Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 5
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Voltage (Skrillex album)[edit]
- Voltage (Skrillex album) (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 only thing that wasever confirmed was that Skrillex was working on an album called 'Voltage'. Since then the article for the album has bee bombarded with speculation and rumour. Nothing was referenced. Since the article's creation Bangarang was released and Voltage is nowhere to be seen, if it exists at all. There has been no information given apart from a title in an article last year. Because there is no information on the album, it does not meet the criteria specified Wikipedia:NALBUMS#Albums And should therefore be deleted. Alinblack (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Pure WP:CRYSTAL speculation. This article can only be written when there is more than just a vague rumour that the album exists. Note that I have restored the deleted unreferenced text, but tagged it for citations. If anyone can find citations that is great otherwise the article amounts to little more than a blog post. - Ahunt (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Not much more to say. Not worth keeping as an article about one track or song that someone performs or performed, which is the only comparatively solid info on this title. By the way, there's something wrong with the set-up of this discussion - and I hope someone sorts it out. If they don't, I'll have a go, and that's a threat rather than a promise... Peridon (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is completely incorrect. Skrillex was originall going to do a cd called Voltage, but it was turned into the EP titled Bangarang and never discussed again. There are no confirmed plans for any new eps as of April 1st, 2012 and this article easily misleads any Wikipedia user looking for information on Skrillex releases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.165.179 (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If what you say here is accurate then this would be another reason to delete this article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Rumoured speculation is not verifiable. Unreleased album is not notable. OBVIOUS delete is obvious. (Redundant statement is redundant :P) --♪ ChrisBkoolio ... (Talk) 02:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted as this AfD was never properly transcluded in the log.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No significant coverage in reliable sources, no confirmed release date or track listing. If/when this album is released, the coverage will presumably follow for this notable artist. An article can be created at that time. For now, this possible upcoming release does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS at this time. Gongshow Talk 07:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| express _ 18:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AJ Maldonado[edit]
- AJ Maldonado (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 have worked through this article checking each reference. None of them had anything to do with the subject of the article (e.g., the article said he managed a band and the reference was to the band's web site). So I removed those. Then having cleaned up all the CV style writing I'm left with the view that actually there's insufficient notability for an article. I can't find any decent sources. QU TalkQu 21:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Seems to be a normal entertainment professional; there's no reason he would be notable, and no reliable sources to back up such a claim. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, what I get from the article is that this person is essentially a run-of-the-mill session musician and contractor. Possibly very good at their job, but does not meet WP:CREATIVE by a long shot. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - No signficant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Dumb and Dumber. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dumb and Dumber 2[edit]
- Dumb and Dumber 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTREVIEW. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 21:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Dumb and Dumber. This will absolutely merit an article once filming starts, but right now there's only mentions that the film will start production in September and that Carrey and Daniels are supposed to return. I think I actually saw in one of the articles that the film wasn't even yet greenlit, so it's just WP:TOOSOON right now. This might actually do well in our incubator until more sources can be found that discuss more than just the recent press junket. For right now though, it can be pretty easily summarized in the "sequel" section for Dumb and Dumber.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the original film; this is far in the future and not notable yet. --Colapeninsula (talk)
- Delete. We have a guideline dealing with this specifically, WP:NFF. Nymf hideliho! 18:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Tokyogirl79. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 18:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran[edit]
- Abdullah Jalghoom research on Quran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Topic, from what I'm guessing, appears to be some sort of numerology within the Koran. There are four total references, one of which is a translation and three are actually different ways of accessing the same self-published book. Google books turns up 3 results for "Abdullah Jalghoom", none really useful. A google search also turns up little of use - wikipedia first, followed by Facebook, then a bunch of personal web pages. The external links appear to be first a blog, followed by the raw data in the from of google documents. I would venture that this page does not pass our criteria for notability, and is problematic for original research, promotion and indiscriminate information reasons. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - due to the fact that this is all unverifiable OR. Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 21:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete I think it is a clear mistake to say that the three other sources are the same as the arabic book (the first reference). The other references are links related to research by Halis Aydemir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.88.119.175 (talk) 08:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fringe belief without significant coverage makes it non-notable / very deletable. QU TalkQu 20:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The bulk of the sourcing is self-published, and the remainder is from an obscure religious publisher. There are also fundamental NPOV problems, one could cite sources like this that present an opposite viewpoint than the one represented in the article. I don't think either side has reliable sources to present their ideas, I don't think there are enough reliable sources to correct the problems others have mentioned in this AFD. Polyquest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. Extremely poor quality numerology from poor sources and no redeeming features. Makes claims which are mathematical nonsense. Zerotalk 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete. Neccessary changes have been made to the article to keep it neutral and unreliable sources have been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.244.33 (talk • contribs) 08:50, April 9, 2012
If you scroll down the link ‘The Secrets of the Order of the Quran: A Contemporary Reading’ you will find that University of Michigan has published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.105.85.117 (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it says that the copy scanned by Google was from University of Michigan, not that they published it. The publisher is stated. Zerotalk 11:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The author of that book is Abdullah Jalghoom. Non-notable researcher with non-notable research. It has not been considered notible enough for anyone to write a citable alternative POV. The blog post linked to by Polyquest above seems to be the only attention non-advocates have given it, and shows it would be easy for citable critics to give another POV had they considered it notable. As there are no citable critics, the page simply serves as promoting fringe religious numerology. There are many, many such examples of Qur'anic numerology claims which do not have wikipedia pages. Gamma737 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Per WP:BLP1E. ‑Scottywong| gossip _ 19:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Lee (law enforcement)[edit]
- Bill Lee (law enforcement) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this article for discussion because I'm unsure if it should be included in Wikipedia or not. Bill Lee is the chief of police for a small city (Sanford, Florida, population 54000). That is a significant position, but we don't generally do articles for every local leader. To the best of my knowledge, he is the only local leader from Sanford with a Wikipedia article. Neither the Mayor nor the City Manager have one. He got an article because he was involved with the police handling of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin (a widely reported current event). His actions have been criticized in the popular press and he has taken a leave of absence. These circumstances obviously touch on issues of WP:BLP1E. If we agree that he would not have had an article aside from this current event, then it should probably be deleted and redirected to the shooting article. On the other hand, he is a public figure, so there might be enough notability to justify his inclusion, but I don't think the current article does much to make that case. Dragons flight (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Being an unelected official at a local level really isn't enough to demonstrate notability. WP:POLITICIAN suggests that a local official must have had significant press coverage - so much so that they're part of the enduring historical record of a place. This single event is not enough to establish that, so he is not notable. Having said that, the redirect might be useful for some people looking for information on the case. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We need articles on public officials just as a reference for their affected populations. Public office holders are very important public figures-- it's embarrassing for us to do a better job documenting actors than public officeholders. --HectorMoffet (talk) 12:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We only cover significant public officials who're of wider interest. If any article is only of conceivable interest to 54,000 people, we have to think carefully about whether it's merited. It's unlikely we'd cover an actor who never performed outside Sanford, FL. Bill Lee might be notable because he's involved in a nationally-important story, but not because he's police chief to less than 1/100000 th of the world's population. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have lots of pages on the heads of law enforcement agencies. If anything, we should worry about not having enough-- being controversial does increase the chances we've gotten around documenting local officials, but it creates a certain systemic bias. --HectorMoffet (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We only cover significant public officials who're of wider interest. If any article is only of conceivable interest to 54,000 people, we have to think carefully about whether it's merited. It's unlikely we'd cover an actor who never performed outside Sanford, FL. Bill Lee might be notable because he's involved in a nationally-important story, but not because he's police chief to less than 1/100000 th of the world's population. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, would be just another anonymous civil servant if not for a single unfortunate event. Would not object to a redirect to Shooting of Trayvon Martin, but I consider this article title to be an unlikely entry point for readers. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Given that it was posted with the same data from the current article and his role is minor it doesn't seem to meet notability. While it is true we have a lack of detail on public figures, Bill Lee played a small role in a big case and his actions have essentially ceased on that case. Might as well have a bio for every lawyer in a case or every officer who played a role in said case. Seems fair under 1E that his role be mentioned in the article as the article doesn't meet WP:NOTE. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only matter that made him notable is the handling of the Trayvon Martin killing, and he is appropriately included in the shooting and investigation articles. As a result of events surrounding the investigation of the killing, Lee is no longer in office and a separate biography is not warranted at this time. If more information regarding his role in the investigation should come out, likely it can be handled in the existing articles.Tvoz/talk 21:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 23:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NewOrleans.com[edit]
- NewOrleans.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article created by a known paid article writer who often is willing to write articles on marginal subjects. Just passes G11 in my opinion, but has no real sources for notability. The nearest is the one in DNJjournal, a source whose reliability I do not think we have previously considered. Prod removed by someone whom I presume is another of the writer's many sockpuppets. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB as article is merely a description of the site's contents. We are not a mirror site here to improve their SEO rankings. The site's contents do not appear to have been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works or won any notable awards. Although it touts itself as the "official" tourism site for the city, note there is also neworleansonline.com which claims the same thing, and it appears to in fact be quasi-official (in the way a chamber of commerce is quasi-official) as it is run by the Orleans Tourism Marketing Corporation, whose board is "appointed by the Mayor and approved by the City Council". The geodomain tidbit might be worth a short summary in the Geodomain article. Valfontis (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promotional, fails WP:WEB. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Keep, the entry may need an edit on the travel guide/hotel sections, but delete? No. Will other transactional and geodomains get the same treatment? Vegas.com, Orbitz, Expedia. The site has only been around in its current mode for a year -- all things considered, the published works (and sources) are adequate and legit. Source of article is irrelevant. Molly Staples (talk) 14:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Molly Staples (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This entry is just as valid and relevant as other other transactional sites and geodomains such as Vegas.com, Orbitz, Expedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwhite2012 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Wikiwhite2012 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Blocked sock 86.** IP (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]- This is known as an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument and is generally regarded as invalid by closing administrators. The question is why THIS should exist in terms of it being the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published so-called "reliable sources." Is this an entity examined in this manner in trade journals, etc.? THAT is the question. For what it's worth, of the three other companies you mention I suspect the first is most similar to this one and would suffer a similar fate if a notability challenge were made and the other two are much larger entities that would probably pass a notability challenge instantly. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, it encouraged me to open WP:Articles for deletion/VEGAS.com (2nd nomination), so not completely useless, for once. 86.** IP (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is known as an "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" argument and is generally regarded as invalid by closing administrators. The question is why THIS should exist in terms of it being the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in independently-published so-called "reliable sources." Is this an entity examined in this manner in trade journals, etc.? THAT is the question. For what it's worth, of the three other companies you mention I suspect the first is most similar to this one and would suffer a similar fate if a notability challenge were made and the other two are much larger entities that would probably pass a notability challenge instantly. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This might reach the level of external link for New Orleans, but certainly is not on the level of its own article. Pretty much every single town out there has one or more pages like this. They hardly rise to the level of being notable in themselves, unless they manage to horribly embarrass themselves somehow (e.g. the Scunthorpe problem). 86.** IP (talk) 15:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete none of the content of the article establishes notability. OSborn arfcontribs. 04:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Clearly commercial in intent. No opinion as to notability. Carrite (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedied G7 by TexasAndroid (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darkracer-Linux[edit]
- Darkracer-Linux (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 vanity project with no evidence of any 3rd party notability. This isn't "Anonymous' own Hacking-Heavy OS", it's just Debian wearing a plastic mask they bought in the comic shop. Bundling a few tools onto the CD isn't innovation, citing your own blogs isn't WP:RS.
Its creator, Subhash sasidharakurup's, article is also at AfD. There are serious COI and socking issues about the authorship of both of these articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted by dint of CSD#G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban (non-admin closure). --Lambiam 18:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Asif's relativistic charge and field equations[edit]
- Asif's relativistic charge and field equations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violation of Charge invariance principle obviously. And who is Asif? Never heard. Even there are no references for those claim. I believe its just non sense. Shriram (talk) 17:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow close with a Speedy delete. Unadulterated OR. Asif is presumably the author of this article, a sockpuppeteer who self-identifies as Asif Ali Leghari, the same as here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asif's theory of charge energy equivalence. --Lambiam 18:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Unanimity amongst the commentators that the subject fails notability guidelines due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. TerriersFan (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond Kuts[edit]
- Diamond Kuts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Totally non-notable, no celebrity, posting up their wiki-CV, to get their page hits up with their FB account and so on. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC and so on. CaptainScreebo Parley! 17:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Mentioned here and there but no substantial coverage about her. -- Whpq (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I also find this subject falls short of WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSIC, especially for a lack of in-depth coverage. It seems WP:TOOSOON for this subject to have a stand-alone article. JFHJr (㊟) 19:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding enough evidence to conclude this person satisfies WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow Talk 04:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was nomination withdrawn. WWGB (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Oksana Makar[edit]
- Murder of Oksana Makar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason
I think this page should be deleted. It describes events that happened within the last month that while did receive some coverage in English speaking media did not receive much coverage outside of the Ukraine (and there is an article in Russian about the same events that caters for local people ).
Too little time has passed to assess significance of the events.
The suspects who have been named on this page have not been convicted yet and their defence has not been herd yet.
While the case has received a considerable amount of media attention in the Ukraine over the last few weeks, objective coverage might also necessitate inclusion of information that might be adverse to the victim. Also once cirtain information about the victim and the family became known the amount of interest in the case has gone down considerably - so there is no reason to believe at this point in time that the interest in the case was not just a passing contemporaneous interest in news.
Given all this and the fact that Wikipedia is neither a newspaper, nor forum for campaigning, nor memorial site I propose that the page is deleted. Oxy20 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will say one thing as far as your argument goes. We do not delete articles because potentially negative things might come up about the victim that could put them into a negative light or could potentially hurt the feelings of their family members. If one of them came on here and specifically stated that they wanted the page removed then that's a different matter, but we can't really delete something because it could be negative for the person who died. As long as it's done objectively and isn't done as an attack, then it's within the bounds of Wikipedia to put both positive and negative things about the victim. As far as coverage goes, the coverage doesn't have to be entirely in English. If there's extensive coverage in another language that's considered to pass WP:RS, then it shows just as much notability as English sources would. I haven't viewed any of the sources, but I just wanted to voice this.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - multiple reliable sources exist, both Ukrainian and English language (including BBC), showing case is notable at home and internationally. The case has been huge in the Ukraine and led to mass public protests. Clearly notable and not run-of-the-mill. As to what the family might think - well, they went out of the way to get media coverage (Makar made a video while in hospital, before her death, asking for retribution for her attackers). I can only presume Oxy20 is thinking of the suggestions that Makar was a prostitute as being something that would upset the family - I've heard these rumours but they aren't (and haven't been) in the article. Lastly, I find it strange that Oxy20 created his/her account solely for the purpose of starting this AFD. Malick78 (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While rapes aren't generally notable, the subsequent murder in this case received a wide response due to its cruelty and there was a controversy because not all suspects were charged. Brandmeistertalk 19:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although it is a recent event, the international news coverage seems significant enough to provide notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I draw your attention that the participant Oxy20 only today (April 5, 2012) registered in the "Wikipedia-Russian", "Wikipedia-English". And today Oxy20 began fighting for the removal of "Makar Oksana" on Wikipedia-English, Wikipedia-Russian.
- Wikipedia-ru article on "Makar Oksana" was put up for deletion, but was abandoned a week ago. In the Ukraine has been experiencing political repression, and the authorities are trying to remove "any mention of the protests"!!
- Oksana Makar has never been a prostitute. Oksana's sister is a doctor in a military hospital in the city of Nikolayev. Grandpa Oksana had the title of "Distinguished Teacher". In recent years, Oksana lived in the house with her grandmother (grandfather died.) Oksana's mother lived in Kiev. However, Oksana's father is a thief-recidivist, and now he is in prison for stealing a car. It is a fact.
- Oksana Makar was not a prostitute. The reason for the murder - Oksana refused to love official Prysyazhnyuk. Customer was Prysyazhnyuk. Contractor was Krasnoshchek. The investigation revealed that the killers were preparing this crime a few months.
- People in Nikolayev said that Oksana clonidine poisoning, and she seemed dead even when she was set on fire.
- Protests arose because in the past year - there have been several similar cases when "members of parliament from Yanukovich's party" does not even have been convicted for the brutal murder (Demishkan) and the beating of a young lady (Landik).
- Protests arose because Oksana tried to kill at the International Women's Day March 8.
- 500 people donated blood for Oksana. Collected about two hundred thousand dollars for treatment. He was buried near the monument to soldiers of World War II. Honors given to all managers in the region and President Yanukovych.
- The newspaper «The New York Times" wrote, "Oksana Makar came into this world to open the eyes of Ukrainian society".--Vles1 (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repply to Gene93kThe statements made by Gene93k turn this almost into a political discussion. There is as much evidence pointing to the fact that she was a prostitute and her mother, father and stepfather were criminals as there is evidence to support virtually any other statement on the article page. There are indicators that it has quite a major relevance to what has happened but it is to be heard in the Court of Law first and only then it can be ascertained as a fact. I understand there are quite a few campaigners from Ukraine here who use Wikipedia to make their political point. Russian version page is highly controversial and has been subject of editing wars and now is under NPOV. ________English version does not come anywhere close to that level of questionable content, however naming suspects before any trial, and referring to painters and plumbers as children of “ex-government officials from the Mykolayiv area who were connected to local politicians” is most certainly misleading. _______ If this page is kept it will have to be updated once court proceedings commence and things become much clearer. I suspect those updates will not be what strongly political users like Gene93k want to hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxy20 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Major international attention for a rape case is unusual.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep This group rape, attempt to kill and finally murder got such a wide attention that the article should be kept. A simple Google Search for English spelling of "Oksana Makar" gives About 945,000 results and growing. On a side note, the nomination of by Oxy20 and subsequent tries to show how the victim was not a good person shows serious morale issues. what's up with the double standards? What, some people can be raped and killed and others shouldn't? He/she tries to find any excuse to delete the information from Wikipedia. I don't like how the nominator makes statements about others (Gene93k) and accuses Gene93k in some political views. We need to discuss articles and not Wikipeida users. Coming back to the article, the mention that Russian version is under the NPOV as of now is not true. Oleg Y. (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Repply to Oleg Yunakov Her being a prostitute as well as other illegality background is likely to have played a part in why this happened (and no this was not some sort of cleansing attack on prostitutes). Many other widely reported issues such as relating to the fundraising and fund allocation also have been omitted. If this is not a memorial site but an objctive article these issues - like it or not will have to be covered eventually. The Russian site does appear to have editing wars and NPOV is being taken in and out repeatedly. The Russian site which goes on to discuss what has happpned in extreme details based on dubious sources is clear non NPOV. The rules on that is clear - if some people think it is then it is very likely to be. This article is also probably non NPOV and once the Court hears the case in about 2 months time it might well require some changes. The problem is not too many people will want to make those changes and make the article NPOV. Just like on the Rusiian site now - some people (and yes myself included) recognise non-NPOV and are prepared to raise NPOV but no one appears to have a desire to write about it from NPOV at this point in time - not least because most people recognising NPOV issues do not want to write before the trial. Oxy20 (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While the deceased individual is not notable, there is more than enough international media attention, and a range of reliable independent sources, to judge this topic to be notable. WWGB (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This event is notable in Ukraine. If it is notable in Ukraine, it is notable enough for Wikipedia. Remember Wikipedia is an international encyclopaedia. Wikipedia:Notability makes no mention of what language coverage in the media needs to be in. So the argument that it has less coverage in English than in Russian and Ukrainian is not relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. I'm writing from Germany and a few days ago Oksana Makars fate was reported in the television news. I for one would keep it for the following reasons:
- a young women has been raped (doesn't matter if prostitute, married or whatsoever)
- it was three rapers
- the rapers thought she is dead i.e. that they successfully killed her
- the extreme cruelty of the deed
- the fact, that the rapers were set free at first because of intervention of their prominent parents
- in the Ukraine people are convinced that several crimes before also did not come to court because of corruption and nepotism
- the fact that Oksana Makar survived her tortures
- the fact that she could accuse those who did that to her
- the fact that she suffered forth in hospital (both legs and one arm amputated)
- her unshattered will to live despite all that
- her death
- her burial
One could take it for a greek tragedy but it's REAL. Oksana Makars fate could have impetus enough to show the world, that violation is not a peccadillo but a very serious crime with serious consequences for all those envolved.--Dudy001 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Too little time has passed to assess significance of the events." - How much time passed since the event occurred is a good amount of time passed to assess significance? Is Wikipedia not supposed to simply state the fact? Human being passed away and cannot benefit from it for any mercantile reasons that would hurt Wikipedia. I am Ukrainian and realize that this tragedy is an echo of general moral state of Ukrainian society, as I was unfortunate enough to come across of moral inaptitude same origins. Now I see that this were symptoms of common and widespread plague. Whose fault is it that the tragedy became on the tip of everyone’s tongue as a result of brutal cruelty?--Datsyuk 15:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Datsyuk (talk • contribs)
- Strong Keep - This is the Ukrainian equivalent to the Trayvon Martin shooting.--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree that it should be kept. The reason for that is most certainly not any or even all those stated by Dudy001 as I reject that those or similar are good reasons to keep it. The reason is Notability - it has met that requirement. Therefore in line with the decision made on Russian version I agree that it is appropriate to keep it. Not that I now think that Wikipedia will benefit from this page - purely following rules and principles. I do draw attention to the fact that there have been editing wars on the Russian version and the article received a considerable amount of attention from administrators. It seems that they take a view similar to mine that only verifiable content should be included and the quality of that in order to accuse people has to be high – essentially a court verdict. I will be raising my disagreement over NPOV using NPOV process. I suggest the page is kept. Oxy20 (talk) 00:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination for deletion withdrawn - for the above reasons Oxy20 (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. First, if any portion of this information were to be kept, it belongs in Reconciliation (theology), as others have noted. While a Merge & Redirect result here would normally be a plausible decision, the substantive concerns about this being a likely copyright violation mean that we should not keep this visible on Wikipedia. I am willing to email a copy of this article to anyone who would like to use it as a basis to improve the other article (but not userfy it). Qwyrxian (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5[edit]
- Reconciliation in 2 Corinthians 5 (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 full of original research and synthesis. Unencyclopedic. Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a religious essay, not an encyclopedia article. --BDD (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is highly notable as there are entire books written about this such as The Social Significance of Reconciliation in Paul's Theology and Second Corinthians, a letter about reconciliation. The main article Second Epistle to the Corinthians says nothing about reconciliation and so this theme is currently neglected in our coverage. Warden (talk) 22:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- this is an essay that advances the author's personal opinions, not an encyclopedia article. It is full of original research and novel sythesis. Reyk YO! 01:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know? What sources have you looked at? Have you even looked to see what sources say on this subject at all? Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't badger me about not reading the sources when you clearly haven't even read my !vote. Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I can't recognize an essay that advances the author's point of view from the tone and the way it addresses the reader as "we"? When an article is so bad that none of its content is usable, then it is right to delete it. If it's possible to write a credible article on the subject, it's be easier to do that if the clutter has been removed. Reyk YO! 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I and anyone else reading this most definitely did read what you write. What I and those others clearly see see is that you failed to explain the basis for your opinion the first time around, and when you were asked to explain you instead avoid answering direct questions as to what sources on the subject you consulted to determine that these were nothing more than an author's personal opinions, rather than established scholarly viewpoints that happen to be written in the first person by a writer who has never written for Wikipedia before and who doesn't understand a matter of writing style. This avoidance of yours, coupled with the distraction fallacies that you've attempted to insert, usually means when it happens that the person opining didn't consult any sources at all, and hasn't put in any effort whatsoever to consult scholarship on the matter before weighing in with an opinion based merely upon what an article happens to look like. Such opinion without research is worthless, and a hindrance to AFD. I suggest that if you want to defend your opinion you answer the questions that I put to you. You, as a Wikipedia editor, should not be avoiding responding to the "What are your sources?" question, one of the most basic questions that we ask in this project. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did answer your question. You asked me how I can tell the article is nothing but an essay full of original research without looking at other sources; I answered that I don't need to do extra research to comment on the state of the article as it is. I am well able to tell the difference between citing sources to simply report what's been said, and citing sources to bolster an argument being presented by the writer, and this article is blatantly full of the latter. Don't like that? Tough. I'm entitled to challenge material I consider poorly cited and factually dubious. The current content, IMO, is so unsuitable that none of it would form part of an encyclopedic article on the subject and so it should be removed- that is the entirety of my !vote. Hell, you yourself suspect the whole thing's a copyvio (and therefore unusable) and I think you're probably right about that. So if all the content should go, your objection boils down to asking me if I've checked whether or not a totally new article on this subject can be written from scratch. I simply don't see that as relevant. Reyk YO! 09:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I and anyone else reading this most definitely did read what you write. What I and those others clearly see see is that you failed to explain the basis for your opinion the first time around, and when you were asked to explain you instead avoid answering direct questions as to what sources on the subject you consulted to determine that these were nothing more than an author's personal opinions, rather than established scholarly viewpoints that happen to be written in the first person by a writer who has never written for Wikipedia before and who doesn't understand a matter of writing style. This avoidance of yours, coupled with the distraction fallacies that you've attempted to insert, usually means when it happens that the person opining didn't consult any sources at all, and hasn't put in any effort whatsoever to consult scholarship on the matter before weighing in with an opinion based merely upon what an article happens to look like. Such opinion without research is worthless, and a hindrance to AFD. I suggest that if you want to defend your opinion you answer the questions that I put to you. You, as a Wikipedia editor, should not be avoiding responding to the "What are your sources?" question, one of the most basic questions that we ask in this project. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't badger me about not reading the sources when you clearly haven't even read my !vote. Do you think I'm stupid? Do you think I can't recognize an essay that advances the author's point of view from the tone and the way it addresses the reader as "we"? When an article is so bad that none of its content is usable, then it is right to delete it. If it's possible to write a credible article on the subject, it's be easier to do that if the clutter has been removed. Reyk YO! 22:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How do you know? What sources have you looked at? Have you even looked to see what sources say on this subject at all? Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify- The book Warden mentions lends credence to the idea that this is a notable topic. The article as written is unacceptable, however, because of the amount of synthesis. LadyofShalott 02:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete This is an a personal work, plain and simple. Whether or not the topic is suitable for an article I am not sure, but this material is clearly not suitable here. This may very well be a topic that could have a good article, but the idea that it is better to keep an unacceptable essay until then is absurd.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge selectively with Reconciliation (theology), which is currently quite a short article, but concerned with the same scriptural passage. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My immediate thought was the same as Peterkingiron's. Reconciliation (theology) is the obviously correct place to discuss the subject of reconciliation in an encyclopaedia, and creating a new article with this title was completely unnecessary on the part of this article's author. However, I am troubled by text that addresses the reader in the first person from the first person, and that talks of things "in this chapter". I haven't done a full plagiarism check, but this sets off alarm bells for me, kindling the suspicion that Patrick Talbot (talk · contribs) is not writing original prose but is stealing someone else's writing wholesale from a book. That sort of content must not be merged. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup and then merge per the above discussion - the content meets notability requirements and some of it would make a good addition to the short article on reconciliation. However, much of the prose is not encyclopedic and possibly dubious, and should be deleted or reformatted thoroughly before merging into other article(s). Noir (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic passes WP:N and the statements within can be verified by reliable sources. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per User:Reyk - plainly an essay, and as Uncle G points out, the word "chapter" suggests it's from a longer work. As such it's either OR or synthesis. Just too heavy to consider merging - the Reconciliation (theology) and the 2 Corinthians articles are both considerably shorter. This just isn't encyclopedic. asnac (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice for re-creating it with proper content. This shows very strong signs of being a copyvio (even including “curly quotes”, which require a lot of effort to manually type in, but very little effort to copy and paste from a website or a Word document), and is clearly an essay, not an encyclopedia article. The topic may be notable, but if 100% of the content is inappropriate then the article should be deleted. ‑Scottywong| express _ 23:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedied G7 by TexasAndroid (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW)). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Subhash sasidharakurup[edit]
- Subhash sasidharakurup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable computer guy. Many references are deadlinks. Notability not established. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 15:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 15:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article should be kept.He is a notable guy.Dead end references should be removed or changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipediangeek (talk • contribs) 15:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC) — Wikipediangeek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. Not notable. This is a résumé. —Al E.(talk) 17:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Speedy delete as recreation of Subhash S —Al E.(talk) 17:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't show notability per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Vanity page, no notability as we understand the term. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Ownby[edit]
- Brian Ownby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't received significant coverage or played in a fully-professional league, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not yet meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but will if and when he makes an appearance for Houston Dynamo. At that point this article should be recreated. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Erich Marscheider[edit]
- Erich Marscheider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't received significant coverage or played in a fully-professional league, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not yet meet WP:NFOOTBALL, but will if and when he makes an appearance for Houston Dynamo. At that point this article should be recreated. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTY. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Clearly now meets WP:NFOOTBALL, although did not when the article was first nominated and when User:GiantSnowman !voted. For this reason I am ignoring the sole Delete vote. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Josue Soto[edit]
- Josue Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 20:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - hasn't received significant coverage or played in a fully-professional league, failing both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 20:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - He just made his debut in the North American Soccer League for San Antonio Scorpions FC last night. Therefore meets WP:NFOOTBALL. — Michael (talk) 06:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn. Per Mikemor92; subject now passes WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Redban[edit]
- Brian Redban (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 had tagged this for speedy, but withdrew it due to IPs contesting it. Despite producing fanzines and the podcast network, I don't believe there is enough notability here. Will leave it to the community to decide. Calabe1992 14:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Current author mentions "previous rejected entries" on Talk:Brian Redban. For reference, there have been at least seven previous deleted iterations including current page; see also Brian "Redban" Reichle (x2), Brian Reichle, Brian Reichle (Brian Redban), and Redban (x2). Apparent WP:COI; article creator's username is a person mentioned in the bio. Unencyclopedic content (Olive Garden in-jokes, etc.). I'm not voting because I have been in contact with article subject. Jokestress (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt, as I can find no evidence of notability via in-depth discussions in reliable sources, and the repeated recreations are problematic to deal with any other way than creation protection. --joe deckertalk to me 00:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this is just a joke from few of his twitter followers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.93.18 (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero google news hits on the title. While the article has a number of references, they are either non specific (a XM Radio channel, but no mention of the date of the broadcast which was used as a ref) or demonstrate Joe Rogan's notability, not the subject of the artice. RadioFan (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and speedy any further permutations of this that pop up per CSD G4. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. if it wasnt for brian redban most people wouldnt know half of the awesome comedians they discovered through redban's deathsquad podcasts — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.250.131 (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — 70.26.250.131 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to The Naughty Show. There's some in-passing verifiable content in the available sources, but nothing to establish the notability required for a BLP. Diego (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Brian created one of the biggest videos in Comedy History, the even showed his video on Carson Daily, Tom Green, and he was on Adam Carolla's radio show talking about it. He was also in Radar Magazine, and may other publications talking about it. I think the biggest problem with Brian is his work is often noted as "Joe Rogan" in publications as he just recently has gained some exposure with this podcast network. #3 on itunes last week, and he still doesn't have a wikipedia, insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.7.123.77 (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — 99.7.123.77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- KEEP Brian Redban is the dopest mother fucker of them all you stupid silly bitches!!!!n — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebluedvo (talk • contribs)
KEEP Brian Reichle is the producer of many podcast on the deathsquad network (Deathsquad.tv) if you look through a lot of the wiki pages you'l;l notice a large amount of LA based Comedians quote deathsquad on their pages and Brian is a large part of that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.241.66 (talk) 20:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC) — 2.99.241.66 (talk • contribs) 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 redirect to Disney Channel (international). joe deckertalk to me 14:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disney Channel Vietnam[edit]
- Disney Channel Vietnam (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 found any source in this channel. jcnJohn Chen (Talk-Contib.) RA 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 April 5. Snotbot t • c » 13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Disney Channel (international), or delete. Just a big unsourced list of programs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Disney Channel (international) - I can find no sources which would establish notability; the international article is sufficient to cover the channel. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Disney Channel (international), is it snowing? RadioFan (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
David Grove (Clean Language)[edit]
The result was Merge to Clean Language. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- David Grove (Clean Language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. gets 5 gnews hits [1]. simply inventing clean language can be mentioned in 1 line in that article. LibStar (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keepa quick look on Google indicates that David Grove could be notable. Needs more research and should be left until that can be completed. Fits within several projects. NealeFamily (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- you have failed to address how a notability guideline is met. please provide actual sources, not WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that I haven't LibStar, but I don't have time at present to research this in any depth, alternatively I would support the Merge suggested by Stuartyeates, until such time as notable or not is established. I think a delete is premature. NealeFamily (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convention dictates that you
strikeyou previous !vote when you change your mind; this helps everyone see your current view. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Convention dictates that you
- I agree that I haven't LibStar, but I don't have time at present to research this in any depth, alternatively I would support the Merge suggested by Stuartyeates, until such time as notable or not is established. I think a delete is premature. NealeFamily (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to paragraph in Clean Language, where the content can accumulate the references to prove notability, if they exist. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 21 March 2012 (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) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge He doesn't seem to have done anything noteworthy apart from Clean Language, and there's a lack of other info to put in the article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 16:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kill For You[edit]
- Kill For You (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable supporter group without reliable sources. Cloudz679 20:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And where did you look for evidence? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Turkish article had made in this way. Esc2003 (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
1907 UniFeb[edit]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1907 UniFeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable supporter group without reliable sources. Cloudz679 20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 20:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide your analysis of the Google News hits linked above that led you to this conclusion? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Fenerbahçe S.K. -- Esc2003 (talk) 05:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you provide your analysis of the Google News hits linked above that led you to this conclusion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GHITS don't confer notability. There's no significant third-party media coverage that I could find to approve notability. --Jimbo[online] 21:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't claim that the number of hits confers notability, but that you should explain how the specific sources found by the Google News (not web) search linked above, many of which appear to be reliable and to be specifically about the subject, are insufficient. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge and redirect, which has already been peformed Shii (tock) 04:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Waka (protocol)[edit]
- Waka (protocol) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vaporware cited only to blogs. Shii (tock) 02:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am required by an unwritten Wikipedia Law to also note that this Internet idea does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (software). Failure to abide by this Wikipedia Law will result in an admin closure against consensus. Shii (tock) 07:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2012 (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) 00:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I found some slides from IEEE proceedings[2] but nothing on Google Scholar. Possibly not notable yet. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Doesn't quite seem to be there yet; WP:CRYSTAL seems to apply. 86.** IP (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if Im doing this wrong, I found the same primer on the IETF's website that Colapenisula found, the protocol is EXACTLY what the web needs, let the guy finish developing it, it will likely supplant HTTP in a decade if not contribute to another replacement, HTTP *IS* incredibly wasteful, it can be shrunk 90% or more and every dev knows it, it's also plagued with requiring responses from the server to render things that nowdays causes blank pages of death that confuses people among other annoying things. HTTP is not perfect, let WAKA live.
- Why nominate for deletion when you can fix it? I've merged this article into the obviously appropriate Roy Fielding. This AfD in need of attention can be now closed as Merge and redirect. Diego (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Everton F.C. international players[edit]
- List of Everton F.C. international players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previous consensus has determined that lists such as these are overly specific and don't warrant a seperate article. There are also referencing issues. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:
- List of Cardiff City F.C. internationals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Coventry City F.C. international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Rangers F.C. international footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) J Mo 101 (talk) 10:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Do you have a link to the previous consensus? The lists seem legitimate but I'd be interested to see the debate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per previous consensus and the fact that these lists are pure overkill. GiantSnowman 12:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all This is a notable achievement shown in an encyclopedic way. These lists are perfect for the average reader who would like to find out who has been capped for another country while playing for their club. The solution is to merge into the existing lists for these clubs, adding an extra column to show international caps (if any). Lugnuts (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Weak because WP:ILIKEIT, delete because I can't make a real argument against the precedent. --BDD (talk) 20:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all Article should not just be deleted as there is encyclopaedic content there. They should be merged to their respective players articles for instance List of Rangers F.C. players. Some may already be listed others not.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all although oversize will evetually become a problem for major clubs and then we will have to discuss this all over. I beleave having separate lists for "All-time/notable players" and "Internationals" is a better solution for those cases. Also, I am not so sure the claimed consensus over WP:OLIST was reached in the previous discussion. Some editors agreed on OLIST, some just voted to delete because those two lists lacked sources... OLIST would be for exemple, having a "List of Everton defenders" or a "List of Everton players over 1.90 meters tall", but national team appereances are actually notable feature, and a quite different situation from the trivial ones. I have absolutelly nothing against lists of internationals when adequatelly sourced and wikified, and I do not consider them OLIST. FkpCascais (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The standard way of dealing with size issues is to split lists based on number of appearances (has already been done for Cardiff). There's no reason why content about international caps couldn't be used instead to improve the more general lists (e.g. List of Birmingham City F.C. players), which would make a seperate article almost redundant. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh yes, Birmingham lists are the ideal solution. I was more warried that in case of having all players separated in 2 or 3 lists, as Birmingham has, the solution found for List_of_Eintracht_Frankfurt_players would then not be so good then. And also, many other lists from the do use different forms of listing, so I was wandering how those different cases could be dealt. Some make it more easy to include the national team stats, some don´t. FkpCascais (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - in the Eintracht Frankfurt AfD, it looks like the consensus to delete that page was because that info was already present in another article and that it was WP:OR, rather then a consensus against "List of Foo FC international players". I can't find any good reason to delete these, as they are referenced. Mentoz86 (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – for major professional sports teams with a significant number of international players, composing a list of such players is encyclopedic and not overly specific, as international caps is a highly defining aspect of a club and its players. I further agree with Mentoz86 that the Eintracht Frankfurt AfD was deleted because of lack of sources, and that no matter how I read it, there is no consensus for an all-out deletion of international cap lists. Finally, I am concerned about the merge votes here, because they do not address how the cap list should be incorporated into the main player list. Most importantly, the player list includes only those players with more than 100 matches. The caps lists should be converted to a sortable table which would include (at least) player name, country (with link to national team), international caps, period and possibly a list of major tournaments (World Cup, Euro) while playing for the club. This would provide amble encyclopedic information which it would not be possible to display in the general players lists. Arsenikk (talk) 07:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Info about international caps is included in the Birmingham City list mentioned above. Furthermore, isn't lack of sources also an issue for these lists as well? Only English players are referenced in the Everton article, and the source in the Coventry and Rangers lists only mention Scottish players. J Mo 101 (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 14:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Mathews (Australian politician)[edit]
- David Mathews (Australian politician) (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 significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG (all of the 14 refs (some are either trivial mentions or non-independent sources) and unsuccessful candidates don't meet the WP:POLITICIAN notability standard. PROD removed by article creator without any reason given. The-Pope (talk) 10:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (Copy of the comments made by article creator on the article talk page):
- I think that this meets the notability requirements for a political candidate. For candidates for office, these state that 'such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'.
- In the references for the article I've included coverage of David Mathews multiple times in the Canberra Times (Canberra's daily broadsheet), Canberra's 2CC radio, Canberra CityNews (a canberra weekly magazine), and the Australian Electoral Commission. These sources are all independent and reliable and their coverage of David Mathews is significant which is defined as addressing the subject directly in detail which they all do. Canberra's election this year will attract significant national attention and well referenced articles describing the candidates will be extremely useful.
- This is without considering the notability of the other aspects of the David Mathews article pertaining to his business and community involvement which I think contribute to the notability of Mathews.
- I have only ever made small contributions to wikipedia, so I'd appreciate your patience while I learn the ins and outs of policy and these discussions. I'd like to finish by disclosing that I am volunteering on the Mathews campaign for election (which I have previously disclosed on my own talk page). Thmcmahon (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hasn't even been elected to anything. Non-notable. Softlavender (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - 2042 votes in the 2008 election makes 2.2% of the vote. Per WP:POLITICIAN Serial candidacy does not make one notable, and there are no other claims to notability in the article anyway. Passing GNG is irrelevant in the absence of such a claim. If he wins in 2012, then he'll be there, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, it's not forbidden to edit articles that you are closely associated with, but you must be careful to maintain neutrality. Thanks for disclosing your COI; it is good form.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' Being repeatedly preselected to unwinnable places on the senate and ACT Legislative Assembly tickets doesn't lead to notability. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I must strongly disagree with Yeti Hunter - passing the GNG is good enough for any article, any where, any time. That said, I don't think that Mathews meets GNG; the media coverage seems to be trivial in nature and he has not been preselected for any winnable seats as far as I can tell, instead playing a frequent role as an ALP sacrificial lamb in unwinnable contests. Community service is laudable, but does not seem to have attracted any wide media comment. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- WP:NOT always.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unchosen candidate Night of the Big Wind talk 12:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 14:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marquis Riley[edit]
- Marquis Riley (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 former Minor league baseball player. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All sources appear to be WP:Run-of-the-mill coverage. He was once on a 40 man roster, but the project consensus is clear that that is insufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 07:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:Run-of-the-mill minor league player who fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple, independent sources.—Bagumba (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ATHLETE, last played organized baseball over 10 years ago. Secret account 14:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Harmony Korine. (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter (natter) 11:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spring Breakers (film)[edit]
- Spring Breakers (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet WP:GNG, despite some limited media coverage. Mostly looks like a case of WP:TOOSOON. §everal⇒|Times 20:50, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This independent film is not due for release until next year; as a result, there is not enough encyclopedic content available in reliable sources to make it notable enough for an article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are also copyright and close paraphrasing issues with this. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if not specific copyright, a "too close paraphrasing" is an issue quite often addressable by regular editing... and we do have options that serve the project better than outright deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per WP:ATD for now to its director Harmony Korine, as this article is simply a little too soon. The project began shooting in Florida earlier this month, and so we "do" have confirmation of principal filming. Considering the great interest and attention already given the film by reliable sources,[3] this one will definitely be a project on which we should keep an eye. Outright deletion will simply have someone attempt a premature recreation. We can for now redirect this to the filmmaker where, and through use if the numerous soures already available,[4] the topic may be written of for now and in context to her career. When release become more imminent, the redirect can then be reversed and the article expanded and sourced accordingly. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 07:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Harmony Korine, per Michael, with the only difference being that I think this film deserves a small mention on that page rather than simply being redirected there. (At the moment the only mention is a link to Spring Breakers (film).) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, and mention now made. Appears that principle filming has completed and the project is moving into post production. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Korine is a well-known filmmaker and the film is likely to be notable when released, but the release is at least a year away. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt Korine wishes to complete post production in time for next year's spring break... and he now has the luxury of time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Rhonda Nanette McEwen[edit]
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rhonda Nanette McEwen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Via: subject is non-notable under Wikipedia:Notability_(academics), she got her PhD in 2009 and Google Scholar has her as being almost entirely uncited [5]. Page was created as part of a school project that page subject was running - Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Could_do_with_a_bit_of_careful_handling_this_one..., the school project has now been completed and I'm proposing this article for removal... Fayedizard (talk) 06:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete well-meant but misguided attempt by a group of students to honor/please their teacher. Note that the project referred to in the nom was headed by the subject of this article... I also request the closing admin (regardless of the outcome of this AfD) for a courtesy blanking and to add a "noindex" template, so that this debate will not pop up in online searches, while still preserving our records of the debate. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. BTW the "Noticeboard" link provided does not go anywhere relevant, please verify the exact url of the intended page and correct the link. Roger (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She has been interviewed in Canadian media as an expert on communication technology
- Social status and online networking. Anonymous. The Spectator [Hamilton, Ont] 19 Oct 2009: A.13.
- That BlackBerry's making you work longer; The addictive device has changed the meaning of our 'office hours'. LaSalle, LuAnn. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 21 Oct 2009: E.10.
- Talking on cellphones could be passe by 2020; Telecom: Over the next decade, the use of apps will continue to grow. LaSalle, LuAnn. Telegraph-Journal [Saint John, N.B] 18 Jan 2010: B.1.
- Apps to help the disabled. Nicole Baute. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 15 Jan 2010: L.3.
- Trouble speaking? There's an app for that. Oliveira, Michael . Prince George Citizen [Prince George, B.C] 08 Apr 2011: 27.
- Teachers buzz over Apple education announcement Globe and Mail
- 'Bicycle of the 21st century' for wired generation of kids; Survey shows a third of North American moms age 18 to 27 have let their children use a laptop computer by age 2. Harris, Misty. The Gazette [Montreal, Que] 27 Sep 2011: A.2.
and concerning her work on the use of mobile technology among students identified on the autism spectrum in the following publications:
- Technology opens up new worlds for children with Autism Globe and Mail
- Little screen, big hopes. Dakshana Bascaramurty. The Globe and Mail [Toronto, Ont] 12 Apr 2010: L.1.
- Is the iPad the next big toy for toddlers? Technology: Children have a natural knack for Apple's touch-screen tablet. Baute, Nicole. Toronto Star [Toronto, Ont] 19 June 2010: L.1.
- How touch gives autism a voice. Seale, Andrew. National Post [Don Mills, Ont] 22 Mar 2011: MP.7.
- Autistic children tap into iPad to communicate. Hewitt, Pat. Trail Times [Trail, B.C] 19 May 2011: 13.
- The iPad is being used by teachers to help students with autism communicate. The National - CBC TelevisionToronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. (Oct 25, 2011)
- [6] Spark (radio show)
- [7] 60 Minutes
I can integrate these refs into the article but I would reduce the article to only a paragraph or two (There is a general profile here Toronto Star). maclean (talk) 03:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify - are you suggesting that she meets one of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) (and if so, which one?) or are you suggesting she meets a different notability standard outside academia? (The profile you cite mentions her as a second year PhD student...) Fayedizard (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking more about the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Above I have definitively proved there exists "reliable independent sources". All that is left is to consider is whether the coverage of her in the sources is "sufficiently significant". I am arguing that, yes, there is reasonable enough coverage to start an article and the multiple interviews as an expert illustrate a reasonable enough interest in her to warrant an article in Wikipedia. maclean (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That sounds like a sensible track to take - Looking over the sources - I can't find any of the sources that you didn't provide a link for - so I can't comment on them (I'm pressuming you get hard copies as a resident - but my google-fu might be letting me down) - the thing I'm interested to know is: is there a difference in notability between sources *about* an individual and sources that *involve* an individual - looking at the online sources, we have a total of 327 words that involve Rhonda, which includes vague quotes like "“Persistence is important. You’ve got to keep at it,” Dr. McEwen says." and "She's hoping that Apple might announce some deals with universities or other educational groups to partner in researching some truly innovative approaches to digital learning." (The 60 minutes cite is fairly impressive though, but I'm not convinced that 'appearing on 60 minutes once' demonstrates an need for an article…
- I was thinking more about the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Above I have definitively proved there exists "reliable independent sources". All that is left is to consider is whether the coverage of her in the sources is "sufficiently significant". I am arguing that, yes, there is reasonable enough coverage to start an article and the multiple interviews as an expert illustrate a reasonable enough interest in her to warrant an article in Wikipedia. maclean (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:Prof is certainly not achieved and there doesn't seem to be enough material for WP:GNG. Also clear WP:COI. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. We again have confusion on WP:RS, which requires substantive info on or about the subject, not brief quotes in a story that is actually about something else. The above all seem to be of the latter type, e.g. "With the iPod, for the first time, he was able to demonstrate that he did understand," McEwen says. In essence, there was a fleeting media buzz on using the iPad in education and McEwen was quoted/appeared in a number of stories. None of them were about her, so there is clearly no basis for WP:GNG. She is a professor, though, and here she might satisfy the distinctly different requirements. However, in checking, you find this is not the case. For example, her research on the socio-educational aspects of technology only has 6 total GS citations (h-index 1). She is a newly-minted PhD and clearly does not satisfy any of the other parts of WP:PROF either. Most of the sources seem to be her own CV or personal web page. The page history indicates that this page was started as a freshman class project by user whose only single edit in the entirety of the article namespace was to create this page. Agricola44 (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ralston Middle School[edit]
The result was Merge to Belmont - Redwood Shores School District. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ralston Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is a one-line blurb noting a middle school in northern California - but that's all it has, other than an infobox on the side. WP:OUTCOMES notes that this would typically be redirected, but it appears that the district article does not exist. -- Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect-
To Belmont, California, its community article, since the school district article has not been created yet.Dru of Id (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To Belmont – Redwood Shores School District, per Gene93k. Dru of Id (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect/Delete - Clearly not notable as a run-of-the-mill middle school. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the district or municipality it's in. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to school district, Belmont – Redwood Shores School District. It gets some RS coverage for an incident at the school, but that's not sufficient to establish notability. • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep on the issue of "keep vs. delete" and no consensus on the issue of merging. that can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki version history[edit]
- MediaWiki version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTCHANGELOG (a Wikipedia policy) is abundantly clear that this is not what Wikipedia is for. Any notable additions should be mentioned in the main article as prose. No WP:USEFUL arguments, please. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOTCHANGELOG does not support deletion of this article; it states that "An article about a product should include a history of its development and major improvements; creating a list of all changes to software or hardware between each minor version violates other precepts of this policy." This article is not a changelog of each minor change in each build; it is an overview of the development history and lists the major improvements of major versions. This article is comparable to other articles such as Adobe Photoshop version history and Internet Explorer versions. The information is notable and encyclopedic; merging into the MediaWiki article would defeat the original reason this article was created in the first place, as a split from the MediaWiki article due to length. —Lowellian (reply) 06:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:OSE. Also, there are no secondary sources in the article suggesting that the release history itself is notable. If it got too long to be contained in the main article, then that means that it should be trimmed down. Every article needs to justify its own existence and notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Does anyone have a copy of The Wikipedia Revolution? I had a good search for sources but I couldn't find anything that covered the version history post-2003. The snippets from The Wikipedia Revolution on Google Books looked promising, but I couldn't actually find anything that could prove that this aspect of MediaWiki was covered there. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Base article MediaWiki is long enough that separating out this content is useful. Many significant pieces of software have details on their history, and as Lowellian mentions, this is allowed. There is no summary this good on the product's website. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Size is a reason for splitting, yes, but that does not mean that the daughter article is immune from our notability guidelines. WP:WHENSPLIT explicitly says that editors should consider notability when splitting. If this particular aspect of MediaWiki is notable then there is no problem, but if it isn't there are other ways to keep the length of the main article down. For example, you could convert the list into prose form and simply list the most important features that were developed - then merging back into the main MediaWiki article would not create such a size problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, while the version history is probably not notable in its own right, the article is far too long to comfortably place in the MediaWiki article itself. Therefore, the article deserves to stay, as it is eventually merely a part of the MediaWiki article which has been removed from the article proper due to style reasons.Wer900 talkessay on the definition of consensus 21:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Size is a reason for splitting, yes, but that does not mean that the daughter article is immune from our notability guidelines. WP:WHENSPLIT explicitly says that editors should consider notability when splitting. If this particular aspect of MediaWiki is notable then there is no problem, but if it isn't there are other ways to keep the length of the main article down. For example, you could convert the list into prose form and simply list the most important features that were developed - then merging back into the main MediaWiki article would not create such a size problem. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 20:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I believe we should have a guideline for this – the topics that are split out of articles for technical reasons should not be nominated separately from their parents. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a keep reason... Axem Titanium (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've just noticed that we have had this conversation before, a year and a half ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaWiki release history. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Really? This should probably be speedy merged, just like the previous AFD then! Axem Titanium (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with MediaWiki or Delete. The test for whether a separate encyclopedia article is merited is if there is sufficient reliable secondary sources to ensure verification. As decided at the last AFD (!), we should not have a separate article about this. Either properly merge it, make it into an SVG that can be stuck into to the main article, or just let the release timeline live on MediaWiki.org where it belongs. Steven Walling • talk 00:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to MediaWiki. Without proof of notability, this cannot be kept as a stand-alone article. Even if the information is removed from Wikipedia, it will still be available at MediaWiki.org, as Steven Walling says, so I don't think it would be any great loss. I would also be happy with a decision to delete, but I think the judgement on how/whether to include the info should really be taken by the editors at the MediaWiki article rather than here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This may be a bit slow after having just cast my !vote, but I have just thought of a compromise solution which I think everyone could live with. While I was searching for sources I found a number of mentions of MediaWiki's development before version 1.0, when it was adapted from UseModWiki.[8][9][10] I don't think many people would contest the notability of this early history, so why don't we just move this page over the redirect History of MediaWiki and expand it to include all of MediaWiki's history, rather than just post-1.0? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 19:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While WP:NOTCHANGELOG does indeed frown upon such things in general, we Wikipedians have a duty to preserve our own history. There is a growing body of academic work on the various aspects of the sociology of Wikipedia, entire books written on the topic, etc. This is to me a clear case where we need to apply common sense and WP:IGNOREALLRULES. A merger to MediaWiki might be okay as a fallback option, but this is substantial enough in size that it should be considered an attached page to that piece rather than a standalone article per se. I have a very strong aversion to deleting this information outright, that would be a terrible outcome here. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that ALL of this info already exists at MediaWiki's wiki (WikiCeption!)? None of this info is going to be gone forever and I'm pretty sure there's an even greater aversion to giving Wikipedia preferential treatment. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By WP:OR, all information on Wikipedia should exist elsewhere, since Wikipedia should contain no information that has not been previously published. That the information exists offsite is not an argument to delete. And considering that we have articles like Adobe Photoshop version history and Internet Explorer versions, in no way is this giving preferential treatment to Wikipedia. —Lowellian (reply) 19:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that ALL of this info already exists at MediaWiki's wiki (WikiCeption!)? None of this info is going to be gone forever and I'm pretty sure there's an even greater aversion to giving Wikipedia preferential treatment. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 00:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anadhikritapuram[edit]
- Anadhikritapuram (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 fictional village. Google search for Anadhikritapuram Manoj Nair results in 14 pages. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 03:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, this just seems to be a promotional article directing viewers to the non notable bloggers Blog page. recommend deletion.-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 07:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not only is the subject matter itself completely unnotable, as stated, the whole article is just an advertisment for the unnotable blog. Rorshacma (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete- WP:SNOW —Bzweebl— talk 21:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of notability. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 14:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lakshmi Putrudu[edit]
- Lakshmi Putrudu (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 (maybe on the Telugu Wikipedia)?; "In progress now" recentism hasn't been updated since 2007. Discussion welcome. WBTtheFROG (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: There seem to be a bit of English language reviews/coverage[11][12][13] and there are almost certainly more Telugu mentions. Aside from notability, being out of date is not grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Solid Keep. Topic meets WP:NF as being a completed film that has been the subject of multiple articles before and after its completion. Did the nominator look before bringing this here to discuss its deletion? To disagree with the nominator's use of the essay on recentism, I remind him that notability is not temporary and it is to be found through sources being available, and not in whether they have been used in an article or not. It is not neccessary that a film topic remain in the headlines 4 years after a film's release, just so long as it had the required coverage to meet WP:NF in the first place... which this film did. Just as pointed out by User:Colapeninsula, sources were ridulously easy to find,[14][15] and in just a few minutes I was able to use just a few of them to begin expansion of the article.[16] We do not delete stub articles on notable topics because they have lacked attention. And, as shown by only a few edits, a concern over stubbiness or sourcing is something that can be addressed through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for sure. Though a commercially dull movie it had received enough coverage as seen in the references currently provided. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to the fact that WP:NTEMP exists. A certainly notable topic. Secret of success 08:06, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Note from my Talk page:
- "As the article Lakshmi Putrudu has gone through a 12x expansion and sourcing since first nominated, might you consider a withdrawal so we can close the AFD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)"
- There has clearly been a lot more work done on the article. I'm not sure that the references provided do a great job of establishing notability and rather seem to establish the opposite, but as the original AFD nominator I'm not going to fight hard for deletion. WBTtheFROG (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for bringing my note from your talk page to here. The topic has the coverage to meet WP:NF... and even a film panned by critics can be found notable. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Bearian (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
India men's national field hockey team at the 2012 Summer Olympics[edit]
- India men's national field hockey team at the 2012 Summer Olympics (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 article for a team in the Olympics? I don't find any notability in it. It's a subset of qualification page, and even after the Olympics, it would just contain content from two or more articles, nothing special. Secondly, there're 24 teams (men's and women's both) and in this way all would need articles, like Australia men's national field hockey team at the 2012 Summer Olympics, China women's national field hockey team at the 2012 Summer Olympics, etc. And I think countries with medal-prospective like Australia, Germany, Argentina, Netherlands, etc, are in better place to have such articles than India. — Bill william comptonTalk 03:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I may agree it would be great to create a medal-prospective team's article like Australia, but stop there. I must have never created this article if it was about any other sports of India in Olympics. India is always at the top of the table in the field of hockey, may not be at first all time. So if Australia, why not India? ask yourself please! Look here if you are concerned about India's presence in the Olympics and if you feel this article will go waste. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, pardon me, but the last time I checked they didn't even able to qualify for the Olympics in 2008. "India is always at the top of the table in the field of hockey", please mind the tense here, India has never got any medal in field hockey since 1980. Although, these facts are inconsequential for this discussion. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I may agree it would be great to create a medal-prospective team's article like Australia, but stop there. I must have never created this article if it was about any other sports of India in Olympics. India is always at the top of the table in the field of hockey, may not be at first all time. So if Australia, why not India? ask yourself please! Look here if you are concerned about India's presence in the Olympics and if you feel this article will go waste. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 04:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Under WP:NOLYMPICS, an article about India at the 2012 Summer Olympics would be notable, and an article about men's field hockey at the 2012 Summer Olympics would be notable. But narrowing the topic to India in men's field hockey at the 2012 Summer Olympics would probably not be considered notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Karthikndr, India might be at the top of the table, agreed, and Australia might have an article. However, just because something exists on Wikipedia, it alone isn't reason enough for something else to exist. I'd like to find some sources to backup the article. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rsrikanth, there's no such article for Australia or any other nation. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This page is just a subset of the upcoming qualification and/or tournament page/s. In addition, the content does not describe what the article title promises; instead it's kind of a sports result report for India. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although I am new to Wikipedia and contributing, articles such as this seem to be very informative and helpful to fans of such large and notable events. I would suggest that this article be merged into another 2012 Olympic Teams article (or something similar), but I do not know where that type of article would be, in all honestly. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- LogicalCreator, the information present in this article is already there at the qualification page, so we're not losing anything by deleting it. — Bill william comptonTalk 12:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge WP:NOLYMPICS suggests it's not inherently notable; if they do something special, maybe they will become notable, but that's the problem with articles about future events. Therefore should be merged into more general article, e.g. Men's field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2012 Summer Olympics or India at the 2012 Summer Olympics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Metropolitan90 is exactly right: Men's field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2012 Summer Olympics, Field hockey at the 2012 Summer Olympics and India at the 2012 Summer Olympics are the loci in which consensus has determined this information should be organized. Event-by-country pairings are not considered a sufficiently notable intersection to warrant individual articles. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rod Loyola[edit]
- Rod Loyola (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 meet WP:POLITICIAN, only a candidate. Prod was contested. 117Avenue (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SPAM. This article is promoting this candidate's campaign in a provincial election and he is not notable by any other means. In the unlikely event the candidate wins, he will become notable by being a member of the provincial legislature and the article can be recreated then per WP:POLITICIAN. Hwy43 (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, exactly as stated by Hwy43. PKT(alk) 13:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The election is less than 3 weeks away. Can we keep the article and delete if he loses, or userify it somewhere to reinstate if he wins? Or does he not have much chance? Otherwise, if you're sticking to policy, delete and possibly reinstate. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The NDP aren't doing well in the polls, I don't expect any wins in the suburbs. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The NDP are polling strong numbers in Edmonton, so the possibility of victory is not impossible. It'd be premature to delete this page, and all the sources cited all valid. See this story in the Edmonton Journal for more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Poll+suggests+strong+numbers+Edmonton/6419196/story.html -- BDELamb82 (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC) — BDELamb82 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The NDP aren't doing well in the polls, I don't expect any wins in the suburbs. 117Avenue (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not premature and polls are irrelevant. Read WP:POLITICIAN. Alan Forsyth was deleted. There is no reason to believe this won't have the same outcome. Hwy43 (talk) 04:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no "exemption" clause at WP:POLITICIAN due to the imminence of an election. If that were the case, WP would be inundated with articles once the exemption period begins, causing a lot of needless work to delete these articles upon the unsuccessful candidates learning their fate. Hwy43 (talk) 06:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' fails WP:POLITICIAN. Cagoul (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. CSD R3 Implausible redirect Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sun Xiu (general)[edit]
- Sun Xiu (general) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wrongly redirected. Lonelydarksky (暗無天日) contact me (聯絡) 02:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sourcing/notability issues. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Flat 4D Rubik puzzle[edit]
- Flat 4D Rubik puzzle (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 quality Google hits. Fails WP:GNG. Zad68 (talk) 01:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. What? The article cites several books on the subject! At the very least, Google hits (on a cursory look) seems legit. No reason to delete. Lord Roem (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional note -- yes, this article can do with some cleanup and needs independent/secondary sources to be explicitly cited in-line. However, that can be fixed without a deletion. Lord Roem (talk) 03:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a scholarly article on the question: found here. There are a few other articles that touch on the subject. Search results for that found here. Lord Roem (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per lord roem Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete none of the sources describe the 'Flat 4D Rubik' puzzle, not least as they all predate it. Of course much work has been done on higher dimensional variants, as described at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, and software has been available for a while (see the many screenshots in that article), so the software described is neither original nor notable. Absent reliable sources on this particular software this fails GNG and so should be deleted.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John, the scholarly article I linked to above discusses the 'four-dimensional hypercube' (the tesseract) in the context of Rubix's Cube. Look at the source itself. Lord Roem (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and we have an article on such puzzles, at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle. The linked paper says nothing that I can see about the 'Flat 4D Rubik puzzle'. It further is is not a reliable source from e.g. a journal, it is not even a well written paper (date? institution? it's own references?). The references in the article are of better quality but they predate the date the puzzle was created by many years so say nothing about it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John, the scholarly article I linked to above discusses the 'four-dimensional hypercube' (the tesseract) in the context of Rubix's Cube. Look at the source itself. Lord Roem (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Blackburne. The "Rubik tesseract" is a legitimate topic, but is distinct from the subject of this article and is already covered in n-dimensional sequential move puzzle. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Blackburne & Biały. The difference between this puzzle and Rubik's Tesseract is that this (with the layer substitution) is only mentioned in one self-published paper. The representation described here might be of use in discussion of Rubik's Tesseract, but it should be discussed only there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic covered in n-dimensional sequential move puzzle is just the “Superliminal Magic Cube” puzzle. Why is the one approach to implementation of the "Rubik tesseract" puzzle a legitimate topic, but another is not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzle314 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- n-dimensional sequential move puzzle covers the topic of higher-dimensional puzzles in general with four different software programs used as examples, by Superliminal, Graviton3D, Andrey Astrelin and David Vanderschel. That does not stop someone writing an article on an individual program but it needs to be independently notable. It must have reliable sources on the program, i.e. on the Flat 4D Rubik puzzle in this case. But all the sources are on the general topic, not on this particular implementation.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Lord Roem. Hellbus (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for those voting "Merge": What exactly should be merged? It has already been established that the particular, individual subject "Flat 4D Rubik puzzle" fails WP:GNG due to the complete lack of reliable secondary sources covering it, and that the general topic already has a good article at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle. So, what should be copied out of this article and into n-dimensional sequential move puzzle? 100% of the content of this article is copied from the non-notable web page of the puzzle here, and copied self-promotionally by the author of that web page, I note--all the pictures being copied in from that web page are tagged as copyright-released by the author. The puzzlemystery page relates only to that particular non-notable varietal of the general n-dimensional sequential move puzzle. If by "merge" we mean "Add a link to http://puzzlemystery.com/FlatRubikPuzzle.aspx?r=10 under External Links at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, I agree, but "merge" should not retain any more content from this article than that. Zad68 (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that article is n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, not 'list of non-notable n-dimensional sequential move programs'. While some programs have been used as examples or for screenshots the article is not about them or meant to be, and there's no requirement they be described. They can be added as external links per the EL guideline.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- JohnBlackburne - so to be clear, you are !voting for: 1) Delete this article Flat 4D Rubik puzzle, and 2) Add http://puzzlemystery.com/FlatRubikPuzzle.aspx?r=10 as an External Link at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, do I have that correct? Thanks Zad68 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I'm even having some misgivings about adding it as an External Link at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, because the list of puzzles at puzzlemystery really do not provide any further in-depth analysis of the subject, and there is no indication that the puzzles there have been created by or reviewed by experts, so who knows if they even follow the rules of n-dimensional sequential move puzzle. However it's one of several sites to play around with something like them, so probably OK. Zad68 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether it makes a good external link there is independent of this discussion; I would say it's probably OK as long as that section doesn't become overlong due to such links, as sometimes happens with mathematical articles and links to software/source code examples.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:26, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- JohnBlackburne - so to be clear, you are !voting for: 1) Delete this article Flat 4D Rubik puzzle, and 2) Add http://puzzlemystery.com/FlatRubikPuzzle.aspx?r=10 as an External Link at n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, do I have that correct? Thanks Zad68 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that article is n-dimensional sequential move puzzle, not 'list of non-notable n-dimensional sequential move programs'. While some programs have been used as examples or for screenshots the article is not about them or meant to be, and there's no requirement they be described. They can be added as external links per the EL guideline.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see no coverage about this particular puzzle variant that establishes notability. I see no referenced information worth merging. -- Whpq (talk) 15:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
List of movies featuring Wing Chun[edit]
The result was Keep. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of movies featuring Wing Chun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Big slice of original research (look at the text for Sherlock Holmes, for example). Lugnuts (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete This is an unsourced article that is pure original resaarch (as well as 100% subjective). Papaursa (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Wing Chun is a recognized martial arts style. Article can be improved rather than deleted. JoshuSasori (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Could this content possibly be merged into the article at Wing Chun? A412 (Talk • C) 22:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As a concept, the article is fine,[17][18] it's just that the content needs extensive cleanup. If it was cleaned up from what we have now, there would be nothing there. If no-one is willing to improve the article, then yes, delete, but it could be a valid article at some point. --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The list's problem is lack of sourcing and poor layout, both of which are editing issues. Original research and poor examples stand out like sore thumbs once a list is worked on and referenced. This book, for instance, is published by Columbia University press and identifies Warriors Two, The Prodigal Son (film) and (unsurprisingly) Wing Chun (film) as all being about this particular branch of kung fu. It also identifies that the style is briefly seen in Bruce Lee's Way of the Dragon and Enter the Dragon, but since it's only seen briefly they're the kind of examples I would hesitate to add without further sources stating they're iconic examples of wing chun. Someoneanother 11:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although the article is specifying one very specific martial art and thus, may be a short list, I feel as though lists on Wikipedia are extremely helpful to people; especially movie-loves (i.e., List of Films Set in the Future, et cetera). I agree with Joshu on this one. LogicalCreator —Preceding undated comment added 11:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - I think that this might be a little difficult to determine. Many martial arts actors have backgrounds in more than one martial art. If an actor has learned Wing Chun, Taewkondo, and Judo, then performs in a movie does that mean that the movie features Wing Chun? What about a movie that indicates in the dialog that Wing Chun is being used, but is actually using Wushu? There's a lot of overlap between martial arts that would make identifying one over another virtually impossible.--StvFetterly(Edits) 13:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I think it would be difficult to find reliable sources that indicate this though. The fact that there are 0 sources in the article would tend to corroborate this theory. Actually the book listed above (Kung Fu Cult Masters: From Bruce Lee to Crouching Tiger) says that "in Warriors Two ... no one ... does Wing Chun properly or well" on page 31. On page 30 of the same book it also indicates that Bruce Lee doesn't use Wing Chun in his movies "Bruce Lee learned Wing Chun from grandmaster Yip Man, although he adopted a flashier style of fighting for his films" There isn't really anything presented in this book other than the author's interpretation that some things in some movies might be Wing Chun. That's hardly conclusive evidence. --StvFetterly(Edits) 14:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Someone another; the Columbia University Press book he has located identifies no fewer than six movies depicting this martial art. Which means their inclusion in this list is verifiable, which means the topic is not inherently OR and any OR in this list can be fixed through normal editing. Which means it's improvable, which means it can't be deleted. QED. postdlf (talk) 14:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the bottom of the article here further illustrates the problem of trying to identify/seperate martial arts: [19] "many of the techniques of Wing Chun kung fu are notably similar to those of late 19th century “gentlemanly fisticuffs”. Both styles feature erect fighting stances, vertical fist punches and an emphasis upon protecting the central line of the body." --StvFetterly(Edits) 14:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Funnily enough I've just been reading the same source. It's worth noting that Downey Jr. is a practitioner of Wing Chun, and according to this (Kung Fu Magazine) article: "if Downey's fighting method as Holmes is to be characterized into any style, forget authenticity to Doyle. For Sherlock, Downey is throwing wing chun moves, plain and simple." This 'original research' is not just fans' opinions. Someoneanother 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- I know that Downey has said he was doing Wing Chun in the movie. The Sherlock Holmes fight co-ordinator in the article I listed above says that in the movie they used a combination of "Chinese boxing that Downey practices as the foundation and also incorporate swordplay and elements of Brazilian ju-jitsu". When you start mixing martial arts, when does something stop becoming a particular art? Should any martial arts movie that has some kind of connection to Wing Chun be listed in this article?--StvFetterly(Edits) 19:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list as it was (and still is, wording tweaked) gave no specific limits to what could be included. This would not be my choice but it's not my creation and I'm not volunteering to keep updating it. I like Way of the Dragon and old Jackie Chan movies, but martial arts and film/TV aren't my editing areas. Regarding how to pick out relevant films to list, if the list remains small then including any which can be verified to contain Wing Chun should not a major issue. Even if editors decided to go the other way and only include films which strongly feature the style, there would still be a population with films like Wing Chun, the Ip Man films and Invincible Shaolin. With Sherlock Holmes it's not necessary to indulge in original research; the fight director calls it X, Kung Fu Magazine says "Downey is throwing wing chun moves, plain and simple." The sources can be used that way in the notes section. If editors of the list want a more definitive statement then they'll have to find a more definitive source (IE Downey Jr. stating that it was Wing Chun in an interview). Someoneanother 22:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (with two caveats):
- - The exact inclusion criteria for 'featuring Wing Chun' needs to be nailed down for the article. Does this mean Wing Chun has to be performed in the movie, is the name Wing Chun in the movie title enough for inclusion, is the topic of Wing Chun being discussed in the movie enough for inclusion, if an actor has studied Wing Chun before and stars in this movie is that enough for inclusion? I will modify the lede to something that seems appropriate.
- - Each movie included should have a reference that specifically mentions Wing Chun in relation to the movie. If no reference can be found, then the movie should be removed from the list. I'll be looking for references for all movies currently listed.
--StvFetterly(Edits) 13:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oliver Marmol[edit]
- Oliver Marmol (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 former Minor league baseball player. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keepSeems to be some non-trivial sourcing.[20][21][22] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The first two articles found by Muboshgu are from The Post and Courier, so they only count as one source as WP:GNG states "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." The other source is Scout.com, which will cover any minor league player. I can't find any other significant coverage, and don't believe this meets GNG which says "Multiple sources are generally expected"— two source does not seem sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now fails WP:ATHLETE. Never made it above Single A, no claim of ever having a notable minor league career or a top prospect, current manager of a rookie league team. Article can be recreated if he moves up the Minor League coaching ladder, or becomes some kind of coach in the Majors. Secret account 14:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 00:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby Bonds, Jr.[edit]
- Bobby Bonds, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Former Minor league baseball player. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to have received more coverage than a typical career minor leaguer, and enough to satisfy WP:GNG. He has an extensive Sports Illustrated article about him here, an article about him in the NY Daily News here, an article jointly about him and his brother here, a number of articles regarding his reaction to his brother's steroid accusations, but also covering his career, in ESPN, MSNBC and others, an Orlando Sentinal article about his background and attempt to revive his career here, a San Jose Mercury News article about him here. He also has a chapter in this book, although it may be self-published. Rlendog (talk) 15:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep When I saw the name and article, I wanted to delete as notability is not inherited. However, Rlendog showed sources not in the article that clearly suffice for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The sources User:Rlendog has found are sufficient to satisfy notability. —Lowellian (reply) 07:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though not in the article, multiple non-trivial sources identified to satisfy WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Shildt[edit]
- Mike Shildt (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 league baseball manager. Article fails WP:GNG and WP:BASE/N. Penale52 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume this is the same guy, so I'm ambivalent about this one for now.[23][24] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Since the sources I found are all from one paper, he doesn't meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep as the current coach of the Springfield Cardinals per usual consensus, this article is crap right now though. Secret account 14:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I rewrote the article using Scout.com which is owned by Fox Sports coverage which is considered significant, at least three articles that talks especially about him. Secret account 16:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the rewrite and incorporating Secret's work with the sources I found, I think he passes GNG, though not by a whole lot, so keep. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Muboshgu. Rlendog (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Sugar Grove, Illinois#Education. Keilana|Parlez ici 02:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harter Middle School[edit]
- Harter Middle School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopedic and unreferenced coverage of a school's extra-curricular activities, clearly written by a pupil. WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOTPROMO both apply to some extent. Yunshui 雲水 22:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename & Redirect- Per official website Kaneland Harter Middle School, redirect to Sugar Grove, Illinois#Education, where it is already appropriately mentioned in its community article; merge probably unnecessary. Dru of Id (talk) 01:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per standard practice for all but the most exceptional elementary schools. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename & Redirect as above per common practice. Since it's likely this was written by a student, I've taken the liberty on usertalk to strongly urge the page creator to keep editing the pedia, no matter the outcome here. We need editors; young ones might soon grow up to be strong wikipedians, with encouragement and guidance. Anyone of middle school age who has made this much effort should be encouraged to keep plugging. BusterD (talk) 01:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep or merge, which can be accomplished outside of WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acquaintances of Susan Mayer[edit]
- Acquaintances of Susan Mayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fancruft, no reliable sources showing that this topic is notable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - when a series has several minor characters spread in numerous articles, Wikipedia says that deletion should be a last resort and recommends that "articles on minor characters in a work of fiction may be merged into a "list of minor characters in ...";". The main list of characters is already too long, and this article features many characters that once were part of the main cast, such as Julie or Karl Mayer, but that are not notable enough for a separate article. Surely, there are sources discussing Andrea Bowen's portrayal or Richard Burgi's, perhaps not to split own articles for them, but at least to keep this least with real-world content. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per reasons stated above. There are various out-universe sources in the article discussing casting information and critical reception where applicable.Akcvtt (talk)
- To both: This is not a list of characters, it's a list of characters as they relate to a certain character. That is not the same. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, because it's a list of characters as they relate to a certain and major character. Michu1945 (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to violate WP:SYN, since it is putting together a group depending on their relationship to someone. I don't think we would have an article on acquaintances of a real person, so why of a fictional one? BigJim707 (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the problem is the way these characters are sorted, then we can create lists based on real-life stuff, such as "List of DH characters introduced in season 1", like the multiple lists of characters in the Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto series. But since when a "bad" sorting is a reason for deletion? Just note that, if the result of this discussion is "Delete", all information on these characters would be lost. Maybe just temporalily merging them into the main list (along with the lists of the other housewives) and then splitting into seasons would work instead of just getting rid of all info. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Desperate Housewives characters. The only reason the latter's too long is because it's ridiculously overflowing with minute plot details. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Clarityfiend - character bios and plot details are duplicated in different locations; one list would be better. pablo 09:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although I dislike the title of the article, it does seem helpful and relevant to those who watch the T.V. show. I believe the article should be titled something along the lines of "List of..." et cetera, et cetera. LogicalCreator (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We already have List of Desperate Housewives characters; no RSes discuss the characters solely in relation to another Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT either but it's notable. Plenty of reliable source provided in the article. RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 9 out of 10 references provided are to the TV show. That's not "plenty" Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge anything sourceable to Susan Delfino. Most of the references in this article are of a very low quality, even if it is a notable topic, but there's no reason for a breakout article given the size of the "parent' article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Susan Delfino is not the parent article. In any case, the parent is the List of Desperate Housewives characters, which is already over 85 KB long. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the characters of the series list and pare back considerably on the cruft. Only 20 of the 115 sources used as references are independent, third-party sources and the few I checked were pretty inconsequential (mostly on the actor/actress with a few lines on their character). Almost all of the remaining sources used as refs are to individual episodes, which are not independent or third-party sources. There are also five refs are to a book written by ABC/Touchstone and one to the ABC web site for the Susan character - these are slightly better but still not truly independent sources. See WP:NOT particularly WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 14:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.