon incorporating sources cited by FuFoFuEd.--JayJasper (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep: given that the article does nothing more than quote publisher's blurbs it is a potential G11 speedy candidate. To garner more than a purely nominal 'keep' !vote it needs to actually incorporate the "multiple, non-trivial published works" used to support its notability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:52, 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 withdrawn Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Chips[edit]
- Charles Chips (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 think this needs another look. The last nominator withdrew right out of the gate because someone linked to Gnews in the last AFD. However, in the first four pages, all I found were 1.) that they won a blind taste test at the Chicago Tribune, 2.) false positives out the yin yang for people named Charles Chips, and 3.) ads. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found some sources written independently of the subject. However, I doubt if the article would progress beyond the Start status, given the fact that the current brand was bought in 1996. I suggest creating the article Hillside Snacks before moving Charles Chips there. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough sources appear to exist to justify having an article about this brand, which is distinctive due to its longtime reliance on home delivery rather than retail sales. I disagree with moving this article to Hillside Snacks, because Hillside is merely the latest company to own this brand in its history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are said sources? Don't just say "but there are sources", prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:39, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm willing to change if significant coverage is demonstrated, but as 4.5 kg Hammer said, where are the sources? It is incumbent on the editors writing the article to provide sources to demonstrate notability. In the absence of said, it is perfectly reasonable to begin deletion procedings. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep I oppose a move to an article about only one of the companies related to Charles Chips. (My family received home delivery of these fresh,delicious potato chips as well as the cookies. With large the (1 gallon, maybe) containers which got automatically refilled by the route man, it was like fattening hogs for the slaughter.) Found several articles about the company. The Chicago Tribune article is one independent and reliable source with significant coverage [17]. Even papers which are indexed online sometimes miss relevant stories in searches. This letter to the NY Times [18] is not a RS, but it implies that Charles Chips had been reported out of business in an earlier NY Times article. Per the summary from the search, "DOW INCHES AHEAD Series: BUSINESS DIGEST"- St. Petersburg Times - Mar 15, 1994, The $8-million deal enabled Charles Chips to reorganize its debt and emerge from ... Now a division of Blevins, Charles Chips employs about 150 people, ... " this story has some coverage of the company. Here [19] is a story entirely about the company. Here is an article about their plant closing. Here is an article about the company being bought. This NY Times story, per the search summary,"The newest addition to this roster has to be Charles Chips, lightly salted potato chips made without preservatives, also far above average, ..." has coverage of the company. Here is another article about the company. Stopped looking through the Google news archive results, because the ones I point out suffice to show notability. Edison (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK, looked at more news archive results. See [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. Edison (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Charles Chips has enjoyed much significant coverage in independent, reliable sources—"Snack company passed through a number of owners: Charles Chips struggled against fierce competition" from The Morning Call, "The Great Potato Chip Debate" and "Charles Chips on Comeback Trail" from Lancaster New Era, "Chips Co. Still Delivers" from The Harlan Daily Enterprise, "Tampa company to buy Charles Chips" from St. Petersburg Times, "It's crunch time for Charles Chips - New owners say successful turnaround has a way to go " from Intelligencer Journal, and "The Crunchy Sound of Nostalgia" from South Florida Business Journal. Charles Chips easily passes GNG and WP:ORG. Goodvac (talk) 00:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I just went back and re-read the first AFD ... it is beyond me how the article was kept then. I think Ten Pound Hammer was very much within his rights and had good justification to file this AFD based on the first attempt, and the complete lack of referencing. That said, the references presented here, as a collection, look to me to demonstrate significant coverage, even if I couldn't see the entire article in every case. I hope they get added into the article to prevent well-meaning editors from going through the deletion process a fourth time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Lints[edit]
- Richard Lints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deproded without the concern being addressed, hence we are at AfD. It still appears to fail WP:ACADEMIC. I have been unable to find reliable sources to satisfy the notability requirements for an academic. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep?. A few cites and references is a very low cited field. Named chair may pass WP:Prof#C5 if institution is major enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly and unambiguously passes WP:Prof#C5. Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary is certainly a "major institution", if that phrase is to have any meaning. StAnselm (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:PROF #5. -- 202.124.74.145 (talk) 01:18, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Richie Whitson[edit]
- Richie Whitson (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 fighter fails WP:MMANOT and WP:GNG. No professional fights with a notable organization, no fights against a notable opponent, search results include only the standard fighter profiles, videos and record histories. TreyGeek (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —TreyGeek (talk) 03:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject fails WP:MMANOT and all other notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the previous comments. Subject clearly fails WP:MMANOT. Papaursa (talk) 03:06, 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. with no prejudice against recreation when there is enough reliable sourcing to satisfy WP:NALBUMS. JohnCD (talk) 15:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Battle Born[edit]
- Battle Born (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 endorsed PROD. Fails WP:NALBUMS and is WP:CRYSTAL. No timeline on album release with minimal coverage. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 02:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete per NMUSIC, specifically "an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label". Nolelover Talk·Contribs 03:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. It will be notable once more information has been released and confirmed, but it looks like "Battle Born" isn't even the confirmed title of the album, as it is described in the article as a tentative title. I say delete, and add later once the album has more confirmed information surrounding it. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice against recreation when it has been confirmed (or even better, released) Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk | contribs) 18:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Agree with the above; at this time there's no release date, no track listing, and even the title appears to be only tentative. Subject does not yet meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 00:35, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Cypher[edit]
- Silver Cypher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:NMUSIC. Previously was deleted for A7, but now recreated and some claims made on talk page. I was unable to locate reliable sources to support such claims though, and Proded the article. But it was deProded by the creator without adding reliable secondary sources, hence we are now at AfD. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It doesn't seem to hold much notability, nothing that was third-party on Google, Google News and Yahoo search.SwisterTwister talk 02:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability does not appear to be established, and there are sourcing issues. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 06:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Claims aren't enough without sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nalilo Khoromano[edit]
- Nalilo Khoromano (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 ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 01:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing notable on Google, Google News and Yahoo searches.SwisterTwister talk 03:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Nothing whatsoever on Google. Even if it showed up, the name was only there to say that he was the creator of Nali Sauce. Nothing is written with Khoromano as subject. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:40, 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Billy Blackard[edit]
- Billy Blackard (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:NSPORT. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG, lacking non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in multiple sources. Fails WP:NSPORTS having never played in NFL and non-notable college achievements. He was release by the Dallas Cowboys on August 7 in this years training camp already.—Bagumba (talk) 09:12, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was unable to find any news coverage of significance on the subject. Strikehold (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's some non-trivial coverage here and here, but both are from a small-town Oklahoma newspaper (Tahlequah Daily Press) near where Blackard grew up. Defensive linemen don't get as much coverage as the players at the skill positions, but, still, I don't see enough here to conclude that WP:GNG is met. If truly notable, I'd expect to see similar non-trivial coverage beyond Tahlequah. Cbl62 (talk) 21:08, 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 00:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of personal computer-only games[edit]
- List of personal computer-only games (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 orginally tagged this page for prod with the following rationale:
"While I understand the reason for creating this list, it is very hard to properly define what a personal computer is. It probably includes games for Windows and MSDOS, but what about apple devices such as the Macintosh? The Commodore 64 or the HP 3000? What about Tablet personal computers and Pocket PCs? No matter which selection is chosen, the article will never be more then several of the existing Lists of video games thrown together and as I such I see no benefit in having this article"
I made an error in my rationale: the title clearly defines this list as PC-only games, which makes this list distinct from the existing Lists of video games, but this does not solve issue of scope. The creator contested my prod and adjusted the lead, defining this list as containing only games released on Windows, Linux or MSDOS. While definitely some of the best known operating systems it is a rather weird scope for this list article, unless it is renamed to List of games only released for Windows, Linux or MSDOS. I wouldn't have a problem with separate articles articles such as List of games only released for Windows, but the concept personal computer is simply too vague for this list to be useful in any way. Yoenit (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - One problem with a singular naming scheme would be the intrinsic exclusion of computer-only titles that support two or more operating systems. — C M B J 06:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At present the scope already excludes everything released for the Macintosh, for example Diablo, Unreal tournament and Civilization, all games of which are commonly known as "PC-only", so this problem is not unique to singular lists. Yoenit (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The article was copy-pasted to List of personal computer-only modern games, so I CSDed it to move the page proper, but this AfD was opened before I could complete the move. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the "IBM PC and compatibles" so also meant Macintosh with Intel processors, but no consoles and small devices where the games is incompatible. When we say Windows-only, someone comes along and says my phone is running on windows mobile too, but that was not meant! It's about the mainstream PC, nothing more. --IrrtNie (talk) 13:05, 23 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) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I rarely say this about a list article, but this is a true example of an arbitrary standard. There would be a point in a list of games that run on a particular system--it fills a reasonable information need; there would be a point in a list of games ported to personal computers in the broad sense from arcade games, since it's a reasonable browsing topic; I can even justify a list of games ported to the mac from a previous existence on DOS/Windows, or vice versa, or possibly s list of games that run only on particular system but not on an alternative (though it would best be done as a two-column or multi-column table), but a list of games that run only on a particular set of systems but nothing else at all including everything possible a game could be, seems to no purpose & I can think of no reasonable need for it. And if the combination here is MS-DOS/Windows/Linux, there's no rational basis for lumping those three together. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have changed the description. The operating system is not important, we are looking for PC games that are not exported to other systems. That's all. Games, with PC hardware priority that never downgrade to other hardware systems and the mass market. --IrrtNie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete very vague as to be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Try again on an OS-by-OS basis maybe. Dzlife (talk) 13:49, 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 Withdrawn. I didn't notice the last AfD. I just assumed it was a crap article with no notability since no sources from the last AfD were added. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Chips[edit]
- Charles Chips (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 unable to find significant coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 00:46, 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Introspector (program)[edit]
- Introspector (program) (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 unable to find significant coverage for this software. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see any notable links on Google, Google News and Yahoo that would be appropriate for Wikipedia.SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If a wikibook is the best independent coverage, it fails WP:GNG. FuFoFuEd (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 keep. — Joseph Fox 00:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Parachutes (song)[edit]
- Parachutes (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't believe this song meets WP:NSONGS. IP Claims it charted but not sure how that's possible since it was released within the last few days. A digital download single off an album isn't notable unless proven, which I don't see. Shadowjams (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: This song does meet WP:NSONGS, because it has reached number 44 on the UK Singles Chart [28], number 5 on the UK Indie Chart [29] and number 39 on the Scottish Singles Chart [30] this proves that the song passes WP:NSONGS. Greenock125 (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Shadowjams said above that it was released within the last few days, when it was actually released last week. Greenock125 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - charted on a national music chart (link provided above by User:Greenock125), so meets WP:NSONGS.--BelovedFreak 16:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NB - charting on 1 national and 2 minor charts does not mean that it meets the WP:NSONGS criteria. it currently fails on the notability and third party portions. Mister sparky (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I wouldn't say the UK Indie Chart and Scottish Singles Chart are minor charts they are still important charts on the The Official Charts Company website. Greenock125 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- just because they exist doesn't make them important. the occ website show every chart they compile. but whether they're important is irrelevant here. it still fails other aspects of the criteria. Mister sparky (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Courcelles 23:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frank Conallin[edit]
- Frank Conallin (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 "senior professional golf player's" only claim to fame seems to be that he has participated in, and not won, some senior opens. I don't see how this article is establishing his notability as a golf player, according to WP:ATH#Golf. Logan Talk Contributions 21:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is in terrible shape and was most likely written by the man himself or one of his friends/family. That said, he does get a few mentions in The Age: [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]; The Sydney Morning Herald: [36], [37]; Newcastle Herald: [38]. He appears to have played on the Australian PGA for many, was president of the Victorian PGA, and plays on the Australian, Asian and European senior tours. Unfortunately, none of these things confer notability per NSPORTS and none of the coverage is significant enough for GNG, so I'm leaning towards delete. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:30, 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) 00:00, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 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 redirect to Home automation. It's a shame, as the creator obviously means well, but they would be better suited to adding to the article which already exists. Sorry. — Joseph Fox 00:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Home Automation Control Systems[edit]
- Home Automation Control Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not the place for guides or how-tos. --Σ talkcontribs 01:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At least for now. A Google Books search and a Google News Archive search demonstrate that the topic is notable. This incomplete article, by a new user, was nominated for deletion just 32 minutes after it was created. No one greeted the new user or explained what could be done to improve the article. It looks like this AfD nomination took the wind out of the new user's sails. The new user is trying to respond at the deletion debate talk page. I will now welcome the user, and see if this article can be salvaged, or if the material is already covered adequately at Home automation. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very aggravating. Thanks for trying to rescue this. --Kvng (talk) 17:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing here that can't be covered in Home Automation.--Pontificalibus (talk) 14:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folks: I am not interested in joining a debate. I can add any new information I find in the original article, but I find it is already becoming a book. The (Control System) link used (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programmable_Logic_Controller) there already has nothing to do with Home Automation systems and should be deleted or pointed to my new page.
Please let me know if you want me to continue (1) creating the article separately from the main article (2) or creating it within the orriginal article, or keeping it off wikipedia.
thanks for your comments; smile4yourself; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smile4yourself (talk • contribs) 18:07, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere is clear encyclopedic scope for this as a split from Home Automation, and without becoming a WP:HOWTO. The current article is incomplete and poor, but that's an inevitable result of attacking every new editor's new article within minutes of their creation. In particular, I completely fail to see an article quite so incomplete can be described as a "how to". Andy Dingley (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete It's OK folks, there was a new editor here for a while, but I think we've scared them off now. The threat of having a new article certainly seems to have been removed. Let's delete the ruins, then get back to our Serious Bizniz in the WP_talk: namespace and stop wasting time on articles. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Weak Keep - I agree with Andy in that there is probably scope for a split, and there is so little content right now that it can't possibly be called a how-to. However, there should be some content, and this is currently pretty much content-free. However, some time should be allowed to develop an actual article. Per Wikipedia:Article titles, this article probably should be moved to Home automation control system if kept. -- Whpq (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- based on the above, I will erase what I began to create. I thought wikipedia was a good web site worthy of support, and had done so in the past. This time I thought it was time to write, but I certainly don't want to spend hours to create a page to have it erased later. I also don't want to spend hours to create a page in a 'play area' and then move it to be read, and then have it erased either. So since there seems to be a high risk of this, I guess I will create my notes elsewhere, where they will be available at least for me.
the original author: smile4yourself — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smile4yourself (talk • contribs) 23:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said you'd consider keeping your notes "elsewhere". Why not keep your notes here on Wikipedia under your user account ('play area')?
- Consider the possibility that improving an existing article or articles in the field of your research is a better research approach than creating a new article. You benefit by not having to start from scratch and having existing editors of the articles you're working on collaborate on your efforts and check your work.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SorceryNet[edit]
- SorceryNet (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:WEB. The one book reference that the article mentions is this. Joe Chill (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:17, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of notable and third-party mentions on Google, Google News and Yahoo.SwisterTwister talk 02:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of major third-party coverage. PaintedCarpet (talk) 08:15, 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 redirect to Alex Hyde-White#Projects. Discussion seems to indicate a redirect to director's page at this time. (non-admin closure) BusterD (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Three Days (2011 film)[edit]
- Three Days (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film does not appear to meet notability guidelines. It has no secondary coverage, so it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article. Main article contributor and creator has an apparent COI. BOVINEBOY2008 00:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per nom. I haven't found any secondary sources and the provided source reads more like a press release than independent coverage. PaintedCarpet (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:32, 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 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the director's article at Alex Hyde-White#Projects where this film is spoken of in context. Only now making its festival rounds, the project does not quite have enough coverage to merit a separate article under WP:NF. The redirect can be undone if/when it gains wider release and commentary. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with the Redirect. PaintedCarpet (talk) 01:47, 27 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) 17:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yacht bounce[edit]
- Yacht bounce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Newly made up regional music genre that has not yet garnered significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a "newly made-up regional music genre" any more than hip-hop or bounce were. The reliable sources are cited in this article. The genre DOES exist and IS growing in popularity. There is no valid reason to delete this article. --Heavy (talk) 18:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the sources given are reliable independent sources. It may well be real and "growing in popularity" but that doesn't make it notable.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:40, 19 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, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence it satisfies notability guideline in Wikipedia. Edison (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I didn't see notable coverage on Google, Google News and Yahoo, the one that came even close was a discogs page but it wouldn't hold much on the article.SwisterTwister talk 02:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per no significant coverage from independent sources. PaintedCarpet (talk) 08:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do NOT Delete While notability as defined by Wikipedia is highly subjective, this article DOES provide verified reliable third-party sources thus satisfying the need for an independent article. Wikipedia's notability standards further state that "Determining notability DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEPEND on things like fame, importance, or popularity." Thus, this article should not be up for deletion simply because readers may not have heard of the subject. The fact remains that Yacht Bounce DOES exist, is supported culturally--with or without the vast Internet presence available for older music genres--and is being covered by the entertainment press. --Heavy (talk) 17:07, 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. — Joseph Fox 00:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arlen Gargagliano[edit]
- Arlen Gargagliano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP that has been tagged for "notability" for over 2 years (since June 2009) and still fails to provide evidence of notability per either WP:GNG or WP:BIO. I have found plenty of PR blurbs about this person, but I have been unable to find evidence of independent published coverage. Orlady (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO Puffin Let's talk! 21:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Orlady, there is an entire article in the NYTimes entirely devoted to her, and one in the Miami New Times. I agree articles in the Miami New Times might not be discriminating enough to show notability, but a full multi-p. article in the NYT surely is a RS for N, . (The only question, is that it was in their NY Region section. But even that is discriminating coverage; I have not t=known them to publish PR blurbs. If we're going to go by GNG, she's notable. (Myself, I don't go by GNG when it fails common sense, so that isn't necessarily entirely decisive for me) . But the relevant concern is WP:CREATIVE. She is co-author or author of 8 published cookbooks in Worldcat--see WorldCat Identities Three of them have over 200 library holdings in WorldCat , & none seem to be self - published. She also has a textbook on ESL, published by Cambridge University Press, A person who writes a textbook published by that publisher is a notable writer. We already have 2 reviews . There are over 50 others in Google News Archive: Miami Herald, NY DAily News, Chicago Tribune.... what we have is sufficient to meet WP:CREATIVE and the GNG. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't count brief announcements of bookstore signing appearances as indications of notability, nor newspapers' reproducing an article from a cookbook. I haven't seen the Miami New Times article you mention, but the NYT article that I know about is only a lightweight piece about her teaching a cooking class. There's also an NY Daily News piece about her role in creating an ESL program for restaurant workers. What I get out of all these things is that she's a competent professional in her field who has sometimes been mentioned in newspapers, which is hardly the same thing as notability -- particularly when you consider that this is all publicity generated to sell her cookbooks and her services. --Orlady (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Support DGG's comments. Vitaminman (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete She is certainly on the cusp of notability. The NY Times seems like an instance of significant coverage. The Daily News piece and the Miami piece are pretty slim, more about food than about Gargagliano. There is a lack of actual biographical information about her in the sources presented so far. There is no automatic or inherent notability, contrary to what DGG says, just because someone has a book published by Cambridge University Press. Having X number of books which were bought by Y number of libraries is also helpful in separating successful professional writers from wannabees, but does not automatically establish notability. Edison (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. She just isn't all that notable at this point in time and while this part didn't really feed into my decision, I know I've never seen her cookbooks on the shelves of my local bookstores. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. To be notable, the subject must have significant coverage in the media. One article is not enough.--Huh direction (talk) 10:31, 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. It's close, but consensus appears to lean delete. (as a side, I'm a Brit.) — Joseph Fox 00:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plonker[edit]
- Plonker (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 is a straight dictionary definition of a British slang word. It is already listed on Wikitionary and this is where it rightly belongs, not here on Wikipedia Biker Biker (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as the nominator says, it's a WP:DICDEF, and is already listed on Wiktionary. LadyofShalott 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - If it's already on Wikitionary, then it looks like an "article" that would meet A5. smithers - talk 06:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - yes it exists on Wikt, however that does not automatically lead to a speedy (and A5 should not be used until this AFD reaches a consensus). In this particular case there are significant sources available showing cultural impact and the word has an etymology dating back to the mid 19th century (neither fact is mentioned or sourced on Wikt and the article has not been transwikified as the content is different). I believe there is sufficient in the available sources to expect that it is likely that the article can be improved in the near future to meet the GNG; this is sufficient to keep and mark for improvement rather than deletion. Fæ (talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. Powers T 18:00, 21 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, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The various random cites showing the word to be used in slang to mean a variety of unflattering things belongs in Wiktionary, and not here. Edison (talk) 00:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is meant as an encyclopedia, not a lexicon.SwisterTwister talk 02:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Dictionary definition of a slang term. WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. It is a shame to lose an article referring to "chocolate willies," however... Carrite (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - DicDef yeah kinda, I initially intended to !vote D because of that ... but... historical use has changed and possibly WP:N because of that change. Slag (slang) has seen the same type of change in meaning, and I believe a lot of the above 'reflexive' D !votes above should re-examine their reasoning. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 05:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the article. Lugnuts (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete per WP:DICDEF. Now what is this? Will each and every slang word receive an article? I don't think so. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Dictdef followed by usual Wikipedia "it is used in this book" primary source quote mining crap. If you want to play lexicographer, publish your essay on this word somewhere else. FuFoFuEd (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure who your comment is directed at but it plainly fails to meet the expectations of respect for other editors per Five pillars and being rude in AFDs tends to get noticed in the long term. You do not appear to have taken into account sources such as the academic paper on economic plonking, which is far better than "crap". Fæ (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my comment. To claim that an article about "economic ploking" (which is about pompous and empty statements in economic debates) is about the polysemic word "ploking" (the topic of this Wikipedia article) is utterly ridiculous. You might as well claim that this AfD is an article about Wikipedia because the word "Wikipedia" appears in the title of this page; WP:SIGCOV right there. You are wholly unsuitable as an AfD participant, let alone as a Wikipedia administrator (who has the power to close AfDs) if you think that's the case. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To expand on that, this Wikipedia article does not begin with "A plonker is a person who talks nonsense with gravitas as if he understands well what he is saying. Plonker economists have been widely reported to exist..." I see we're missing an article on dumbass--and how many libel lawsuits were over that, prolly more than the one for "plonker", but we're surely missing this awesome dumbass-related news [39], never mind this whole book [40]--but we do have one on idiot in no small part because that was a legal and medical concept. FuFoFuEd (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure who your comment is directed at but it plainly fails to meet the expectations of respect for other editors per Five pillars and being rude in AFDs tends to get noticed in the long term. You do not appear to have taken into account sources such as the academic paper on economic plonking, which is far better than "crap". Fæ (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as others have explained above. Neutralitytalk 01:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am not an expert on UK colloquialisms, but I am not prepared to take lightly Fae's view about cultural impact. I have enough experience here with that editor's work to discount FiFoFuEd's critique. And some of the arguments for deletion make no sense whatsoever: that we have no article on dumbass is no reason why we should have one, and even less of an argument that we shouldn't have one on this term -- its one of the classic non-reasons. (I think, in fact that yes, every common noun in the English language used with even moderate frequency can probably justify having an article here if enough work is done on it. Slang especially, if it is in common use. There's always a meaning behind it, and if the term is widely used, the concept that meaning conveys will be notable.) DGG ( talk ) 03:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. In general, I like the principle explained in WP:STUB:
- A dictionary article is about a word or phrase and will often have several different definitions for it
- An encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by the title but usually has only one definition (or in some cases, several definitions that are largely the same) but there may be several equivalent words (synonyms) or phrases for it.
- By that definition, this is clearly a dictionary article. I wouldn't make that an absolute distinction: I can agree that the history of the changing meanings of a word, properly documented, could become encyclopedic because of the light it sheds on society; but I don't think this one gets there. JohnCD (talk) 21:58, 29 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.