Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 February 17
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unholy grail[edit]
- Unholy grail (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 book, by a nn author, with a print on demand publisher. (Author contested prod.) OSborn arfcontribs. 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn arfcontribs. 23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- OSborn arfcontribs. 23:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Massively fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). StAnselm (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Certainly fails the GNG as well as any other notability criteria. Ravenswing 00:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this book. In particular, there are no reviews or critical reception in reliable sources with search results returning book sales sites which confirm the book exists, but nothing else. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. You have chosen .... unwisely. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:16, 18 February 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 Demoniac and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsay Dawson (musician)[edit]
- Lindsay Dawson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find significant coverage in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. The contents of this article are unverifiable. J04n(talk page) 23:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No independent claim to noatability, being a member of a band or bands and having no solo career is insufficient. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 01:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete - No coverage about this musician in reliable sources as independently notable. There is no sourced information in this biography of a living person, so a merge is not appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 14:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Demoniac, his former band, which does pass WP:MUSIC; this biography doesn't. Robofish (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Demoniac makes sense. dramatic (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect (or, alternatively, Delete, I'll take Robofish's word that Demoniac meets WP:MUSIC but I didn't immediately see sourcing to demonstrate that.) --j⚛e deckertalk to me 06:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cyrus Washington[edit]
- Cyrus Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is this guy notable? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 23:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found nothing to show he passes the notability criteria. Everything I found was put out by himself, his sponsor, or his gym. He does appear to be fighting Muay Thai in Thailand, but does not appear to have reached the highest level (at least I found nothing to show he has). No independent sources support the claims of other fights in Burma and China. Even the sources given are missing dates, locations, and names. Papaursa (talk) 21:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I wasn't able to find independent sources or accomplishments that show he's notable. He might be in the future, but I don't see notability yet. Astudent0 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 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. Withdrawn by nominator. Jujutacular talk 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Draft Ron Paul movement[edit]
- Draft Ron Paul movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Draft movements are not notable. Lots of the statements in this article are dubious (and have been tagged as such), and others are more related to actual campaigns. Anything relevant could be moved to the appropriate Ron Paul campaign article. — Muboshgu (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to withdraw this. I forgot to check the talk page and missed that this was nominated and kept two weeks ago. — Muboshgu (talk) 23:45, 17 February 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 Shawnee Hills AVA. this is confusing. There is a delete consensus, but the nom has then asked for a merge. Merge needs to be read as "keep and merge". I'm basically going to redirect this to allow that merge, but next time don't bring a merge request to afd JUST DO IT! Scott Mac 21:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shawnee Hills Wine Trail[edit]
- Shawnee Hills Wine Trail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable tourist trail whose only purpose seems to be as a WP:DIRECTORY for largely non-notable wineries. The one single reference in the article is a tourism wine guide which only references the existence of the trail and certainly doesn't devote WP:SIGCOV to the topic. The claim that it is "the oldest wine trail in Illinois" is unreferenced with only Wikipedia mirrors parroting the claim. But truthfully, even then, being the "oldest wine trail" is not really notable since wine trails themselves are not really notable (notice the lack of article on the subject). Instead, the relevant wine trail info that has significant coverage by reliable sources are usually covered in articles about the wine regions themselves or about the "wine country" like Wine Country (California). Now prior to this AfD, I did try to salvage some of the relevant material by merging it with the Shawnee Hills AVA but was reverted. With only commercial and travel sites/blogs for online searches and nothing offering WP:SIGCOV to further develop the article, I just don't see how it can become anything but a listing and WP:ADVERT for largely non-notable wineries. AgneCheese/Wine 23:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but allow redirect to Shawnee Hills AVA. This would be similar to what we did with the Connecticut Wine Trail, moving it into Connecticut wine. That wine trail has way way way more coverage than this one.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, probably even Speedy Delete as G11: "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". WP:COATRACK about Shawnee Hills AVA, just like the invented "driving trail" itself, which is just a highlight marker run over multiple(!) routes from the nearest Interstate exit to local businesses. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. Same guideline calls out this topic specifically: "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as ... Restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y", which is pretty much what this article is. Not even worth merging; it's just a very small business association calling itself a "trail" for marketing reasons. --Closeapple (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to Shawnee Hills AVA. There is no need for a separate article on the "trial". -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin If consensus continues towards delete, I would like an opportunity to again merge some of the relevant info on the wine region into the Shawnee Hills AVA. The creator has recently added new info with an Economic impact section but that is about the wineries impact on the wine region and is not really exclusive to the "driving trail". I'm not sure why the author is neglecting expanding the wine region article and instead focusing on this WP:COATRACK. Well actually, maybe I do know. Probably because the wine region article wouldn't include the WP:ADVERT WP:DIRECTORY listing by name in the Wineries section complete with driving instructions on WP:HOWTO get there. But again, there is some referenced material that is worth saving with a merge so it's an option worth considering. AgneCheese/Wine 21:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (A7) by Sphilbrick. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Mercatante[edit]
- Matthew Mercatante (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly not notable. Article makes little sense at times. Seems to be copied and pasted from some website. AndrewvdBK (talk) 22:37, 17 February 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. Scott Mac 21:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Travel Companions (Web Series)[edit]
- Travel Companions (Web Series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD article about a web-series of questionable notability. Other than primary source external links, no indications of notability, no significant coverage listed from indepenent third party publications. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sounds like a funny show, but it's a non-notable web-only production. The article provides a couple of links to reviews in Italian, but they do not seem to be from Reilable Sources. Searching the news archive for "Travel Companions" together with "Italian" finds nothing relevant. (Yes, it does appear that the title is "Travel Companions" rather than the Italian equivalent.) For what it's worth, there is an article in the Italian Wikipedia - of which this article appears to be a translation. --MelanieN (talk) 01:04, 24 February 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 snowball keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Women's association football[edit]
- Women's association football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Why do we need separate articles about women's sports when we don't have specific articles about men's sports? It is discrimination. Maybe because men's professional sports are more common and popular? Then, Why don't we have an article about women's facial hair? It's more common in men. Or maybe men with long hair? It is far more common in women. --JustEase (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Twinkle broke and failed to complete Step 1 and part of Step 2. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Perhaps take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST before pointing out the absence of similar articles. Eisfbnore talk 21:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by default do to nonsensical nomination. We don't delete an article because another article doesn't exist. Besides, Association football covers the equivalent men's game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; nomination rationale amounts to WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and offers no deletion-policy based reason for deletion. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the subject of women's association football has been subject to innumerable reliable sources, meeting of policies. Please avoid WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST arguments. Also, just because you (the nominator) feel something isn't politically correct, doesn't mean we can't have an article about it. After all, Wikipedia isn't censored. Arsenikk (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Men and women play the same game. Why can't it be covered by one article? JustEase (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When someone uses the term association football, they are almost always talking about the men's game. That's just how it is. Women's football is not always covered by this term and so should have its own article. Football is far too broad to be covered in a single article. Also, going by your logic, the Premier League, Serie A and every other league in the world should be merged into a single article. After all, they all operate in the same way... AndrewvdBK (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We do have an article on men's association football. It's located at Association football. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Would the nom care to propound a valid argument for deletion? What policy or guideline does he claim this article violates? (That being said, this is the nom's third straight AfD with a unanimous Keep consensus. I strongly suggest he review deletion policy and gain a better understanding of how AfD is handled on the English Wikipedia before filing any others.) Ravenswing 00:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's always nice to wake up to find an AfD without any kind of footing whatsoever. GiantSnowman 12:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When women and men play on the same team then it's the same game. I look forward to the AfDs for Women's rugby union, Women's basketball, Women's cricket etc. Also, we do have an article about women's facial hair, there's Bearded women, will that do? More seriously, the article could be renamed 'history of women's association football', which is essentially what it is. With the exception of the pictures, there's no gender assumption on the page for association football, so in fact women get 2 articles, men get 1.Stu.W UK (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I see the nominator's point - putting women on a pedestal is nothing more than removing them to a position above society and into a gilded cage. This poorly planned and executed article doesn't help. I did find a source to support the WP:GNG of the topic -- David J. Williamson (1991). Belles of the ball: The Early History of Women's Association Football. R&D Associates. p. 100. ISBN 0-95175-120-4. Now's all we need is someone who can give the topic the care it deserves. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It is necessary to keep pages on the women in sports. And to improve the pages of women in sports. There is a considerable cost to the encyclopedia to eliminate its pages....Wikipedia has a serious deficit of female readers and editors, and that is a problem, and this sort of thing doesn't help (references Wikipedia: This is a man's world, Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?. It is necessary to preserve this page and to improve it.--Geneviève (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep, this seems like a bad faith/WP:POINTy nomination rather than a serious one. As others have noted above, the article on association football predominantly covers men's football, because it is the mainstream form of the sport. Women's football is notable enough and different enough to deserve a separate article: it's the very fact that it's the less common variant that makes it notable. (Here's a parallel: we have an article on Men's skirts because it is unusual in most countries for men to wear skirts. The article on women's skirts is simply called Skirt.) The claim that the existence of this article is 'discrimination' is, frankly, laughable. Robofish (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nominator has offered no criteria for deletion, and as far as I see, the article is notable and sufficiently sourced for start-class. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:23, 20 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Robert Baker[edit]
- Dr Robert Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Stated awards do not appear to rise to the level of notability required. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Are you sure that the Bessemer Medal isn't a "highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"? Guoguo12--Talk-- 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The award does not seem to rise to that level of notability. It is one of several awards handed out annually by the British IOM3, whose scope of interest is rather limited. Also, since the article cites no references, and the IOM3 site does not present an archive of winners, there is no verification that Baker did win this award. For the sake of assuming good faith, I'll stipulate that he did win the award, but that, since there is no press coverage of the event, it does not appear to have been a notable event at the time. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've just added several sources after performing some simple Google Scholar and Books searches and followed external links in articles wikilinked from this one. (It appears that the nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE point 4.) Together, these sources (particularly the obituary) constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, so it meets WP:GNG. He also meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) criterion 3, as being made a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering is a highly selective honour, as is the Bessemer Gold Medal. The steel industry was a vital component of the UK economy in the 20th century, so I believe someone awarded the annual UK prize for "outstanding services to the steel industry" in 1998 is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Qwfp (talk) 09:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment First, I would like to say that I certainly did attempt to find sourced related to Baker prior to nominating. Robert Baker is a fairly common name, so searching is not so simple. Given the sketchy nature of the article at the time of its nomination, their seemed little direction in which to search. Even given the fact that Baker had won a Bessemer Medal, I was unable to find the archive listing at the IOMMM site to verify this fact. There was no mention in the nominated article of Baker's election as a Fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering -- that fact was apparently gleaned from an obituary published in a source that is not generally available without a subscription. The significance of the Bessemer Medal is not immediately obvious, given its relatively minor mention in the Wikipedia article on the IOM3. (Any description of the medal's significance at the IOM3 site must be discounted.) That being said, I give kudos to Qwfp for finding what he did. However, I am still not convinced of the notability of the subject. Not being a British engineer or metallurgist, I await other voices to weigh in on the significance of Baker's achievements.WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Being a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering meets point 3 of WP:ACADEMIC. -- Whpq (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable through distinguished career. Article could have been better written in the first place. Congrats to those who improved it. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep with thanks to Qwfp per WP:HEY. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:46, 23 February 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. I'm sorry Joungok but the consensus is clear on this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jin Wang Kim[edit]
- Jin Wang Kim (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 sure if this one is notable per WP:ACADEMIC, but pretty obviously it's WP:PROMO by single-purpose account Joungok (talk · contribs). I deleted the blatant crap from this article, but the rest isn't much better. If you check the refs, you'll notice that half of it doesn't mention Kim, and the other half is just promotional stuff. Overall, this bio smells incredibly fishy, particularly since Kim went from an ordinary plastic surgeon to Sir Kim, the international renowned surgeon, professor, inventor and philosopher of science. Either way, Joungok (talk · contribs) has a lot to explain. bender235 (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This bio is about a plastic surgeon and doesn't measure up to the rest of the entries in the category "Optical physicists." Also, Kim's theory is not referenced to a refereed journal. Signed by Corrigendas. — Preceding undated comment added 17 February 2011
- This article seems very notable, but I agree that many references are crap.--Taekyukim91 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Truth be told, the "seems notable" riff is crap. Fails WP:BIO, no evidence he passes the GNG. Ravenswing 00:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Some tiny cites on GS. Looks like junk to me, but I am prepared to be proved wrong. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. Hi, everyone you can see the textbook publised the Asian laser blepharoplasty with medial epicanthoplasty and lateral canthoplasty: for reduction of down time and patient's satisfaction and human skin laser light tissue interaction. 2009 IPRAS Book ,185-198 pages published by Medimond Co. Italy publishing date 2010-June, ISBN 978-88-7587-564-0. you know about kim's theory and see the his article published by yonsei university. And he is honoary advisory board of IPRAS (90 nations) [1] [www.ipras2011vancouver.ca/scientificprogram_committees.html] And IPRAS has 100000 member around world includig U.S.A..And he is the president of ISLSM (Thomson Reuter S.C.I. conference ISSN 978-0-7354 ) congress now. And majority of the reference is under the wikipedia guideline for example official News letter and Wiki tree reference korean wikipedia etc. And about optical physisit it’s application in cancer diagnosis such as spectroscopy ,called photodynamic diagnosis
In the field Kim is featured member(http://sites.pcmd.ac.uk/ipa/boardmembers.php) so it is not a crap as well as junk and he is also well known doctor in korea , Japan, china regarding about his works ( in the fied of plastic surgery and laser, PDT,PDD, Optics ) And he is also accredted surgeon in Lipoplasty University (http://www.lipoplastyuniversity.com/surgeon.php ). Korean News paper and Korean broadcast report him in KBS TV News 9 ,you can also see Korean related article and Official News Letter in Korea Wikipedia about him .KOFST is the priority society of science and technology in korea by government basis. he is the council member of KOTSF .And you can easily find him in internet such as google, Yahoo, Naver Thank you --Joungok (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The book you mentioned does not exist in WorldCat. A Google News search for Kim yields no results. Google Scholars returns some articles, but nothing spectacular. Also, having your work published does not automatically make you notable. Anyone can publish something. It's whether the scientific community considers it notable. --bender235 (talk) 12:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi I think you do not know about medical and physical basis article you can easily fined here about the article and google search. And watch the honorary advisory board Jin Wang Kim, Ivo Pitanguy , Ralph Millard who is in wikipedia now And scientific board name Jin Wang Kim and Wolf Wu who is in wikipedia now Thank You --Joungok (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi -Taekyukim91 NYU Chair of Plastic Surgery Dr McCarty's name also noted with Jin Wang Kim as Honoary Board of IPRAS so it is not a crap. Josep G McCarthy --Joungok (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I here and read that there are many indication of nominate about academican definition in wikipedia. Minimal requirement is one of award and prize from "American Biographical Institute" in the field of medine and academy ( Wold academy of letters vice chancellar of ABI) or real chancellar of their academy. Professor Kim is real educator college of medicine (Hallym university) , "Credible source of real scientist" source- 1 he got a 1st Science Dr. degree BK21 Project of medical science from Yonsei University 2001. 2. Council member of Korean Society Federation for Science and Technology, Published many S.C.I. scientific article and Books, research ,invention,innovation, patents, chair of many international S.C.I conferences etc. Mention about "extroardinary and ordinary" problem is just according to the references. In small amount reference people do not understand why he is extrordinary that's all ,don't you think so?
- Hi Ravenswing , and bender235 Your mentioned World Cat related article also easily find Thank you --Joungok (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You still don't understand. Notability is not proven with publications by the subject, but about the subject. Are there any reliable sources that verify Kim's status as a renowned scientist? If so, please name them. --bender235 (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. The World Cat search string Joungok provided above (at 12:28 18 February, 2011 UTC) didn't enclose the subject's name in quotation marks. This one does, and it returns three papers only, from 1997 and 1998, two of which list "Joung Ok Lee" as second author. Our Wikipedia single-purpose account friend, "Joungok" is obviously the same person, presumably promoting his professor's or mentor's career. I'm sure Jin Wang Kim is a fine doctor, and I'm sure Joungok means well, despite having twice removed the AfD tag from this article, but he obviously doesn't understand WP:COI, WP:ACADEMIC, and a host of other relevant policies. In short, and without the least offence intended, this article is academic fancruft, and clearly can't be permitted to remain. Sorry, Joungok. – OhioStandard (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A scientist in a broad sense is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. Engineers and scientists are often confused in the minds of the general public, with the former being closer to applied science. While scientists explore nature in order to discover general principles, engineers apply established principles drawn from science in order to create new inventions and improve upon the old ones.[11][12] In short, scientists study things whereas engineers design things. However, there are plenty of instances where significant accomplishments are made in both fields by the same individual. When a scientist has also an engineering education, the same individual would explore principles in nature to solve problems and to design new technology. Scientists often perform some engineering tasks in designing experimental equipment , and some engineers do first-rate scientific research. Biomedical, mechanical, electrical, chemical, laser and photoscience and aerospace engineers are often at the forefront of scientific investigation of new phenomena and materials. As you know his is presidnet of International Society for Laser in Surgery and Medicine (Thomson Reuter Scientific.Cited .Index. conference ISSN 978-0-7354)
- So working with Nobel Prize Winner Zores Alperof Jin Wang Kimand research article in Book about stem cell biomodulation is definite evidence of scientist , medical scientist and more he was included in Marquis who's who in America Scientist and engineering if you want to more and more want reference ,it is welcome to suggest more , but I am sorry to say much more thing about science write than you. --Joungok (talk · contribs)
- Oh Oh I am sorry OhioStandard (talk) I am not the person you imagine. I am a simple user like youJoungok (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary – your edit history does indeed demonstrate that your account basically exists to serve just this one article – it is what is called a single purpose account. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- About WP:COI, WP:ACADEMIC, and a host of other relevant policies problem is unintended problem not only occuring during the upgrading period of Wiki server ( thre are several warning signal about malfunction as you know -it can confirmed by wiki manager) but also very short working period of english Wikipedia. Anyway it is happening of very short period making huge sentence, so I recommand to give a time to restore the sentence.
- And about "On the contrary – your does indeed demonstrate that your account basically exists to serve just this one article – it is what is called a single purpose account. Respectfully" is not true. I contribute to many article but as pointed out by Agricola44 I overcome of several problem occur in Wiki during the period I think so. Thank You Joungok (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The few edits you've made outside this article, e.g. this one also promote the subject of this article. Anyone looking at your edit history will readily see the WP:SPA nature of your account for themselves. It's not going to help your case to deny this in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary. I don't know what your second sentence above even means, sorry. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I mean try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other. that means viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. For balancing about that sevral revison must be, should be preformed .don't you think so. Agricola44 --- Joungok (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:PROF notability; no significant coverage in reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi OhNoitsJamie Talk ,there are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumptions that someone would find controversial. This is true not only in evolutionary biology, but also in philosophy, history, science, physics, medicine etc. It is difficult to draw up a rule but there is probably not a good reason to discuss some assumption on a given page, if that assumption is best discussed in depth on someone it can be a featured article in the Wikipedia I think, thank you. Joungok (talk) 18:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pay attention OhNoitsJamie Talkwikipedia's first ranking is college professor you can find Jin Wang Kim in University professor in contributer list page see WP:PROF Joungok (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think this is the link Joungok meant to supply. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - pure vanity bio, fails WP:PROF, WP:GNG among others. ukexpat (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi ukexpat sometimes arguments are made that other articles have been put forward for AfD and survived/deleted ,When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/delete etc." it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it and put it forward for AfD yet. However, threats to actually put these other articles forward for AfD after a debate closes may be interpreted as all-or-nothing reasoning thank you ! Besides numerous article, reliable source of S.C.I. Journal and Books and News letters.
- One of the reliable source is KBSand CNN relationship and Jin Wang Kim appearedKBS NEWS 9 ANDJin Wang Kim Apprecition for American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery Directors of ABLS Education and Membership Jin Wang Kim, MD, PhD, AsiaBesides American Biographical Institute and International biography center in cambridge publication Marquis Whos' Who Healthcare and Medicine,in America,in the World,Science and EngineeringJoungok (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Friendly suggestion for Joungok, the more you repeat the same comments in answer to every !vote here, the more you harm your case and the more desperate you seem. Make your point once and if you have sources add them to the article. The closing admin isn't going to be impressed by your repetitious comments here. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a vanity, one of the interesting reference in this article is Harold Gillies - Father of Plastic Surgery ,Jin Wang Kim , Isaac Kaplanand each relations. Thank you Joungok (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Joungok, it would be better for you to add these references to the article in a neat, orderly way than to just keep throwing them at our heads here. I still don't think Jin Wang Kim meets our standards for an article, but if there is anything in all the references you're giving us here, on this AfD page, that would change anyone's mind, we will never find it. There is just too much here, and it is presented in too disorganized a way. To speak directly, no one here is going to take the time to sort through all of the poorly formatted links you're giving us here. You need to present them in an orderly way that makes it easy for your fellow editors to verify them. That's what articles are for. This process should continue another four or five days; that will give you time to try to add meaningful, reliable references to the article, to try to make your case that Dr. Kim is notable. Again, I think that will probably be wasted effort; I doubt he is notable, as we all use that word here. But arguing with each new vote here, with new links for every one, is not going to work. Put them in the article if they're useful, and then come back here and ask us to take another look. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment.
I think we can all predict where this is going, but let's give Joungok the time to sort all these links properly and integrate them into the article, to whatever extent they legitimately can be. It seems remotely possible to me that we could all be surprised. So no WP:SNOW closure, okay? at least not until we see whether the article improves? Either that, or a wp:snow userfy might be tolerable, to give the creator time to sort all these links into the article. Just my three cents. :) – OhioStandard (talk) 07:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ( I've just struck out my objection to a wp:snow closure, above, and want to apologize to everyone for having made it. I've checked more of the refs, and they don't support any notability that I can see. Further, I don't accept Joungok's statement that he's not the same "Joung Ok Lee" who's listed as second author on two of the only three papers by Jin Wang Kim that I could find via Worldcat. Also, Joungok's repeated emphasis on some adverse affect that the recent WikiMedia version upgrade might have had doesn't impress me as especially meaningful or relevant, either. I have no objection to a wp:snow closure, if other editors think it appropriate at this time. -- OhioStandard 07:33, 20 February 2011 UTC )
- Hello bender235 You here me . Don't let me be misunderstood. I am just working as Wikipedian , I am not contest you , so be happy and work together for nice wikipedia . if there are any question and problem in sentence don't hesitate ask me and let's start discussion, OK? thank you. Joungok (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you actually read the discussion? All we're asking is one thing: name a reliable source that describes Jin Wang Kim as an "internationally-known plastic surgeon". And I'm not talking about a promotional page or a conference advertisement. --bender235 (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello --bender235 reliable source of the wiki is not only CNN but also official newsletter form S.C.I. Journals and conferences sources too. SoOfficial Board Certified 100000 members in IPRAS including U.S.A.,2007 berlin IPRAS Honoary Advisory Board,2009 Newdeli International Advisory Board , [2], Vancouver IPRAS scientific committee Jin Wang Kim representative Korea, official newsletter of ISAPS etc. help for you --bender235 thank youJoungok (talk) 04:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And again, you've listed only promotional links. Where's the CNN link? I neither found it here, nor on the Jin Wang Kim article. --bender235 (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Listen Bender235 see the below sentence carefully. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (WP:IRS) Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples and Scientific journals are the best place to find primary source articles about experiments, including medical studies. Any serious scientific journal is peer-reviewed. will help you . your term ‘Promotion’ is one of the four elements of marketing mix (product, price, promotion, distribution) so it is quite different meaning as you know isn’t it. So this is not promotion. Read the reference of article carefully 12th Asian Pacific Association for Laser in Medicine and Surgery , this joural will help for your understanding I believe. Thank you Joungok (talk) 09:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm getting tired of this. In this "article", Jin Wang Kim is mentioned only once, stating that he delivered the opening remarks at some congress. WTF? That doesn't make him a notable scientist. --bender235 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's a laundry list of positions held and such, none of which demonstrate notability. There is one statement, however, that would qualify: "And he is considered as pioneer of laser and plastic surgery". This is supported by 3 references. The deal-breaker is that none of these are WP:RS. Two are web-pages that do not even support the assertion and one seems to be an image scan of the subject's personal copy of a Marquis who's-who. None of these are acceptable sources. The article and the AfD together paint a pretty convincing picture of a vanity piece. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Hi : Agricola44 reference journals help for you thank you Joungok (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid that none of these sources confers notability. Many of them are records of the activities of a learned society. They show that the subject exists but not that he is notable. Earlier in this debate I said that I would change my vote if adequate evidence emerged. It has not and my vote remains delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment: Look, Joungok - at this point, we've been fed enough chaff to choke on it. Here's what you need to do to save the article: find reliable sources in MAINSTREAM MEDIA. We don't want webpages. We don't want PDFs of meeting minutes. We don't want passing citations in lists of dozens of co-authors. We don't personal websites. We don't want fleeting mentions of a name and nothing more. We want ARTICLES, in verifiable, reliable PRINT publications, that discuss the subject in "significant detail" as the notability guidelines require. If you can't provide them, then the subject isn't notable, but at this point, you're starting to insult our intelligence. I assure you, in the most earnest possible manner, that we are not going to be convinced by volume of Google hits or the sort of sources you're throwing up at us. Ravenswing 00:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ravenswing. I am really thanks to help my work when I wander the darkness without say anything. And you are also good working man in Wiki too, as I early mentioned before I am not contest against you. I am just working now so don't afraid them. And my work keep going unitil make perfect one with reliable sources. And I am impressed again by ukexpat's friendly suggestion. thank you Joungok (talk) 10:44, 22 February 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. Scott Mac 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mankurt[edit]
- Mankurt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Mankert has very little exposure on the WWW in English, most of the entries were mirrors of this page. I considered putting it up for deletion as a neologism, but given the content of the article and one rather unreliable reference I converted it into a film article. However as I know little about the structure of film articles, I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Mankurt, the one message at WikiProject Film seems to confirm that this film is not notable in the English speaking world. One possible option would be to move the content into The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years but as it is not sourced I am not sure that this would be desirable. PBS (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A simple book search seems to give a lot of titles, but it includes passage from books such as "...man Kurt Russell" and foreign books. If the term is put in quotes and English only sources are included then most of the books return are talking about "Mankurt" as a term from the novel by Chinghiz Aitmatov called The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years or how it has become common coin in the countries in the Former Soviet Union. -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking under its actual Russian title of Манкурт seems to give better results... and ones that do not involve combinations of "man" and "Kurt Russel"... [3][4] Let's see if we have enough Russian language sources to indicate notability (even if only in Russia). Going through them now. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years. The term is a neologism, and the film doesn't seem to be notable. The lengthy description of the torture is unnecessary both in a stand-alone article and in the main article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Mankurt" as a word is a neologism, yes... but it's also the Soviet film... Манкурт Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the non-notability of the topic, but no problem with fresh recreation as a redirect.Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I am now going through the Russian language sources as shared above. Perhaps we might find that Манкурт has notability in Russia, even Soviet Russia, is okay for en.Wikipedia. I'll report back. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect the "word" mankurt to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years#Film. And now(struck Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.)- Keep currently modified article which is only about a film - based upon nominator's earlier work. After I performed trimming, cleanup, and sourcing to the herein nominated article,[5] I went and included the sourced information about this film in a newly created section at the novel's article.[6] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done. I am happy with either leaving the article as is after you modifications, or the redirect to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years#Film. -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. It was fun to dig out. The original article was a bit of a bear... but your initial cleanup work helped greatly. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well done. I am happy with either leaving the article as is after you modifications, or the redirect to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years#Film. -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, the now re-written article can be moved to Mankurt (film) as a dis-ambig, and the "word" mankurt can be set as a clean redirect to the novel as offered above. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)(struck. New opinion - see below Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.)[reply]
- Per User:Erik,[7] rather than a dismbig, as the primary topic IS now a film article, and not a neologism, I added a hatnote to the article,[8] directing readers to where they might better find contextual information about the term "mankurt". If readers find the film while looking for the term, they can now go find the term. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a specific subsection "Mankurt" under "Main themes" section on the articles about the novel, and added that to the hat note of the film article Mankurt. So unless anyone objects over the next 24 hours I suggest that we remove the template and close this debate. -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite nicely done! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a specific subsection "Mankurt" under "Main themes" section on the articles about the novel, and added that to the hat note of the film article Mankurt. So unless anyone objects over the next 24 hours I suggest that we remove the template and close this debate. -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because as the nominator I am involved, I will not close it as the AfD guidelines suggests that as I am involved I should not do so. So I'll leave it open and let some other person close it. -- PBS (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The film seems to be meeting notability requirements.--Badvibes101 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chieu Luu[edit]
- Chieu Luu (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 about a journalist with no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Based on the description of his work, this person worked primarily as a news producer and editor but with no indication of any awards or other recognition that would indicate notability. Whpq (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Very few results in google. The sad part is the article has been in this for years without references and it has come down to this. --Visik (talk) 03:26, 24 February 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. seems to fall between keep and no consensus, but the effect is the same. It is verifiable, and there's no consenus to delete Scott Mac 21:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)[edit]
- Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vanity page of a non notable webcomic. ScWizard (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. —ScWizard (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Reach Out to the Truth 21:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The previous AfD debate wasn't automatically linked because the name had changed. Here's the old (very inconclusive) debate: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ctrl+Alt+Del. --ScWizard (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per lack of evidence that the situation has significantly changed since the last debate less than a year ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep- there seems to be enough links in the article to show that it meets the WP:GNG. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting links isn't a very good measure of notability. The vast majority of the links are to the comic itself. A lot of the so called "newspaper citations" are actually links to newspaper blogs. Here's an example: "Laser Orgy", one of many blogs affiliated with the Boston Pheonix (a local paper) --ScWizard (talk) 20:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article has potential. For example, an obvious source is the book The History of WebComics but no-one has has cited it yet. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a real book pubished by a real publisher. If anyone can confirm that this book covers Ctrl Alt Del in some degree of detail (as opposed to a passing mention or not at all) then deleting this article should certainly be reconsidered. --ScWizard (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article hasn't improved on the issues that led to its deletion previously. It reads more like a fan page than an encyclopedia entry, and it reads like this because it's just not notable enough to ever get past this --A Chain of Flowers (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Jehorn (talk) 23:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a friendly reminder that the AfD process is not a vote. You may want to review this page: Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Recommendations_and_outcomes --ScWizard (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject matter is notable (albeit not for the right reasons), however a fair amount of content has been removed from the article before with regards to the criticisms of the comic itself. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly "infamous" in certain circles, but that's not the same as being notable. I know Penny Arcade's blog criticised it, but blogs (even "famous blogs") aren't considered "published sources" per the web notability guideline. --ScWizard (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails the GNG, no evidence this passes any notability criteria. As far as the Keep proponents go, could they express valid grounds supporting their POV? One says nothing at all. One says "seems like a real book published by a real publisher." If so, so what? Merely having a book published meets NO notability criteria. "The article has potential?" Err, no: either it meets the criteria or it does not, and defending a Keep vote on the grounds that there's a History of Webcomics book out there (with, I assume, the implication that this particular webcomic might be cited, without the slightest shred of evidence that it actually is) is farcical. "There seems to be enough links" to show that the subject passes the GNG? Has Umbralcorax actually looked at those links, or is the simple existence of hyperlinks now considered notable? Just seems like a bunch of people are mailing it in here. Ravenswing 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're completely misinterpreting things. I'm the one that you're quoting as talking about the webcomic book, but I'm also the one who nominated this article for deletion. Now my opinion is that if something is covered in detail in a history book (one that's not self published) then it's notable. However the people in favor of keeping this article have not demonstrated yet that that is the case. If they successfully demonstrate this, then I might change my stance, but right now I'm (obviously) in favor of deletion. --ScWizard (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The one to whom I referred in that mention was, as it happens, Col. Warden. Ravenswing 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Books indicates that there is specific content about this topic on page 79 of that book; it's just not viewable online. I am not familiar with this topic but was able to turn up this reference within 30 seconds. The GNG is a guideline, not a hard policy, and is expected to be used in a common-sense way. Commonsense tells us that there's more to be done here and there seems to be no pressing reason to disrupt this improvement by deleting everything, contrary to our editing policy.
- That "A History of Webcomics" book is horrible, even the author has said so, and shouldn't be used as a reliable source for anything. That said, even though the book has no index (!!!) and no page numbers even (!!!) I believe I've found the two sentences on the topic on page 79 and it is exceedingly trivial. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The two mentions are probably as follows, found in the conclusion section (from earlier version at [9]): "Many of the most financially successful webcomics, including Sluggy Freelance, Goats, Penny Arcade, The Norm, Ctrl-Alt-Del and User Friendly, " and "When PVP began selling special advertisements that used its own characters to make commercial endorsements, Ctrl-Alt-Del and Something Positive quickly followed suit." See User:84user/Sandbox#Sourcing webcomics for my attempts at tracking down some of the parts. -84user (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The one to whom I referred in that mention was, as it happens, Col. Warden. Ravenswing 12:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It looks like there is plenty of coverage. Sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Blake (Talk·Edits) 01:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - subject has fairly wide coverage, has potential if article can be developed. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 1:42pm • 02:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As far as news coverage goes I see the article in the Phoenix and then the book mentioned above and five sources without links: (Lincoln Journal Star, Chicago Tribune, Knoxville News-Sentinel, Jersey Journal, and Chronicle Herald). Does anyone know if these merely contain a mention of the strip or if they contain a detailed look at it? Qrsdogg (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to reiterate that the so call "article" in The Boston Phoenix is in fact a blog post. As for the other articles, I'm going to try and look over them now. I'll let you know what I find. --ScWizard (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, the sun tribune article is a short piece that merely gives a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site which is a "trivial mention" according to WP:WEB.
- The Lincoln Journal Star article is unquestionably nontrivial coverage.
- The Knoxsville Sentinel piece is trivial coverage in what might not even be a real article.
- I wasn't able to locate the The Jersey Journal article, but the article title is "Giving advice" so it sounds like the article is not primarily about the webcomic.
- I was also unable to locate the The Chronicle Herald article, but the article title is "Very cool" so it sounds like the article is not primarily about the webcomic.
- Will the Lincoln Journal Star article be enough? I don't think so. I don't think a single article in a local paper makes something notable, and WP:WEB agrees, calling for non trivial mentions in multiple published works. --ScWizard (talk) 07:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The short Lincoln Journal Star piece doesn't even name the creator of this webcomic. It is trivial coverage of this topic. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still on the side of delete, but your definition of "trivial coverage" certainly seems to be different from the definition in WP:WEB. I really don't see how naming the author is a prerequisite for non trivial coverage. The article is several paragraphs long and solely focused on a phenomenon springing from this particular webcomic, I wouldn't call it "in depth" coverage, but calling it "trivial" is just ridiculous. --ScWizard (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not my definition of trivial coverage I'm going by, but WP:WEB's and elsewhere. "Trivial coverage [is] a brief summary of the nature of the content," which is all that the Lincoln Journal Star piece has. Without even listing the author's name and the URL of the webcomic, this is pretty clearly on the side of trivial coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because to my mind the several trivial mentions in printed media add up to one non-trivial coverage, making two in total. Also, my quick Google Scholar search gave this as first result: http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v1_2/group/index.shtml . This is not referenced in the article, and has three admittedly short mentions, but that an academic paper used it must count for something, I feel. Also missing from article and here is a brief 2011 news source mention, it's easy to find so I leave it to others. -84user (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's an interesting interpretation which is, however, not supported by the guideline. Ravenswing 12:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why it is a guideline. My interpretation is partly supported by this other guideline under "Basic criteria". -84user (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Update I wrote the above without first looking at the article or its talk page, except to search for and confirm non-presence of the paper and the 2011 news source. In fact on 28 June 2010 I had posted Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)#Norwegian university thesis source that contained weak support for the claim the comic has a low ranking, and weak support for the description "nerdcore". I now find more support for the low ranking claim and long detailed coverage by Larry Cruz at The Webcomic Overlook: part 1 and part 2. -84user (talk) 12:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I Disagree that several trivial mentions add up to a non trivial mention. It being repeatedly printed that "Ctrl+Alt+Del is a webcomic by Tim Buckley, it's an example of a webcomic focused on video games" doesn't add any information that could be used to write a good encyclopedic article. That's why the quotes used in the actual article are from bloggers, for instance quoting video game "journalist" Ben_Croshaw (imo he's hilarious, but I've never considered him a journalist) and fellow webcomic creators. --ScWizard (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am asking the editor here if he recalls the coverage of the two print-only sources listed above. The full sources appear available if you pay: Document ID: 10C3B8F80146A130 here 315 words price USD 2.95, snippet ends after 86 words at "So far I have found two more", and here (search for Asad, Mariam in 2005-09-22 341 words price 4 U.S. dollars). I feel that a decision to delete should not be considered until the sources provided are more thoroughly examined. The fact that some sources are print-only should not be a hindrance whatsoever. -84user (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Jersey Journal" source is a single four sentence paragraph of trivial coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing has changed since previous delete outcome AfD, still no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, the bare minimum required to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Thanks to Sc for for digging those refs up, I had assumed they weren't available online since the ref didn't link to them. I've gone back and forth about this a few times and almost came down on the side of Keep. In the end I think the coverage of the webcomic in Reliable Sources qualifies as "trivial". I was going to say it should be kept because of the coverage in the Phoenix and the Journal-Star, (I am inclined to accept the Phoenix post as an RS per WP:NEWSBLOG) but it looks like those articles are really focused on the holiday that this strip spawned rather than the strip itself. The funny thing is I might have come down on the side of keep if the article was about "Winter-een-mas", but that's a debate for another day. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally disagree with WP:NEWSBLOG. Citing op-eds is one thing, because to publish an op-ed you generally need to be a notable person, but newspaper blogs usually let any old journalist run their mouth. Now there are some exceptions such as the New York Times which has an some important bloggers, but is what Shaula Clark thinks of this webcomic really encyclopedic? --ScWizard (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not reviewed this case in particular, but I guess it is tricky to figure out who is an "important blogger" when it comes to webcomics. If someone wants to base the notability of an article off of "news blogs", I would think a discussion at WP:RS/N would be a good idea. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You personally disagree with policy? That's a shame, but consensus is that newsblogs are reliable sources; this is not really the place to debate that. Fences&Windows 23:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When it comes to the subject of "Media" items, WP:GNG has regularly been Ignored because the subject is well enough known that our coverage of it is expected even if reliable secondary coverage is lacking - this is particularly true when there is substantial coverage in a variety of sources such as Blogs, Forums, etc. As a result we have substantial numbers of episodes on articles of TV series or on Films that use only the episode or film it's self as a source similarly we have articles on Published comics that are well known and possibly even important in the history of comics but have not been covered by secondary sources (or if those sources exist they are not cited) examples include both Fred Basset and The Far Side. While I've never read it myself, Ctrl+Alt+Del is substantially well known webcomic and as one of the first to become well known it is notable (even if it doesn't fit our definition of notability) . Reading the first AfD many of the contents came across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT and whilst this AfD is coming across at least on the grounds of Notability - In my mind Ctrl+Alt+Del meets critera 3 of the Web Content Notability in that it is syndicated by webzines with editorial checking (and possibly it's adaptation into other media e.g;animation independent of the comic's owner suggests further notability) but I think there should be a further look at the guidelines for Media Subjects on the whole in the way that we currently assess notability. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well personally I think that the expectation that wikipedia will cover stuff that's "famous on the internet" is part of the problem. You're right that there is a disconnect between the internet and the print media. For instance lets say there's a popular youtube video, bloggers will be all over it very quickly, but the print media will mention it much later if at all. The reason for this is that the print media operates far slower than that internet so they want to cover stuff that they believe will be relevant a day or even a week later. I think an intrinsic part of an encyclopedia is stability and covering each new internet craze is detrimental to that. --ScWizard (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But the thing is, this comic isn't a "new internet craze". It has been a popular webcomic series for 8 years. There is definitely coverage out there. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would argue in a bit of a different way here-we do have a ton of articles about webcomics and memes from Homestar Runner to Techno Viking. The fact that there are so many articles in the Webcomics and Internet meme categories (many of which have survived AFD's) indicates to me that our notability guidelines aren't too harsh on internet stuff. Qrsdogg (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add that Wikipedia:Notability_(web) also considers Web Content Notable if it is nominated for the same award in multiple years without winning which Ctrl+Alt+Del has been for the Web Cartoonists Choice awards in 2004 and 2005. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Verification 2004, search "Cont+Alt+Del" and 2005, read the comic
- The weight (or lack thereof) of the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is an issue that effects not only this article, but also articles such as Elf Only Inn (currently deleted, nominated for deletion 5 times) --ScWizard (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability_(web) specifically requires "well-known and independent" awards. The "Web Cartoonists Choice Awards" is neither (it's run by webcartoonists and the lack of sources for it show it is little-known.) Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Verification 2004, search "Cont+Alt+Del" and 2005, read the comic
- Those don't look like published sources to me. --ScWizard (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They look like sources published by a Time Warner subsidiary; in a webzine with full editorial fact checking. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple of sentences about a non-scientific internet poll is not significant coverage. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Let this page stay. It's a good web series and it even collaborated with AdventureQuest Worlds one time. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment well I thought I had exhausted Google Scholar search, but I keep finding more. Yes they are probably minor coverage, but still (just one for now, there are more): Manhandling Joysticks & Pushing Buttons a thesis by Elizabeth Valentine - 2004 - eda.kent.ac.uk. Page 40, 2 comic struips to illustrate Valentine's thesis about differences between male and female gamers; Page 47: Image 7 comic strip; Pages 53 and 54: "(Images 32 and 33) shown overleaf, illustrate common misconceptions about gamers." -84user (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is one of the most well-known gaming webcomics around. That being said, it's incredibly shit, but still highly notable. Kaysow (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The History of WebComics has 6 different pages that mention this comic. It's also available in a library near my work but isn't open again until Monday morning. I have no details on the depth of coverage at this time.Hobit (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A well-known gaming-related web-comic. There's a certain WP:IDONTLIKEIT surrounding it like most things that pioneered on the Internet, but as far as I'm concerned, the notability is established. May be it does not match every point of WP:NOTABILITY or WP:WEB, but it has received much coverage (but may be not in RS) and this -- to me -- is a case of IAR applied to notability guidelines. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No reliable sources means no article; all sources that I've found are either trivial mentions, or self-promotion by the comic's author. That several people express liking the comic is no grounds for it getting a free pass against sourcing policy. >Radiant< 15:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "No reliable sources means no article". But there are reliable sources. You might not like it, you might wish they didn't cover this comic, you might wish we didn't cite them, but they do exist and we do use them. So don't make blatantly factually incorrect statements like this, please. Policy applicable here is verifiability and neutrality and the article passes both, in addition to the general notability guideline (at a scrape). Fences&Windows 23:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - while the sources aren't the strongest, it is enough to surpasses the notability threshold, even if just barely. Rami R 11:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I just expanded the article with referenced material. There is enought reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:GNG. That is masked by the excessive use of content connected to the topic (press releases, material from the series, fan based websites). However, if you discount those content issues, you'll still see that there is enought reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You should provide online links to the sources you cite if they're available. the Publisher's Weekly article you cited is most certainly yet another passing mention. We need reliable sources that tell us something more than the fact that ctrl+alt+del exists. --ScWizard (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I added content that cited to other articles as well. As for the Publisher's Weekly article, it says "Ctrl+Alt+Del have big audiences and robust merchandising sales," which tells Wikipedia readers something more than the fact that ctrl+alt+del exists. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - how many times are we going to have to have this debate? I know lots of people hate Ctrl-Alt-Del, but it's notable: it's been covered by enough sources to pass our inclusion guidelines. To say there are 'No reliable sources', as Radiant does above, is entirely fallacious. Some of the coverage is minor, yes, but there's more than enough in this article to demonstrate that this is a significant webcomic. As for specific claims of notability: it's very popular, makes enough money to support its creator, has been involved in collaborations with several notable videogames, has been adapted into an animated series, has been mentioned by multiple print sources... what more do people want? Robofish (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has a reasonable reception section, which allows us to treat this content neutrally, without it being advertising. This is a clear indication of having received attention from outside, reliable sources, which is the essence of notability. I don't read it, I didn't like it when I did look at it, but it is notable. Let go of your hate. Fences&Windows 23:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've read every comment here as well as the whole article and its sources and do not see how this meets the notability standard of: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Anyone who thinks it does meet this standard just needs to list the reliable sources that give this significant coverage, but they've failed to do so. Without such sources, this article is just a total mess. The reception section here is particularly a horrible mess of original research, neutral point of view violations, undue weight given to unreliable sources, and sweeping claims being sourced to single, self-published sources. For example, the statement "Ctrl+Alt+Del has seen its popularity decrease throughout the years and has not won or been nominated for a Web Cartoonist's Choice Award since 2005" is sourced to just a single self-published "Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards" site which makes no mention of a loss in readership, no mention that their awards stopped having a video game comics category, and no mention that the awards have apparently ceased to exist at all years ago. But hey, no reason we can't cherry-pick self-published information and use original research and unsourced statements to say negative things about living people, eh? Sharksaredangerous (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You read this article cited in the Wikipedia article and concluded that it is not significant coverage within one reliable source? As for the rest of your comments, there's no reason we can't cherry-pick information from the article and use original opinion and unsourced statements to say negative things about the article, eh? -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't share your misunderstanding where I think our notability standard is "significant coverage within one reliable source," as you've put it. I have a clear understanding that Wikipedia:Notability says "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and a clear understanding that the plural "sources" means "multiple" which is greater than your potential "one reliable source." Again, anyone who thinks this topic does meet the notability standard just needs to list the multiple reliable sources that give this significant coverage. A simple "Here's significant coverage in reliable source A, significant coverage in reliable source B, significant coverage in reliable source C, etc." is all that's necessary. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first I've heard of the Manila Times article. That's certainly non trivial coverage from a published reliable source. --ScWizard (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think this Lincoln Journal Star article and this Manila Times article are enough to establish notability. People will continue to push their POV using unreliable internet sources, but that's a separate problem. --ScWizard (talk) 17:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. For all of the reasons and all of the sources that everyone has already mentioned. It may not have the sheer volume of reputable sources that, say, The New Yorker has, but what Webcomic does? I can't help but feel that there is a certain sense of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, both here and in the article talk section. Also, I think that the sheer amount of time spent by people arguing about CAD, defending CAD, and attacking CAD, both here and elsewhere, makes its own subtle arguement for the webcomic's notability. Also, not to beat a dead horse, but aren't we kind of beating a dead horse here? How many times has this article met, and surmounted, arguments about its notability? At some point, doesn't this just become a forum for people to say they don't like the article, and don't want it in Wikipedia?--Vercingetorix08 (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. > 2 indep. sources. i.e. fulfils WP:GNG. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Does it have the same level and breadth of sources that a GA/FA has? No. Does it have more sources and demonstrated notability than several stubs here? Yes. The fact that you can point at Penny Arcade,Something Positive,Sluggy Freelance, User Friendly, General Protection Fault as comics in the similar vein and progressing very similarly proves that we have taken on other articles that were in the same niche. (Yes I know I'm walking over the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but it does make a point). The fact that they've garnered enough notability to be parodied/featured in the other strips demonstrates their notability (at least in the community). Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep. I was going to close this "no consensus" as there is some doubt about whether or not some of the coverage mentioned is "significant" and I have my own doubts but the Manilla times article is "significant coverage" and the coverage in "A History of Webcomics" (dead tree) is likely significant. That's 2 and 2 is "multiple". Of course more would be better but I think those 2 along with the "maybes" mentioned just slightly pushes it above the bar. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rainer Mauersberger[edit]
- Rainer Mauersberger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So here's what I think happened. Young Laura comes to Wiki to write an article about her dad, Rainer Mauersberger. The article actually looks pretty good, and he appears to be Notable. There is the COI issue, so if anything it needs a COI tag. Anyway, later her dad himself logs on via IP address and requests it be deleted (see his note under the "redirects for deletion" tag. What are we supposed to do here? 1. we don't know it's actually Rainer who is behind that IP address. 2. he appears to be Notable at first glance. 3. Do we delete articles about people if the people themselves request it? I mean if we can confirm it's actually them requesting it. I'd personally like to honor such requests in most cases (except public figures etc), as god knows I wouldn't want a Wiki article about me if I were notable. 4. Since there is a request for deletion, I am listing it here for discussion. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He has 35 cites at G-Books and 50 cites at Scholar, and winning the Otto Hahn Medal might readily be construed as passing a notability bar; the website of the Max Planck Society, which awards the medal and has an enormous impact on scientific research, has 190 hits for Mauersberger there. For my own part, I'm against the notion that you can have an article about yourself deleted, notability be damned; no doubt there are all manner of criminals and celebrities who'd just love to scrub otherwise notable and documented facts about themselves from the public eye. In any event, we don't swallow much on an anon IP's unsupported say-so. Ravenswing 04:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of GS cites which are very small.Xxanthippe (talk) 05:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]- Are you sure? This search shows the top five as being 148, 128, 88, 87, 87, not that far off the top hits for interstellar spectroscopy. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, your figures give a respectable h index of 16, better than on the link at the top. In his CV he claims an h index of 39. Don't know what is going on here. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
DeleteComment The Otto Hahn medal, at least according to our article on the subject, is an award for promising junior scientists, so it doesn't really pass the level of WP:PROF on its ownsome.I see no other rationale for notability.Striking my delete !vote on the basis of David Eppstein's remark - it's strange, normally Gscholar is pretty good about this sort of thing. His CV is here, if anybody who knows observational astronomy cares to take a closer look. RayTalk 08:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Snow Keep. This is one of those instances where my skeptical feeling about GS seems justified:) WoS shows an h-index of 37 with ordered cites of 100, 99, 97...conclusive pass on WP:PROF #1. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep on basis of these h index findings. Odd about GS, which is usually fairly reasonable. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep based on Agricola44's findings. Ever since I found one of my own articles in GS marked as having been cited over 80 times, whereas only 1 or 2 of those citations actually checked out, I have stopped using GS for anything because it is too unreliable. Oh, and don't forget Ike Antkare... --Crusio (talk) 14:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David Horne (strongman)[edit]
- David Horne (strongman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure WP:PROMO by Ehorne (talk · contribs) in an obvious conflict of interest. Clearly not notable per WP:ATHLETE. bender235 (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's certainly lots of assertion for notability, but I can find no significant coverage about him. It is unclear that he meets athlete as a strongman. It appears he has won a competition named after himself? And the competition itself seems to not have any real coverage in reliable sources although I found some stuff in a blog. -- Whpq (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom, per Whpq. I saw nothing remotely notable either. – OhioStandard (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Wood (lawyer)[edit]
- Michael Wood (lawyer) (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 about a lawyer who received some media attention as a result of a single event (giving evidence to the Iraq Inquiry), but is otherwise a non-notable lawyer. Iftelse (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More importantly, he's one of the 34 members elected to the International Law Commission by the United Nations General Assembly. While I suspect that someone will argue that WP:POLITICIAN gives a free pass to state legislators but was not intended to include UN officials, there's no comparison between my local state rep and the persons who hammer out the details of international law documents before they're submitted to the world's nations, which would qualify under WP:BIO if nothing else. As with the members of the Federal Reserve Board, these individuals don't get much coverage, but I'd say that he and others would fall under the category of "Politicians... who have held international office". To interpret it as not including members of UN bodies would seem to be contrary to the purpose of favoring holders of an international office. Mandsford 20:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above and also because the chief lawyer to the UK's diplomatic service is the kind of position that should confer pretty much automatic notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - judges and commissioners of significant UN bodies would pass WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mandsford, Mkativerata, and Bearian. Clearly, there is notability beyond a single event.--JayJasper (talk) 22:14, 24 February 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. Scott Mac 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry D'Amigo[edit]
- Jerry D'Amigo (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/junior leaguer who has not been in the NHL. Was twice previously nominated for deletion. The result both times was Delete. Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Once he plays in the NHL, or plays 100 games in the AHL (he currently has 41), then the page can be re-created. Iftelse (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Meets the WP:GNG which supersedes WP:NHOCKEY.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He definitely meets WP:GNG (a Matter of fact Yahoo Sports wrote an article on him just a few days ago [14]). Also, he, arguably, satisfies WP:NHOCKEY as he was won Rookie of the Year at the NCAA level.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The reason that he currenty has an article, is 'cuz he's a hockey player. He doesn't meet NHOCKEY's criteria, however. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The criterion of NHOCKEY being misapplied here is to claim that "Rookie of the Year" is a "major award" comparable to being a First Team All-Star, an All-American or a top ten career all-time scorer, the other elements of N#4. This was not the original intent of the clause. Presuming that a Yahoo blog counts as a reliable sources, that's nice enough, but the links provided all fall under routine sports coverage debarred by WP:ROUTINE. Ravenswing 01:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that wasn't a yahoo blog article it's a yahoo sports as yahoo blogs have yahoo blog written on then. Also, you consider these routine coverage then I don't know what isn't then. This article [15] interviews him and his dad about his demotion. I don't thing thats just an article on an announcement as WP:ROUTINE says and most players don't get interviews like that when they get sent down unless they are a big prospect. This one reports on his season to date [16]. This one [17] writes on his impact on the Rangers. These are all on the article, so I don't know how you can say that the article sources are all routine coverage. You can find more on google easily.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, here's a yahoo blog [18]. You can also tell by the fact that yahoo blogs almost always have a comment section. Articles rarely do.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that wasn't a yahoo blog article it's a yahoo sports as yahoo blogs have yahoo blog written on then. Also, you consider these routine coverage then I don't know what isn't then. This article [15] interviews him and his dad about his demotion. I don't thing thats just an article on an announcement as WP:ROUTINE says and most players don't get interviews like that when they get sent down unless they are a big prospect. This one reports on his season to date [16]. This one [17] writes on his impact on the Rangers. These are all on the article, so I don't know how you can say that the article sources are all routine coverage. You can find more on google easily.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am on the fence with this one. He definitely was not notable the first time I nominated him. But alot has happened in the time between then and now, he has been written about a fair amount up here in Canada I am sure. I would have to look for sources to be sure though. It's definitely not a slam dunk delete or keep. -DJSasso (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep From WP:HOCKEY "Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline." it is clear he has non-trivial coverage. [19], [20] are enough by themselves. [21], [22], etc. are way more than needed to meet WP:N. And to argue that articles that are solely about the subject are somehow "routine" seems to turn WP:N on its head. Sure, we don't count coverage of matches, but sole coverage of a single person in an independent RS always counts toward WP:N. Hobit (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG.RonSigPi (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet NHOCKEY requirements.USA1168 (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How about Rookie of the Year at the NCAA level. Doesn't that fall under number 4 of NHOCKEY. --Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 11:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CLARIFICATION THE NCAA RotY last season was not D'Amigo, but Stephane Da Costa, D'Amigo was the ECAC RotY. And before anyone goes down that road, Da Costa ALSO meet NHOCKEY by representing France in 2 IIHF Worlds (not junior). ccwaters (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I said at the NCAA level not the NCAA Rookie of the Year. ECAC is a conference award much like the AL rookie of the year in the MLB. Also, D'Amigo was a rookie in 2009 not 2010.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, weakly - Honestly I'd never heard of rookie of the year awards being given at the collegiate level, but if they are...meh, it scrapes by. Tarc (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ford Ovoid design[edit]
- Ford Ovoid design (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 prodded by Wuhwuzdat (talk · contribs) for the reason: "pure opinion, see WP:OR, and WP:NPOV".
I endorsed this prod with: "Possible hoax, only 5 ghits". Author contested. OSborn arfcontribs. 18:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I doubt it's a hoax, but it doesn't really matter, This is just a factoid, not an entry. If someone wants to write an entire entry about Ford design, that might fly. Hairhorn (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The term "ovoid" design refers to motor vehicles with what we tend to think of as having "curves" or being "streamlined" as opposed to a box-shape. True, the term ovoid shape comes up in descriptions of the Ford Taurus, but it's not unique to Ford-- the Nissan Altima gets that reference also. The article is unsourced, and like Hairhorn, I'm inclined to say "even if true, so what". However, it's hard to take seriously statements like "The inspiration for the aesthetic was the oval Ford badge." Sorry, no. Mandsford 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Find On Road Dead...er, I mean Delete. Unsourced article that is at best inaccurate, and probably pushed into hoax category by the "inspired by the Ford badge" statement. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete nothing in gnews [23]. LibStar (talk) 06:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#G3 NW (Talk) 00:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Troh César Hougnonhouon[edit]
- Troh César Hougnonhouon (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:NFOOTBALL - recreate if/ when plays first team football in fully professional league or achieves GNG Zanoni (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: wasn't properly listed at AfD until today. GiantSnowman 18:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - another creation of Zombie433, complete with fake information and statistics. Player fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 18:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zombie433 has been blocked since August "for adding dubious material to biographical articles". That notwithstanding, there are five sources here, not a single one of which mentions Mr. Hougnonhouon. Mandsford 21:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ha'rai (book series)[edit]
- Ha'rai (book series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unpublished book by an unpublished author. Editor of the article is the author of the book. Editor made an addition in December 2010 that said, "Due to recent, drastic changes in formatting, publishing schedule, and even title, this article is no longer a valid information source." I've also nomitnated the author of the book, Riley Hulick, for deletion. Bgwhite (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete delete delete, blatant self-promotion of non-notable internet story. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, Sadads (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam with no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the "book" and the author, who is a high school kid. --MelanieN (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Riley Hulick[edit]
- Riley Hulick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Editor of the article and subject of the article are the same person. Article says he is an, "author, animator, director, and artist" and a High School student. His only authoring works is an unpublished book, Ha'rai (book series), that I've also nominated for deletion. Has self-published animation videos and won two non-notable, minor awards (my opinion) for his videos. Bgwhite (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, blatant vanity page for a guy who put something non-notable on the internet. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. Edward321 (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He sounds like a high-achiever for a high school kid, and I congratulate him on his ambition and productivity. Unforunately, he isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Not yet, anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy Day[edit]
- Wendy Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't see any notability per WP:ANYBIO. The article has no sources except for blogs, personal websites and MySpace pages. bender235 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not hard to find sources for this... see this on the Marketplace.org website, for instance. [Here she is on a panel on rap journalism. Or see Billboard, July 19, 2008, about her running a record label. The article could use a rewrite. Note: I just removed most of the article as a copyright violation of material on the Rap Coalition site. Brianyoumans (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep assuming that someone else fixes this mess and adds better sources. She is barely notable in my book. I tweeked the external sources, but somebody else with knowledge about rap music has to rescue this one. I have already done my share of rescues this month. Bearian (talk) 17:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Where is she located? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong yak 15:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Right on the knife edge of notability. If this article is cleaned up and reliable sources are added, it can probably be kept. SnottyWong talk 15:11, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think this article can be rescued, but I'm unfamiliar with hip hop in general, so I'm ill-equipped to do it. A Google News Archives search for '"Wendy Day" rap' turned up several articles. This NPR story seems like a good start, as does the book it excerpts from, The Big Payback, ISBN 9780451229298. On the other hand, that article says a lot of things not mentioned in the Wikipedia article, so I'm a little confused. Perhaps this article needs a rewrite? Hopefully, someone can take it from here. -- Ken_g6 (factors | composites) 05:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Based on notable news sources others have pointed out already covering her. Dream Focus 09:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The NPR story (and the book that the story is about) that Brianyoumans linked to above demonstrates pretty conclusively that she is notable. When I just add the word "rap" to a Google News search of her name, lots of reliable sources discussing her in depth pop right up. Cullen328 (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. delete all. May be temporarily undeleted to allow transfer elsewhere, or content e-mailed to creator on request. Scott Mac 22:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bevilacqua Dynasty[edit]
- Bevilacqua Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages (listing the userspace pages as they're basically the same content):
- Bevilacqua Dynasty Part II Primogenita Line of Verona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User:Victorbevilaqua/Bevilacqua Dynasty Part III Secondogenita Line of Verona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Victorbevilaqua/Bevilacqua dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Victorbevilaqua/new article name here (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User:Victorbevilaqua/Submit wikipedia article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Bevilacqua family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
These articles appear to be made out of thisn air, despite the amount of work put into them. See examples such as the author's repeated claims that a "Morando Bevilaqua" founded the city of Trento by building a castle and a church in the first century BC, and that this castle is current the Buonconsiglio Castle, and goes on with the same tone all over. Claiming at times that they're counts, but referring to their domain as "principality", and simply inserting them inside major events without any source I was able to find online supporting this. But really, the idea of them as founders of Trento by building a castle in the first century before Christ pretty much sums up the credibility of these articles. I've consulted a history of the Bevilaqua family that was available online, [24] and it mentions a completely different history for it, with no mention of any of the events these articles make. To me, it's really a case of somebody working a lot to insert his own family (the author of these article's Victor Bevilaqua) in history, with no basis to do so. Snowolf How can I help? 17:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a very strong recollection of having dealt with these articles before, but I can't find anything to back that up. They feel very, very wrong, their content is (as mentioned above) unverifiable, and I recommend that they be deleted. DS (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've come across these before too and support the above proposal to delete. I fully acknowledge that this may all be esoteric, yet accurate information, but unless the author comes forward in the near future with well-documented reliable sources to back at least some of the more extreme claims here, the whole lot is very suspect. Zachlipton (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some of this may be true, but there seem to be many exaggerations or vaguely misleading statements. It is also poorly written and almost impossible to figure out in parts. Out! (I'm not sure you can get rid of the user pages; unless the user is causing problems by adding inappropriate links to them, I think they are the user's business.) Brianyoumans (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I don't really care about the user pages. They can be noindex'd if they are kept. Zachlipton (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to questionable verifiability and possible original research. Edison (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy and ask him to move it to Familypedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno - does Familypedia accept material that's known to be false? And tis sort of content does show up in search engines - at the very least, it gets mirrored. He can save it to his own hard drive and work on it there. He can even install a local copy of MediaWiki. DS (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the articles, list the userpages at MFD. Apparent hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 'em all unless some verification can be found. --MelanieN (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment More care needs to be taken before declaring a hoax than has been taken here. If a stud racehorse (perhaps not a good analogy with respect to notability) sired a long line of racehorses that fairly consistently won races, it would be a hoax to claim that the racehorses flew around the world on gossamer wings meeting important figures from history, but claiming they won races would be a slam dunk. The "Bevilacqua Family" absolutely, without a doubt, exists. Check Google Books. They are covered extensively in multiple independent sources. While Reliable Sources exist, Notability is another matter. Other than a scandalous missionary that seduced Christian Chinese women in a wide area around the mission in Shandong in the 1730s (The spirit and the flesh in Shandong, 1650-1785 page 124 &125 David E. Mungello), and 20th C Bevilacquas that were terrorized by Fascists, the family seems to be notable for nothing more than owning mansions and sitting for portraits, unless there is some alternate spelling of Bevilacqua I do not know of, or some other such problem. Anarchangel (talk) 01:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is doubting that the Bevilacqua family exists. What we're all doubting are the claims made in the articles about the family's role in history, which no one has been able to find sources for. Real family, dubious statements of history. Zachlipton (talk) 01:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Institute of Modern Languages Dublin[edit]
- Institute of Modern Languages Dublin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable language institute. Travelbird (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find any coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So Fresh: The H!ts of Autumn 2011[edit]
- So Fresh: The H!ts of Autumn 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)
One of hundreds "best of 20XX" albums. No notable. Travelbird (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Album has not been released yet and even the article itself appears to be in an unfinished state. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:ADVERT. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ar1681 (talk) and jc3881 (talk):
- Delete - As mentioned above, there really is no point in having this article since the album not only has yet to be released, but also seems to be in an incomplete state.
- Delete - Incomplete article, album has yet to be released. No notable indication given. Needs firstly to be completed, to be able to judge correctly. Dutchdean (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Association of college recruiting executives[edit]
- Association of college recruiting executives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Google gives a 5 hits for this organization, one is this article, the other 4 are linkedin posts by a Ken Charles. At the moment I'm not really sure that this organization actually exists, much less is notable. Travelbird (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails verifiability. There is no indication that this organisation actually exists. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above. It's likely that an older organisation has more presence offline than online, but there's only so far I'm going to go to research that, it's the article writer's job. bobrayner (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete: This is a very old organization and does have more of a presence off-line as the previous members did not want a lot of publicity. We are trying to make the org more current. There are 15 member companies that are partnered in this org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrodd55 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Simply stating that its a very old organisation isn't going to help keep this article. What you need to do is provide independent reliable sources writing about this organisation such as magazines or journals. -- Whpq (talk) 17:25, 21 February 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.
This is ridiculous that a real organization is being removed from Wikipedia. There is a LinkedIn.com group page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.239.233 (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ironholds (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
LiveCode[edit]
- LiveCode (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. lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- LiveCode under the name of Revolution is given significant coverage in Wally Wang's Beginning Programming for Dummies, 4th edition. Chikako
- LiveCode is a re-labeling of the product Runtime Revolution which has been available and used extensively for almost 10 years. I suggest that the title be modified to include the phrase formerly Runtime Revolution (or later titles e.g. RevStudio, etc.) Marc Siskin
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. Advertisement (LiveCode is a much richer and far more powerful evolution of that original program, supporting multiple platforms, devices and many fundamental language extensions such as object-oriented behaviors.) for a minor programming language. Were this language significant, I'd expect to find books about it from people other than its publisher. Note that some book and scholar hits seem to refer to some kind of music software with a similar name. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Tone of the article has been modified to make the point of view more neutral. Bibliography, references and external links added. The fact that another software product may have a similar name doesn't seem relevant to this discussion. Devin Asay (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have updated the page to remove this reference that could be interpreted as advertising. I have added a number of additional links, including to one of the LiveCode courses being taught in higher education, one of the recent independent reviews and a number of 3rd party resource sites including documentation and 3rd party development frameworks.
- LiveCode is an established product with a relatively small but growing developer community. As Marc Siskin notes, the recent name change may contribute to the lack of references, but this should change as 3rd party LiveCode web sites update their sites. Regarding lhcoyc's "Advertisement" complaint, suggest the superlatives be toned down and features described in more neutral language. I know of a number of 3rd party web sites that deal with LiveCode (formerly Revolution) programming. External links and references can be improved by including those. - Devin Asay (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "established" and "relatively small" dont go well together. Without reliable sources it's hard to show notability here. 3rd party websites may or may not be reliable.--RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment RE "relatively small". Size of a user community isn't necessarily the determining factor in whether something qualifies as notable. I would argue that LiveCode is the most notable descendant of HyperCard, an enormously influential product in the 1980s and 90s. Perhaps this point ought to be made in the article--i.e., citations that make this point. And granted, 3rd party websites are of varying reliability, but a large number of sites that cite or are devoted to LiveCode (or whatever development tool) I would think are indications of notability. Devin Asay (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hypercard is certainly notable but that's not what this AFD is discussing. Can you provide reliable sources which charactize LiveCode as a "notable descendent" of Hypercard or is this your analysis? Also, the number of sites mentioning LiveCode doesn't do that much to establish its notability, significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources does. I'm still not seeing that in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Having now read through the Wikipedia guidance you referenced, I see your point re notability. Significance should be established by coverage in reliable sources.Devin Asay (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have added supporting citations from established tech publications to the article and modified the tone for a neutral point of view. Bibliographic citations have been added. External links significantly expanded to include a sample of reviews, tutorials, support sites, and third party frameworks. Two claims in the main body of the article still require citations; citation needed templates added. Further comments appreciated regarding this article. Devin Asay (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Marc Siskin's suggestion that either the title be modified to include the previous name, or that the previous page that was about Revolution (the product, not the company) be reinstated with a automatic forward to the new page. In regards to the request for sources, are there any old Hypercard discussions still on the 'net that refer people to Metacard, which became Revolution and now LiveCode? As Metacard/Revolution/LiveCode are essentially one in the same, any reference to Metacard or Revolution should be the same as a reference to LiveCode for purposes of referencing. Just a brief search brought up these pages:
- Gypsyware (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Of the above, the Register appears to be a reliable source, not so sure about the rest. Its just not rising to the required level of "significant coverage" This isn't a mater of finding Google hits on the name or previous name. It's about establishing notability. Echoing an earlier !voter above, I would think that a notable language would have a book written about it, especially one that has been around for a while. While I appreciate your eagerness to see an article included, I'm just not seeing notability here.
- Comment I agree with Marc Siskin's suggestion that either the title be modified to include the previous name, or that the previous page that was about Revolution (the product, not the company) be reinstated with a automatic forward to the new page. In regards to the request for sources, are there any old Hypercard discussions still on the 'net that refer people to Metacard, which became Revolution and now LiveCode? As Metacard/Revolution/LiveCode are essentially one in the same, any reference to Metacard or Revolution should be the same as a reference to LiveCode for purposes of referencing. Just a brief search brought up these pages:
- Keep. The Scotsman (major UK broadsheet newspaper), The Register, MacWorld, MacNN, Network World and PCWorld are all valid independent news organizations which do meet the criteria for notability under Wikipedia notability guidelines. Specifically they are valid as reliable sources, for demonstrating significant coverage and as independent sources. These sources do provide critical analysis, for example the platform won the Annual Editor's Choice award from MacWorld in 2004. When measuring against these criteria I count 10 of the 14 references as meeting the criteria - as specified on the Wikipedia notability page. There are two books, one of which is out of print (being in print is not a requirement for notability) and the other of which is linked in the Bibliography - Programming for Dummies, which extensively covers the platform. There is a link to one of the University Courses where the platform is taught. I have added a link to a paper given on the language to the WWW 2009 conference which is another valid source as the paper was invited by the conference committee. RunRevKev (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Another publication that is an independant reliable source which has covered is MacTech Magazine. MacTech is a print publication that has been in existence since 1984. There are two references to articles that covered Runtime Revolution, now LiveCode. In addition to the two article references there have been online news briefs covering the changes covering developments such as the change from Runtime Revolution to LiveCode. MJKTor (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Himalayan Academy Publications and Hinduism Today has used LiveCode for inhouse publications and web content production using internet enabled desktop applicaitons and as a CGI on it's web servers and for educational tools for over 12 years (since 1999 when it was called "Metacard"). Our daily blogs are generated by desk internet enabled desktop clients built with LiveCode and such dynamically generated pages as http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/lexicon/ use both LiveCode CGI and a LiveCode stack for content on the web server. We network volunteers around the world to do remote data entry and content development using LiveCode internet enabled desktop clients.
Kailasnatha —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment I am concerned about the number of users who appear to have arrived only for this AFD. Have they been solicited from another site? Stifle (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I noticed that as well. Vote canvassing? Sock puppets? Coincidence? its hard to say. I'm still concerned that so many of the references being pointed to in this AFD dont mention the product at all. Still not clear about the name change and if these are the same products or not. The Register is reasonable as a reliable source but some many of the others are questionable. --RadioFan (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this article from macnn.com:
Cunard (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]Runtime Revolution has dropped the "Revolution" moniker from its self-described "HyperCard descended" cross-platform rapid development environment and updated it under a new name, LiveCode.
- According to this article from macnn.com:
- Comment I noticed that as well. Vote canvassing? Sock puppets? Coincidence? its hard to say. I'm still concerned that so many of the references being pointed to in this AFD dont mention the product at all. Still not clear about the name change and if these are the same products or not. The Register is reasonable as a reliable source but some many of the others are questionable. --RadioFan (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sufficient coverage in reliable sources. LiveCode (formerly known as "Revolution") has received paragraphs of coverage in this article from The Register. It has received an in-depth review from MacTech. Both of these sources are reliable and independent of the subject. They are enough to allow LiveCode to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cricket World Cup media[edit]
- Cricket World Cup media (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 is primarily a collection of non-free images with insufficient rationale (the images have sufficient rationale for use in parent world cup articles). As for the rest of the content -- part of the content in the lede belongs in the Cricket World Cup article (already present), part in the individual world cup articles (already present). As far as actual media being discussed -- logos, mascots etc, they are already in the individual world cup articles. Delete —SpacemanSpiff 13:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 13:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my reasons here and the reasoning of the nomination. Nev1 (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this article is essentially an image gallery which is not what an article should be. Setting that aside, all the logos fail the WP:FAIR USE guidelines for images. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Diego Grez (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. StAnselm (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:16, 20 February 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 G3 as hoax. Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
China Smith (2012 series)[edit]
- China Smith (2012 series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. This article appears to be CRYSTAL. No sources or information about the show for future airdates. JJ98 (Talk) 09:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 17 February 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, unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Campus Notebook[edit]
- The Campus Notebook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deletion per A7 removed with no changes made to the article. Not a notable organization, no reliable third party sources. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also a COI issue here, with the account creating the article sharing the name of one of the founders, and the issue of sockpuppetry by IP, the account placed the hangon, two minutes later, the IP deleting the CSD tag (it has no other edits before or after.) Sven Manguard Wha? 07:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, db-web, db-spam. Hairhorn (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. The Campus Notebook offers all students the ability to earn scholarship money through our academic social network. We offer tools allowing users to become part of a class-based, online, academic network helping them learn from each other through collaboration. - Whpq (talk) 15:50, 18 February 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) 10:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of Spanish words of Italic origin[edit]
- List of Spanish words of Italic origin (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 was traswiki'd to Wiktionary in March 2010 after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Spanish words of Italic origin reached no consensus. The transwiki'd content has since been developed into wikt:Appendix:Spanish words of Italic origin. The content is therefore duplicated, making this page redundant.
I am also nominating 'List of Spanish words of Italian origin', which was split from 'List of Spanish words of Italic origin' following the earlier AfD.
- List of Spanish words of Italian origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cnilep (talk) 06:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 07:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unmaintainable as a WP article as language boundaries between Spanish and Occitan etc are too fluid, this kind of thing comes under the scope of wiktionary anyway. Bienfuxia (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all articles of this type WP is actually supposed to be an encyclopedia, not the sum of all information about every topic. If we have a policy "not a dictionary" how much less should WP be a data base of all words of all languages? Kitfoxxe (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is scope for these sort of articles here, for example List of English words of Chinese origin, but not with languages this closely related - unless people from the Spanish language wikipedia would like to develop it into a higher quality list of course. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Since all Romance languages are Italic languages by definition, doing this list correctly will necessarily include the entire core vocabulary of Spanish. Such a list would necessarily be unwieldy and unhelpful. Other articles of this type may be more manageable and informative, however. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Should we have articles on Korean words of Aztec origin or Finnish words of Arabic origin or the many thousands of other combinations? Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Does anyone want to discuss Icelandic exonyms etc again? —Tamfang (talk) 19:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Transwiki and delete, Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. >Radiant< 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - one putative (uncited and probably wrong no less) example does not make a list. Bearian (talk) 18:26, 26 February 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 as a G7 Author Request. Note that consensus, were I to be judging this as a proper close, seemed to be leaning strongly to a standard Delete, so bear that in mind when evaluating a future version under G4. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cacabred[edit]
- Cacabred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Queried AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources provided are not reliable and I sincerely doubt that this "Cacabred" is really one of the oldest names in England. If the info can be reliably sourced, it could be added to an article on the surname Cakebread later, should there be a need for an article on this - actually existent - surname. Travelbird (talk) 07:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neither of the sources provided are reliable. One appears to be a spammish self-published web site and the other is an online genealogical database that anyone can register to edit. Within the database is a link to another self-published web site that at the least appears to have some sincerely researched content, though still by no means a reliable source. As Travelbird indicates, a more realistic path, possible only assuming there are reliable sources available, would be to have an article on the contemporary surname Cakebread and include mentions of this earlier alternate spelling. Cacabred could then be justified as a redirect to the Cakebread surname article. older ≠ wiser 13:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As one of my ancestral names, Godwin, can be traced back to Godwin, Earl of Wessex, ie before 1066, it shows that there are older and more abundant names in existence, making Cacabred not very notable. Putney Bridge (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. I refuse to believe that a website offering to sell you DNA kits to prove you are a Cacabred is reliable in any sense of the word. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please delete this now!!!!!!!!!!!!
- I cannot be bothered anymore to use wikipedia.
- If you could have waited 5 minutes for me to finish the article then you would see all evidence etc. but I want nothing more to do with it.
- learn about DNA before posting that comment.
It is one of the oldest actually. I don't need you to believe it as this is a fact that can be proven (not by me as I have lost all interest) WRONG= Cacabred is "one of" the oldest recored names. NOT the oldest. who made that claim putney bridge? I never said it was notable either.
WRONG-The website does not offer to sell you DNA kits!
- just delete it it all now.
- Thanks for an informative time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cakebread (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 February 2011
- The claim that it is one of the oldest was never refuted. The point I was making is that being one of the oldest names is not notable in itself. I think this Afd has turned into a speedy G7 delete anyway Putney Bridge (talk) 15:21, 18 February 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. –MuZemike 20:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dropout from higher education: A case study in one public university in Phnom Penh[edit]
- Dropout from higher education: A case study in one public university in Phnom Penh (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 consisting of entirely original research, and highly promotional in tone. Written in first person, and hopelessly unsalvageable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as OR. Looks like a research paper for class. Travelbird (talk) 07:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia does not publish original research, or proposals for original research. JohnCD (talk) 09:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Clearly original research. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY --Ezhuks (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 20:49, 17 February 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. Scott Mac 18:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Sweetman[edit]
- Katherine Sweetman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A local artist who fails to meet WP:ARTIST
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —XinJeisan (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Media coverage is pretty localized, mostly around one event; don't see evidence that any of her work was a "a substantial part of a significant exhibition" (WP:ARTIST point 5). OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepComment Satisfies WP:GNG. The burning-your-bridges resignation has seven cites. In "Gringos que defienden Tijuana" (Gringo Tijuana to defend) Sweetman is the "gringo" in the title of the article, which is "substantial coverage" as well as international coverage. Coverage regarding the Free Phone is more than trivial. Unscintillating (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy criteria aside, I'm not at this point convinced that this topic is notable under WP:N: "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." There is a large body of self-published work supporting the article. Working through the references, what I see is ephemeral, I'm not seeing material of lasting interest. Reviewers might also want to consider if the burning-your-bridges resignation fits as a WP:BLP1E. I agree with Bearian's interest in seeing the viewpoint of an expert. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:N policy states, "...if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." Unscintillating (talk) 09:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Policy criteria aside, I'm not at this point convinced that this topic is notable under WP:N: "Article and list topics must be notable, or 'worthy of notice'." There is a large body of self-published work supporting the article. Working through the references, what I see is ephemeral, I'm not seeing material of lasting interest. Reviewers might also want to consider if the burning-your-bridges resignation fits as a WP:BLP1E. I agree with Bearian's interest in seeing the viewpoint of an expert. Unscintillating (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Artist
Creative professionals
WP:ARTIST artist:
- ...widely cited by peers (see: Controversial Activism)
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, ... that has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. (see: below substantial part of a significant international exhibition with Lui Velazquez, Tijuana)
- The person's work either ... has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, ... has won significant critical attention... (see: Controversial Activism)
substantial part of a significant international exhibition with Lui Velazquez, Tijuana
Lui Velazquez collaborative: Lui Velazquez was involved in numerous collaborations with other art museums, galleries and institutions including:
- Tijuana Cultural Center (CECUT), for the project "emergencia - agencia/emergente // emergency - emergent/agency" as part of Proyecto Cívico: Diálogos e Interrogantes.
- The Sense Lab in Montreal, Quebec, Lui Velazquez was one of the "molecules" in the international event Society of Molecules organized by the Sense Lab.
- Estacion Tijuana
Lui Velazquez Publications, Articles written by members of the Lui Velazquez collective on their works include: I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY in Digimag.it, an Italian New Media magazine, http://www.digicult.it/digimag/article.asp?id=1644 and Free Phone in the Inflexions journal, http://www.senselab.ca/inflexions/volume_4/tangents/sandiego/freephone.html See also:
- UCSD Grads Showcase Art South of the Border, Hector Trujillo, La Jolla Light, http://www.lajollalight.com/2009/05/20/ucsd-grads-showcase-art-south-of-the-border/
- Renegade House of Art, Derrik Chinn, Union Tribune, http://www.signonsandiego.com/weblogs/street/2009/may/12/renegade-house-of-art-lui-velazquez/
- Freephone Art Project offers the deported a chance to phone home*, Diane Haithman, Culture Monster, LA Times, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/05/freephone-project.html/
- New Drawings, Lara Bullock, THE Magazine, http://themagla.com/cgi-bin/artmagla/review.cgi?ID=2037/
substantial part of a significant international exhibition at La Casa del Tunel: Art Center, Tijuana Screening of Living in Tijuana, La Casa Túnel: Art Center, Colonia Federal, Tijuana, Mexico also see: Gringos que Defienden Tijuana, http://diez4.com/diez4/2010/extra-extra/gringos-que-defienden-tijuana/ GRINGOS LIVING IN TIJUANA, http://www.sdcitybeat.com/sandiego/event-4905-gringos-living-in-tijuana.html --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.2.217.88 (talk • contribs)
- Comment San Diego–Tijuana is a conurbation and, although there is an international border separating the two, they are economically and socially connected -- thus any coverage in Tijuana about Sweetman should be considered local rather than international in scope, as it should for any San Diego/Tijuana artists featured in either the English or Spanish language media on either side of the border. The American owner of La Casa del Tunel and La Casa del Tunel itself is prominently featured in the film Living in Tijuana, which means that a showing of the movie there is not an NPOV source in terms of demonstrating notability of the subject. Also as this article states, the Lui Velazquez Gallery Space was located in Tijuana, but initially funded by the subject's graduate art program in the United States (also per the logo on the website as well) However, the article, written in 2009, states that UCSD was no longer funding the project. And although no third party reliable source exists that I can find, the website has not been updated with any project past 2009 as well as mentioning gallery space in the past tense. The Lui Velazquez wikipedia article(also of questionable notability) also states that the space closed in 2009 as well, seemingly demonstrating the deep connection between UCSD's funding and the program's existence. XinJeisan (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Coverage is beyond local, and is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(Comment) and rescue, based on what I assume are good sources. Some of the external links need to be turned into references. Hence my tags. Bearian (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- I am concerned that so many of the external links are dead links. I am assuming less good faith. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No real assertion of notability. The blog protest would belong in Pincus' article, except he doesn't have one. Also per XinJeisan. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pincus doesn't have one but the San Diego Union-Tribune does the content about the blog protest could be merged into the UT article -- which would make a good section on the changes to the paper.
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong gab 15:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:ARTIST, local notability only. SnottyWong gab 15:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Meets WP:ARTIST, artist obviously widely cited by peers. Obviously created, or played a major role in creating or co-creating significant or well-known work, has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, and had won significant critical attention. Parties (above) that seem invested on deletion of this entry may know Ms. Sweetman personally, and they may have been involved in the local media-storm that was created after the release of Introduction/Resignation on the Union Tribune's site. Long-time arts critic Robert Pincus' wikipedia page also deleted by individuals above. Pincus' untimely lay-off ignited anger in the arts community that seems to be felt here. But obviously this entry is valid and individual controversial.
Other Significant Articles local and non-local (local) San Diego City Beat mentions controversial activism in Top Art News of 2010: The Local and International Art Stories of the Year, Kinsee Morlan, San Diego City Beat, December 2010 [1]
(Non Local) Getting Paid: Chicago art critics talk money, F News Magazine, Ania Szremski [2]
Bay Area Observer: Cheapskate Arts Coverage Backfires on Newspaper http://www.sfbayareaobserver.com/2010/11/cheapskate-arts-coverage-backfires-on.html
Los Angles Times: Arts Writers Urges Boycott of San Siego Union Tribune http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2010/11/arts-writers-urges-boycott-of-san-diego-union-tribune-.html
Los Angles Times: Freephone Art Project offers the deported a chance to phone home* http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/05/freephone-project.html
Modern Art Notes: By Tyler Green http://blogs.artinfo.com/modernartnotes/2010/11/newspaper-lays-off-critic-reader-lays-into-newspaper/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.116.200.123 (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have attempted show good faith throughout my engagement with this article. I opened the debate and I presented good faith counter-evidence in a straightforward manner expressing my belief that the artist was not notable per wikipedia policy, without making judgement on the quality of her work. However, since the IP above, in addition to deleting my comments on the article talk page, has expressed a lack of good faith toward the arguments and participants in this AfD, I decided to follow long standing suspicions and open up a sockpuppet investigation against the creator of this article User:Wikiuserz rights and the now two IPs that have made arguments against deletion on this page.
- I would have liked to complete this AfD in accordance to the philosophy of consensus the project upholds and was obviously willing to abide by any agreement made by the community rather than resort to this action. But it is important that those engaged in the debate are transparent in who they are, what their history is with this article, and that each comment on this page is traced to the individual who presented it. The SPI process, at this point, is the most transparent way to make sure this occurs in this discussion. XinJeisan (talk) 10:08, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The LA Times article is all about her. Ample coverage. Dream Focus 08:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is enough significant multiple reliable independent references to satisfy WP:N.4meter4 (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, coverage relates to a single event rather than being enduring and continuing. Stifle (talk) 18:30, 26 February 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. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Omar Baddar[edit]
- Omar Baddar (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 suggests to me that the subject is not notable. Being a former president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee might suggest some type of notability, but there are no reliable sources to actually write much here, if anything at all. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I found a couple of times where he was quoted in local newspapers and a couple of times where he was cited in academic publications, but none of this provided much of anything that could really be incorporated into the article to improve its claim to notability. Kansan (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless further independent reliable references that establish notability can be found.4meter4 (talk) 08:02, 26 February 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 Endgame (Rise Against album). (non-admin closure) Atmoz (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Architects (song)[edit]
- Architects (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. No assertion this single meets WP:NSONG. Zachlipton (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since it's not known if this is a single. Alex (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The official digital download of the song includes song-specific album art and is tagged as "Architects - Single". How is that not proof that it's at least some sort of single? 184.162.230.240 (talk) 05:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's really irrelevant whether it's a single. WP:NSONG states "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." The article gives no reason to believe that the song, whether it is a single or not, is of such import to merit its own article under the guidelines, and I can't find such any reason in my searching online either. Zachlipton (talk) 06:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the album article per WP:NSONG. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG at present. If notability is established in future, then the article can be re-established then. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the album per Nouse4aname. No evidence of notability as of now, but even if it was not released as a single that is not a valid deletion reason. The appropriate remedy per WP:NSONGS is a redirect. Rlendog (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to the album per Nouse4aname.4meter4 (talk) 08:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mindless Self Indulgence[edit]
- Mindless Self Indulgence (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’s multiple reasons why this band currently fails WP:NBAND. The references for one are not reliable, and for many reasons:
- Youtube and Twitter are outright unreliable, almost even unacceptable, websites to be used as sources.
- Biographicon is a wiki, thus its user-generated content could be a false mirror of us.
- Kerrang! no longer displays its current information about the band.
- Tourcrush is just a link to a Flash Player Animation, which is worthless and adds no value or understanding whatsoever to the article.
- Lindseyway, a website owned by one of the band members "LynZ" is far from being an independent reliable source.
- The only one that appears to be reliable is an article in the AltPress; however, that one is one of the exceptions to the first criteria of the notability guidelines for musicians, in that it includes an interview about a band member or promo ad for them.
- The rest of Google:Mindless Self Indulgence is lyrics databases or information that the band posted themselves on their own website (that is, anything with a mindlessselfindulgence in the url).
- Finally, most of the information found in Biographicon, AltPress and other websites etc. mainly cite this "LynZ" as an important individual to the genre of music in which she performs, but only tangentially mentions her relationship with the band itself. If it does appear that she herself meets WP:BIO, then that would warrant an article on her and not the band itself.
In short, there is no proof that has convinced me that this article/band would meet the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles, despite the attempts to use the sources above as credible references to support the article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep — I have friends that listen to this group and even gave them a listen myself two years back. The group is also signed to a notable label and members such as Jimmy Urine have been in the media and awards performances numerous times. They have also toured with Grammy Award winning bands such as Linkin Park, System of a Down and Rammstein. There is no reason at all for this article to be deleted. Plus the Google search results you made for the band (in which you attempted to pass as reasons for the article for the group to be deleted) doesn't mean that they aren't notable; just means that they haven't recently had a lot of media coverage due to it almost being 2 years since a studio album by them which they could even be releasing by this year. • GunMetal Angel 05:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A quick check of last.fm - http://www.last.fm/music/Mindless%20Self%20Indulgence - shows me that they have over 3000 listeners per week. Seems obvious that any deficiencies are with the article and not the notability of the band itself. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - my wife has their latest album and personally I think it's %(^%£&*ing awful, but Allmusic reveals that it got to number 27 on the Billboard 200, which would seem to be enough to pass criterion 2 of WP:NBAND. Also, coverage in reliable sources found here, here and in loads of other paywalled articles on Google News -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of independent sources and their last album, If, has charted. --Ezhuks (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep – A poorly established article does not directly imply a lack of notability, it simply means no one has taken the time to write a proper article. Remember, Wikipedia is a work in progress. According to the Alternative Press website, MSI have features in three different physical issues[25][26][27]. There is plenty of information out there to establish notability and write a decent article, someone just has to take the time to do so. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: I've never even listened to this band but I'm aware of their notability. They have 4 studio albums, 2 of which have charted on the Billboard 200, and 5 #1 Dance singles. Plenty of reliable source coverage as noted above by ChrisTheDude & Fezmar9. Clearly passes WP:NBAND. The nom's problems with the sources can be easily dealt with: remove the unreliable and replace with the reliable sources presented here. Makes me doubt that the nom made a good faith effort to find better sources before nominating the article, which is what you're supposed to do before AfD'ing. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - for the reasons stated above. MSI has also collaborated with notable artists Jamie Hewlett and Jhonen Vasquez, if that's anything. Marcipangris (talk) 14:50, 23 February 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. I'm ignoring the "merge and delete" contribution as invalid Scott Mac 23:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Hugh Dowding and Revolutionary Change during the Interwar Period[edit]
- Sir Hugh Dowding and Revolutionary Change during the Interwar Period (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essay, probably a college paper. Orange Mike | Talk 04:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Hugh Dowding— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Is there a reason why this is separate from an article regarding Hugh Dowding? Has this been spun out? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be a cut-and-paste job based on a college paper or academic article submission (probably the original poster's own). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything worth keeping to Hugh Dowding, 1st Baron Dowding, then delete (no need for a redirect, unlikely to be a valid search term or known by that name). bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ESSAY. I agree with OrangeMike that this sounds like somebody took their college paper, decided "huh, this would be good uploaded to Wikipedia", and didn't think to simply add relevant bits to the article about the fellow. As it is, I'm not sure there's anything worth salvaging here - IMHO, it would be better to simply take its single significant source and use it as a ref for expanding Dowding's bio article (if needed) from scratch. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; this is either someone's personal essay. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 21 February 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. Listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tomo Vladimirski[edit]
- Tomo Vladimirski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of citations. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep needs a refimprove, but the single link under ext links talks about a national gallery putting on an exhibition of his work and confirms the 'founder of Macedonian painting' claim. I've moved that link to an inline cite and added a reflist plus improve tag, with that I think it's enough to keep as a stub.--ThePaintedOne (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 10 February 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, J04n(talk page) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 100th anniversary retrospective in the National Gallery must make him notable, even though this will probably never be improved. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DJ LuDogg[edit]
- DJ LuDogg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability, lacks reliable sources, appears to fail WP:Musicians Studerby (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a case of a promotional article for a nn artist - and these articles are unfortunately becoming more and more common here on Wikipedia. Author User:Positive360 has contributed solely on this article over a course of several weeks. Along with the tone of the article this suggest that there may well be a WP:COI, i.e. self-promotion.
- The song reached #34 in a very specific category chart (Christian Rap) on a social networking site. That doesn't confer notability. He is not signed by a record company and all the refs provided are to facebook/myspace/blogs etc.
- The real problem I have with this article is that the author has gone to great lengths to give the appearance of notability by adding links to purported press releases, event calendars and other sites to give the impression that this person has coverage. On closer inspection all of this sites are user provided content sites or personal websites. Travelbird (talk) 07:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete --Musamies (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above, blatant self-promotion Postrock1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lily Shang[edit]
- Lily Shang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am very reluctant to suggest deletion of a page on a classical musician. I think any musician with a chair in an orchestra like the Toronto Symphony would probably be notable, but not their youth division--just as in other fields of endeavor. DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom, subject is not yet wiki notable. Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ubikwiti[edit]
- Ubikwiti (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 was previously nominated for deletion and inexplicably kept. The only Google news hits are press releases. The article itself gives zero reliable sources. I don't see anything here that even remotely meets WP:CORP. B (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not entirely sure why the discussion was closed as a keep before, but in any case, I don't see this meeting WP:CORP in any way either. Zachlipton (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no claim of notability. MLA (talk) 20:58, 17 February 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. this is actually a very difficult call. There are a lot of people citing guidelines WP:TRIVIA WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:NOT WP:OCAT but there's little real debate here, because no one is really exploring what the borderlines of any of these guidelines lie and how they interact. This might be a good point for a more general debate on lists, but I can't find consensus here, nor (whatever guidelines it may lie at the boundaries of, does this breach any policy). Scott Mac 23:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of people who adopted matronymic surnames[edit]
- List of people who adopted matronymic surnames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A useless and rather silly collection of information. This is the sort of nonsense that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock. E. Fokker (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: E. Fokker's reasoning amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which really is not a good basis for nominating something for deletion. The comment "A useless a rather silly collection of information. This is the sort of nonsense that makes Wikipedia a laughing stock" says more about his mindset than it does the value of this, which I created and defend as both interesting, possibly instructive, and is comprised entirely of notables whose pseudonyms are confirmed in every article. I suspect E. Fokker did not try to have the list speedy deleted because he knew that that would have failed. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Wikipedia is sort of nonsense and a laughing stock (and will always be), otherwise it wouldn't have articles about videogmaes, anime, porn actors, etc. Wikipedia is not only for scientific articles. 190.51.184.37 (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC) — 190.51.184.37 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete There are no sources, even with which this page would still be in dodgy territory. As of now, just original research and a no go. The Interior (Talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is not WP:OR because each individual's article confirms the information, and with only one exception, that information was not placed by me in each article. Should every article be scoured of the derivation of the professional surname of these notables? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If one were to use the sources in those articles that state the matronomial name change, and reference this list, it would be an improvement. But simply stating that our articles back this list up isn't enough, WP is not a reliable source. The utility of this article is also a problem, its title ensures that nobody would reach it from a search. Don't know what you mean about scouring other arts. The Interior (Talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As editors have taken on the task of sourcing this list, and its untenable name has been changed, I withdraw my delete. The Interior (Talk) 01:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If one were to use the sources in those articles that state the matronomial name change, and reference this list, it would be an improvement. But simply stating that our articles back this list up isn't enough, WP is not a reliable source. The utility of this article is also a problem, its title ensures that nobody would reach it from a search. Don't know what you mean about scouring other arts. The Interior (Talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It most certainly is not WP:OR because each individual's article confirms the information, and with only one exception, that information was not placed by me in each article. Should every article be scoured of the derivation of the professional surname of these notables? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep List demonstrates notability of the concept, contains useful and cited info. The Interior (Talk) 23:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - if someone wanted to make a table, that would be far more useful, but there's nothing here that couldn't be done as a category (supposing for the moment that it's an encyclopedic intersection). Also, if it is kept, it should be moved as this is obviously a joke name. "either personally or professionally" and "changed, adopted, or adjusted" are pointlessly lengthy ways of saying things that you could say with one word ... it's obviously a joke title, kinda like Wikipedia:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. --B (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A list of people who changed their names might be acceptable, but by mother's maiden name? That's just too trivial. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My first inclination was to vote delete as "Lists that are too specific are also a problem", but given that the default (at least in the western world) is to use the father's surname perhaps this could prove useful as a list of exceptions to that norm. I won't lose sleep if it is deleted, but if it's not it should be renamed to something like "List of people whose surname is their mother's maiden name". Imyourfoot (talk) 04:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, exactly, the father's surname is the default surname, hence this subcategory. I can change the name, which maybe is a bit lengthy but I wanted to be precise, to something like People whose surnames derived from their mother's maiden name but not for this doomed list. I'll recreate as a category as per B's suggestion ("but there's nothing here that couldn't be done as a category (supposing for the moment that it's an encyclopedic intersection))" and I guess I'll have to add reflinks from the subject's articles confirming same. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The lack of sources is the deal killer. And that must be one of the worst article titles I've seen on Wikipedia. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a list of existing Wiki articles - that should be enough as you can always got to them to find out more detail Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 13:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Life isn't all too serious and it does no harm Brookie :) - he's in the building somewhere! (Whisper...) 13:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sloppy, random, trivia. Changing one's name is something to note in the person's own biography, sure, but collectively this is a trivial intersection of errata. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Change it in to a CATEGORY Instead of an article it would be more useful as a category. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. A category based on this list would definitely not survive CFD. postdlf (talk) 19:17, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, assuming that sources can be found and cited indicating that some reliable source has discussed or commented upon the set of people who change their names to a maternal surname (to confirm that this is a notable topic). And definitely change the appalling title to something like "List of people who adopted matronymic surnames." The title of a list article need not fully explain the inclusion criteria for the list -- that can be done in the article text. This is one of those topics that would never fit into a paper encyclopedia, but can be included in Wikipedia -- assuming someone else has discussed the phenomenon on which the list is based. --Orlady (talk) 18:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up on my comment: I believe that WP:Notability of the list topic has been demonstrated -- as documented in the article as it now exists. The introductory section of the article cites several published sources that discuss the general phenomenon of people adopting a matronymic surname, including a recent trend in Sweden, the existence of advice to aspiring performers that suggests adopting such a name, and a report of how this phenomenon can be exploited in identify theft. Additionally, the sources cited for the list now provide numerous instances of published reliable sources reporting on a notable person's decision to use a matronymic surname, sometimes including discussion of the person's reasons for this choice. --Orlady (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Tarc. WP:TRIVIA. Bulldog123 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete changing names is not notable. Most married women in most societies make such a change. MLA (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's definitely got my vote for most awkward title for a Wikipedia article, and even a worse one for a category. There are both men and women on the list, and this isn't the same as a woman keeping the surname that she was born with. At the moment, there's a lack of context in this one for the explanation of why someone selects their maternal ancestral name, of which there are several, and there's nothing about what their name had been. I can guess why Shirley Schrift changed her name to Shelley Winters, but there are sources that would explain that as well. Mandsford 21:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK I get it, everybody. Maybe I'll recreate as a category after the list is deleted (i.e. Category:People who adopted matronymic surnames). Thanks for all the suggestions. One point, as raised by Mandsford, I do not know in all cases why the individual in question adopted a matronymic (or is it matrilineal?) surname. I can only know that they did. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 21:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please say that this list has far too cumbersome a title to be in Wikipedia? I am not voting for deletion - just renaming of the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and think of a better shorter name. Excellent list. There was just an article in the New York Times on people in Sweden doing this to get a better surname for the family. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We may have to suspend this discussion until the nominator agrees to stop vandalizing the article. I'm tired of adding sourced content, only to have it removed by the person who is intent on making the article disappear. --Orlady (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No I'm trying to enforce Wikipedia's BLP policy, you added just one pertinent source which I left intact. E. Fokker (talk) 01:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all of it should be left intact. People have been commenting on the merits of the article that you nominated, and removing most of the content while the discussion is going on something that is done by consensus of the participants support, not the act of any one editor. Every now and then we get an editor who does a one-person crusade to remove content on the theory that it must not be seen until a source is located. That type of practice doesn't last long. It's disruptive, and it's not much different than vandalism, no matter how noble one's intention might be. Wikipedia is a work in progress and the collaboration of many people, and the way it is improved is in sourcing that which is not sourced, which is why we have a "citation needed" tag. It not only tips the reader to take certain statements with a grain of salt, but, more importantly, it gives editors a chance to see what does need sourcing. The "remove it immediately" approach is appropriate in some limited cases where there is harmful material or when a page has been vandalized; otherwise, you simply label it as a statement that needs a citation. I honestly don't see the BLP concern at all. Is it defaming someone by saying that the name they use is derived from their mother's maiden name? I don't see it. Please wait until everyone has had a chance to contribute to the debate. If the consensus is to delete, then that will be the result. Mandsford 02:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You and I appear to use different counting systems -- I distinctly remember adding 3 sources to the article, two of which were about dead people (not BLPs). I also remember some sourced content that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) added.
Regardless of that, your persistence in blanking most of the article during this AfD looks remarkably like WP:Bad faith. Now that you have started this AfD, it would be nice if you would let the process run its course instead of trying to predetermine the outcome by blanking the article. --Orlady (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Keep
Delete while the people may be notable I can not find anything that claims that this intersection is notable. I don't care if the people are sources or not; I care if this has been commented on by journalists/scholars.This seeming unimportant topic has turned into a battle field of IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please chill people. This isn't worth the expended energy. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of asking a hypothetical and voting for delete, why don't you just type it into Google and find out? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I have nowhere enough time and I am trying to avoid drama. On Saturday I will look though my library/ebsco. If it changes anything, the new lead looks good and sows that the article is promising. I am changing to keep. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Instead of asking a hypothetical and voting for delete, why don't you just type it into Google and find out? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly defined list with inclusion criteria of a notable topic. I suspect most of the delete votes are a knee-jerk to the title. Once kept, that should be a discussion for the talkpage. Lugnuts (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article has already been renamed to List of people who adopted matronymic surnames. --Orlady (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per B. Article is inherently original research. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? If a source says: "Her stage name came from the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and from her mother, Rose Winter, an amateur soprano who had once won a Municipal Opera contest in St. Louis" or "She took her grandmother’s name, Bacal, at age eight, eventually adding the second l to make it easier to pronounce." or "When she was a drama and writing student at the University of Southern California, she substituted her mom's maiden name for "Reagan" and embraced liberal politics, carving out an independent identity from her dad, then the conservative governor." or "Dorothea Lange was born Dorothea Margaretta Nutzhorn in 1895, in Hoboken, New Jersey. She dropped her middle name and assumed her mother's maiden name after her father abandoned her and her mother." How is that original research? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I understand where Stifle is coming from, but I also think Stifle's conclusion is erroneous. I think Stifle is saying that the list is original research because it is not a list that was previously assembled by a reliable source. That would be a concern if this were a list such as "top 100 people who adopted their mother's maiden names" -- that is, a list with selection criteria that require some sort of subjective judgment. However, the only necessary determination of who belongs on the list (other than the person's WP:Notability) is an objective determination of whether the person adopted their mother's maiden name. Not every Wikipedia list needs to be a republication of a list assembled by a reliable source; this is one that does not. (However, if this list is to be kept, we do need to demonstrate that the topic of notable people adopting their mother's maiden names is a notable topic, based on the topic's being discussed by one or more reliable sources.) --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? If a source says: "Her stage name came from the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley and from her mother, Rose Winter, an amateur soprano who had once won a Municipal Opera contest in St. Louis" or "She took her grandmother’s name, Bacal, at age eight, eventually adding the second l to make it easier to pronounce." or "When she was a drama and writing student at the University of Southern California, she substituted her mom's maiden name for "Reagan" and embraced liberal politics, carving out an independent identity from her dad, then the conservative governor." or "Dorothea Lange was born Dorothea Margaretta Nutzhorn in 1895, in Hoboken, New Jersey. She dropped her middle name and assumed her mother's maiden name after her father abandoned her and her mother." How is that original research? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yet OR is defined as: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories — not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." By definition, if it is sourced, it can't be OR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Back to my theory of what it is that Stifle might be concerned about... A list such as The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time can not exist in Wikipedia unless a reliable source has previously published the list. Creating such a list without a source for the entire list -- even with sourced information about all of the individual items on the list -- would be original research. In contrast, this "matronymic surnames" list article is based solely onl objective information from published sources -- no subjective judgment is required to determine its contents, so assembling the list is not WP:OR. --Orlady (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, trivia as evidenced by the overly complicated title. Also, do not make a category per WP:OCAT. A list (or cat) of people that have an unremarkable thing in common is not encyclopedic. >Radiant< 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, please, please at least click on the article, even if you don't read it, before you comment. The name you are arguing against was changed, over a week ago which means you didn't even look at the article before you !voted to delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the article? It no longer carries the absurd title. Anyway, I am not aware that "being given a silly title when initially created" is a criterion for deletion. --Orlady (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to cut down on the number of people who are !voting based on the title I changed it in the header to the current title. I hope I didn't offend anyone. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or categorize as long as the title remains the shorter version. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Ridiculously trivial, not educational or significant.--Yaksar (let's chat) 05:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The old (long) name of the article biased too many positions above and prevented a reasonable discussion about whether the the topic meets WP:GNG. Default to no consensus so that the newly named article may be listed at AfD anew. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE; there's nothing particularly notable or significant about this. In at least a few cultures, adopting a matronymic surname is in fact the standard practice, or has been at some point. Even if restricted to modern Western cultures, it doesn't seem like a useful list. Robofish (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Those people haven't adopted a matronymic surname, they had been it given it at birth. There is a difference. These people adopted the name later in life or took the name against convention. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Lugnuts. Qrsdogg (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leankeep. From a sociological standpoint, there may be some interest in this type of thing, so I wouldn't say that it's particulary trivial.The lack of sourcing is an issue, but if we can get that taken care of,I see no particular reason to delete this. Kansan (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you consider lack of sourcing to be an issue with the article as it now exists, or are you reacting to comments made early in this discussion? When it was nominated the article cited no sources (this version). The current version lists 39 reference citations, including a couple of items that are cited more than once. --Orlady (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: - definable + notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete OR magnet, non-notable, clearly trivial topic, WP:NOT.·Maunus·ƛ· 03:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to teeter into the area WP:NOTDIRECTORY, particularly #7 and the categorizing people into this segment. I do not see how this "is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon." Barkeep Chat | $ 21:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please show how is it possible to insert Original Research into a list, let alone a list of people who either have matronymic surnames, and fit, or patronymic surnames, and don't.
- As for WP deciding who makes the list; it is not OR to edit, or we would all be blocked. And even consensus is in this case given little opportunity to decide what is notable enough to make the list and what is not; if a subject fits a list's parameters (which in this case are crystal clear, not always true of lists), the fact that the subject has an article on WP is enough. Furthermore, even subjects that do not have articles of their own do not make the article topic itself (which is what we should be discussing at AFD) not notable, see the latest discussion on list inclusion criteria: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Inclusion_criteria_for_Lists#Notability_of_items_within_a_stand-alone_list. "It is recognized that a list's topic may be deemed notable, even if it includes non-notable items".
- The 'WP is not a reliable source' argument is unwieldy in this case; unless someone wants to go to all the articles and find the sources, WP:IAR says 'maintaining' WP is best served by ignoring a requirement that is appropriate for inline citations of text, and only a preference for lists. Anarchangel (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandre Tremblay[edit]
- Alexandre Tremblay (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 footballer who fails WP:GNG (none of the sources even mention him), and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the first nomination was under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Lalli Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)</samll>[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable under any guideline Stu.W UK (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as non-notable, he fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. --Carioca (talk) 21:34, 22 February 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. –MuZemike 21:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Blue and White (University of Toronto)[edit]
- The Blue and White (University of Toronto) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
At the very least, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. I am unable to find reliable sources unaffiliated with the university indicating notability, at this time. Merits a mention somewhere in the U of T main article, but not an article, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does not seem too soon. It seems like this is based only on a lack of other sources. Most university publications never receive mention in any media outside of the university. For the older ones they may appear in university histories, but rarely do they make it into non-university books or national newspapers.Hellometoothree (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But we don't make an exception for university publications in Wikipedia:Notability. Perhaps "unaffiliated with the university" is too broad. Has the Varsity, at least, reported on the Blue and White launch? That'd be a start. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Varsity itself, is not really mentioned in any other newspapers, etc. As for coverage, I doubt they would cover their competitor. It is like Bell giving free ads to Rogers.Hellometoothree (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but the Varsity has book cites like this one. Let's see what others have to say. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Checked to see if The Varsity has reported on the launch. It doesn't look like it. I can't find any sources outside of The Blue and White itself which mention it. Notability at this point seems dubious. Based on what it says, looks like this wiki entry is largely a promotional tool.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable web site. Not a printed newspaper. Readership limited and not auditable. Fails WP:GNG. Kudpung (talk) 01:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Likely because its so new, it has no sourcing available to prove notability. I have defended many secondary student publication AfDs, like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Michigan Every Three Weekly and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Weekly, and even Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EphBlog (which was established and had many newspaper mentions, but I was in the minority and it was deleted), but this one just doesn't cut it. Sorry.--Milowent • talkblp-r 03:16, 18 February 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 Orwell, Ohio. –MuZemike 21:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Valley Middle School (Orwell,Ohio)[edit]
- Grand Valley Middle School (Orwell,Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable middle school. Bitmapped (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grand Valley High School (Orwell, Ohio) as suggested below, unless there's a district article. Mandsford 01:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge should be merged to one of the targets mentioned here and below.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per our standard procedure for primary and middle schools.--Kudpung (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Orwell, Ohio#Public School. Merging it to the high school would be unusual; we usually merge to the locality or school district. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 24 February 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 Orwell, Ohio. –MuZemike 21:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Valley Elementary (Orwell,Ohio)[edit]
- Grand Valley Elementary (Orwell,Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable elementary school. Bitmapped (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete elementary schools rarely meet notability guidelines and this one doesn't seem to be any different. RadioFan (talk) 01:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article creator is relatively new here, and wouldn't necessarily be aware of the debates over the years on how to deal with schools. There's no set policy on school notability, but WP:OUTCOMES#Education is the statement of how it is. Generally, high school articles (including Grand Valley High School (Orwell, Ohio)) are kept, and articles about middle schools and elementary schools are merged to an article about the district, if there is one. It's kind of the consensus that's been reached here in AfD; I think some of the folks who believe in committees tried to hammer out a policy and they didn't reach an agreement, which is just as well. I understand that the Grand Valley Local Schools is the district, so perhaps the solution is to incorporate the information to the elementary and middle schools in the article about the high school. I live in a town where the school district is the same way, overseeing an elementary, middle and high school. You could do an article about the district, but since the Grand Valley students move on to GVHS, it makes sense to merge the info there. Mandsford 01:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment regardless of history, the creator's experience level or any WP:OTHERSTUFF, all articles must meet WP:GNG and this one doesn't and I'm not seeing that changing.--RadioFan (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge should be merged to one of the targets mentioned here and above.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Grand Valley High School (Orwell, Ohio), same proposal for the middle school. Mandsford 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as per our standard procedure for primary and middle schools.--Kudpung (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Orwell, Ohio#Public School. Merging it to the high school would be unusual; we usually merge to the locality or school district. --MelanieN (talk) 01:19, 24 February 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 arguments for deletion (no assertion of notability) far outweigh the reasons for retention given. –MuZemike 21:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Power Point Ranger[edit]
- Power Point Ranger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable webcomic Melaen (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Superman7515 (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I still agree with deleting this article as it doesn't seem to be notable or mentioned anywhere other than Facebook fans, but did take another look at the article after the vandalism was reverted. Superman7515 (talk) 19:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though the webcomic itself is garbage, the article itself has some humor to it. Trayne13 (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)trayne13[reply]
- Note that Trayne13 has no edits outside this topic. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- and was one of the 3 SPAs who vandalised it. JohnCD (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC) [reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The guy was hacked and someone slandered him. Check the facebook page for PPR to see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.91.128.41 (talk • contribs)
- Note that 153.91.128.41 has no comments outside this discussion. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOCK? Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7
and G10-- nonnotable webcontentthat appears to be an attack page.Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]- For what it's worth I've looked at this after the attacks have been removed and it is still completely not notable webcontent and should be speedy deleted. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - This is an attack page (CSD-G10)! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)Vandalism reverted, but still weak delete due to notability issues. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article was vandalised, and the AfD nomination and comments above were made after that. I have reverted the vandalism. I express no opinion on whether this strip is notable, but I see no other reason for deletion. JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the webcomic is carried, quoted and recommended elsewhere on the internet, e.g. here, here, here and even here, the subject is notable and the article should be retained. Daffodillman (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If being linked to from 4 web sites (and even a forum!) equaled Wikipedia:Notability then we'd have an article on my cat. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, is your cat WP:INTERESTING? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, at least 4 people with access to the internet think my cat is WP:INTERESTING enough to lol about. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the level of notability of other webcomics with articles we'd have to embark on another round of wholesale deletions if we got rid of this one. Those four sites were just the first few in a fairly long list. Daffodillman (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct in that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on Wikipedia that also ought to be deleted. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, is your cat WP:INTERESTING? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vandalism aside, the comic doesn't (yet) appear to be notable. That might change down the line, and an article might be warranted if and when - but for now, Delete. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there is nothing that indicates notability. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:39, 19 February 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. –MuZemike 20:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lord of the Dance (musical) tour dates[edit]
- Lord of the Dance (musical) tour dates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of tour dates. Unreferenced. I highly doubt this is encyclopedic Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Maybe this would work for a Wiki devoted exclusively to this Irish music show, but not here. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to somewhere more appropriate. It's great detail to have it somewhere... but not really appropriate for Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "It's a great detail", yes, but who will prove it is correct? Unreferenced stuff must be transwikied to a dustbin. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Just an unsourced list noq (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (Nomination withdrawn). Imyourfoot (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edgar Wilson (footballer)[edit]
- Edgar Wilson (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines. Played one game for Manchester United in 1890, but I can't find any secondary sources about him other than statistics pages or apparent WP mirrors. Imyourfoot (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn as per below Imyourfoot (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we need a WP:COMMONSENSE approach, and though this guy has played in the FA Cup (which would normally show notability), he dramatically fails WP:GNG. If the article is improved, I'm happy to change my mind. GiantSnowman 15:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added a (very) little more to the article, but it's still only routine sports reporting/stats. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just out of interest, why does his FA Cup appearance, not his Alliance appearances make him notable?Stu.W UK (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In answer to Stu.W UK's question, I'd argue that an FA Cup appearance wouldn't necessarily make a player notable, although in Wilson's case it was a game between two professional clubs, the full season of Alliance appearances would. The Football Alliance was no less fully-professional than the early Football League. So despite the lack of significant media coverage available online – not really surprising at 120 years distance – my experience of local newspaper archives of the time is that I'd expect there to have been enough coverage of a regular first-team player to fill out a short article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Struway2. Patken4 (talk) 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Having heard the Football Alliance is notable, this player's appearances there demonstrate his notability. Stu.W UK (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's enough to satisfy me that he should be in WP. My one remaining concern is the article's maximum potential length. As I don't have access to newspaper archives concerning him I'm unsure whether there's much more content to be added despite meeting the notability requirements. If there is then great, no issue. If there isn't though it seems like this would be a candidate at some point for merging (though that raises the question of which article would be the best host). Normally I would wait a while to see how the article develops before mentioning that possibility, but my AFD template was the first edit to the page after its creation more than two years prior, so it's probably best to raise the question now while there's a bit of attention on it. Imyourfoot (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he made 19 league appearances then there is potential for more information to be added from archive sources, not that there's anything wrong with a stub per se. Also, I don't see where it would be merged to, or why? Eldumpo (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I have an aversion to an article being in a permanent stub state, and while my preferences aren't of any particular significance, I interpreted Wikipedia:Merging ("Reasons to merge a page include... minimal content that could be covered in or requires the context of a page on a broader topic") and Wikipedia:Integrate ("Stub articles belonging to a specific category with minimal content should be merged into a meta-article covering that subject matter") as suggesting they should be avoided. That said, your point about there not currently being a good page to merge this into is a perfectly valid one. In any case, since there's no longer any objection to the subject's notability and theoretical merge concerns can be taken care of at a later date, this Nomination is withdrawn. Imyourfoot (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Adeniyi (footballer)[edit]
- Peter Adeniyi (footballer) (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:NFOOTBALL as he has not played in a fully professional league. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 00:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 14:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Eastleigh are not fully pro, nor is their league Stu.W UK (talk) 04:38, 20 February 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. –MuZemike 20:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksandar Stojkoski[edit]
- Aleksandar Stojkoski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer who is yet to play a fully-professional game. Prod contested because he was at a club in the Macedonian First League, but I don't think he actually played a game for the club. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Any evidence that the Macedonian First League is actually fully-professional? GiantSnowman 14:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Picking up on Giant Snowman's point, Macedonian league is shown to be pro - have re-added the reference to WP:FPL. However, I note he is shown as not having played? Eldumpo (talk) 23:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that Eldumpo, much appreciated. You're right as well - no evidence this guy has even played, so the professional status of the league doesn't really matter. GiantSnowman 01:59, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Without a fully pro appearance he fails WP:NSPORT. He also fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:51, 24 February 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. Unsourced BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tessa Blake[edit]
- Tessa Blake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nomination for Deletion: Non-notability. One independent film does not render notable without significant coverage of the film and/or creator. Sparkleatom (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Sparkleatom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- no reliable sources can be found to establish any notability. 66.43.117.8 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC) — 66.43.117.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Scott Mac 23:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wiretree[edit]
- Wiretree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Band which doesn't yet appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. Claim to fame is being mentioned in Blurt magazine 1 1/2 years ago. Author, User:Kperoni, also seems to be the leader of this group, see WP:AUTO. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Desire of a page in Wikipedia for the band stems from recent recording of Austin City Limit's Satellite Set session, recorded on 1/26/2011. More accolades might be introduced at a later date depending on wikipedia guidlines for content. User:Kperoni\Kperoni Recent review [Review] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kperoni (talk • contribs) 20:21, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry - later isn't available for this article. You can come back with a new article when the guidelines are met, but at present it doesn't look like they are. According to the Cobaltworks Music site, there is only Wiretree recording for them. This suggests that you also are Cobaltworks - selfpublishing. Or that they are a non-notable micro-label. Also, being in Blurt may be one thing - but being a 'Best Kept Secret' suggests no-one much has heard of you yet. As I said, when you meet the requirements, come back, re-create an article containing your triumphs (but not harleys) on a subpage, and ask a regular editor for advice. Peridon (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Additions as of 01/05/2011: Added song appearance on Canadian TV show, as well as Austin City Limits taping (along with references of both events). Kperoni (talk) 07:05, 5 February 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep A borderline case, but TV appearances indicate we're missing something here. Should check whether band has toured, etc. I find that a good benchmark as to whether a page is self-promotion is to check how many people are listening to them on last.fm - you can see here that the answer is "some, but not many" http://www.last.fm/music/wiretree - I may be persuaded to change my vote. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:16, 17 February 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. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Dolphin[edit]
- Gary Dolphin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From speedy. Certainly not a speedy, but on the bubble for notability.
On the one hand, he's the voice of some major sports in the state of Iowa, where - since it doesn't have any major-league professional sports teams - the Hawkeyes are big news, and he has been for 13 years. He's presumably well-known to sports fans in Iowa, a polity with a population comparable to Lithuania.
On the other hand, he's just an announcer (and sports radio show host) in a relatively small market (for America). He doesn't seem to have gotten any major writeups in the Des Moines papers, that I find, and so doesn't meet the WP:GNG criteria of "significant coverage".
Does he meet WP:ENTERTAINER #2 ("Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following")? I don't know - it's seems reasonable to think that he might (depending on how one defines "large" and "fan"), but I don't have sources showing that he does. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral as nominator. Herostratus (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he's just another minor broadcaster on a minor station. There are tens of thousands like him. If he's locally important there'd be sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:GNG, but there isn't and absolutely zero evidence of a cult following! andy (talk) 10:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He is a broadcaster for The Hawkeye Radio Network which spans nearly 40 stations in Iowa and beyond. His broadcast partners Ed Podolak and Bobby Hansen already have articles. His predecessor, Jim Zabel has an article. Iowa does not have pro sports teams, so the Hawkeyes are the state's team. Dolphin, as well as the Hawkeyes, have a huge following in the state. Alex
- Hansen and Podolak played pro sports at the highest level for many years, and their articles talk about this first. As to Zabel, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS its arguable the he shouldn't have an article either. Herostratus (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep based on the verifiable fact that he was named "Iowa Sportscaster of the Year" by the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association in both 2000 and 2010. That's a major award from a notable national organization won not just once but twice. - Dravecky (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review, he's also the subject of a significant amount of in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources over a sustained period of time. I've barely scratched the surface and added a handful of these sources to the article and expanded it slightly. An editor with any interest in further expanding the article could easily find the resources to do so. - Dravecky (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not necessarily disputing you (and thank you very much for adding the refs), but those are notice in the Dubuque papers. I'd like to see some more in the Des Moines papers if not the Chicago papers before I concluded he was of more than local notability. However, Iowa sportcaster of the year is, in my view, worth noting. As I said earlier, Iowa has about as many people as Lithuania. If someone was twice Lithuanian sportscaster of the year, would he rate an article? I don't know, but its arguable that he would. Not changing from Neutral at this time, but now starting to lean toward Keep. Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's an example of FUTON bias, not a lack of articles. The Dubuque newspaper is available in full on Google News while the Des Moines Register is tucked behind a paywall and only partially searchable. There are good articles there (example: Peterson, Randy (June 21, 2007). "U of I radio voice says 'I do' to 2 weddings on same day". Des Moines Register. p. A1.) but I lack the resources to search them in-depth.) The Chicago Sun-Times archive only goes back to 1997 but Dolphin's career at Northwestern was from 1990 to 1996. There is some coverage in the Chicago Tribune archives but (for example: Sherman, Ed (January 12, 2001). "Bender Exits Bears' Booth After 2 Years". Chicago Tribune.) the text is inaccessible for free. - Dravecky (talk) 23:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not necessarily disputing you (and thank you very much for adding the refs), but those are notice in the Dubuque papers. I'd like to see some more in the Des Moines papers if not the Chicago papers before I concluded he was of more than local notability. However, Iowa sportcaster of the year is, in my view, worth noting. As I said earlier, Iowa has about as many people as Lithuania. If someone was twice Lithuanian sportscaster of the year, would he rate an article? I don't know, but its arguable that he would. Not changing from Neutral at this time, but now starting to lean toward Keep. Herostratus (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On further review, he's also the subject of a significant amount of in-depth coverage by reliable third-party sources over a sustained period of time. I've barely scratched the surface and added a handful of these sources to the article and expanded it slightly. An editor with any interest in further expanding the article could easily find the resources to do so. - Dravecky (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dravecky.4meter4 (talk) 08:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sources listed above appear to (very marginally) confer notability under WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparative Anatomy Museum of "Alexander" Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki[edit]
- Comparative Anatomy Museum of "Alexander" Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable museum. Apparently a local school project inflating itself by calling itself a "museum". No local coverage to be found. The fact that the "museum's" website is hosted by webs.com rather than the university's own website is indicative. There does not appear to be any mention of this facility on the University's website, and the only English language sources to be found are Facebook and similar pages. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 February 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. –MuZemike 20:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jay B. Ross[edit]
- Jay B. Ross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indications of notability. Many famous clients, but no significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lone contribution from an awesome editor; nothing added to it in the weeks that it's been up. He does exist, was a spokesman for the Godfather of Soul and has some notice [28], albeit as a footnote. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. Mandsford 20:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article has no details Consider deleting--Its019 (talk) 05:13, 18 February 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. –MuZemike 20:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Missional leader[edit]
- Missional leader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a neologism, which comes from a single book. The adjective "missional" is notable, but we already have missional living. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per nomination. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)confirmed sockpuppet -- Ϫ 15:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nomination. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Said book was published in 2006. When does a neologism become an accepted phrase? In any case, I am not sure it has become well known outside a few Pentecostal churches. It is not used in the Council of Churches/Mainline churches. Perhaps a redirect to "Missional living" may be all that is needed for now. Wikipedia is not going anywhere soon, unless you believe The Rapture is coming in May 2011. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 19 February 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 arguments for deletion given far outweigh the sole reason for retention here. –MuZemike 20:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turinah[edit]
- Turinah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fixing malformed nomination by User:ACEOREVIVED. His reason was
Stifle (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]I suggest we nominate the article on Turinah for deletion. This is about an Indonesian woman who makes the grandiose claim of being 157 - this seems rather far-fetched to me (it is not Jeanne Calment, where we have evidence that this woman did live to be 122). I would appreciate it if there could be a discussion on what to do with this article. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hovers somewhere in the realm of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Canadian Paul 05:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is at least a super all of whom have articles I believe, and there is a credible possibility that she could be a contender for oldest verifiable, once appropriate resources applied. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:46, 24 February 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.