Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 21
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mukilteo School District. Tone 22:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mukilteo Elementary School[edit]
- Mukilteo Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Res ipsa loquitur. Epeefleche (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to its school district, Mukilteo School District. The school lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to its school district, Mukilteo School District, per well-established standard practice for the overwhelming majority of elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mukilteo School District according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is not the case that all elementary schools are notable per wp standards. Quite the opposite--the normal course is to redirect, as editors have indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to school district per the normal procedure; not notable. Lagrange613 15:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect; fails the GNG. I would strongly contest Luciferwildcat's suggestion that all schools are notable. bobrayner (talk) 13:57, 28 December 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 Lansing School District. Redirecting to the school district per the standard procedure. Note that the school district article doesn't mention this school yet, if it's desired to merge content that can be done from the article history (and don't forget to attribute in the diffs when doing so). The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Averill Elementary School[edit]
- Averill Elementary School (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 with zero refs, on an elementary school, which does not appear to be especially notable. Epeefleche (talk) 23:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to city or school district, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Lansing, Michigan or school district according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is not the case that all elementary schools are notable per wp standards. Quite the opposite--the normal course is to redirect, as editors have indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With response to Purplebackpack89, Wikipedia is not just for important things. If someone wants to make an article about a piece of paper, and writes it according to the guideline, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this.
- I tried to add some references, but I couldn't find anything. Since this is a verified school (to check, go to Lansing School District's website), could we just hold off on the deletion for a little bit? I agree with Luciferwildcat, if we merge this in, who would want to help it grow?
Salzeroo (talk) 03:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. Your comment does not seem to address how this article could be considered notable under wp standards. The fact that you yourself could not find any references simply supports a deletion determination; not the opposite.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, since I'm pretty new here, I didn't realize that it had to be notable per wp standards. Sure, I would support a Merge or a Delete. Sorry.
Salzeroo (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking a second look, and welcome to the Project.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to school district per the normal procedure; not notable. Welcome, Salzeroo! Lagrange613 15:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect; I think it falls short of the GNG. bobrayner (talk) 13:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG Truthsort (talk) 00:38, 29 December 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. Hut 8.5 12:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Keeley[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Sam Keeley (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 of a "new" actor. Searching for independent coverage I find a lot of social media and similar hits. Two brief mentions associating his name with his character in a just released movie. Thinking this is a case of WP:TOOSOON but I wanted to get the community's consensus. Livit⇑Eh?/What? 20:07, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Though Sam Keeley is a relatively 'New' Actor, he has not only quite a fan following, but has appeared in a large enough quantity of projects that should automatically qualify him for a wikipedia page. Information about his work is on his imdb page: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4187130/ and his agency profile : http://www.lisarichards.ie/actorsm/sam-keeley-actor — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –MuZemike 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Six roles is hardly an enormous quantity of projects- I've seen people with far more to their resume get deleted because of a lack of reliable sources. A fanbase also doesn't guarantee that you'll pass WP:ARTIST either. I know of more than a few podcast authors with huge fanbases that don't pass notability guidelines. What counts here is that you can prove Keeley's notability with reliable sources, which unfortunately I'm unable to find. I do see where he's been in a movie that won an award, but that movie's notability is not transferred to Keeley (see WP:NOTINHERITED). He just doesn't pass WP:ARTIST at this time. It's too soon to add him to Wikipedia.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
- Do Not Delete. By six roles you are obviously going by his imdb page, which is in fact incomplete. To date he is much closer to 10 projects performing in 3 more television series and a short film. I understand why you might be rallying for his deletion, but what you haven't taken into account is the quantity of projects he has performed in coupled with the amount of time he has been a working actor. It hasn't even been two years since his first film and already he has performed in a large quantity of projects. He is an actor that is, without a doubt, on the rise, and quite frankly, what is the point in deleting a page that will need to be rewritten a short time in the future when a page for him becomes even more necessary than it is now. Also, about your comments concerning fanbase...I mean no offense by this, but podcast authors are not actors. They don't have nearly the same type of popularity as actors do. Is wikipedia not an online encyclopaedia for the people? Why, when an actor has a fanbase, would you not supply that fanbase with the necessary information concerning said actor. Its baffling to me that this article is even being considered for deletion. It is not meaningless drivel, it is not purposeless, it is an information resource concerning a rising stars career to date, something which can, and WILL be useful to many fans, movie buffs and other people for a very long time. When Sam Keeley stops working, stops acting... then, and only then will I accept that this article isn't worthy of a place on this site, but for right now, deletion would not only be rash and unthinking, but completely inconsiderate to all fans out there that want this article to exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC) — Rexplosion79 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment. I beg to differ on the fanbase for podcast authors. There are some out there that had such a large fanbase that they actually ended up becoming published authors, such as Scott Sigler. He does all of his main publishing through podcasting and his paper books all started as podcasts that did so well that a publisher picked them up. There are other podcast authors such as Phil Rossi that don't pass notability guidelines for this site, yet have enough of a fanbase that they're able to live off of the donations they get from said fanbase. It's a different type of area, but the premise is the same. Being an actor doesn't automatically give you notability and having 10 roles or 100 roles does not automatically bestow notability either, nor does time served. Also, we can't predict what will happen in Keeley's future. He might go on to become the next Orlando Bloom or he might fade away from the public eye. We can't predict the future and we can't keep an article because he might eventually pass notability guidelines one day. That goes against WP:CRYSTAL. What we need here are reliable sources that pass WP:RS. Also, WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument for keeping a page because something can be useful but still not pass notability guidelines. We could talk until the sun goes down and comes back up, but at the end of it all we'll still need those reliable sources to prove notability. Regardless of whether or not he'll one day be more famous or how useful this is, notability is shown through reliable sources. It'd be nice if we could keep every article, but there are guidelines to follow as far as notability goes.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Although if you want, you could ask if you could WP:USERFY the article if it gets deleted. That will allow you to not only work on the article but also add reliable sources to it until it passes notability guidelines. Again, it's the reliable sources that will probably end up keeping this article from being kept. You need sources that are independent of Keeley and aren't business industry listings, IMDb pages, or entries that merely show he acted in something. A reliable source would be a news interview with Keeley or a media interview from someone that's considered to be notable and reliable. (For example, even the Daily Mail in all its tabloid glory could be considered a reliable source as long as it focused on Keeley.) Articles that merely quote Keeley or only mention that he acted in something don't really count as reliable sources, just trivial ones. Anything released by him or his agents doesn't count as a reliable source proving notability since it came from a primary source. I hope this helps in explaining why the article is up for deletion and why the lack of reliable sources will be what might ultimately get it removed.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Keep - he has form and is notable already.Red Hurley (talk) 11:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But we still need reliable sources to show that he's notable. He might have starred in things that have gotten media attention, but unless we have something that is focusing on him, he doesn't really pass notability guidelines. Notability is not transferred from or inherited by working on a notable film or with another notable person. We need reliable sources and they just aren't here in this article and I can't find any. If anyone can find enough reliable sources then I'd be willing to change my vote, but I just can't find any and that's really my only big thing about this AfD- the lack of reliable sources. Just be aware that as long as the article lacks reliable sources per WP:RS, this article will always be tagged for notability and it'll probably end up going to AfD again. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. No independent evidence of notability. Notability is not inherited from films in which he plays small roles. An assertion of a fan base does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. Lagrange613 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lagrange613 has it right. Subject's one starring role was in a small, independent film. Otherwise, appeared on a single episode of a TV series and a couple of tiny film roles. The lack of evidence for notability is thus unsurprising. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:15, 31 December 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 Nancy Collisson. (non-admin closure) →Στc. 02:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Buffy[edit]
- Mr. Buffy (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 fictional character is not notable and there are no sources in place to verify any notability Churchgoer251 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The page was created by User:Nancycollisson@yahoo.com and the creator of this fictional character is Nancy Collisson so this also seems to be an issue of conflict of interest. Churchgoer251 (talk) 23:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed that it was previously sent here. Sorry I should have checked for that. But still, I don't see it as being notable. Churchgoer251 (talk) 23:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Nancy Collisson. While her page does have links that claim that the character was used as an ambassador, none of those links currently remain and I'm unable to find anything other than her wiki page that backs up these assertions. The only things I've found were sites that copied from the Wikipedia article and a book that's a direct copy of the articles. I just can't see where there's enough notability here to warrant keeping it as an article to itself. All of this information would be best served on the author's entry.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Redirect to author's page. Most independent mentions of the character are really coverage of the author. I've found no independent evidence of notability. Lagrange613 16:17, 27 December 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 Taguig#Education. The Bushranger One ping only 09:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ricardo P. Cruz Sr. Elementary School[edit]
- Ricardo P. Cruz Sr. Elementary School (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 elementary school appears to be non-notable, and has been tagged as such since May. Zero refs in the article. Epeefleche (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to city or school district per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Taguig City#Education according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is not the case that all elementary schools are notable per wp standards. Quite the opposite--the normal course is to redirect, as editors have indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; does not meet Notability per WP:ORG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:34, 25 December 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 Manchester Township School District. This one comes closer to notability than most - at a glance. However, it appears to all be routine coverage - yes, even the threats (sadly). This one might become notable in the future, at which point it can be recreated, but it isn't there yet. The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Manchester Township Middle School[edit]
- Manchester Township Middle School (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 middle school appears to be non-notable, and its article has been tagged as such for 2 years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: We don't need an article on every school Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to to city or school district, per standard practice for non-notable elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Manchester Township School District according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAll schools are notable, I have never been inside an elementary, middle, or high school office that wasn't lined with news articles that dealt exclusively with the school framed on the wall. Many of these are old news and not archived online but we should keep and open mind and keep based on NRVE. If not merge with the district until more content is available for later splintering off but my problem with that is that it may discourage article development. This school is verified and therefore is harmless here and it is likely to be a topic of interest and a good neutral history should be online as wikipedia is not paper, also junior highs are huge in the United States often having more students than high schools.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please cite the Wikipedia policy that states all schools are notable? Thanks.
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a long held belief many wikipedians have on the inclusionist side. There is no policy on schools other than high schools and higher education institutions are inherently notable. ASAN is from an essay here that many consider of note. They are all notable because every school that I have been to has NRVE style references.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite the policy, guideline, or provide a diff that clearly states 'all schools are notable' otherwise this vote appears to be based only on your personal point of view. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He cited WP:GNG. They get news coverage, so they are all notable. Dream Focus 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite the policy, guideline, or provide a diff that clearly states 'all schools are notable' otherwise this vote appears to be based only on your personal point of view. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a long held belief many wikipedians have on the inclusionist side. There is no policy on schools other than high schools and higher education institutions are inherently notable. ASAN is from an essay here that many consider of note. They are all notable because every school that I have been to has NRVE style references.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Manchester Township School District. Tinton5 (talk) 01:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment several sources here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not good enough. Lagrange613 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to district. The (unsourced) statement that they'll be performing The Wiz is the closest this gets to notabiliy. Lagrange613 17:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click Google news archive search at the top of this AFD, and you get coverage of the school's activities, notable teachers being honored, bomb threats emptying the school, theater performances, charity activity, and whatnot. News results from Asbury Park Press, The Press of Atlantic City, and Tri-Town News Dream Focus 17:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:OUTCOMES#Schools. Does not appear to satisfy the applicable notability guideline, WP:ORG. Wikipedia is not a directory of every thing that exists or which previously existed which fails to satisfy the notability guidelines. Edison (talk) 18:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote from above to Procedural Keep, I just realized that "we don't need an article on every school" has absolutely no basis in policy whatsoever. However if you were to read the GNG it says that multiple no trivial coverage of a topic constitutes notability. And this school has been the subject of dozens of in depth pieces in the Asbury Park Press and should therefore be a speedy keep.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:21, 28 December 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. Tone 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of collections from Easton Press[edit]
- List of collections from Easton Press (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The press is notable (though the article is sub-par), but this list of collections (really, a list of lists of collections) falls foul of WP:NOTDIR. Drmies (talk) 19:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Easton Press is a notable press of collectible books. Although it could be more thorough, this list is very useful for determining the titles included in the various Easton Press collections as there is no catalog published by Easton Press with such a listing. It also helps in determining what books have been discontinued in a collection for aftermarket purchases. Zuktuul (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)— Zuktuul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep - Not my favorite WP page ever, but seems to meet the criteria for a list: logical and finite boundaries, utility to Wikipedia users... Useful subpage for Easton Press. Carrite (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as essentially being spam - Wikipedia is not a catalog for Easton Press. LadyofShalott 06:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have notified WP:WikiProject Bibliographies of this discussion. LadyofShalott 06:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. RockMagnetist (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – although against my character, this list does not meet the notability standard for standalone lists—WP:NOTESAL. I spent over an hour trying to find at least one reliable source, independent of Easton Press that discussed their collections as a group. As far as I can tell, there is none. Many of the individual collections are discussed in sources, but even those sources are essentially promotional material in various other publications. But nothing, especially nothing independent of Easton, discusses their collections as a group. This list hasn’t passed the most basic hurdle for list notability. Although I would fully support and embrace the concept of Usefulness as a valid reason to keep a WP article, unfortunately it isn’t one today. I also disagree with this list being called spam, it’s not. It’s just a list that hasn’t met the basic list notability hurdle—WP:NOTESAL. If sources can be found that discuss Easton Collections as a group, I will change my position. --Mike Cline (talk) 16:29, 17 December 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 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage discussing the list contents "as a group" means it fails WP:NOTESAL and WP:GNG. Novaseminary (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's nothing here to show that this list of books is notable. While some of the books themselves are notable, that doesn't mean that Easton Press is notable for printing copies of them. (WP:NOTINHERITED) Also, I want to note that WP:ITSUSEFUL is not really a valid arguing point. We're not a directory for people wishing to buy from Easton Press. This list has no encyclopedic merit, which is what a list would require in order to pass WP:LISTN.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. There is no independent coverage of "collections from Easton Press", so it fails WP:NOTESAL. Usefulness is not a notability criterion. Notability is not inherited from Easton Press. Lagrange613 17:08, 27 December 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. Tone 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr Fuddlesticks[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Mr Fuddlesticks (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 largely a WP:ONEEVENT situation. It's not about a specific individual but it covers several living people in a negative light and doesn't really have any lasting notability. Received trivial local news coverage. v/r - TP 21:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Smells stronly like an attempt to prolong the embarrassment for the subjects of a one-day news story. "The blogosphere was abuzz..." -- oh, brother! EEng (talk) 04:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have a feeling I'll be voting "delete", but I'm going to at least try to clean this article up first to see if there's anything here worth keeping.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. I hemmed and hawed over this because while there has been several news stories about this, I think that this qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT. There might be some issues of freedom of speech, but this just hasn't really gone all that far or gotten that much attention, all things considering. I've cleaned the article up dramatically, but this just doesn't seem to have any lasting notability at this time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- — Dugn8r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep.I think this should play out. This is an issue of free speech and this case will have far-reaching implications for years to come. --Dugn8r (talk) 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, who other than you thinks so? EEng (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is sort of a tricky area because it has the potential to become something more notable, but it just isn't there yet. Free speech doesn't always guarantee big press. Phillip Greaves and his pedophile guide is a great example of this. While repugnant, his guide technically fell under "free speech" and many people were predicting that his trial would turn into a huge media event where freedom of speech was going to be under debate. But that never happened and the entire case was quietly settled and Greaves was never heard of again. The same premise is going on here. You have something that has gotten a bit of news promotion and free speech is being banded about, but you can't really predict how it will end. Maybe it'll become more widely known, maybe it won't. We can't predict it, so we have to judge on whether it is notable now, not whether or not it'll be notable later on down the line. (WP:CRYSTAL)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- With all due respect, who other than you thinks so? EEng (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If it becomes more notable, the article can always be recreated (and is more likely to be in any case).
- Please KEEP the City of Renton is abusing their power not just in this case but in MANY cases. They might be next on the Department of Justices investigation hit list. Their abuse of power must be stopped. They think they are above the law and removing this only furthers that idea. Please leave it there to see how it plays out and as reminder that EVERYONE should be held accountable for their actions! -- (comment left on this AfD's Talk by user Nagem319 [1])— Nagem319 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 21:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia is not a soapbox for either side of the issue and we cannot keep a page because something may or may not happen. Please see WP:SOAPBOX. I dislike people abusing their authority as much as the next person (it's a sore point of mine), but we cannot keep something unless it is shown to pass notability guidelines. We're not an advocate for either side and we can't keep a page just to make a point against anyone. That's not what Wikipedia is for.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete as not a notable event. Its geographical scope is limited to Renton, Washington, a town of 90,000. Coverage doesn't seem to have lasted much beyond the initial news cycle. It may be too soon to judge its eventual impact, but for now it's had little. Happy to revisit without prejudice at deletion review if more comes of this. Lagrange613 17:22, 27 December 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. Passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spamarama[edit]
- Spamarama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete per Notability (events). This page is not encyclopedic.Stubbleboy 18:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was able to find and add a number of reliable, third-party citations in the form of news articles from various locations in the United States, published from 1991 to 2007. One unfortunate fact of life on the Web v. 2 is that many news sites are now pay-per-view and so many other potential references are unavailable for free. I was able to find a good cross section among the free ones, however. The widespread nature of the publications, both in terms of time and geography, are sufficient to establish the notability of this event. Not that the article doesn't need work – it does – but the article is notable for our purposes. Geoff Who, me? 22:36, 15 December 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 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepSpeedy Keep – Easily-found reliable sources that address the topic in detail equate to topic notability for Spamarama (passes WP:GNG). Here's a few I added to the article:
- Hattersley, Cleve (October 26, 1995). "LIGHTS! CAMERA! SPAMARAMA!". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - "Down with Spamarama". Austin American-Statesman. April 5, 1997. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - "Spamming it up". The Dallas Morning News. April 2, 2000. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 07:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hattersley, Cleve (October 26, 1995). "LIGHTS! CAMERA! SPAMARAMA!". Austin American-Statesman. Retrieved December 21, 2011.
- Keep. The article clearly needs work, but the list of references demonstrates it satisfies the general notability guideline. Lagrange613 17:26, 27 December 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. The consensus is that there is sufficient coverage to establish notability. Michig (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lava Bear Films[edit]
- Lava Bear Films (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 foresee some controversy in this article, so I'm bringing it here. This article was created last month, and cites some notability unto itself, however, I'm not seeing it in the sources provided. Granted, this seems a little weak, I suppose. Still, it's a relatively new production company, with a film that is currently not yet in production as far as I can tell. Furthermore, from what I see, the article is attempting to hinge on the notability of the corporate CEO for this production; the issue here is that notability of the company is not inherited from its CEO. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the two Variety articles and the Hollywood Reporter article demonstrate notability to me. They are not primarily about Linde the CEO, they are about the setting up of the company and the announcement of its first film project. There is some element of promotional text about the current version of the article and it is clearly being edited by Linde himself, so there are WP:COI issues. But these aren't enough to warrant deletion, IMHO. The company is sufficiently notable. I spent some time a month or so ago, ensuring the related David Linde article was properly sourced. At the time I took a look at Lava Bear Films and decided it was notable and I don't see anything to change my mind. Best, Sparthorse (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Sparthouse, basically. It has definitely received coverage, while it is somewhat thin at the moment--there is certainly ample sourcing to justify a stub here. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:07, 17 December 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 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrates it satisfies WP:ORG. I linked some more coverage in the article. The article definitely needs work but deletion is unwarranted. Lagrange613 17:49, 27 December 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. Tone 22:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional people from Boston[edit]
- List of fictional people from Boston (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 directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed. Specifically the policy says
1. Wikipedia articles are not: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)...
Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Stubbleboy 19:26, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Directory. What is significant about them being from Boston? SL93 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Boston in fiction. PaintedCarpet (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Boston in fiction: lists various works of fiction that take place in Boston, Massachusetts: Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:06, 15 December 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 21:40, 21 December 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. Passes the Notability guidelines (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Coca Steamboat[edit]
- Coca Steamboat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Page has had notability warning tag since Jan 2008. Brollachan (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In-depth mentions in The Nation,[2] and The Star,[3], as well as reviews in several guidebooks, including Frommer's, which appears on the New York Times website.[4] --Paul_012 (talk) 06:46, 15 December 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 21:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep – No specific reason has been stated in the nomination for the article to be removed from Wikipedia, and above, sources have been found. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources have been found. And thousands of articles have those irritating "notability warning tag"s on them, everyone just ignores them. Dream Focus 00:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A restaurant chain operating in eleven Southeast Asia countries is notable. Sources have been found, but there should be inline citations. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:53, 23 December 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. Comments in favor of deletion cited WP:NOTNEWS and recentism as reasoning, but did little to explain why this event is not notable regardless of its age. The number of deaths in a fire can be indicative of notability but cannot rule out notability. IP 184.44.129.253 comment was ignored. Comments in favor of keeping showed that the event has received continued media coverage. Jujutacular talk 17:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Penhallow Hotel fire[edit]
- Penhallow Hotel fire (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 a notable fire. Three deaths is not enough to count as a notable fire of encyclopedic proportions, and that it is "reported as the worst hotel fire in the UK in nearly 40 years" comes from a non-reliable source. Drmies (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no good claim to notability that I can see, Sadads (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It may have been the worst hotel fire in the UK for years but it doesn't pass muster compared with bigger disasters. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The fire is tragic but WP:NOTNEWS and WP:GNG apply here. Not notable- William 22:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This topic has received significant, ongoing coverage in reliable sources, here are some BBC News articles: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. This topic passes WP:GNG with ease. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:GNG, per Northamerica1000s showing of reliable sources.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fire, the aftermath, the coverage of it four years after the fire shows continual interest. [10] Any disaster that kills people, should be notable anyway. But this gets lasting coverage. Dream Focus 17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I see the dilemma, but there's no hard line to be made based on the number of deaths. News coverage is significant and surprisingly ongoing, so WP:GNG is met. There are also indications that legislative changes re hotel safety are being considered as a result of this event, which suggests longer term notability.--Milowent • hasspoken 06:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Have to agree with Milowent, the legislative changes alone make this worth keeping. There have been developments in court and news articles as recent as this week which means it's an event which is still very much in the public eye. The article does need work but I don't feel that is cause for deletion when all that is needed is some attention from an experienced editor. JoeSnarl (talk) 14:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment. Recentism, recentism, recentism. How many wikipedia editors lack a historical perspective. Look at one of the people who voted to keep above. 'Any disaster that kills people, should be notable anyway." Is Wikipedia a encyclopedia or news archive? A fire that kills three people isn't encyclopedic.- William 15:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many editors lack historical perspective. Unfortunately, in fact, many are biased against recent events because they assume them not to be notable when similar events from long ago are indeed remembered. I.e., folks like Sam Patch who did nothing more than jump off a few things are remembered and celebrated close to 200 years after their death for what is basically something very silly. Or Reuel Colt Gridley. Or Francine Gottfried. Or Sawing off of Manhattan Island. If these people were around today, their articles would decried as BLP1Es and WP:RECENT problems. The mere fact that three people died, by itself, may not be sufficient. But the greater implications of an event can far exceed the death toll of it. Famously, for example, the Boston Massacre only involved the death of five civilians. Surely that was a non-notable event, right? Of course not.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These events and people are remembered 200 years after their times. Although they are about relatively obscure topics that factor is a good indicator for their notability. I wonder if people will (other than descendants of those involved) will be talking about the Penhallow Hotel fire after a similar length of time. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Milowent, I hate it when you get involved in these things since you often make me rethink my position. Damn you! I don't yet, however, see such significant sourcing to change my mind--it's in the nature of such events to generate at least some coverage, but for me it's not quite enough. Did it effect anything outside of those involved? New regulations, new measures? If that happens it's notable, usually--"greater implications." All the best, Drmies (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many editors lack historical perspective. Unfortunately, in fact, many are biased against recent events because they assume them not to be notable when similar events from long ago are indeed remembered. I.e., folks like Sam Patch who did nothing more than jump off a few things are remembered and celebrated close to 200 years after their death for what is basically something very silly. Or Reuel Colt Gridley. Or Francine Gottfried. Or Sawing off of Manhattan Island. If these people were around today, their articles would decried as BLP1Es and WP:RECENT problems. The mere fact that three people died, by itself, may not be sufficient. But the greater implications of an event can far exceed the death toll of it. Famously, for example, the Boston Massacre only involved the death of five civilians. Surely that was a non-notable event, right? Of course not.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Recentism? It happened in 2007 and years later it gets coverage. And what you consider encyclopedic differs from what others consider it. Nothing gained by deleting this. Wikipedia isn't going to run out of space. Dream Focus 15:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:GNG with it's coverage in reliable, third party sources. The whole "it's getting coverage 4 years later" stuff makes me disagree with any claims of recentism. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Legislation often gets changed as a result of media attention because politicians are wary of the "public opinion" (ie: what the press writes about). So this can go on in circles. And of course there will be articles like "5 years ago, a hotel fire killed 3 people...." because that's easy filling for a paper or site. But that doesn't show lasting notabily. SpeakFree (talk)(contribs) 02:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Quote from reliable source The Cornishman: "The first member of the emergency services at the scene of the worst hotel fire in the UK for 40 years has described the early stages of the blaze as "complete chaos".", which describes the fire as the worst in the UK for 40 years. This further conveys topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete _ Poorly written.184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is not an appropriate reason for deletion, and the above user has been warned about this type of behavior before. MSJapan (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The delete !vote above about prose style of the article isn't valid grounds for deletion of the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Going by this ip's edit history and talk page I would have a hard time assuming good faith for this vote anyway.Fraggle81 (talk) 12:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The above IP is currently range blocked due to extensive disruptive editing, (See here and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salvidrim/Tailsman67 - This is an example of one of many ways he's been disruptive; he keeps on following around Salvidrim and I and making invalid, bad faith !votes at AFDs. Sergecross73 msg me 23:08, 28 December 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. Tone 22:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cusars[edit]
- The Cusars (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 cannot find sufficient indicia of notability of this rock band. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for over a year. Created by a 1-article-only SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing on Google News. Neither Amazon nor iTunes sells their music. Kauffner (talk) 11:54, 15 December 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 21:22, 21 December 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. Passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obstacle racing[edit]
- Obstacle racing (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:N. The references listed appear to be primary in nature, and justs lists just bare websites. Phearson (talk) 05:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Phearson proposed speedy deletion on 13 Dec 2011 but this was contested by DGG on 13 Dec 2011. Phearson proposed deletion again on 13 Dec 2011 but this was contested by me on 13 Dec 2011. Phearson proposed deletion again on 14 Dec 2011. I have no particular interest in this article but I think we need more people involved in the discussion before a decision on deletion is made. Biscuittin (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The sport of obstacle racing has attracted more than one million athletes this year alone. Spartan Race, Tough Mudder, and Warrior Dash together have 2.7 million Facebook subscribers. I find this to be sufficient evidence for including obstacle racing in an encyclopedia, and thus Wikipedia. Ablenis94 —Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Strong keep. This is a popular sport in reality TV, military training and general athletic competition, while it also has many world record holders. The article scope is enough for sufficient citations, though we need to clean up the bare URLs for references. It is a sport just like any other, and is nearly as significant as the triathalon, for example. ~AH1 (discuss!) 02:27, 20 December 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 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Never heard of it before, but USA Today, Running magazine and a local television news station have taken notice. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep – Passes WP:GNG. Here's more references I added to the article. Don't delete, improve. Also, topic notability is based upon available reliable sources, not whether or not they are present in articles. Nominator, please read WP:BEFORE:
- Weir, Tom (December 14, 2011). "'Obstacle racing' is latest challenge for endurance jocks". USA Today. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- "Obstacle Racing A New Fitness Trend". CBS Channel 6, Albany (Video). Retrieved December 22, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- "'Obstacle racing' is taking off". Canadian Running. December 15, 2011. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 06:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weir, Tom (December 14, 2011). "'Obstacle racing' is latest challenge for endurance jocks". USA Today. Retrieved December 22, 2011.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scandinavia And The World[edit]
- Scandinavia And The World (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 be non-notable webcomic. Editor creating it has created and edited this article but nothing else. No outside sources. No categorization. Author is only identified by online username. Quick search on Google indicates no third party sourcing. --Legis (talk - contribs) 05:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - No reliable sources to establish notability, and created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 10:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 15 December 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 21:21, 21 December 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. Michig (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nasida Ria[edit]
- Nasida Ria (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:MUSIC. Can't find any evidence of notability. m.o.p 04:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. m.o.p 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —m.o.p 04:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article published by Suara Merdeka says that Ria Nasida Kauman was founded in 1975 in Semarang. The group released 32 albums. They produced their debut album in 1978. Their albums are marketed nationally and also abroad. The group has received numerous awards, including the award of the Islamic Cultural Center (1989). (translated with the help of G-translate). It is possible to find out more in the G-news archives. The article needs an attention of a competent editor familiar with the Indonesian cultural background, not deletion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:50, 14 December 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 21:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Rather than removal from Wikipedia, this topic appears to be notable per having a significant notable history and extensive discography over a significant period of time, which confers notability, and the article appears to be worthy of improvement, per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Adding rescue tag to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – - This article from The Jakarta Post suggests that a song first recorded by them was a "radio staple" for more than 20 years. This one from Suara Merdeka has a bit more background, and this one calls them a "legendary" Islamic music group and the "pride of Semarang". I may expand the article with the sources provided tomorrow. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Expanded. Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:44, 25 December 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. Feel free to renominate this page if it does not qualify Wikipedia standards. Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Non-admin closure. [reply]
Mark Peterson-Perez[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Update - There is an issue with the name of the individual. According to the author the correct spelling is Mark Petersen-Perez, not Mark Peterson-Perez. Rather than complicate the AfD I have moved the article Mark Peterson-Perez to Mark Petersen-Perez. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Peterson-Perez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor activist lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO. The article references appear to be passing mentions of the individual. reddogsix (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Each of two sufficient WP:BIO conditions are met - Petersen-Perez (1)"has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,and independent of the subject", OR (2) is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Either one of these would be enough. In fact, both hold. (1)is established in the reference section list in the article. Quotes were provided in the references to show that the article subject is the same as the source subject. The second sufficient condition is met since the first four sources are recorded front page news stories directly about Petersen-Perez. WP:BIO is satisfied. PPdd (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I see no evidence of any significant front page or any "significant coverage" of the individual in reliable sources. The sources you have added to the article are basically passing mentions of the individual. You are correct that the individual need not be national to be notable, but to be notable he must meet the criteria in WP:BIO or an associated WP:NOTABILITY guideline. The article still appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:GNG. reddogsix (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong. PPdd (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I only see 36 GHits and 1 GNEWs for "Mark Peterson-Perez" and 57 GHits and 1 GNEWS for "Mark Petersen-Perez". reddogsix (talk) 06:30, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I get "About 2,900 results (0.08 seconds)" for "Mark Petersen-Perez" and "About 118 results (0.09 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez". With the incorrect spelling, I get "1 result (0.24 seconds)" for "Mark Peterson-Perez", and "1 result (0.31 seconds) "for 'Mark Peterson-Perez'".
- Side comment - The original apparant lack of any GHits is partially due to offline sources, and also partly my own fault since I originaly spelled the name in the article title wrong. PPdd (talk) 03:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject appears to fail WP:BIO. I also have concerns regarding WP:SOAPBOX and the application of WP:NOTNEWS to a biographical article. Piecing together factoids (i.e. true but insignificant information) of individuals from local news articles is not enough to pass the various notability guidelines. Location (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply comment - I removed WP:Soapbox and WPNOTNEWS[11] put in by a new editor. I have substantially changed the article since its creation (under a different subject title), which did indeed have a WP:UNDUE number factoids. But the only "factoid" now in the article is that he is a financial analyst. PPdd (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, let me state that the term “factoid” was not meant to be derogatory to the subject or his work. The point is that more than newspapers mentions are necessary to establish a person’s notability. This is particularly true when the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports AND when the newspaper reports are confined to a small geographic region (a city in this case) AND when there is a distinct lack of other types of published sources. If this were allowed, it would be possible, for example, to create articles for every high school coach or athlete who gets a blurb in the local rag for his or her accomplishments at last night’s game. I guess an argument could be made that they should be mentioned in Wikipedia, but I think it's fair to say that the consensus would be against it.
- Secondly, I agree that a subject does not necessarily require “national significance” to be notable, but I think the broader point was that not all verifiable information is acceptable for inclusion in Wikipedia since it considers the enduring notability of persons and events and caters to a wider audience. This article states that the subject “is a LOCAL government watchdog, political activist, financial analyst, and publisher of the online Palo Alto Free Press”, "is a LOCAL political advocate for the homeless”, “well known LOCALLY for using the local platforms of communication and petition for redress”, and “well known to persons who attend Palo Alto City Council meetings.” [Emphasis mine.] Not all subjects need to have national significance to be considered notable, however, that does not mean that subjects with only local significance are notable. Location (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Why are you calling the newspaper articles now included"mentions" of him, and saying "the individual is not the actual subject of the newspaper reports"? (Your comment might have been written before I added the articles directly on him, so we can strike this part of the discussion if it was.)
- 2. "Local" is in no way a necessary consideration in WP:BIO. A historian researching local platforms of petitioning the local governments would want an encyclopedia that has information on notable persons in this area. Whether or not that person later achieves notability on a different level of government would be irrelevant to such a historian using the encyclopedia. PPdd (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Local news is not enough. If he was really of national significance, there would be other coverage. SL93 (talk) 14:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Striken comment and discussion of it
|
---|
|
- Keep - WP:BIO's standards. "Within Wikipedia, notability is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
- "Worthy of notice" Clarence Earl Gideon was a person worthy of notice, why because he refused to become a part of the status quo. His actions caused a shift of the entire judicial system as we know it today. And he started out as a single voice.
- "If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of American law would have gone on functioning undisturbed. But Gideon did write that letter; the court did look into his case; he was re-tried with the help of competent defense counsel; found not guilty and released from prison after two years of punishment for a crime he did not commit. And the whole course of legal history has been changed." Robert Kennedy
- Petersen-Perez did not sit down. He stood up before local politicians to redress his grievances and concerns head on, and in the process lost four jobs.
- Petersen-Perez without any legal experience nor background filed a similar petition, but in his case, before the California Supreme Court in defense of his first amendment rights to criticize government officials. Case Case No: S174520 What is "worthy of notice" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in that, in filling his petition we no of know other private citizen or persons to have been found to challenge a municipal government attorney on First Amendment issues.ManicalCritic (talk) 17:07, 24 December 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment - As a leading anti-taser activist and publisher, as copious sources indicate in a quick swing through cyberspace. That he is an individual of local fame (or infamy, depending upon one's politics) is neither here nor there. This article got PRODded by the nominator less than 4 hours after creation and the edit history shows a complaint that the nominator also pulled off a CONSTRUCTION banner by the creator just 37 hours after last edit. I'm left wondering what is the rush here... I've been to Palo Alto a number of times; it's not a po-dunk berg in the middle of nowhere, but rather a significant city that is part of the San Francisco bay area, so complaints of "local only" coverage should not be give excessive weight. The article does have serious style issues, but I believe that this is essentially a subject worthy of encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Carrite, could you specify any content problems you think still need addressing to change back to a keep vote? Did these edits address your concern? Thanks. PPdd (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to emphasize that this article has serious content problems, to the extent that I'm striking the Keep and making it a Comment. I can see the viability of blowing this piece up and starting over at some point in the future. I do still believe the subject is encyclopedia-worthy, however. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Collapse Soapboxing by anonymous editor unrelated to AFD discussion
|
---|
|
- Keep, I don't think it can be disputed that Peterson-Perez (or however his name might be spelt) is a notable figure in the politics of a significant city. With that said, the current state of the article is really awful and in my opinion the entire thing needs to be scrapped and rewritten with NPOV in mind. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep No real concerns over notability but serious concerns over POV. Article needs to be re-written from a more neutral point of view. Pol430 talk to me 16:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2011 in Germany. Sandstein 17:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Germany in 2011[edit]
- Germany in 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a content fork from 2011 in Germany. We don't need two articls with the same content. Creator has declined suggestions to merge contributions back to original article. Wtshymanski (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I started Germany in 2011, and it was not forked from 2011 in Germany, which has no references. Also, there has been no discussion yet to merge it with that list. I am not necessarily opposed to a merge, but that article series has a different format. Fotaun (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into 2011 in Germany, as per the standards for these articles. Otherwise, there will be un-needed duplication. Lugnuts (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into '2011 in Germany' as per standard. --Boson (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2011 in Germany, being sure to include all of the referenced information and references. This is a well-written article, but the precedent for articles titles of this type appears to be in a "2011 in _____" format. Hence the merge !vote. Deletion of this article would not benefit the Wikipedia project whatsoever. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:25, 30 December 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.
(add to top of list)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 22:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Video games censored by Nintendo of America[edit]
- Video games censored by Nintendo of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is just purely an indiscriminate list of information and violates WP:WHIM. I also can't see if this article is even accurate, because there needs to be a lot more sources in order to verify this article. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Cutecuteface needs attention) 21:05, 21 December 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) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ridiculous amounts of unsourced information and WP:OR. (Many of the things listed are wrong as well. For instance, removing things due to copyrights isn't censorship...it's just staying in the clear legally. Many other items are better issues of localization than censorship.) Sergecross73 msg me 01:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or seriously trim many of these issues are not censorship. For, example replacing Mike Tyson with Mr. Dream was not censorship it was a legal requirement due to the end of the contract with Tyson. It would have been illegal to include him. Also before anyone brings up the rape case, the change to MR Dream happened before that so that had noting to do with the switch. The game came out in August 1990 and the arrest was in July 1991. I mention trim as a possibility since some games do have citations for censorship such as Maniac Mansion, but the list would need to be vastly improved first.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If a game's been censored, it should be discussed on that game's article, not in a list that I've noticed has been gradually fattening over the past year or so. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 09:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - None of these claims have sources! Skullbird11 (talk) 13:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Apparent WP:OR and no sources at all to establish notability. Further, it seems to be a bit of a soapbox. Perhaps such an article could exist if there were sourcing and could remain neutral, but at this point, it seems unlikely this will become that article. - Sangrolu (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - excessive original research with very little evidence of lasting notability per wp:gng. Also fails wp:WHIM, as pointed out by the nominator. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 21:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although it could do with a rewrite it still serves as a useful reference for people interested in Nintendo video games, 219.90.165.250 (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)— 219.90.165.250 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument that is supposed to be avoided, FYI... Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I would see this more as a category, since individual articles where there was censor likely have sources supporting the fact. Salvidrim! 19:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It makes go sense and we should have one for Sega mega drive.184.44.129.253 (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could you point out any Wikipedia policies that would solidify your argument, as others have done? Also, the request for another article is outside the scope of AfD; that should be done at Wikipedia:Requested articles. Chris the Paleontologist (talk | contribs) 22:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment reply - The above editor is a long-term disruptive editor known for improper behaviour and discussion antics, who has a habit of stalking others' contributions (namely mine) and post silly or disruptive comments. Just do like I do and ignore. Salvidrim! 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - What?,forget it,any way all it needs is a rewrite..184.44.129.253 (talk) 23:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article looks mighty interesting to me. Perhaps some of them can be sourced? -Kai445 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 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 Cornwall, Vermont. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (converse) 12:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cornwall Elementary School[edit]
- Cornwall Elementary School (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 elementary school appears to be non-notable. Epeefleche (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptionally noteworthy elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cornwall, Vermont (or school district) according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike as "(A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content)". Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 21:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Portrait stories[edit]
- Portrait stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally speedily deleted as advertising for portraitstories.com, the text has been resubmitted without reference to the website in question. However, I cannot find enough sourcing to satisfy our guidance for inclusion and even if I had I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a brief definition without context. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the editor who tagged it for speedy the last time around, I still say speedy delete per A7, as this still is a thinly veiled advertisement for the company/product "Portrait Stories". —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RadioFan (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phantom Tollbooth (band)[edit]
- Phantom Tollbooth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not clear how this band might meet WP:BAND. External links to reviews are of unclear notability. Spin magazine is certainly notable but the link goes to a slideshow on "indie band style" and if this band is featured there, it's not evident because none of photos are labeled beyond the clothing designers. Closest thing to a claim of notability here is a member with a wiki biography but WP:BAND asks for 2 or more notable members. RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notability is pretty clear if you look at the external links. Multiple significant coverage. Two albums on Homestead Records. More coverage from Google News including New York Times and there's plenty of print coverage from back in the day.--Michig (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep One of their albums was reviewed by Spin [12] and Trouser Press [13]. They have an Allmusic entry [14], Piero Scaruffi has written about them [15], and Junkmedia has interviewed them [16]. They put out 5 records on a Major indie label, Homestead Records. The frontman Dave Rick has been in a string of notable bands. (WP:BAND #1 #5 #6) --Guerillero | My Talk 22:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: I turned down an A7 nomination of this page. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete a7, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LifeInsuranceQuote.us.com[edit]
- LifeInsuranceQuote.us.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can't believe this page wasn't speedy deleted. Huge notability and reliable source problems. -download ׀ talk 20:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears that User:January has tagged it for speedy deletion under A7. -download ׀ talk 20:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - No reliable coverage. Clearly non-notable. — C M B J 20:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Konfederat[edit]
- Konfederat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entire article is uncited, and tagged as such for over 3 years. Also tagged for notability for over 3 years. Reads like classic OR. Epeefleche (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 22 December 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, →Στc. 02:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting that in this edit the original author blanked the page after it was first queried for notability, which was his/her final WP contribution. AllyD (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the claimed achievements of some members such as Friedrich Konfederat (as Bach's manager) and Rudolf Konfederat (military) they might be expected to show in Google Books or the Central European language Wikipedias, but I'm seeing nothing. So no obvious verifications, hence article unsafe. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 29 December 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 Is Me Here t / c 10:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adeem Hashmi[edit]
- Adeem Hashmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article on this poet has been tagged for zero refs for nearly a year. I cannot find substantial RS coverage; others are welcome to try. Also tagged as an orphan for nearly a year. Epeefleche (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As with the previous AfD, there are claims which, if verified, would demonstrate notability (e.g. controversies, popularity of songs, commemorative naming of a road in Rawalpindi); Google Books does show a couple of English language snippets, but it really needs someone with a knowledge of Pakistan and its culture to verify or not. AllyD (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I see that the previous Afd's 2 keep !votes were based on "... but if they [claims that need referenced] can be supported the subject would be notable", but they were never supported per wp's policy of wp:verifiability, which says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."--Epeefleche (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 20:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: per reasons given above, I think the article needs some edits by an experienced editor and will be fine. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Adeem Hashmi is notable enough for inclusion via the numerous sources given, the article just needs Wikified. Also, I support the reasons to keep, posted above by the previous users. John Cengiz talk 05:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You base your keep position on "the numerous sources given". However, the article has zero refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The best part of a week has elapsed and despite my hopes nobody has come in with information on this poet. That seems to stand in stark contrast with the claims in the article. I've tried various searches and come up with nothing (other than references to Alamgir Hashmi, a different poet). So reluctantly, I don't see how this article can be sustained in present form - obviously while allowing for a future, well-referenced article in its place. AllyD (talk) 09:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, longterm unsourced biography. If someone can come up with some refs I'll be first to support restoring the article, but in the meantime it really is irresponsible to leave the article visible in its current state. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete The sources are either present or they are not. As the article has remained largely unsourced for over a year, I think it unlikely they can be found. A more than generous amount of time has elapsed for the article to be improved and notability established. Pol430 talk to me 16:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:N--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (non-admin closure). Thank you, Mr. Schmidt. GRuban (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Ferns[edit]
- Michael Ferns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Kept per this discussion a year ago mainly because of the award won, initially assumed to be a BAFTA Award. It's actually a BAFTA Scotland New Talent Award, a separate awards ceremony from the main BAFTA awards and according to the entry criteria it is open only to students and first-time practitioners. On that basis I disagree with the previous conclusion that this meets WP:ANYBIO, the film credits do not meet WP:CREATIVE and the subject does not have coverage in multiple reliable sources, the only WP:RS coverage I can find is from the same local newspaper [17][18][19] (the interview in the article is from a blog). The previous content has been removed due to a copyvio but can be seen here. January (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article has certainly been greatly diminshed since it survived the last AFD,[20] and I will report back after expanding and sourcing it myself per what's available in seaches. A couple quick notes... Sterling Observer is simply the Stirling area edition of Scottish & Universal Newspapers Limited (AKA Trinity Mirror, Britain's biggest newspaper group and publisher of 240 regional papers as well as the national Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror and People, and the Scottish Sunday Mail, the Scottish Daily Record, and Dumfries & Galloway Standard), and it is to be expected that they would cover topics in their area. In depth articles in the newspaper expected to cover that area is fine. Notable to Scotland is perfctly fine to en.Wikipedia, and we do not expect worldwide acclaim for a topic deterninable as notable to Scotland. And that BAFTA choses to recognize new talent does not lessen the accolade or its sourcable notability.[21] Lots of comepetion and very few making it through the gauntlet. The award is itself notable as it is an award ONLY for newcomers, not those long establisahed in the industry... established filmmakers have other means of recoginition. We have a demonstrably notable award bestowed by a notable organization and specifically set to recognize New Talent (I am reminded of Young Artist Awards). This meets the criteria of being a notable award per WP:ANYBIO... and ANYBIO does not state that awards specifically intended to award only New Talent are somehow disqualified from meeting its criteria. I'll be back once the article has been rebuilt. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep re-written article. one sentence when nominated. 35x expansion and improvement. No more copyvio. BAFTA Scotland IS the Scottish branch of BAFTA, and as an award from a notable organization, specifically designed to be awarded to New Talent, is an accolade he will never get again... as he is now no longer new talent. That BAFTA Scotland awards Scottish filmmakers in a separate awards ceremony from the main BAFTA awards, underscores notability of the award to Scotland... and with his receiving a well-known and significant award or honor (To Scotland), WP:ANYBIO is met. ANYBIO does not demend nor require the award be world-wide... and notable to Scoltland is fine for en.Wikipedia. And in looking at WP:CREATIVE, his short films have received quite modest attention but his feature film debut Kirk has received enough recognition and commentary for him to meet CREATIVE. Again, there is no mandate that a film receiving significant critical attention be world-wide in that attention. And beyond coverage of this fellow in the Stirling Observer, M. J. Simpson's review of the film is quite in-depth in its analysis of the film and praise of the young filmmaker... so we do have more than just one source speaking about this fellow and his work. We'll doubtless hear even more about Ferns when he gets old enough to leave home. The article is now one that serves the project and its readers and will be continually improved over time and through regular editing as his career grows. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per my comments in the previous AfD. Truth be told, I'm curious as to where in WP:CREATIVE there's a specific mention that BAFTA awards aren't really BAFTA awards if they're issued instead to students or first-time filmmakers. Should there be a consensus in a relevant Wikiproject that this is in fact the case, that'd be a telling point, and I may well rethink my stance should the nom link to any such discussion. Failing that, I don't see any fresh argument here. Ravenswing 02:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In its current form the article meets gng, and is not subject to the problems that apparently afflicted it previously.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Schmidt did great work. SL93 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Nomination achieved subsequent expansion and additional sources. - Arjayay (talk) 18:50, 28 December 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Australian Grammy Award winners[edit]
- List of Australian Grammy Award winners (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 seems to be a trivial intersection of award winners and their nationality. I don't think being Australian has anything to do with winning a Grammy. Individual awards winners are easy to find on other Grammy Award pages. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable trivia. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Till I Go Home (talk) 05:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to category and delete - The Bushranger One ping only 09:36, 29 December 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. Passes the Notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
River Avonmore[edit]
- River Avonmore (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 lacks enough sources to prove notability. Stedrick (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The nominator has less than 200 edits, the vast majority of which seem to involve nominating articles for deletion. His time would be better served adding easily found references/sources rather than trying to delete everything he's never heard of himself. Clicking on the template links above gives about 6,700 results from Google and 537 results from Google Books. Clearly a notable topic. And I would point out that a river only needs one source... ;-) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added one ref. It also features in various 19th century Cyclopaedias (e.g. this), partly due to the place of Thomas Moore's poem Meeting of the Waters. AllyD (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Agree with Bastun : this river is worth keeping; per it's coverage on google, per the roughly 20 articles linking to it and per common sense. benzband (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Nonsense nomination. One of the more famous fishing rivers in Ireland Night of the Big Wind talk 14:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A classic example of staring an AfD without being familiar with WP:AFD guidelines. From WP:AFD: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Oakshade (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it waters 1,000s of sheep and gives the name to Avonmore House, home of Paul McGuinness. Also flows past the homes of John Boorman and Paddy Moloney. Sure they'd be lost without it.Red Hurley (talk) 11:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 'tis only an Irish river musha and begorragh. Sarah777 (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I hold that all rivers are inherently notable. As sources can be found easily for this river and there is no suggestion that it is a hoax article, this should be an easy call. --John (talk) 19:46, 26 December 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 Procedural keep - redirect. The Bushranger One ping only 09:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kaligoanj[edit]
- Kaligoanj (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 an implausible spell error of Kaliganj. Now redirects to Kaliganj but we do not need this redirect, rather delete Kaligoanj which is an implausible misspell. » nafSadh did say 17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: as "Kaligoanj" is currently in the text of Kaliganj it appears to be a very plausible mis-spelling. PamD 18:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well, it did include that spelling, but after reviewing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bangladesh#Which_name_for_this_upazila.3F I have corrected the spelling in the article to match the title of the article, as advised in that discussion. Redirects from both/all variant titles are needed. I do not understand the rationale for this AfD nomination. PamD 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This should be at RfD, not at AfD: Kaligoanj is a redirect. I don't know what the procedure is for moving discussion to the right place. PamD 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The redirect, as well as the page where it redirects to, are both redundant. The page for Kaliganj Upazila, Gazipur already exists. All of these new pages should redirect to the existing article. --Ragib (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks: I've WP:BOLDly turned Kaliganj into a redirect to the existing article, and the resulting double redirects will be fixed a bot. PamD 17:53, 22 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Ati[edit]
- Eric Ati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Has not played in a fully professional league, so fails WP:FOOTBALL. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and [[WP:NFOOTBALL}}. GiantSnowman 09:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 20:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Journal of Compressed Creative Arts[edit]
- Journal of Compressed Creative Arts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined PROD. Non notable web-only publication. Notability is not inherited from its contributing editors. WP:ADVERT, WP:ORG, WP:NWEB, and also WP:Conflict of interest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As Kudpung said, non-notable web based publication. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Just another non-notable e-zine. The only independent source (to Duotrope) is trivial. Does not meet any notability guideline I know about. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:08, 22 December 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. Good job, Jethrobot. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CDBurnerXP[edit]
- CDBurnerXP (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 found a bunch of trivial mentions in Google Books and Google Scholar, but nothing that would make this pass WP:N. SL93 (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - found (and referenced) an Editor's review in cnet. That should indicate other reliable sources are out there. --Ritchie333 (talk) 15:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Keep. This is a borderline case, but a cnet review is substantial coverage, and this is consumer software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This piece of software has a few other sources like this one from an Italian software reviewing website, this one from a Vietnamese website, and this one from a Spanish website. All provide what I would call significant coverage, even beyond the CNet article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:59, 21 December 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. --Kubigula (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lethal Lady[edit]
- Lethal Lady (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 aircraft is insufficiently notable to merit an independent article. While it should be mentioned in the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon article, it fails WP:GNG to standalone - and, also, might well be surpassed in its claim to fame (most hours flown). The aircraft equivalent of WP:BLP1E? The Bushranger One ping only 11:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 11:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 11:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to be that notable, might be worth a mention in the aircraft on display section of the F-16 article but not a stand-alone. MilborneOne (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This aircraft does not strike me as having done something noteworthy, there's no sign of it ever having made an individual impact unlike most aircraft with dedicated articles. Kyteto (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and the above comments. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination, this aircraft doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. Anotherclown (talk) 13:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; might be notable within the F-16 community, but in the wider world it's non-notable. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 04:07, 27 December 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. WP:TOOSOON. No prejustice against recreation when she becomes notable. The Bushranger One ping only 09:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zoe Nightingale (Volleyball)[edit]
- Zoe Nightingale (Volleyball) (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 about a college volleyball player who does not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion of articles about athletes. Nightingale has not (yet) achieved any of these, so is not notable. Sparthorse (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. It's early days yet for this young woman, however, and so the usual caveats do apply. Notability isn't there yet - but may be down the line. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Until she makes a notable achievement, she does not need an article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 21 December 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. Reference has been added and tagged and unsourced claims have been removed. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Job al-Shamie[edit]
- Job al-Shamie (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'm having trouble finding non-wp-mirror references in RSs to this place. Others are welcome to try; I certainly would not want to delete mention of it if it exists. But if there is no evidence that it exists (let alone that the claims in the article are accurate), it should be deleted IMHO. Presently, the article has zero refs. Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not surprising, it's uninhabited. Have inserted co-ordinates and ext links to map and photo. Since places are notable this should in fact be enough. Most refs are of course in Arabic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your typical good work. Have you uncovered perhaps RS refs that would satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability? For any of the claims in the article, including that it exists? No refs appear as of yet either on this page or in the article itself, in any language. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- :-) Thanks... I think we need an arabic speaker to help us out on this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This census data from 2004 (in Arabic) appears to be from a reliable source, namely, from their Central Bureau Of Statistics. Job-al Shamie is the ninth village from the bottom of that first link. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Good work by Jethrobot, as usual. I withdraw my nomination, based on the ref Jeth turned up. Someone may wish to add the ref to the article, and delete the non-supported material (some of which appears to be contradicted by the ref), but my withdrawal is not contingent on either of those.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:52, 21 December 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 and redirect to Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska. The Bushranger One ping only 09:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Five Ridge Elementary School[edit]
- Five Ridge Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Res ipsa loquitur. Epeefleche (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No assertion of notability, no references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Being an elementary school does not provide any notability, and the school does not meet WP:GNG. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska. Lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. Redirecting or merging to school district or locality is standard practice for non-notable primary schools. Elkorn Public Schools redirects there. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per standard practice for all but the most extraordinary elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Elementary schools don't need articles here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 17:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you mention a policy, guideline, or consensus? That vote appears to be POV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska according to established procedure for non -notable primary/elementary/middle schools to article about school district or locality. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE to closer. If this AfD is closed as 'redirect', please remember to include the {{R from school}} template on the redirect page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or Delete Zero mention in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Elkhorn, Omaha, Nebraska because it lacks coverage and fails wp:gng. Chris (talk | contribs) 20:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Al Haddi[edit]
- Al Haddi (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 article appears as best I can tell to be OR. Tagged for lack of refs for nearly 2 years, and as an orphan for nearly 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makeni Ltd[edit]
- Makeni Ltd (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 web company lacks substantial RS refs, lacks any refs at all in the article, and has been tagged for these 2 problems for over 2 years. Created by an SPA. Is also an orphan. Epeefleche (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. Another Webcasting, Digital Rights Management and Consultancy company (and habitual misuser of capital letters) advertising on Wikipedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. as per above reasons » nafSadh did say 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 21 December 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 prohibition on creating a redirect. Hut 8.5 12:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vox Populi (newspaper)[edit]
- Vox Populi (newspaper) (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 school newspaper does not appear to have sufficient RS coverage to meet our notability standards. Zero refs. Tagged for notability and zero refs and as an orphan since June. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable student paper. Requires reliable sources to provide notability, which I cannot find. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Most school papers are non-notable. This appears to be one of them. SL93 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable journal or periodical. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to University of Perpetual Help System JONELTA - GMA Campus. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete by Fastily (talk · contribs) as WP:CSD#A10, a recently created article that duplicates an existing topic, Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film). (non-admin closure) Quasihuman | Talk 12:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of accolades received by Bodyguard (2011 Hindi film)[edit]
- List of accolades received by Bodyguard (2011 Hindi 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)
There does not seem to be enough sources to warrant this spin-off article. In addition, it suffers from close paraphrasing issues. Guerillero | My Talk 08:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Seems like inappropriately obscure l*$tcr*ft to me, not enough sources to warrant this as a stand-alone list. See WP:SALAT. Also, many of the awards within the list are themselves non-notable, unlike similar lists for popular Hollywood movies. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is already on the film's page, so I don't see where this is really needing a separate page all to itself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- If that's the case, then can't we just speedy this as WP:A10? Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 08:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unneeded fork. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: I suggest redirect to the article space for a meanwhile until i accomulate lots of reliable source. -- Karthik Nadar 08:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Baron Groupe[edit]
- Baron Groupe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks substantial coverage in RSs. Zero refs. Tagged for zero refs, and as an orphan, for well over a year. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can find no references in any independent source. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 21 December 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. However, I will boldly redirect to Penzance afterwards. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Penzance Cricket Club[edit]
- Penzance Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article about unremarkable sports club which fails general notability and WP:CRIN. Bob Re-born (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete : Unsourced amateur cricket club that fails all of the relevant notability guidelines. Mtking (edits) 10:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom and above comment. Guidelines state a club needs to play in an ECB Premier League, unfortunately Penzance doesn't. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unremarkable, unsourced amateur club that lacks multiple WP:RS to satisfy WP:CLUB or even WP:GNG … created by WP:BLOCKed WP:SPA with obvious WP:COI issues. Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.61 (talk · contribs) 14:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Found one brief mention in a reliable source - not enough. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral if verified this team could very well be notable for inclusion either standalone or in the article for the community from where it originates.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leave: This ″unremarkable amateur cricket club″ have been champions of Cornwall more times than any other club and has played in the ECB Cornwall Premier League in the past. Also employed a professional during the 1950's to 1970's and was the first club of Clifton 'Jack' Richards, an England wicket keeper. Why not encourage new contributors to wikipedia rather than alienate them by pouncing on their new article. Give them or someone else time to sort it out. Jowaninpensans (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Akhbar e Khawateen[edit]
- Akhbar e Khawateen (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 weekly magazine does not appear notable. Zero refs. (Almost zero content; in retrospect, it could have been prodded). Tagged for notability since May. Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Urdu-language magazine article with no indication of notability or references provided. I found no significant coverage focused on the subject in web searches. Dialectric (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Actually, it couldn't be PRODed because there was a previous AfD nomination (I just learned this myself, recently!) That aside, the keep argument in the previous AfD was that it exists, and therefore, there must be sources! I'm afraid that's just bad reasoning, and it was a weak keep at that. Anydangway, I also couldn't find any evidence that this magazine was notable, but I'll wait and see if anyone else chimes in. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All good points.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral if verified it should be kept as all magazines and newspapers are notable, if not then delete and recreate when that is the case. No significant edit history would need to be preserved.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- magazines and newspapers are not inherently notable. There is no specific notability guideline for publications on wikipedia, so they have to meet the general notability guideline. Dialectric (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Circle Tie[edit]
- Circle Tie (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 application does not seem to have attracted the RS coverage required to demonstrate notability. Zero refs. And an orphan. Created by a 1-edit-only-ever SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not even really claimed since "thousands of followers" is not very much in the world of social media. BigJim707 (talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even close to satisfying WP:GNG. Sources simply don't exist. Wikipedia is not for WP:PROMOTION. Msnicki (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I could only find unreliable sources and the official website. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 21:29, 21 December 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. Participants suggest that the subject may be notable, but if he is, there is no content in the article worth salvaging. That is consistent with WP:TNT in the best case. causa sui (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ruben Flores Dapkevicius[edit]
- Ruben Flores Dapkevicius (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 was initially tagged for prod, but I've declined that as no actual prod rationale was provided at all; despite that fact, it's actually fairly clear why this might be deletable: it's basically written like a CV, with little if any evidence of actual notability and no reliable sources; all of its references are primary sources. This is basically a procedural nomination due to the lack of an explicit prod rationale, but I do agree with the prodder's assessment that the article is a delete in its current form. Bearcat (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree it's a pretty poor article and does come over as a partial CV, but that is simply an argument for improvement, not deletion. With that number of publications there must be at least a suspicion that he is notable. We need some input from someone involved in the field to make a decision on this. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need is actual reliable sources. It's also worth remembering that an AFD deletion does not mean he can never have an article; if someone comes along at a future date and writes a good article about him, that version can certainly be kept. The question at hand is whether he's entitled to this iteration of the article, and not a permanent ban on his ever being considered notable enough. Bearcat (talk) 07:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree it's a pretty poor article and does come over as a partial CV, but that is simply an argument for improvement, not deletion. With that number of publications there must be at least a suspicion that he is notable. We need some input from someone involved in the field to make a decision on this. Emeraude (talk) 13:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without prejudice. I agree with Emeraude at this point: the article should be cleaned up, not deleted. However, if after more research, it turns out he isn't any more notable than the average professor, I would support a second nomination for, and the deletion of, the article at that time. —C.Fred (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If he really was counsel to the president of Uruguay, as the Spanish version of the article (also proposed for deletion) claims, then that would probably be enough for notability. But we can't have an article without sources, the present article has no good sources, and I have been unable to turn up any. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as per G11 and A7. WP is not for posting résumés. Even the Spanish and Portuguese articles have already been deleted. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Detour, JHBMM[edit]
- Detour, JHBMM (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 college mass media departmental festival does not seem to have the requisite substantial RS coverage, nor the appropriate refs for the material it contains. Tagged for notability and lack of refs for a year now. Created by SPA with the same name as the subject of the article. Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Effectively a page that belongs on the institutions's Intranet or student magazine, not Wikipedia. AllyD (talk) 15:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and speedy delete, not at all notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ScienceBook[edit]
- ScienceBook (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 website lacks the substantial RS refs that confer notability. Tagged for notability -- and zero refs -- for over 2 years. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as copyright violation. The article text has been cut and pasted all sorts of everywhere[22], and at this point I am not particularly concerned whether the Wikipedia article has priority or not; this is not an encyclopedia article. And besides, the only science books anybody needs are Aristotle's Physics, the Almagest, and the Physiologus. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy DeleteLuciferWildCat (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedon Anastasiades[edit]
- Phaedon Anastasiades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zero gnews hits, zero gbooks hits other than wp, and zero refs. Plus--even if we believe all the material in the bio, he does not appear to be notable. Created by an SPA. Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It appears Epeefleche has done all my work for me! Sorry, but I couldn't find refs supporting WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG, either, let alone any, period. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:54, 22 December 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 and redirect to Digimon Xros Wars. The Bushranger One ping only 09:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Digimon Story: Super Xros Wars Red[edit]
- Digimon Story: Super Xros Wars Red (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article makes no assertion of importance. PROD notice was removed by article creator, so I'm opening this discussion Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 07:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I added the proposed deletion notice. The article remains an: "Unreferenced article about a game. Article does not show why this game is notable." Sparthorse (talk) 07:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Digimon Xros Wars. This game just doesn't seem to be notable in and of itself at this point in time.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete one sentence about a non notable topic.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid rationale for speedy deletion, and anyway there are three sentences. Nyttend (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Normal Delete It's got plenty of listings in game catalogs and wiki's but no actual articles written about the game. --Qwerty0 (talk) 07:37, 28 December 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 already deleted under WP:G11. Speedy deleted per WP:G11 (non-admin closure) Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CENTRAL CALCUTTA POLYTECHNIC[edit]
- CENTRAL CALCUTTA POLYTECHNIC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According WP:NOTHOWTO.Not Overly spam,but it is like a travel guide. Night Of Darkness 06:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged this for speedy deletion under G11, it's blatantly promotional. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A Month of Somedays[edit]
- A Month of Somedays (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 about a band that does not meet Wikipedia's standard for notability of bands. The only reference provided demonstrates that the band contributed one track to a non-notable compilation album - and the publisher of the album got the name of the track wrong. The prod was removed with the claim that the album is notable and the band has had multiple reviews. But no evidence for either claim has been forthcoming, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if proper sources are not found.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:BAND, have the group been certified (a gold certification or higher) by any music industry for their albums/singles? Have they impacted any music charts? Have they been cited by any publication (that does not violate WP:RS) about their music? Have they had sold out concerts? Have they been on the media (tv series/live performances, movies)? Best, Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 21:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not coming up with any significant coverage in reliable sources for this band; does not appear to meet any of the WP:BAND criteria. Gongshow Talk 03:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Us and Them: The Science of Identity[edit]
- Us and Them: The Science of Identity (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 book article likely has a COI (see SPA User:Edifei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)), and I question its notability as such a new book. Raymie (t • c) 05:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if no independent sources are added.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:01, 24 December 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vitali Klitschko vs. Tomasz Adamek[edit]
- Vitali Klitschko vs. Tomasz Adamek (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 boxing match fails the WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria with no "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect" demonstrated. The coverage that exists is purely of the routine nature any sports match gets. Mtking (edits) 04:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dont delte it. It was a big fight. and much bigger than all the fight articles that Saul Alvarez have had. See also Lucian Bute vs. Glen Johnson. Also see Devon Alexanders fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David-golota (talk • contribs) 21:29, 21 December 2011
- That does not address the inclusion criteria issue and is just a mix of WP:ITSUSEFULL and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Mtking (edits) 22:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks significant enough to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That does not address the nom, the article does not show how this event is of "enduring historical significance" or any "significant lasting effect", none of the refs are from after the fight, there was no change in the Championship. So how significant is then ? Mtking (edits) 02:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I disagree with the notion that this was just a routine sports match akin to a baseball or soccer game. A championship boxing match of this stature is quite different than a routine sports match and the article can be expanded upon in future to include specific aspects of the fight. Also, this was the biggest fight in Polish history with an attendance of around 45,000 people. (MaxPayne888 (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- It was for only one of about 12 or so such boxing "World championships" it resulted in no change in the holder and the claim of being "biggest fight in Polish history" is neither in the article or sourced. What is "enduring historical significance" here ?Mtking (edits) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The WBC belt is not just one of "12 or so". I would advise the nominator to learn a bit more about the various sanctioning organisations before nominating any more articles about boxing matches for deletion. I know that the following statement is original research, but I know people who travelled from England to see this fight, which you wouldn't get for a routine sports event in Poland with no English competitors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree with Phil Bridger, you should take time to do some research boxing. There are not 12 recognized sanctioning organizations, but only four (plus the Ring Magazine title). Its like saying in college football, each of the human polls and computer polls crown a national champion (which they do) and therefore college football has 12 or so champions crowned. However, most fans agree that by seasons end at worst only two or three teams can claim titles (with the BCS title usually being considered the true champ despite no playoff). RonSigPi (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The WBC belt is not just one of "12 or so". I would advise the nominator to learn a bit more about the various sanctioning organisations before nominating any more articles about boxing matches for deletion. I know that the following statement is original research, but I know people who travelled from England to see this fight, which you wouldn't get for a routine sports event in Poland with no English competitors. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It was for only one of about 12 or so such boxing "World championships" it resulted in no change in the holder and the claim of being "biggest fight in Polish history" is neither in the article or sourced. What is "enduring historical significance" here ?Mtking (edits) 22:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RECENTISM, WP:ROUTINE, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and WP:EVENT. Not all sporting events are notable, even most of those those meeting GNG. I see no citation which puts this event past any of the event criteria. Fails WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:DIVERSE. None of the sources are dated since the event. I would respectfully suggest that what an editor knows or believes is irrelevant in this process. What an editor can successfully assert with policy or reliable sources is what matters. If additional sources are added which help the page meet WP:EVENT, I may reassess. BusterD (talk) 02:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- User:GregorB has made a compelling case below that this World Championship competition rises to the level of notability required for inclusion. Because of inadequate sourcing, I still feel unable to support a keep outcome, but I'll not assert a delete outcome either. BusterD (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - WP:EVENT#Inclusion criteria states "[e]vents are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." By performing simple internet searches, a vast number of articles are found. The coverage seems to be widespread and covered in diverse boxing and sports sources. In addition, this was a title fight for one of the four major heavyweight championships, a historical event. Therefore keep. RonSigPi (talk) 15:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Totally agree with nom and BusterD. Just indiscriminate info, so also fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This nomination is based on a selective reading of WP:EVENT. "Enduring historical significance" or "significant lasting effect" are sufficient - not required - for an event to be notable. There are articles such as e.g. Synchronized swimming at the 1996 Summer Olympics. Mentioning this is definitely not WP:OTHERSTUFF, as I hope you'll agree this particular example would have zero chance of being deleted using the pro-deletion arguments applied in this discussion. Rather, it's a case in point: both the Olympics and the boxing WC are globally covered major sports events, and may be considered notable as a matter of convention. GregorB (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't compare a sporting event that happens once every four years to a boxing match, knowone has shown, with sources why this boxing match is any more significant than any one of last weekends NFL matches. Mtking (edits) 02:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlike some NFL game: global coverage (virtually all media that otherwise cover sport), global exposure (live TV), media commentary and analysis after the event (an NFL game would probably not receive more than a cursory description). Also, boxing WC title fight is the very top level of competition in this sport, same as the Olympics. GregorB (talk) 10:35, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't compare a sporting event that happens once every four years to a boxing match, knowone has shown, with sources why this boxing match is any more significant than any one of last weekends NFL matches. Mtking (edits) 02:33, 31 December 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 G12 by 28bytes (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 05:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Himachal Pradesh Rural Cricket League[edit]
- Himachal Pradesh Rural Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Should go under a cricket team category. Rubinkumar (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete by Guerillero (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G4, as a recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion.(non-admin closure) Quasihuman | Talk 12:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Víctor Merchán de Antonio[edit]
- Víctor Merchán de Antonio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Rubinkumar (talk) 04:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Víctor Merchán de Antonio. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Karen Beaman[edit]
- Karen Beaman (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, as tagged since 2009 -- she's founded non-notable organizations and published in and received awards from them —Eustress talk 03:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the possible criteria of notability listed at WP:AUTHOR is: "The person's work has won significant critical attention". I would say the professional awards she has won counts as significant critical attention. Add to that the significant collection of publications she has authored.Delete, see below Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Good point well made. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A Pulitzer or a Nobel would count as a significant award. What she got from an HR organization doesn't. Sorry. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG and none appear to be found in the search results. Msnicki (talk) 16:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete this article is just a list of essays written by the this lady while at work.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 09:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Armstrong (human resources)[edit]
- Michael Armstrong (human resources) (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 (as tagged since 2008) -- only thing close to notability is his publications, but those are all from Kogan Page, a company Armstrong works for (see Kogan_Page#Partners) —Eustress talk 03:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete On my watchlist for some reason. Mostly per nom. Protonk (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wasn't able to find anything that shows that he's notable per WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. He isn't responsible for any major new concept and thus fails WP:AUTHOR. His book is readily available, but I can't find any sources making reference to it apart from sites selling it, so I don't think that's relevant either. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 05:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Msnicki (talk) 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete it seemingly implies notability which may be enough to keep it however its poorly written showing it is mostly an ad for a dubious topic.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:54, 23 December 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. Arguments are made that the subject of the article is notable despite clearly not meeting WP:TENNIS. The arguments are based on the subject's achievements at a national level and coverage in reliable sources. As WP:NTENNIS is not a hard-and-fast rule, and because it is proper to consider the general notability guideline, those arguments are valid and cause a "no consensus" result. Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Priti rijal[edit]
- Priti rijal (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 yet notable per WP:NTENNIS. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. —Filing Flunky (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Fails NTENNIS indeed. Has no player record on the ITF or WTA tour site. The mentioned titles are only national level tournaments. Article can be recreated when she qualifies for NTENNIS, for example by playing Fed Cup or winning an ITF title. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She may qualify via GNG however. I cleaned up the references a bit. Two in depth articles about her in national Nepali newspapers, The Kathmandu Post and MyRepublica. National notability seems to be clear from these sources. I call this the small country advantage. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept the article should be renamed to "Priti Riyal" MakeSense64 (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, typo. I meant "Priti Rijal". (right now the family name starts in low caps) MakeSense64 (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. One of the sources is another male player. I'm not sure winning the Nepal 2nd Armed Police Force Tennis Tournament in 2009 or the 9th Nepal Investment Open Tennis Tournament 2009 is gonna cut it here on wikipedia. Plus her name in English sources still appears to be Priti Rijal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source three seems to be used to support the statement mentioning her brother. That can be removed as she is not mentioned in that source. Sources two and four are articles in national newspapers, with her as the main topic. She does not satisfy NTENNIS , but the newspaper articles support GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true about GNG and those newspapers but GNG also says "that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I would still say no to a stand alone article since then the North Dakota Fargo Gazette could also do a story on their own college tennis players and have a good case to include them...but I could easily see tennis editors (who usually tend to be very inclusionistic) agreeing with you at the tennis project page. If you withdraw this afd I will not reinstate it. There are other more important things to do at tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't create this AfD, so it's not my job to withdraw it. As reviewing editors we have to look at NTENNIS and at GNG in this case. Significant coverage in more than one national newspaper may satisfy GNG. The coverage need not be in English. We have two in English and quite possibly there is more in Nepali language. I agree that national coverage in Nepal is equivalent to regional or statewide coverage in big countries like the USA. But it is what it is. To demand international coverage for people from small countries would also not be fair. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, the coverage can be from anywhere but it also makes it tougher to be notable if no English sources had mentioned it. If someone is great at something in China or something is popular in Eretria and nowhere else that doesn't mean it's notable in an English-language wikipedia. This is a journeyman tennis player and now a college player. What she has going for her is the fact their are few tennis players from Nepal. Consensus at tennis project would be interesting to see which way it falls, though getting any response at all in the off season is tough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't create this AfD, so it's not my job to withdraw it. As reviewing editors we have to look at NTENNIS and at GNG in this case. Significant coverage in more than one national newspaper may satisfy GNG. The coverage need not be in English. We have two in English and quite possibly there is more in Nepali language. I agree that national coverage in Nepal is equivalent to regional or statewide coverage in big countries like the USA. But it is what it is. To demand international coverage for people from small countries would also not be fair. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true about GNG and those newspapers but GNG also says "that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I would still say no to a stand alone article since then the North Dakota Fargo Gazette could also do a story on their own college tennis players and have a good case to include them...but I could easily see tennis editors (who usually tend to be very inclusionistic) agreeing with you at the tennis project page. If you withdraw this afd I will not reinstate it. There are other more important things to do at tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Source three seems to be used to support the statement mentioning her brother. That can be removed as she is not mentioned in that source. Sources two and four are articles in national newspapers, with her as the main topic. She does not satisfy NTENNIS , but the newspaper articles support GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I checked the junior circuit also and found nothing. The only place a Priti Rijal is mentioned (if it's the same person) is at a doubles college event here. Not nearly good enough. As she's not even on the tour this should simply be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - She's not a star tennis player on the international stage at this point, and may never ever meet WP:NTENNIS, but she's a big enough fish in a small pond to garner coverage in her country, sufficient to meet general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 16 December 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, v/r - TP 03:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep generally notable and we have undercoverage of Nepalese topics in general.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "nationally ranked Nepali professional tennis player". Even if you aren't a member of any of the Western/White nations and their official Tennis leagues, if you are notable in your nation, then you are notable. Dream Focus 16:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are trying to find what or who is notable in Tennis in an English language encyclopedia/wikipedia. Priti Rijal is really not notable. If someone in jr high gymnastics in Nepal is a really big deal there it still doesn't make her notable for gymnastics in this encyclopedia whether she's white, yellow, green or blue. If she's notable just for being in Nepal then lets find the best mumblypeg player in Pago Pago and make an article on her. Certainly Priti should be listed in NO tennis categories at all since she doesn't qualify. If she qualifies for some other reason that's someone else's jurisdiction here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not trying to find if she is notable in tennis, we are trying to find if she is notable enough for having an article in WP. I see a general concensus that she is not notable per NTENNIS, but we always have to consider GNG as well. A minimum requirement is in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That's what we have with two in depth articles with her as the main topic in two national English language newspapers. This suggests national notability. It is reasonable to assume that there is more coverage in Nepali language newspapers, but I can't read Nepali. If Nepal had a Fed Cup team we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a tennis player she is probably no worse than the Fed Cup players of the Cyprus or Oman Fed Cup team, who do satisfy NTENNIS simply by virtue of having played in a Fed Cup match. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is international. You don't have to be notable in any one language or nationality. Dream Focus 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is true...she could be notable in another country for other reasons. But then if that's true and she meets none of the wiki tennis requirements for notability, she should have none of the tennis categories added to her bio as she is not worthy of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is international. You don't have to be notable in any one language or nationality. Dream Focus 12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are not trying to find if she is notable in tennis, we are trying to find if she is notable enough for having an article in WP. I see a general concensus that she is not notable per NTENNIS, but we always have to consider GNG as well. A minimum requirement is in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That's what we have with two in depth articles with her as the main topic in two national English language newspapers. This suggests national notability. It is reasonable to assume that there is more coverage in Nepali language newspapers, but I can't read Nepali. If Nepal had a Fed Cup team we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a tennis player she is probably no worse than the Fed Cup players of the Cyprus or Oman Fed Cup team, who do satisfy NTENNIS simply by virtue of having played in a Fed Cup match. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We are trying to find what or who is notable in Tennis in an English language encyclopedia/wikipedia. Priti Rijal is really not notable. If someone in jr high gymnastics in Nepal is a really big deal there it still doesn't make her notable for gymnastics in this encyclopedia whether she's white, yellow, green or blue. If she's notable just for being in Nepal then lets find the best mumblypeg player in Pago Pago and make an article on her. Certainly Priti should be listed in NO tennis categories at all since she doesn't qualify. If she qualifies for some other reason that's someone else's jurisdiction here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete en Nepal hablan un idioma raro. Abarajame las 77333 bañeras (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as admitted self-promotion of a yet unpublished book. Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Children and the Airline (2011 book)[edit]
- The Children and the Airline (2011 book) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Book is unreleased, no citations are provided, author is non-notable. "Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products. If you are here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody has heard of yet, you are in the wrong place." Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 01:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not seeing any google hits, and the author of the page claims to have written the book. Could this be speedied? Mark Arsten (talk) 01:43, 21 December 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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alma-Atinskaya[edit]
- Alma-Atinskaya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:CRYSTAL. Proposed stations do not get an article on Wikipedia. Artem Karimov (talk) 01:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A lot of things wrong with this. Firstly, WP:CRYSTAL applies to unverified speculation. Even verified speculated topics can have articles. But in this case, it actually is verified. [23]. To boot, it is long-standing practice that rail stations are considered notable and, in addition to the aforementioned article, this other one lends the topic to passing even the letter of WP:GNG. --Oakshade (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Existing stations are notable, not projects. Artem Karimov (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, neither "long-standing practice" nor a couple of brief blurbs make something notable. Only in-depth coverage does. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- since this is due to open next year, it or at least the railway is presumably already under construction. That is substantial enough not to be caught by WP:CRYSTAL, in my view. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Yes, I would concur that stations that are under construction or are scheduled to open soon on lines that are under construction are notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The station is currently being constructed, so its existence is not a matter of speculation. Goudzovski (talk) 11:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for my bad English :) This station isn't "proposed" as nominator said! This station is building now. There are some sources to prove my words. Firstly, you can see article in Russian Wikipedia, in which there are 4 photos of building of the station. On the one of these photos you can find that station will be open in 2012 (I made these photos in August) Also Alma-Atinskaya station was visited by Sergey Sobyanin, Mayor of Moscow. He said that this station will be open in time (in the end of 2012, probably in December).
- It's good luck that I live in this district of Moscow, where station was building (ever my nickname connected to this district! ). After passing my exams, I can make another photos, in which all users can understand that the process of building the station continues! And now - Keep this article. --Brateevsky (talk to me) 18:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: per Goudzovski--Sabri76'talk 12:11, 23 December 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. Much of the argument to keep is based on the number of sources and not the quality of those sources. The idea that any entity that can be considered a reliable source is therefore automatically notable seems dubious at best. While this organization's products are discussed and their staff is sometimes quoted in reliable sources, it seems there is a scarcity of substantive discussion about the organization itself, which is of course what is required to establish notability. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to an appropriate target. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Colloquy (company)[edit]
- Colloquy (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage for this company. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I was not able to find significant coverage about this company from reliable sources. Folgertat (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I was, but "Colloquy (company)" is indeed a dead end, try "Colloquy marketing" there are a s--tload of sources on this.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WeekKeep – per coverage in reliable sources:
- Johannes, Amy (July 1, 2008). "Stacking Up". Promo Magazine. Retrieved December 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- Belford, Terrence (April 10, 2008). "Good things for reward-point holders who wait". Toronto Star. Retrieved December 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - Lieber, Ron (April 19, 2011). "All About Your Unused Rewards Points". The New York Times. Retrieved December 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - "Web Sting". The Dallas Morning News. May 7, 2000. Retrieved December 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help) - "Loyalty marketing is a matter of attraction". Star Tribune (Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN). December 21, 2009. Retrieved December 25, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
(help)
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – See below for more reliable sources I have added to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Johannes, Amy (July 1, 2008). "Stacking Up". Promo Magazine. Retrieved December 25, 2011.
- Keep Reliable sources have been found. Dream Focus 09:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - References have been found and added to the article. All well and good - but where is the content? The article makes zero assertion of notability; are the 'references' anything more than trivial mentions? - The Bushranger One ping only 09:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times quotes their research for one of their articles.[24] Others surely consider them a notable group and a reliable source for information. Dream Focus 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct in that the New York Times is a reliable source. However, the coverage of Colloquy in the article is incidental and thus does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. I'd be very interested to see several articles from reliable sources for which the company is the central focus. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 02:51, 30 December 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, Bryce (talk | contribs) 00:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment below, "Recent additions to the article include an assertion of significance". Also, the article is in an incomplete state at this time, and would benefit from expansion. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- The overarching standard for WP:ORG established by WP:CORPDEPTH is that "A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." I now consider whether the sources presented meet that standard. Per WP:CORPDEPTH, "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability." Consider each source presented by Northamerica1000 in turn. The New York Times article is clearly incidental coverage. The article is about the study; Colloquy is mentioned in passing in one sentence and then never discussed. Colloquy receives more coverage in The Star, but is still not the focus of the article. The same goes for the Promo Magazine article. In all articles the focus is the survey produced by Colloquy, and per WP:PRODUCT, "an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result." All coverage in these sources is incidental. Now I consider sources presented by LuciferWildCat. As SL93 pointed out, the vast majority of search results are press releases. Per WP:INDEPENDENT, we cannot accept press releases as WP:V. If this company does indeed meet the standard set out by WP:ORG, why have we not seen coverage in multiple independent sources in which the company itself is the focus? I have yet to see a single instance of coverage for the company itself that is both significant and independent. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 02:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Each and every source I posted above in my !vote to "keep" is entirely independent of the subject. They're not press releases, and are not published by the company whatsoever. Also, have you attempted to search for sources yourself, or just waiting to "see" what others do? Clarification would help this AfD discussion. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I do not dispute the independence of your sources. Being independent of the subject is only one criteria for a source. As I noted in my vote to delete, WP:CORPDEPTH also requires that coverage not be incidental. All coverage in the sources you listed is incidental (i.e. the company is not the subject of the article and the company is not discussed at length). I also noted that per WP:PRODUCT, notable coverage of a product, in this case the survey, does not mean the company itself inherits notability. I have attempted to locate independent sources that cover the company itself, but I cannot locate any. If the company is indeed WP:N, it should not be that difficult to find coverage that is: (1) independent, (2) substantial, and (3) non-incidental. However I see no source that meets these criteria here. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Recent additions to the article include an assertion of significance: "The company touts itself as 'the most comprehensive loyalty web site in the world'". The article remains incomplete at this time, and in need of expansion, not deletion. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:24, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I agree with Byzantium's reasoning. This is in fact not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish WP:GNG, and falls far short of WP:CORPDEPTH. The ample passing mention, company spokespersons speaking about the company or being interviewed about something else, and the overwhelming amount of press releases inure no notability to this subject. JFHJr (㊟) 05:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – This nomination for deletion is problematic, because it bases the rationale for deletion upon, "Fails WP:CORP." However, WP:CORP is an entire page of guidelines, and no specific guideline or guidelines have been cited by the nominator as a rationale for deletion. This equates to stating that an article should be deleted because of any reason on a guideline page. Perhaps the nominator could expound upon their rationale. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Also of importance, people from Colloquy are regularly quoted in mass media, and as such, makes Colloquy authoritative regarding the topic of loyalty programs and loyalty marketing. This also contributes to this topic's notability. For example, from a new reference I just added to the article:
- Lieber, Ron (June 7, 2008). "The Card-Carrying Starbucks Fan". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help)
- Which states (from a part of the article):
"Tracking customers through loyalty program account numbers offers companies an additional advantage. “If you don’t have a lot of information on your target audience and you need to get it, then you want to try to encourage people to enroll in as large a number as possible,” says Rick Ferguson, editorial director at Colloquy, a loyalty marketing firm. Once a company has more data, it can tailor the program further and aim at the most profitable customers with special offers. That’s what Starbucks will try to do now. Sales at stores open more than a year are actually falling, which has never happened to the chain before. The company blames the economy in part, and worries about consumers trading down from Frappuccinos to black coffee or simply caffeinating at home."
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 09:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lieber, Ron (June 7, 2008). "The Card-Carrying Starbucks Fan". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
- Comment – Added another source, further demonstrating Colloquy's expertise regarding loyalty programs and marketing:
- "Loyalty Program Membership Grows, But Activity Remains Flat: Colloquy". Promo Magazine. April 22, 2009. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 09:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Loyalty Program Membership Grows, But Activity Remains Flat: Colloquy". Promo Magazine. April 22, 2009. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
- Comment – And another (note, this is not a press release, it's an article from Media Post Publications)...
- Irwin, Tanya (March 29, 2010). "Walmart Dominates Colloquy Loyalty Study". Media Post Publications. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 09:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is coverage of a Colloquy product. Per WP:PRODUCT, the company does not inherit notability from a product. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Irwin, Tanya (March 29, 2010). "Walmart Dominates Colloquy Loyalty Study". Media Post Publications. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
- Comment – Yet another use of Colloquy's resources in The New York Times, further demonstrating expertise and trust as a reliable source of information itself. Note how the article cites Colloquy research directly, and uses that research to draw conclusions in the article:
- Stellin, Susan (August 24, 2009). "Airlines Are Sweetening Frequent-Flier Programs". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help)
- Stellin, Susan (August 24, 2009). "Airlines Are Sweetening Frequent-Flier Programs". The New York Times. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
"A research company that tracks loyalty programs found that membership in credit card reward programs surpassed membership in frequent-flier programs for the first time in 2009. According to Colloquy, the company that conducted the research, the average household in the United States is signed up for 14 loyalty programs, ranging from grocery stores and gas stations to airlines and hotels, but actively participates in only six. The recession has diminished participation in multiple travel programs, said Kelly Hlavinka, a partner at Colloquy. She said this could bring about a return to the original premise of loyalty rewards: to cement a relationship with just one airline or hotel. “Savvy travelers may be saying, ‘I may not be able to spread my business out to two or three airlines, but I can consolidate my travel with one company,’ ” Ms. Hlavinka said. “The real opportunity for airlines is to try to keep that business with their airline.”"
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 09:59, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Yet another, clearly Colloquy has expertise, and is cited repeatedly in reliable sources, which makes it a reliable source; this serves to further confer topic notability:
- "Six Reasons Card Rewards go Unredeemed -- and How to Change That". Fox Business News. December 16, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- An article's premise supported by Colloquy's statements:
- "Six Reasons Card Rewards go Unredeemed -- and How to Change That". Fox Business News. December 16, 2011. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
"If someone gave you $600, would you throw $200 away? That's essentially what many consumers do since Americans earn approximately $48 billion in rewards points and miles each year through customer loyalty programs, yet about one-third of that amount -- or $16 billion -- goes unredeemed each year, according to a study by loyalty marketing information company Colloquy and global commerce firm Swift Exchange. Included in that total are unused credit card rewards, says Jim Sullivan, a partner with Colloquy. When such rewards go unredeemed, "the average household is throwing money out the window," Sullivan says."
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 10:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – More...
- Todé, Chantal (April 28, 2007). "Loyalty program participation low: Colloquy report". Direct Marketing News. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 10:10, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Todé, Chantal (April 28, 2007). "Loyalty program participation low: Colloquy report". Direct Marketing News. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
- Comment – Colloquy's research is cited in college empirical research:
- Ramsdell, Kimberly; Ruscitti, Eric (April 22, 2008). "Understanding and Improving Customer Loyalty at The Sole Proprietor Restaurant" (PDF). Wprcester Polytechnic Institute. pp. 17–18, 152. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 10:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a final project that an undergraduate did. I do not agree that this is a reliable source. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 19:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ramsdell, Kimberly; Ruscitti, Eric (April 22, 2008). "Understanding and Improving Customer Loyalty at The Sole Proprietor Restaurant" (PDF). Wprcester Polytechnic Institute. pp. 17–18, 152. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
- Comment – Their research also provides the basis for market analyses (note, this also is not a press release)...
- "COLLOQUY 2010 Retail Loyalty Index: Low Prices Replace Customer Service As Top Driver of Customer Loyalty". Restaurant News Resource. March 29, 2010. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 10:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "COLLOQUY 2010 Retail Loyalty Index: Low Prices Replace Customer Service As Top Driver of Customer Loyalty". Restaurant News Resource. March 29, 2010. Retrieved December 30, 2011.
- Requesting relisting – I request this AfD discussion be relisted, per the research I have performed that further qualifies this topic's notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A notable company with sources given. Expansion to the page is needed, not deletion. Tinton5 (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't say I've checked every one of the ocean of sources listed above or in the article. I can say that every one that I did check is a passing mention or press release. It doesn't matter that the NYT or WSJ mentions, in passing, that "blah blah blah, according to market research firm Coloquy," because that's not coverage of Coloquy, anymore than "Five firefighters were injured, said Fire Chief Steve Smith" is coverage of Chief Smith -- regardless of how many nights he's quoted for the daily fire statistics. Please, stop wasting everyone's time and show us the coverage of this company, if such coverage exists. EEng (talk) 03:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it's corporate spam for a non-notable agency with no sources but trivial mentions to prove the article's assertions Ohconfucius ¡digame! 05:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple refs have been added with sufficient coverage to easilly pass GNG. Could be an interesting article for those who use loyalty schemes or who study consumerism. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds good, but can you point out the particular refs which satisfy your assertion of "sufficient coverage"? If there's more than necessary to choose from, just pick out an arbitrary subset so those of us with short attention spans won't have to wade through all the dross to find the substance. EEng (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I echo EEng's request. I've looked through the majority of the references and I haven't seen a single one that makes a case for WP:CORPDEPTH, never mind multiple -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds good, but can you point out the particular refs which satisfy your assertion of "sufficient coverage"? If there's more than necessary to choose from, just pick out an arbitrary subset so those of us with short attention spans won't have to wade through all the dross to find the substance. EEng (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm slightly tickled by the editor who dumped a flurry of citations into the article that are used nowhere. I fail to see how any of these references do anything to demonstrate notability of the agency in question. At the same time the above was added, said editor added "notable" to the description, as if this somehow automatically removes the deletion threat. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I aree with you. The quality of some of the references is being misrepresented in some cases (i.e. the scholarly research is actually just an undergraduates final project). The problem is that this article has been targeted for rescue by the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. This is my first experience with them and it has been very negative. They've dumped a lot of substandard references and votes to keep without any fleshed out argument. It makes it very difficult to actually find sources that are notable, since there is now so much fluff to sort through. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All those saying keep have given arguments. Their research is cited its peers, giving ample coverage in reliable sources. So they are notable in their field. Dream Focus 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, bear with those of us who are slow and dense. Please, pick out just two refs which are actually about this company, not just 3-sentence quotes from something someone in the company said, and list them here. To make it easy, here's a little template to fill out:
- Ref #1-actually-discussing-Colloquy-itself-not-just-saying-they-said-something is this: [fill in here]
- Ref #2-actually-discussing-Colloquy-itself-not-just-saying-they-said-something is this: [fill in here]
- Thanks in advance!
- EEng (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If your work is cited, you are notable. That's how it works with people, and no sense not doing it with research companies or organizations. Why would anyone do an entire write up on a company like this? What would there be to say? They don't make any flashy products, they just do research. Dream Focus 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I don't know, maybe there'd be things to say such as those said about The_Gallup_Organization or Arbitron. EEng (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is explicitly not the case for WP:ORG. As has been noted previously, WP:PRODUCT states that "a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right... notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.". -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If your work is cited, you are notable. That's how it works with people, and no sense not doing it with research companies or organizations. Why would anyone do an entire write up on a company like this? What would there be to say? They don't make any flashy products, they just do research. Dream Focus 15:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, bear with those of us who are slow and dense. Please, pick out just two refs which are actually about this company, not just 3-sentence quotes from something someone in the company said, and list them here. To make it easy, here's a little template to fill out:
- All those saying keep have given arguments. Their research is cited its peers, giving ample coverage in reliable sources. So they are notable in their field. Dream Focus 14:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I aree with you. The quality of some of the references is being misrepresented in some cases (i.e. the scholarly research is actually just an undergraduates final project). The problem is that this article has been targeted for rescue by the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. This is my first experience with them and it has been very negative. They've dumped a lot of substandard references and votes to keep without any fleshed out argument. It makes it very difficult to actually find sources that are notable, since there is now so much fluff to sort through. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 14:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment As this agency seems to be a subsidiary of LoyaltyOne, an agency that seems quite a bit more notable, one possible outcome to be considered for this AfD is a redirect to this article, which already mentions this agency in one sentence. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete a large number of sources have been added to the article in an attempt to rescue it, but they do not demonstrate notability. Apart from the company website (which is not independent) they are all news articles which report on surveys conducted by Colloquy. Coverage of the company itself is limited to brief descriptions such as "a marketing consultant and publisher" and quotations from people associated with the company. WP:CORP requires that the coverage of the subject is significant and "passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" is specifically excluded. [25] is an undergraduate report and thus not very reliable, and coverage of the company itself is limited to a passing mention of "a leading provider of loyalty-marketing information, consulting, research and education" in a paragraph about one of their surveys. A search on Google News produces a large number of hits, but on closer inspection they turn out to be brief quotes along the lines of those already in the article or press releases by the company itself. Based on this Colloquy does not satisfy WP:CORP. Hut 8.5 14:42, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is acknowledged that the NYT seems to enjoy using this company's products, but the standard for notability is coverage of the company itself, not just indications of wide usage of their products. In this case, such coverage has not been able to be located. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to LoyaltyOne. This seems an adequate solution in light of the concerns about the coverage of the company its self. May encourage some positive expansion of that article. Pol430 talk to me 16:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of cocktails#Cocktails with sake. The Bushranger One ping only 10:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sake cocktail[edit]
- Sake cocktail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTRECIPE. Uncited recipe book, the definition of WP:NOT. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. Lede is a joke; article is essentially a list of OR recipes. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 06:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect to List of cocktails#Cocktails with sake. Agreed with the above argument that this violates WP:NOTRECIPE. This is also a content fork of information already found at List of cocktails#Cocktails with sake and its listed pages. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep drinks are notable and its important to record the history of gastronomyLuciferWildCat (talk) 23:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of cocktails#Cocktails with sake, as JethroBot suggested. Something with no sources is inherently non-notable Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:41, 23 December 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. It should go without saying that an historic abbey is of "significance". Regardless, the nom's comments do not reflect anything but the current state of the article, and it is clear the nom did not follow WP:BEFORE to search for secondary sources (easily found as noted below), let alone look at the interwiki links in the article itself. The prominently linked Commons category clearly identifies the subject as a classified historical monument registered in the Base Mérimée. That, and the nom's failure to bother even tagging the article with an AFD notice, means that continung this AFD would be a waste of time. postdlf (talk) 11:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Abbey of Saint-Roman[edit]
- Abbey of Saint-Roman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Totally unsourced, other than by subject's own site, and contains too little information to show any significance. Stedrick (talk) 17:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 December 21. Snotbot t • c » 00:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google Books shows that the book "Provence" by Giovanna Magi has a detailed description of this ancient monastery in English. I am reasonably sure that plenty of solid French language sources exist, but I don't read French. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:00, 21 December 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 Sripatum University. SilkTork ✔Tea time 00:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information Science Institute of Sripatum University[edit]
- Information Science Institute of Sripatum University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While the university that it is a unit of is notable, I cannot find sufficient RS coverage to suggest that this "service delivery unit" has the RS coverage to suggest that it is notable per wp standards. Created by an SPA. Zero refs, and tagged for that and other problems for nearly 1 year. Epeefleche (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k 00:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Sripatum University. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or redirect I think per NRVE there are probably a good number of sources about this article; we should look past its skeletal state and let it grow organically.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Sripatum University. If there isn't enough info for its own article at the present, merge content back to parent article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Sripatum University. Sources for the main article are lacking, as is true for this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:52, 24 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kiss of the Gypsy[edit]
- Kiss of the Gypsy (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 seems to be more about the lead singer than the band, band does not meet WP:BAND and article has no WP:RS Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 22:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google News finds a handful of reviews of their sole album, but nothing that appears substantial enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. DroQwfp (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete looks like a clear fail of WP:BAND to me. --Legis (talk - contribs) 03:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the problem for me is that I see no allegations of notability either in the article or on their home paqge. Neither do I see evidence of widespread touring. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 16 December 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 00:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted per a comment on my talk page. Courcelles 00:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I'm inclined to keep. They have a descriptive entry in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music, an early edition of which had them "widely regarded as being one of the most promising British outfits to emerge since Def Leppard." They have an interesting Allmusic writeup [26]. They have a dismissive but significant review in a major newspaper [27]. Rockdetector says they received "a fair amount of press acclaim" [28] and it seems more than likely there is more ~1992 coverage than is digitized online. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Allmusic and Encyclopedia of Popular Music coverage is sufficient for notability, and I also found reviews in High Fidelity News and Record Review, Toledo Blade, and The Post and Courier. Given the period the band are from, it's very likely that there is more print coverage out there. --Michig (talk) 07:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've tried to incorporate some of the above reviews and details on the band, which I feel is support enough for WP:GNG. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:33, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the Tribune and Blade references.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources found. I also notice in Google news archive search, the "Post And Courier - May 7, 1992" bit about them. It doesn't link straight to the part of the newspaper that shows them, you having to scroll to the right, and find the yellow highlighted bit where they comment on the good and bad about them, and mention their singles which are mentioned in the article already. Dream Focus 20:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above editors, and in particular the band's inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 10:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Critical dissonance[edit]
- Critical dissonance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Somewhere between a dictionary definition and WP:NEO as the term is not that common and used to mean several things not listed when it is. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not seeing much on this in reliable sources. Also, it appears that the point of this article might be to promote an upcoming book. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted under A7. Guerillero | My Talk 03:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
VM2[edit]
- VM2 (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. Found a few videos on youtube, but no reliable sources to verify notability Dennis Brown (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 21 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CMC Media Group[edit]
- CMC Media Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this media production company, whose article has been tagged for its lack of refs for over 3 years. Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. Hasn't this been deleted before under a slightly different name? At any rate, I don't think that its client list constitutes a minimal claim of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Did a GSearch and only found 1 non-social-media reference (A Youtube video of a News station talking about the subject in context of a election debate). No reasonable sources to demonstrate notability. Hasteur (talk) 16:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I tried to find evidence that any of awards listed were specifically given to the organization; they did not appear to be. Instead, they were specifically given to the films, such as The Heartland Film Festival award: [29]. More likely, this went to the director. The production company probably did play a big role in developing the film, but there is no mention of them anywhere in regards to these awards. With no additional coverage, I also recommend deletion. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesn't appear to make the cut and I especially dislike articles that appear nonorganic.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:24, 23 December 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 Gateway Church (Texas). Sandstein 17:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Morris (television pastor)[edit]
- Robert Morris (television pastor) (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 wasn't able to find any reliable, independent sources verifying this information. The claim of 90 million viewers in particular seems improbable, and I couldn't find anything that verified it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - To Gateway Church (Texas), making sure the Robert Morris disambiguation page has a link established to that. While there seems to be plenty of Google action for "ROBERT MORRIS" + "GATEWAY CHURCH," my sense is that the megachurch is notable, the pastor maybe not so much. There are "promotional" problems with both articles and both could stand some editorial attention from a dispassionate third party. That's my take, anyway... Carrite (talk) 01:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gateway Church (Texas) per above. StAnselm (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: An older version of the article was merged to the Gateway article per Talk:Robert Morris (pastor)#Merger proposal. StAnselm (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect - To Gateway Church (Texas). Obviously for independent reliable sources reasons this really doesn't make sense to stand on it's own. Recieving article is appropriately sized to take on the merged content. Hasteur (talk) 15:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect per above. Interestingly, the pastor does appear to have some level of coverage according to this Google News Archives search, but upon closer examination, these articles are in reference to the promotion of a different pastor, and Morris is just quoted once or twice about the decision. Because this isn't significant coverage, I'm suggesting this info be merged to the church article. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 19:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. There is a lack of coverage to establish his notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a television personality seems to merit public curiosity to me.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:22, 23 December 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. Michig (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scanalyzer[edit]
- Scanalyzer (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 cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this app, released in March 2011. Zero refs, and tagged for its lack of them for the past nine months. Epeefleche (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The claim is that this $10 app has sold 150 copies. It is not clear why this should make it notable, nor do there appear to be WP:RS sources saying anything substantial about it. Fails WP:N. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. By asserting sales of only 150 copies of this app, this article is asserting non-notability for the app. The article might as well have a big banner on it that says "I AM ABOUT A NON-NOTABLE TOPIC. PLEASE DELETE ME." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable software, Zero Verifiable-Reliable sources that demonstrate notability of software. Hasteur (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I suspected I would not find any reviews with only 150 sales (how does their twitter page have 1500+ followers?); as such, I couldn't find any coverage of this product in reliable sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral in its current form there are no reliable sources, however the invention appears to be novel and unique and it that can be shown it should be kept, also a Scanalyzer appears to be a motor vehicle part that would merit inclusion as well as would carborator or transmission.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you are referring to. This is an app for cell phones, not part of a motor vehicle. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete absense of high-quality verifiable sources, and as such fails WP:GNG. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:00, 27 December 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.