Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 December 11
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Does not appear to be a good-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The New Criterion[edit]
- The New Criterion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:57, 11 December 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 December 11. Snotbot t • c » 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This nomination may be a mistake. In any event The New Criterion is a well-known, important, influential publication, as multiple sources already contained in the article attest. (Note that some of them are listed under External links.) The nominator seems to have AfD'd a long list of conservative-leaning publications in one fell swoop[1], and some of them might perhaps lack notability, but obviously not this one. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:27, 12 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modern Age (periodical)[edit]
- Modern Age (periodical) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:57, 11 December 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 December 11. Snotbot t • c » 23:23, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FrontPage Magazine[edit]
- FrontPage Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:56, 11 December 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 December 11. Snotbot t • c » 23:22, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
California Patriot[edit]
- California Patriot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:55, 11 December 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 December 11. Snotbot t • c » 23:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and a trout upside da head for the nominator. Since when is Time Magazine not a reliable source? Note also that this just passed an AFD as speedy keep (nomination withdrawn) due to the insertion of reliable sources last month.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - Huh? Three weeks ago this was nominated, there were reliable sources, and it was withdrawn. Why on earth has it been re-nominated? Go Phightins! 00:34, 12 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American Outlook[edit]
- American Outlook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:54, 11 December 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 December 11. Snotbot t • c » 23:21, 11 December 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 Isinglass River. (non-admin closure) -- Lord Roem (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Isinglass River Management Plan[edit]
- Isinglass River Management Plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not entirely sure on how to proceed here. I don't think there is sufficient notability to sustain this as an independent article, but I do think that a mention, to whatever degree, would be appropriate in the article Isinglass River, so probably WP:MERGE to that article would be most appropriate. But as the reference given is not readily accessible and there does not seem to be a whole lot on this on Google, delete might be more appropriate. Right now I am not entirely committed to either option. Safiel (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge a selected amount to Isinglass River. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with some significant pruning. The river management plan makes sense as part of the Isinglass River article, but I don't se that a stndalone article is viable. The report is available online so sourcing for this is possible for any editor doing the merge. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge As nominator and having read the link to the report posted by the previous commenter, WP:MERGE seems fairly obvious now. Safiel (talk) 05:28, 18 December 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 keep. Paper has been published for over a century and a half. That does it: all these AfDs by this editor will be speedily kept. They are bad-faith nominations from a politically motivated editor who didn't practice due diligence (WP:BEFORE). I future speedy keeps I will refer to this motivation. Drmies (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wanderer (newspaper)[edit]
- The Wanderer (newspaper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:58, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Princeton Tory[edit]
- Princeton Tory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:58, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Southern Partisan[edit]
- Southern Partisan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:58, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Policy Review[edit]
- Policy Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:58, 11 December 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 keep. Apparent bad-faith nomination with a boilerplate rationale proven incorrect by the sourcing in the article. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish World Review[edit]
- Jewish World Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
According to? Not that I'm invested in retaining this article, but it seems like a ridiculous objection on your part. The website carries dozens of nationally syndicated columnists. I don't know exactly what sort of references you're looking for.
Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, even if the sole criterion by which to judge notability is how many times other newspapers, magazines or other online sources reference the subject-which it shouldn't be, since the whole point of JWR is to be an opinion journal-it meets that litmus test. As the links-which, unfortunately, are dead-to Human Events and Wall Street Journal op-eds demonstrate. There's also an article in the Jewish Week about the Jewish World Review. I'm sure there are others online, but I don't have the time or patience to search for them. As I wrote earlier, it's a ridiculous objection.
Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 23:26, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The National Interest[edit]
- The National Interest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:57, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harvard Salient[edit]
- Harvard Salient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:56, 11 December 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 keep. Speedy keep: actually, based on the sourcing available in the article it is a notable publication, and I have serious doubts about this and other nominations. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Cornell Review[edit]
- The Cornell Review (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:56, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First Things[edit]
- First Things (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. All the 'source' links are links to itself. Herp Derp (talk) 22:56, 11 December 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 keep. Appears to be notable: speedy keep of bad-faith nomination with boilerplate rationale. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Claremont Review of Books[edit]
- Claremont Review of Books (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. The parent may or may not be, but it would not inherit to here. Herp Derp (talk) 22:55, 11 December 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 keep. A magazine with such a membership that's existed for seventy years or more is notable. Speedily kept: bad faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Catholic Digest[edit]
- Catholic Digest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:55, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Blaze (magazine)[edit]
- The Blaze (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. Herp Derp (talk) 22:55, 11 December 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 keep. If the parent is notable, then this publication, which apparently ran for 16 years, is notable too. Another bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The American Enterprise[edit]
- The American Enterprise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable based on sourcing. The parent may or may not be notable, but this is not. Herp Derp (talk) 22:54, 11 December 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 keep. Bad faith. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wanderer (newspaper). Drmies (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nova srpska politička misao[edit]
- Nova srpska politička misao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable. Herp Derp (talk) 22:52, 11 December 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 keep. See nominator's other work. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Politics Of Reality – Essays In Feminist Theory[edit]
- Politics Of Reality – Essays In Feminist Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable. No presented sources. Herp Derp (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nominator does not indicate whether xe has checked for sources or otherwise investigated the possible notability of this work. The author's entry in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy includes a discussion of several of the essays from this book, calling one of them " one of her most important and most often reprinted essays".[2] off our backs says this book "is considered a classic in the field."[3] A GScholar search for this book yields 1,400 hits.[4] --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - another spurious nomination amid a string of similar ones. The quickest of GoogleBooks searches produces dozens of results for books that specifically discuss or at least extensively cite the publication in question. Was WP:BEFORE even considered? Stalwart111 02:06, 12 December 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 keep. Bad-faith nomination from someone who rattled off a dozen or more such deletion nominations, all with the same rationale. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Slut-shaming[edit]
- Slut-shaming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Based on presented sources does not appear notable. Herp Derp (talk) 22:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This was just kept at an AfD that closed a week ago. Maybe this nomination was an error by the nominator? --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:12, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:20, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Kelly Sutton[edit]
- Michael Kelly Sutton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject not notable per WP:N. Appears to be a page created for self-promotion. Circumspect (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Isn't this obvious? Looking at the cited references alone I'm confused by this nomination. Refs #1, 2, and 4 quickly seem to prove notability. Ref #3 is a Youtube video of a newscast that would (if referenced on the original airing network's site instead of Youtube) provide similar support. The references aren't massively biographical, but each provides some depth. If there's any evidence this is 'self-promotion' I don't see it, and, even if it is self promotion, the references show that the subject is notable. Celtechm (talk) 07:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the article is the subject of some high-profile trend pieces, but the depth of those pieces falls far short of establishing notability. Furthermore, the article has all the signs of being self-promotion, like including the date of the subject's birth without a source. That information comes from the article creator, using the Wikipedia user name "Williamsburgwriter" whose only contributions as an editor have been articles related to the subject. The article sources establish that the subject of the article is a writer living in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, so it certainly appears to be a case of WP:AB, a practice strongly discouraged. Circumspect (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But... I agree that it's sort of ridiculous that this guy is notable. His 'claims to fame' are silly and trivial, but they were considered noteworthy by editors and published in RS. I think notability, depth, and etc is achieved in the refs #1, #2 and #4 alone, whether you or I or anyone else particularly likes it. The PBS article devotes @275 words to Sutton and the BBC article @225. The article in the Sydney newspaper uses him as the feature and devotes 500 words to him. I didn't bother to even look at/for other references. While his notability may be based upon "Tend Pieces", Notabilty isn't temporary. And while I follow your logic that he may have written the page himself (Certainly it was him or someone who knows him), that doesn't make the topic non-notable. If the guidelines change so that we delete every page created by someone with a potential POV or COI, then we should delete this (along with 10,000s of other articles). Until that happens, current guidelines indicate that it should stay. Celtechm (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's precisely because notability is not temporary that the article should be deleted. The WP:NTEMP policy says "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." The subject of this article meets that criterion. WP:NRVE states "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest[...]" These rules appear to have been crafted to avoid just this sort of article. Being the fleeting subject of some articles even from highly reputable secondary sources isn't sufficient to establish notability. I don't harbor any personal objection to the publicity the subject has received (I think what he did was quite admirable, really) but the article simply doesn't meet the spirit or the letter of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Circumspect (talk) 23:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And the transparent violation of WP:AB only underscores what this article is. Violating WP:AB is a bit more telling than a mere COI or lack of NPOV. It's a flashing red light that tells us the article violates WP:NOTPROMOTION. Circumspect (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To your first point, I think the coverage actually is for 2 separate themes in Sutton's biography... His founding of a website and his example of participation in a minimalist movement... The coverage spans a few years of interest and is not "only in the context of a single event". If there's an issue around WP:AB that supports deletion in and of itself (I'm not aware of one), then that becomes another question. But on the notability guideline, I still think it is met Celtechm (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The participation in a minimalist movement isn't notable at all; the press coverage appears to stem from the site itself, so there aren't two "separate themes" in the subject's biography, at least as far as the sources that would confer notability go. The web site appears to be exactly the sort of fleeting "short-term interest" described in WP:NRVE. It hasn't been updated since 2010, and there's no evidence of any lasting influence or notoriety beyond three weeks in 2010 when the site got some press. I don't argue that the page's violation of WP:AB constitutes a prima facie case for deletion, but I do argue that it's a strong piece of evidence that the article transparently violates WP:NOTPROMOTION which, combined with the article's clear violation of the letter and spirit of the notability criteria quoted above, puts the article far out of bounds under Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Circumspect (talk) 16:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To your first point, I think the coverage actually is for 2 separate themes in Sutton's biography... His founding of a website and his example of participation in a minimalist movement... The coverage spans a few years of interest and is not "only in the context of a single event". If there's an issue around WP:AB that supports deletion in and of itself (I'm not aware of one), then that becomes another question. But on the notability guideline, I still think it is met Celtechm (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But... I agree that it's sort of ridiculous that this guy is notable. His 'claims to fame' are silly and trivial, but they were considered noteworthy by editors and published in RS. I think notability, depth, and etc is achieved in the refs #1, #2 and #4 alone, whether you or I or anyone else particularly likes it. The PBS article devotes @275 words to Sutton and the BBC article @225. The article in the Sydney newspaper uses him as the feature and devotes 500 words to him. I didn't bother to even look at/for other references. While his notability may be based upon "Tend Pieces", Notabilty isn't temporary. And while I follow your logic that he may have written the page himself (Certainly it was him or someone who knows him), that doesn't make the topic non-notable. If the guidelines change so that we delete every page created by someone with a potential POV or COI, then we should delete this (along with 10,000s of other articles). Until that happens, current guidelines indicate that it should stay. Celtechm (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of the article is the subject of some high-profile trend pieces, but the depth of those pieces falls far short of establishing notability. Furthermore, the article has all the signs of being self-promotion, like including the date of the subject's birth without a source. That information comes from the article creator, using the Wikipedia user name "Williamsburgwriter" whose only contributions as an editor have been articles related to the subject. The article sources establish that the subject of the article is a writer living in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, so it certainly appears to be a case of WP:AB, a practice strongly discouraged. Circumspect (talk) 09:06, 30 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough, passes bar, sufficient sourcing.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Starting two non-notable web sites does not amount to notability ,and there is nothing else there. ` DGG ( talk ) 06:20, 8 December 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, —Theopolisme 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing seems to suggest this person meets WP:BIO. Mkdwtalk 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources PBS, CNN, and BBC. I think this meets the minimum bar of notability. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep (a little reluctantly, for I am not particularly eager to have as many articles as possible about internet celebrities; looking at this again, I think my previous delete !vote, which I just struck. reflects that prejudice of mine, which is not a fair way of judging notability). But the BBC and CNN stories are substantially about the person, and the one in the Chronicle of higher education is definitely predominantly and substantially about the person. They're not a news source given to hype or sensational human interest, It may be true that many or even most of the sources listed are mainly about his web site, but it is enough that three very good sources are substantially about him. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Baku International Humanitarian Forum[edit]
- Baku International Humanitarian Forum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not seeing much in the way of independent coverage in reliable sources. Stuff from their own website, conference invitee lists and videos, presidential photo ops, press releases: just nothing independent of the subject.
And by the way, things of this ilk that come out of Azerbaijan should be treated with an extra dose of scepticism, because, along with places like Equatorial Guinea, Qatar and especially Kazakhstan, it's one of "those" countries with enough oil and gas money sloshing around to mount large PR campaigns trying to convince the West, "hey, we actually are a democracy! Look how modern we are! Look how many important people pay attention to us [because we pay them to]!" (Lest I be accused of pro-Armenianism, since any statement perceived as anti-Azerbaijan is bound to draw such allegations: Armenia does the same thing, but not with oil money, which it doesn't have; rather, through a vocal diaspora.) Unsurprisingly, the author of this article is essentially a single-purpose account.
Finally, I must say this drew a chuckle: "Assembly of the representatives of all spheres of human activity leads to the optimal solution of vital problems, which disturb all humanity." If they ever make a Borat sequel, that's got to go in there. - Biruitorul Talk 18:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 10 December 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, —Theopolisme 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete few secondary sources and appears to be a PR piece for the dictator of Azerbaijan. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I didn't see substantial coverage from independent reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:58, 17 December 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 Withdrawn. I'm withdrawing the nomination in light of the additional sourcing. Now looks like an improve not delete. Monty845 00:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Kelleher11209 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Kelleher[edit]
- Walter Kelleher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is at least in part a Hoax. The Daily News staff did win a the Pulitzer. The article specifically claims the photo highlighted by the Pulitzer was taken by the subject, however the sources I can find credit the photo to George Mattson. (Also it wasn't a B-52). I have been unable to verify the other claims in the article. While the subject may well be notable, in light of the identifiable false claims, all the claims should be fully documented or we should proceed as if they too are hoaxes and delete the article. At his time, I don't think its obvious enough for G3 Monty845 21:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The creator of this article is User:Kelleher11209 and likely Daniel Kelleher, also mentioned in the article. WP:COI and although not an autobiography, the fact that they're related implies much of WP:AB. Mkdwtalk 23:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am author of the article and the below references should be checked. The mention of Walter Kelleher's family and the use of Daniel Kelleher have been removed, as well as a the reference to a B52. Everything else in this piece is based on facts.Kelleher11209 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not in fact Daniel Kelleher that wrote the story but I'm glad we like to make assumptions when recording facts. Kelleher11209 (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelleher11209 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a reference link for his Pulitzer Prize finalist nomination in 1957'- http://books.google.com/books?id=p0-qpyA3NXAC&pg=RA1-PA203&lpg=RA1-PA203&dq=walter+Kelleher+pulitzer+prize+1957&source=bl&ots=eskrpexX2N&sig=by8mDI-mT15THafSSqI19IpI1js&hl=en&sa=X&ei=i67HUIKxJY7O0QHh1ICYCQ&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=walter%20Kelleher%20pulitzer%20prize%201957&f=false
Arthur Ashe US Open Win 1968 - http://www1.dailynewspix.com/sales/largeview.php?name=N1991373.jpg&id=43551&lbx=-1&return_page=searchResults.php&searchDisplay=S&searchAction=simpleSearch&numFields=1&searchVal=Walter%20Kelleher&Button=1&start=-2713888800&end=1355265414&dayFrom=1&monthFrom=1&yearFrom=1884&dayTo=11&monthTo=12&yearTo=2012&location_0=allmeta&bool_0=AND&Button=1&page=0 Pulitzer Prize Win 1956- http://www.pulitzer.org/awards/1956 ESPN "Ten Gran Old BallParks" - http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8077623/ten-grand-old-ballparks Real Life Rocky (Rocky Marciano)- http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/real-life-rocky-rocky-marciano-world-heavyweight-champion-60-years-gallery-1.1165035 Dwight Eisenhower Gallery by Walter Kelleher - http://www.nydailynewspix.com/sales/searchResults.php?searchAction=advSearch&numFields=1&searchVal=Dwight+Eisenhower+Gallery&location_0=allmeta&value_0=Dwight+Eisenhower+Gallery&type_0=exact Daily News Archive of Walter Kelleher Pictures: http://www1.dailynewspix.com/sales/searchResults.php?searchDisplay=S&searchAction=simpleSearch&searchVal=Walter+Kelleher&Submit.x=33&Submit.y=3 Ny Magazine - "I know Christmas is over, but I really really want a miniature pony. Please?" http://nymag.com/guides/holidays/newyears/parties/index1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelleher11209 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 11 December 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 speedily deleted per G11. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Known Food[edit]
- Known Food (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism. (declined PROD) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nom: Actually, might be G11able, now that I look at the website, but I'll leave that for others to decide. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow delete: I'm not seeing it as promotional, but nevertheless, it's a non-notable neologism, and the lone source doesn't even mention it. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've compared the creator's account name to the WWW domain name, yes? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I didn't notice that. Although, it seems to be more about the neologism than the site, since it appears to just source the site rather than advertise it. As I mentioned in my comment, the source doesn't mention the subject at all. However, I think I'll go ahead and make a report on UAA, since the username matches the name of a site that the user may be trying to advertise in his or her article. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've compared the creator's account name to the WWW domain name, yes? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as promotion, given the business of the author (who is blocked for spam username by Orange Mike). The Janice Ortbring referred to is the owner of the agency. I think this is part of the Michigan campaign the link goes to. Whether it's a neologism or promo, it doesn't belong here. Peridon (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, non-notable neologism, unreferenced.TheLongTone (talk) 18:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEO. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO. This appears to be a non-notable neologism. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:19, 11 December 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. Though a proposed merge would likely gain a direct consensus. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 21:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenal F.C. supporters[edit]
- Arsenal F.C. supporters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sitting in a chair, drinking beer, and shouting is noteworthy? Please! This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. This is not even worthy of an almanac. Tabloid stuff mainly. Suggest using some other form of media, such as .com. Articles should be about Arsenal, it's business model, publicity, etc. Anything BUT who sits in the stands and watches the telly (there are hundreds of thousands, I suppose). Fails objective criteria of noteworthiness. Student7 (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Football fans are a cultural group, and indeed with the decline of trade unions, political parties and organised religions it could be argued that football represents the last mass 'group identity' culture in the UK. The traditions of a particular group of football fans therefore represent, in principle at least, a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article provided that there is sufficient encyclopedic, verifiable (etc. etc.) information available to justify having a separate article as opposed to a 'fans' section in the main club article. The 'notable fans' section really strikes me as no different from a 'notable alumni' section on a school or university article. The article is well-sourced (though a minority of those sources probably fail WP:NPOV and WP:V) and worth having. Cynical (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The vast majority of the sources -- as in, all but perhaps 5-6 of them -- are used to support various celebrities being Arsenal fans. The rest are a collection of individual Arsenal fan statistics and other fairly trivial, one-off items, as far as I can tell. None of them represent anything like a unified study or coverage of Arsenal fans or Arsenal fandom. At best, they cover an anecdote or two. I don't disagree with your opening assertion, but I'd need to see much better sourcing covering Arsenal fans as a group in order to think this passes WP:GNG. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reckon you're right on that one - the actual non-trivia content of the article could probably be adequate covered in a 'fans' section' of the Arsenal F.C. page, so I've changed my suggestion accordingly (though left the text intact). I do think though that the nomination comes awfully close to WP:CIVIL and doesn't represent anything like a principle that we should use to judge other such articles. Cynical (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMergeThere is obviously going to be a ton of reliable coverage out there that quotes Arsenal fans, perhaps presents a few statistics about Arsenal fans in context of something larger, etc. There is also going to be a ton of coverage about Arsenal. In order for this to be a notable topic, there has to be significant coverage of Arsenal fans as a topic covered independent of the football club. I don't see this at all in the current article. I also went back to the previous AfD, and saw that someone mentioned 3 sources which they claim do exactly this:
- [5] -- this devotes approximately 50% of one paragraph to Arsenal fans' annual celebration of Saint Totteringham's Day (I have no idea what this is :) in an article covering several topics. I don't think this passes muster.
- [6] -- this is an article about police searching fans of various clubs for "homophobic materials," and is not an article about Arsenal fans.
- [7] -- This is an article about the Queen being an Arsenal fan and is, again, not an article about Arsenal fans.
With all this in mind, I vote to merge this to Arsenal F.C., unless anyone can find reliable sources covering the topic of Arsenal fans or Arsenal fandom (in which case I'll happily change my vote).Changing my vote to Keep based on sources found by Phil Bridger, which are precisely the kind of thing I was looking for. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per WP:GNG. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Arsenal F.C.. There isn't enough material to justify a standalone article. Celebrity supporters, at least in its current form of a crufty list, should be removed. If a celebrity truly supports Arsenal, include it in their bio article. If it is to be maintained, at least add some context (e.g. supported the club since childhood, is a season-ticket holder, has invested in the club). There is currently no attempt to distinguish regular match-goers (i.e. real supporters) from random celebs who went to one match once or get free hospitality or just name-drop the club to sound cool. St Totteringham's Day is utterly trivial and should also be removed. Also, if it was first published in 2002, why has it been backdated before that? The other sections are worthy, but once you lose the two sections just mentioned, the remainder can be condensed into a section within Arsenal F.C.. --Jameboy (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Jameboy. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Couldn't see anything in the article about sitting in a chair, drinking beer and shouting so let's consider the article this could be not the one it might be or is. Of course Arsenal's fans are notable. There are numerous magazines, internet sites and references to them and their fans are worldwide. This article is however fragmented. The notable fans have been expanded by entries of those who merely 'like' the team. It needs triming back to those who are true fans, such as Nick Hornby and Alan Davies. It could also do with being better referenced and structured. Deletion is not what it needs. Correction and expansion is whats needed by this article and not throwing away based on some view of what football fans are. In addition, why merge? If it is poorly constructed and referenced won't merging just add those poor features to the Arsenal F.C. article?--Egghead06 (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The existing references support a few bits of interesting trivia about Arsenal fans, as well as the existence of several famous ones. The merge argument is that while these references don't support a full article -- that is, they don't pass WP:GNG as significant coverage of the subject "directly in detail" -- they certainly support inclusion of these pieces of trivia in the Arsenal F.C. article. For example, I Googled "Arsenal fanbase history" and things of that nature when I tried to find some sourcing, and the best I could find were some fan blogs (in a sea of articles that mentioned Arsenal fans being disappointed in a game, a player, etc.). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just a few minutes' searching finds plenty of academic sources such as Fanatics!: Power, Identity, and Fandom in Football edited by Adam Brown (Taylor & Francis, 1998, ISBN 9780415181044), which has a five-page study of Arsenal supporters starting on page 54, doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2007.00686.x, in which Arsenal supporters are one of the two main groups discussed, and doi:10.1080/13606719.2011.532600, which discusses Arsenal supporters as stakeholders in the club. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. — Frankie (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Jameboy, not enough to justify a seperate article but certainly worth a mention there. GiantSnowman 22:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I am against a Merging as that will just bring back the listcraft in the main Arsenal article which makes it too big. As a topic that has been discussed in the past in this football project there was a fair sized vote against such listing of celebrity football fans. Once you strip that from this article, what you have left is.. a bit of a repetition of what is already on the Arsenal page. There is the Supporters section which is covered very well. And some of the sources used seem to question it's own sources [8] The Mail On Sunday is questioning it's source, which they are quoting they got from The Sun Then adding it's own evalutation, there is no stating of facts there. marketingweek are getting some information from The Sun also, questioning that in it's own article then stating Facebook only has 8 Million Arsenal fans, so how can there be a 100 million. So if the citations are questioning their sources... I question the whole article! Govvy (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would like ask Student7, he says that it fails objective criteria of noteworthiness. I would ask that since WP:N says that articles must be "worthy of notice", would he count being the first to do something as worthy of notice? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I said delete, under Wikipedia:Five pillars It tells us not to have directory. This is a directory of supporters, and for an article which says the Queen and Osama bin Laden are Arsenal fans, I question this directory and all sources!. It's bordering on Soapbox. Govvy (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the question I asked. But if the list of supporters were removed, would you still want it deleted? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Comment There are maybe one or two little bits, which could be on the main Arsenal page, but really the main Arsenal page has a much better written section regarding the supporters. This not a very thought-out article and Student7 wrote, Tabloid stuff mainly and I agree with that, I try to go by what was written in the Five pillars, and there are plenty of cases for removal of an article such as this. You can have all the citation/references in the world. But that doesn't help an article if it lacks construction, this to what I see, starts off by repeating information on the Arsenal page, then lists a directory of supporters. Strip it all out and all you have left is St. Totteringham's Day! Govvy (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Like Govvy, I am against merging as that would make the other article too big, but then I'm thinking that this is a notable WP:SPINOFF. The "deleters" have a point regarding the list of random people who support the same team, but if we remove that list we still got a notable topic with lot of potential for a decent article. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (without prejudice against a later merge based on editorial presentation concerns.). Phil Bridger's sources appear to reach WP:GNG, I don't see a case for deletion or forced merge. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:14, 19 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cambodian Razorback Dog[edit]
- Cambodian Razorback Dog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete Not notable, basically an advertisement for a family's personal breeding project. According to the article itself locals where the dog is being bred don't recognize it as a breed which means the only group of people recognizing it is the family creating the breed.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Tikuko 17:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I cannot find any coverage about this "breed" of dog. Lacking any coverage in reliable sources, and taking the information in the article at face value, this is not even a breed. -- Whpq (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable coverage. Does not appear to be a recognized breed by American Kennel Club or other notable dog breeding organizations. Also appears to be promotional for one family's enterprise. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:31, 17 December 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 Trapped in the Closet. MBisanz talk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pimp Lucius[edit]
- Pimp Lucius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely unreferenced fictional character article. No refs and I can't find and solid refs in google. PROD removed by creator without substantial improvement. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Trapped in the Closet, the one place where this character has any context. No independent notability, and the redirect sends readers to the logical placto Trapped in the Closete where he might be mentioned.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Trapped in the Closet. While this character does get mentions in reliable sources that are addressing Trapped in the Closet, coverage does not seem to warrant a separate entry. I don't think that a merge is necessary, as much of the material here is already to be found there. A brief character summary there might be useful, but I think it would be better to start from scratch. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:46, 17 December 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 Trapped in the Closet. MBisanz talk 20:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sylvester (Trapped In The Closet)[edit]
- Sylvester (Trapped In The Closet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional character. No independent refs. I can't find any independent refs in google. PROD removed by creator. Stuartyeates (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Trapped in the Closet, the one place where this character has any context. Lacking independent notability, the redirect sends readers to the logical place where he might be mentioned. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Trapped in the Closet. While this character does get mentions in reliable sources that are addressing Trapped in the Closet, coverage does not seem to warrant a separate entry. I don't think that a merge is necessary, as much of the material here is already to be found there. A brief character summary there might be useful, but I think it would be better to start from scratch. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 19:50, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bay Raitt[edit]
- Bay Raitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to meet the WP:BIO and general WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Vaypertrail (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Could find no reliable in-depth coverage. Does not seem to be a notable person warranting an encyclopedia article. - MrX 02:28, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet notability requirements; he possibly could in the future if he plays a more significant role in the future and is covered more widely in independent sources. dci | TALK 03:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)-gadfium 21:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:53, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'd like some feedback about whether or not the fellow might meet WP:ANYBIO for his Visual Effects Society Award for 'best character animation in a live action motion picture' for his work on creating Gollum in the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Yes, we do not have much from which to build a fully comprehensive article, but as his win is verifiable,[9] might we concede that point and allow this to remain and grow over time and through regular editing? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:20, 9 December 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, MBisanz talk 16:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO for his Visual Effects Society Award for 'best character animation in a live action motion picture' for his work on creating Gollum in the The Lord of the Rings trilogy. With respects to Sue Rangell and AdventurousSquirrel, a pernom does not address ANYBIO's offering circumstances where the GNG might not be met, yet a person could still be considered notable none-the-less through recognition by his peers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With a bit of searching there seems to be a reasonalbe number of mentions about him in international magazines. He seems to be one of the top animators in his field. The article needs more work and references. NealeFamily (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable per Schmidt. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:GNG --Nixie9 (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) --Anbu121 (talk me) 04:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One crazy ride[edit]
- One crazy ride (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Listed after PROD was removed (without resolving any of the issues). Unremarkable film. No citations establishing notability. Fails WP:GNG. – Richard BB 16:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Return to authorfor continued work. This brand new article was proposed for deletion while being actively edited,[10] and yes... the newcomer removed the prod without immediately addressing issues of format, style, and sourcing. But the thing is not completely unsourcable,[11][12] and I think the project might eventually have a fine editor if brand new contributor User:Deepadeepa is allowed to continue his OUT of article space. Send him to WP:PRIMER, WP:NF, WP:RS and WP:GNG. Let him ask questions of more experienced editors. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Struck my initial !vote per improvements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has somewhat substantially improved. [13] No need to userfy. Remarkable film. Has citations establishing notability. Passes WP:GNG. Cheers. Bonkers The Clown (Nonsensical Babble) 10:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per massive improvements made. Major kudos to User:Bonkers The Clown. Nicely and speedily done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in the spirit of WP:HEY. I have added some citations. Film has mention in numerous sites and newspapers. Film has won awards globally. More work is needed on citations. Also describes journey across Arunachal Pradesh state which has very limited wikipedia content. Arunram (talk) 20:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A little too hasty: WP:BITE. As it currently stands, this is a credible start and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I think its meets notability requirements, but I would disagree with it being in a credible condition, the lists and some of the sources are dodgy to say the least, bare url in the article itself? Needs considerable prose work from reliable sources to be satisfactory, preferably with some background info on production and filming.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:36, 16 December 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted (A7 and G11) by The Blade of the Northern Lights. (non-admin closure) Lugia2453 (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maloney Properties[edit]
- Maloney Properties (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company. CSD and PROD templates were removed by an anonymous user, so I'm bringing this to AfD. SMC (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as tagged: unambiguous advertising. And an unremarkable company.TheLongTone (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - Under A7 and G11. OlYeller21Talktome 17:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as it stands. Not overly promo IMO, but no notability or encyclopaedic significance shown. Looks like just another doing its job. Peridon (talk) 19:43, 11 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nicolai Laudrup[edit]
- Nicolai Laudrup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously challenged PROD as there are some references but this individual's notability should be judged on his personal merits, not who he is related to. Has not played in a fully professional league, as the Danish 1st Division is not such a league. Cloudz679 16:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 16:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Coverage is mainly or entirely primary, trivial, or not reliable. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:11, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kwon Chang-Hoon[edit]
- Kwon Chang-Hoon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously nominated for BLPPROD. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 15:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer who hasn't played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that the articles fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Julian T. Pinter[edit]
- Julian T. Pinter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Added per discussion below. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Movie director with questionable notability. The only reference is IMDB and Google News has nothing about him. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability is very weak. As an aside, the article itself seems to be mistitled (appears to be "Pinder" as per IMDB). SMC (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I made a mistake with the director's last name. It should be "Pinder," not "Pinter." Thanks. --Splashen (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Julian T. Pinder (Correct name)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep. Move article to correct name and expand and source through what is available. While as a documentary filmmaker, his career is short, his work HAS received the requisite coverage under WP:FILMMAKER. A very new article on a fellow who HAS received coverage.[14] The article needs expansion and improvement through regular editing, but not deletion one hour and eleven minutes after its last author edit[15] simply because it is new and had not yet been done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Your link to Google returns only one result, which is a Facebook page. Basically, that's what my own WP:BEFORE search returned as well. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 07:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm....? Cannot explain the mystery of a broken find sources, but my own search results for "Julian T. Pinder" quickly brought me quite a few sources speaking about he and his arguably notable work Land... Globe and Mail (1) Globe and Mail (2) 24 hours (Slovak language) Exclaim! Calgary Sun Now Toronto Northern Stars and a very nice interview in DocSpace No doubt there are even more with some digging. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Your link to Google returns only one result, which is a Facebook page. Basically, that's what my own WP:BEFORE search returned as well. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 07:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me the article needs to be flipped. The two works he is credited as having produced" merely show him as an associate producer, a rather minor credit. But Land in particular generated a decent amount of coverage, especially for a social issue documentary. Seems to me what we have here is a notable Canadian documentary filmmaker who has also paid the bills with some production work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, and though busy on other things now, I am willing to undergo such regular editing after a presumed keep. In the meantime, I have begun the framework on an associated article on that particular film. See User:MichaelQSchmidt/Land (2010 film). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes, I just did a basic rewrite. Refs need to be added and the article expanded, of course. The DocSpace interview is indeed vey illuminating, this guy was working with Jennifer Baichwal while in high school for freak's sake. Not bad. He's clearly a notable doc filmmaker, with his directorial debut doc premiering at Hot Docs. It's not the nominator's fault the article title was misspelled, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:56, 14 December 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 a7 (no credible assertion of notability), g11 (promotion). NawlinWiki (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley Cordelia[edit]
- Ashley Cordelia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An actress with, according to IMDB, a single, micro-budget ($4000) film to her credit, does not pass WP:NACTOR. "Some critics regard her as a modern-day progenitor of themes and styles used by Truffaut and Godard." How can one be a modern-day progenitor of themes created 50 years ago. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:40, 11 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dealer (band)[edit]
- Dealer (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about two bands, one from Linz, Austria and one from Cirencester, UK. Both bands appears to fail WP:GNG and likely WP:BAND. Custom searches, including ones in GNews archives and Google Books have not yielded anything for the Linz, Austria band, and searches for the Cirencester, UK band have only turned up this passing mention. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 8 December 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, Yunshui 雲水 13:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - For the Cirencester band, I found this article which mentions they were scheduled to perform with Ozzy Osbourne last year. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent with German but I did find this video for the Austrian Dealer which mentions the 1999 establishment but this is not sufficient or reliable. I should that this article's first link is to the British band and the second is to the Austrian band. If you look through the history to this edit, an IP added a link to a Portland-based band named Dealer but the link is dead so that band was probably also non-notable. Considering the article exclaims "CURRENTLY ACTIVE", this article's purpose is obviously to gain attention for both bands. SwisterTwister talk 20:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - because it is perhaps only promotional. Also relevant is WP:109PAPERS. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:41, 17 December 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stem Cell Educator[edit]
- Stem Cell Educator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be original research as per WP:OR and "we identified", :we educated", etc. Rarkenin (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Rarkenin (talk) 13:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is my first article. I am authorized by Dr. Yong Zhao to create and edit this article. I just changed the Text according to your proposal. Leo181 (talk) 13:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - it clearly isn't WP:OR in the sense that there are published papers on the subject. The good-faith editor has a conflict of interest (which shouldn't matter). The work appears to have been widely reported, I'll look out some citations. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - have added 5 more news and journal citations, an "Applications" section to describe what the device is for (curing autoimmune diseases), and redrafted the lead. This is a really exciting development, never seen anything like it at AfD before. It has been properly researched (collab. China/USA) and internationally reported (Canada, Australia...). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - have made further fixes. While apparent COI is cause for caution, it can be dealt with. An important development. Should find wp:MEDRS sources though, rather than mass media. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:HEY with the fixes made. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as I am informed Dr. Zhao has treated more than 150 autoimmune patients so far in Spain and China (Why not in the US ?). Successful studies of incurable diseases (as this one is) usually do not stop recruiting participants. Thanks for your support. Leo181 (talk) 13:00, 14 December 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 Wow-Wow sauce. MBisanz talk 20:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bow Wow Sauce[edit]
- Bow Wow Sauce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article claims that bow wow sauce is another name for wow wow sauce. Wow-wow sauce article already exists, nor can I find any evidence that it is also called bow wow sauce. Another claim (that bow wow sauce originated in Painswick) is, I think, due to confusion about the Painswick tradition of "bow wow pie" (or "bow wow cake") in which a small china dog is baked in the pie.[16] That's pretty much the whole article except for a Discworld reference repeated in the wow-wow article. Richigi (talk) 18:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Smells like a WP:NEO but it does seem to exist. Unfortunately that single referenced book is not searchable on GBooks, but I am seeing a few hits in web. I'd say redirect to the main article, unless someone can come up with a definitive argument for just nuking it. §FreeRangeFrog 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I thought so too at first. But the more I sift through the ghits, the more it looks like the source of the info is the article itself, plus a couple of references to said book. I'm not utterly against a redirect, but I do wish I could get a peek at that book. Richigi (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, yeah, I've seen that happen before. If the source is the Wikipedia article then it should be a clear delete, since it's not documenting but rather spreading the term. §FreeRangeFrog 00:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I thought so too at first. But the more I sift through the ghits, the more it looks like the source of the info is the article itself, plus a couple of references to said book. I'm not utterly against a redirect, but I do wish I could get a peek at that book. Richigi (talk) 01:06, 28 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Although the book is not searchable in GBooks, it definitely discusses the sauce, as does this Guardian article from 2005. I couldn't find anything else, except a mention in a poem in an October 1867 edition of the Nottinghamshire Guardian - which, at the very least, shows its not a neologism. Moswento talky 17:26, 4 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 10:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Wow-Wow sauce. This appears to be a term that is used to denote Wow-Wow sauce, per [17] and [18]. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:24, 15 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the Drive-In Reunion Tour[edit]
- At the Drive-In Reunion Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tour fails WP:NCONCERT and WP:GNG. Two of the sources provided are passing notices of the band among others playing at festivals. The third source is an interview with a band member saying there will be no new album, which is not information relevant to the tour article. From the sources and the article itself, there is no evidence that this is anything more than a few festival dates and there is no evidence that even if this was a tour that it is called "At the Drive-In Reunion Tour". Aspects (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Aspects (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm a big ATDI fan, but I agree with the nom that this subject does not appear to meet WP:NCONCERT or WP:GNG. Most of the key information on this page is already contained in the "Reunion (2009–present)" section of the band's main article, so that's why I didn't suggest merging. Gongshow Talk 23:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom ---Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:35, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Weckström[edit]
- Kim Weckström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vanity page of a businessman Staszek Lem (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 8 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 10:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:26, 12 December 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 The Hamsters#Videos. MBisanz talk 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To Infirmity, and Beyond![edit]
- To Infirmity, and Beyond! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable music video of a concert. No references to show notability. Stowonthewolder (talk) 22:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:PERNOMINATOR before you make any more contributions like that. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos where it is logical to inform readers by sending them to where they might learn about the group, even if the video itself lacks coverage for an independent article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:05, 9 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 10:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Hamsters#Videos. Doesn't merit an article but is a valid redirect. --Michig (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per Michig - if it wasn't for there being a valid redirect target, this could easily be speedied for being a pure promo article. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:54, 11 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Face of Arabia[edit]
- Face of Arabia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This beauty pageant appears to fail WP:N. Coverage in reliable sources has not been found. Sources in the article are primary ones. Custom searches such as [19] and [20] have also failed to provide coverage in reliable sources. Sending to AfD rather than prodding or proposing speedy deletion, to minimize the potential for systemic bias on English Wikipedia. Northamerica1000(talk) 21:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I could not find reliable sourcing indicating notability. The inaugural contest in 2010 also seems to have been the only one. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 07:28, 10 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 10:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:26, 12 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pacific Technical College[edit]
- Pacific Technical College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
no indication given of notability of subject. ref is to website only. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This appears to be a vocational school. I'm not finding substantial reliable source coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a degree-granting institution, fails GNG. No independent coverage found. All Google News Archive hits are for the unrelated Australia-Pacific Technical College. --MelanieN (talk) 17:18, 8 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 10:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A stub with near-zero content, zero references and no indication of wp:notability. What's here can be recreated in 1 minute if notabiliity were ever established and a real article started. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete should have been speedy for no assertion of notability. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Kirsch[edit]
- David Kirsch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not appear to meet the WP:BIO and general WP:NOTABILITY requirements. Vaypertrail (talk) 01:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject is far from notable according to WP policy, though apparently known in some circles; current sources are not reliable and appropriate ones are difficult, if not impossible, to find. dci | TALK 02:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 8 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 10:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:28, 12 December 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 Al_Sharpton#Assassination_attempt. MBisanz talk 20:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Riccardi[edit]
- Michael Riccardi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Violates WP:BLP1E. No importance outside of Sharpton attack. Coretheapple (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nomination. ukexpat (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge To Al_Sharpton#Assassination_attempt. Seems a BLP1E but... the target of the crime was notable, and there are circumstances around the event (such as Sharpton suing the city) that would merit, at least keeping the redirect. The basic information there can be easily condensed. Of course Sharpton didn't actually die, so maybe that's the problem here. §FreeRangeFrog 22:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um, meaning that if Sharpton had died, the guy would merit his own bio. I meant that in a good froggy way :\ §FreeRangeFrog 22:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting it is a good idea. Terrible picture in that section, though, really cockeyed. That's the next thing I have to learn: how to straighten pictures. Coretheapple (talk) 22:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No importance outside of Sharpton. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge as per above. Riccardi was a thug was a couple of priors, but is only notable because of the target of his attack and perhaps his bizzare notion that he was a hero. That could be easily covered in Sharpton's own article, no need for a crazy criminal to have his own article 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:40, 1 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 4 December 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, Mediran talk to me! 10:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect: per all the above. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 19:49, 11 December 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. There is a slight consensus to delete here, but this is especially so because the rationales for keeping are slight and/or not related to policy (i.e. "these lineups are listed in many different places. If they weren't notable than they wouldn't be recorded" which is assuming that anything that is reported anywhere can be notable - not the case, obviously). Other Keep merely rely on "it's sourced" and WP:NOHARM. I was surprised that WP:NOTSTATS wasn't referenced further in the discussion, however. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting lineups[edit]
- List of Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No lasting notability on a general purpose encyclopedia, belongs in a baseball specific wiki or almanac. Not sourced either. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 08:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reason, only one sourced is the Mariners one, there is no consistency in their layout. BTW, obviously, if they're deleted, that would leave their category empty so it would need to be deleted too, but I don't know if I can bundle it in to here. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 08:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Colorado Rockies Opening Day starting lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim Opening Day starting lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Los Angeles Dodgers Opening Day starting lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Seattle Mariners Opening Day starting lineups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Keep. Nominator is incorrect that these pages aren't sourced as they are all sourced to baseball reference. Nominator is also incorrect that their is no lasting notability as these lineups are listed in many different places. If they weren't notable than they wouldn't be recorded. They are also fairly consistent in their layout, despite his claim with only minor differences. Being in the opening day lineup is something that is worth mentioning in a list like this.Spanneraol (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanner, please provide links to multiple, independent, reliable sources to demonstrate the notability of each opening day line-up. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One other point to consider regarding the notability of these lists: mentions of players in sports statistics websites like Baseball-Reference.com are generally considered trivial and are disregarded for determining notability. Please see WP:NSPORTS#Basic criteria. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A simple google search [21] turns up several sources that refer to opening day lineups and that the discussion about who makes the opening day lineup has lots of coverage. This is a list not an article, so if the subject of the opening day lineup is notable, and I believe it is, then that is enough to make these lists viable. Spanneraol (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, they have notability, but, as I noted in my nom rationale, not enough to belong on a general purpose encyclopedia. See WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 21:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of wp:notability of this compounded type topic. North8000 (talk) 12:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Delete per nomination. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis added) postdlf (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, Post, but how do you reconcile the generalized statement that "Wikipedia incorporates elements of . . . specialized . . . almanacs" (among many other things) with the more specific "Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK?" In my world, that's exactly what the typical sports almanac is—a book of statistics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is not statistics. It may be improper to include for other reasons, but the fact that it's the kind of info you'd find in a sports almanac isn't a valid deletion rationale. Most WP:NOT problems are instead cured by removing the unencyclopedic information from an otherwise valid article (i.e., sales prices in an article about a store) or adding more information to make it an article (adding biographical info to an article about a pitcher that only listed his career stats). Anyway, my main point is that your statement is inaccurate and not helpful here to resolve the issue, as are most attempts to present a slogan as an argument. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for explaining your rationale. Personally, I think there is a rather large difference between my original statement ("Wikipedia is not a sports almanac") and the excerpt from the Five Pillars you have chosen to emphasize ("Wikipedia incorporates elements of . . . specialized . . . almanacs"). I'm missing the part where it says Wikipedia is a sports almanac or any other form of specialized almanac, as opposed to incorporating elements from same. As for sloganeering, I think you will find my logical deletion rationale based on the (non)notability of the lists' subjects outlined below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, the question needed to be pushed deeper, to ask why or why not this particular element of a sports almanac should be included here. I think I agree with your use of WP:LISTN here (though no opinion as of yet on your application of it), because I don't think any other part of WP:LISTPURP applies. postdlf (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for explaining your rationale. Personally, I think there is a rather large difference between my original statement ("Wikipedia is not a sports almanac") and the excerpt from the Five Pillars you have chosen to emphasize ("Wikipedia incorporates elements of . . . specialized . . . almanacs"). I'm missing the part where it says Wikipedia is a sports almanac or any other form of specialized almanac, as opposed to incorporating elements from same. As for sloganeering, I think you will find my logical deletion rationale based on the (non)notability of the lists' subjects outlined below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This list is not statistics. It may be improper to include for other reasons, but the fact that it's the kind of info you'd find in a sports almanac isn't a valid deletion rationale. Most WP:NOT problems are instead cured by removing the unencyclopedic information from an otherwise valid article (i.e., sales prices in an article about a store) or adding more information to make it an article (adding biographical info to an article about a pitcher that only listed his career stats). Anyway, my main point is that your statement is inaccurate and not helpful here to resolve the issue, as are most attempts to present a slogan as an argument. postdlf (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, Post, but how do you reconcile the generalized statement that "Wikipedia incorporates elements of . . . specialized . . . almanacs" (among many other things) with the more specific "Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTSTATSBOOK?" In my world, that's exactly what the typical sports almanac is—a book of statistics. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia "incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." (emphasis added) postdlf (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with Spanneraol about the notability. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all I think they satisfy the notability for stand-alone lists. Opening day lineups are always an important subject of discussion and news in baseball, even from a random season I picked out like 1948 where there are few scans and yet still plenty of coverage, and Spannerol's simple google search does a ton more to show the importance of opening day lineups today and throughout history. There's also countless amount of coverage in The Sporting News, which I wish was still a free service to see their 100+ years of scans. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 20:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vodello, the specific subject is "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting lineups," not "opening day lineups," as you searched. WP:NLIST requires that the specific list subject satisfy WP:GNG, which requires multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a material, non-trivial manner to demonstrate the notability of the list subject. Quote: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines[.]" Please provide links to multiple, independent, reliable sources that specifically discuss opening day lineups of the Baltimore Orioles. Those sources should also by substantive, i.e. not trivial or routine mentions. Otherwise, we are simply dancing around the real notability requirements and trying to satisfy them with blue smoke and mirrors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isnt just about the Orioles as other teams are nominated here also... The point is that the opening day lineup is notable so lists of the different teams lineups are allowed under list policy. Spanneraol (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Spanner, it's not just about the Orioles list, but we have to start somewhere, and so far no one has provided links to multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups" (or any of the other teams named) in a non-trivial way. Please provide specific links to independent, reliable sources that discuss the specific subject; a Google search for 1948 starting lineups demonstrates nothing but key word hits, none of which are specific to the Orioles (MLB Orioles franchise did not exist in 1948), and the overwhelming majority of which are either trivial or routine regarding the other teams. Please note that the notability of "Opening Day lineups" is a different subject from the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups," or the lineups of any other teams. The subject of this list/article is not "Opening Day lineups"; the subjects of these lists are the Opening Day lineups of specific, identified teams. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think you understand me... If opening day lineups are notable then lists of them is notable.. the Orioles dont need any specific criteria. Notability requirements for lists are different than the requirements for articles. If we went by your really stringent requirements we would have no lists on wikipedia. The point of those google searches was to prove that opening day lineups and who is on them is a subject that has been reported on continuously.. Thus lists of people who meet that criteria, grouped by team, is certainly acceptable despite your misreading of the guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanner, please give me a little credit. I understand your position; it's not that complicated. I suggest that you re-read WP:NLIST and the applicable provisions of WP:GNG. The specific subject of the list must be notable as a group, and in this case, that means the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups"; it does not mean that because "Opening Day lineups" are a notable subject that lists of the Opening Day lineups of individual teams are notable. Quote: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." I thinks that's pretty darn clear. You may also want to do a key word search for "list" in GNG; there's more than one applicable subsection. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is in what you define the "group" to be and I see the group as being the opening day lineups in general and these lists are under that grouped topic. And opening day lineups have been discussed "as a group" in many sources as we showed earlier. Spanneraol (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume nobody would object if a given year's opening lineups were in the team's season article. The question would be if it makes sense for navigational purposes to have all those single-year lineups in a single standalone list.—Bagumba (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bagumba, the notability guidelines do no apply to individual elements of an article, so incorporating the current starting lineups into a given team's current season article (or main team article) is not an issue. As you probably know, the NFL, college football and college basketball team and season articles typically incorporate a current team roster. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spanner, please give me a little credit. I understand your position; it's not that complicated. I suggest that you re-read WP:NLIST and the applicable provisions of WP:GNG. The specific subject of the list must be notable as a group, and in this case, that means the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups"; it does not mean that because "Opening Day lineups" are a notable subject that lists of the Opening Day lineups of individual teams are notable. Quote: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines." I thinks that's pretty darn clear. You may also want to do a key word search for "list" in GNG; there's more than one applicable subsection. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think you understand me... If opening day lineups are notable then lists of them is notable.. the Orioles dont need any specific criteria. Notability requirements for lists are different than the requirements for articles. If we went by your really stringent requirements we would have no lists on wikipedia. The point of those google searches was to prove that opening day lineups and who is on them is a subject that has been reported on continuously.. Thus lists of people who meet that criteria, grouped by team, is certainly acceptable despite your misreading of the guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Spanner, it's not just about the Orioles list, but we have to start somewhere, and so far no one has provided links to multiple, independent, reliable sources that discuss the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups" (or any of the other teams named) in a non-trivial way. Please provide specific links to independent, reliable sources that discuss the specific subject; a Google search for 1948 starting lineups demonstrates nothing but key word hits, none of which are specific to the Orioles (MLB Orioles franchise did not exist in 1948), and the overwhelming majority of which are either trivial or routine regarding the other teams. Please note that the notability of "Opening Day lineups" is a different subject from the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineups," or the lineups of any other teams. The subject of this list/article is not "Opening Day lineups"; the subjects of these lists are the Opening Day lineups of specific, identified teams. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isnt just about the Orioles as other teams are nominated here also... The point is that the opening day lineup is notable so lists of the different teams lineups are allowed under list policy. Spanneraol (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vodello, the specific subject is "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting lineups," not "opening day lineups," as you searched. WP:NLIST requires that the specific list subject satisfy WP:GNG, which requires multiple, independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a material, non-trivial manner to demonstrate the notability of the list subject. Quote: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines[.]" Please provide links to multiple, independent, reliable sources that specifically discuss opening day lineups of the Baltimore Orioles. Those sources should also by substantive, i.e. not trivial or routine mentions. Otherwise, we are simply dancing around the real notability requirements and trying to satisfy them with blue smoke and mirrors. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure how this is different than FLs like List of Baltimore Orioles Opening Day starting pitchers. Is a starting lineup for a club that much different?—Bagumba (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My personal understanding is that being the opening day starting pitcher is a more prestigious honor as there's only one of you but there's 9 people on starting lineup. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 21:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bagumba, first, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, if we are arguing about the notability of an article subject, then we need to focus on the applicable notability guidelines (here, WP:NLIST and WP:GNG). The question posited is: are there multiple, independent, reliable sources that specifically discuss the "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineupS?" Yes, or No? It's a relatively simple question that requires the supporters to provide actual sources. It's not a matter what else exists on Wikipedia, or whether we like the list/article or not. It all boils down to one fundamental question. If multiple, independent, reliable sources exist, of a non-trivial nature, that discuss "Baltimore Orioles Opening Day lineupS," I will be happy to withdraw my objections and change my !vote to "keep." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought up the starting pitchers lists, which are FLs, to make sure we are not overlooking a precedent here. It could be that they are not notable either. It could also be that these are notable and we should consider WP:IGNOREing the notability guidelines, as there are no firm rules in WP aside from following consensus. I dont think it easily meets the notability guidelines, but I could see how it would be helpful to have a list like this anyways. Sources always talk about teams' opening day lineups, even if they only talk about a few seasons at a time, or even further limit it to a specific position.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bagumba, the trick is not finding sources that discuss every opening day lineup for a particular team, which you probably won't find outside of some team-specific sports almanac. The trick is to find multiple sources that discuss the opening day line-ups of the particular teams, the importance/significance of the opening day lineups, and actually discuss them in a non-trivial way. I'm betting that several of these lists can be supported as notable (undoubtedly, the Yankees list), but no one who is taking part in this discussion has yet made any serious effort to do so. Simply repeating that a subject is "notable" over and over again, as others (not you) have done, does not make them so. I'm also a little perplexed when some editors take AfD discussions so personally. Last time I checked, I was a member in good standing of several sports WikiProjects, including WP:Baseball, and I'm not some evil sports article deletionist. But I don't think Wikipedia in general benefits when we bend over backwards to keep articles that don't satisfy the notability guidelines and aren't properly sourced. Wikipedia already has plenty of non-notable lists that aren't properly sourced, and we don't need more of them. If an article or list satisfies the guidelines for inclusion, it's usually not that hard to demonstrate that it does. The burden is on those who support inclusion of a particular subject, and to the extent good sources exist for the particular teams under discussion in this AfD, those articles/lists would benefit from the inclusion of those additional sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I brought up the starting pitchers lists, which are FLs, to make sure we are not overlooking a precedent here. It could be that they are not notable either. It could also be that these are notable and we should consider WP:IGNOREing the notability guidelines, as there are no firm rules in WP aside from following consensus. I dont think it easily meets the notability guidelines, but I could see how it would be helpful to have a list like this anyways. Sources always talk about teams' opening day lineups, even if they only talk about a few seasons at a time, or even further limit it to a specific position.—Bagumba (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, for now - I'm kind of torn; on one hand, I think the topic itself is reasonably notable and the article itself is probably useful, I do have concerns as far as WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I'll monitor the AfD and probably !vote one way or the other eventually.Weak delete - If I was a wizard at editing Wikipedia, I'd have come up with what Wizardman said...he pretty much took the thoughts out of my head and mushed them into a coherent thought. Go Phightins! 02:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete per nom. I draw the line at opening day pitcher. That is a prestigious assignment/honour due to both the fact that it is a single position and the fact that a pitcher doesn't start every (or the majority) of games like the rest of the players do. There is independent notability for opening day pitcher, but not for opening day lineup. When speaking of lineup the opening day lineup is essentially the same as the starting lineup (sans the pitcher) and thus is no ore notable than the latter. Ravendrop 03:27, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. It's a tough situation, but the opening day lineup doesn't have the significance that a starting pitcher would have. That does get talked about in sources in and of itself, unlike lineups. Wizardman 03:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Ravendrop put it well; there is little independent prestige to an opening day lineup that is any different from being an everyday player. This is a rather indiscriminate list and while it has some value, it would be better for a sports website or almanac. Against the current (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – not notable compared to being an Opening Day starting pitcher. This type of info is more appropriate for BR than WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Sourced information and you never know who needs this type of info. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 03:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all If we seem to agree that lists of Opening Day starting pitchers are useful, then what's the damage in having *more* information on the same page(s) (or what could be the same pages, if the starting-pitcher and starting-lineup pages are merged)? - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a combination of a WP:OTHERSTUFF and a WP:NOHARM argument. Against the current (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bbny-wiki-editor's argument should not be automatically dismissed based on those essays. WP:Other stuff exists says that though "other stuff" arguments are "not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Also, WP:NOHARM is a stronger argument when verifiability is an issue, but these articles can be sourced with some effort.—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a combination of a WP:OTHERSTUFF and a WP:NOHARM argument. Against the current (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although not as notable as the Opening Day starting pitcher, opening day lineups do get coverage each year discussing issues such as new acquisitions in the lineup or out do to injury, rookies who made the opening day lineup, players who had been in the opening day lineup in the past who no longer are, etc. Taking one of the teams bundled in this discussion, Here is a New York Times article discussing changes in the Yankees 1989 Opening Day lineup from previous years; here is an article about how the Yankees 1951 Opening Day lineup replaced 3 veterans from prior years' Opening Day lineups with rookies, here is an article about Joe DiMaggio being out of the Opening Day lineup for the 4th time and one about him being out of the Opening Day lineup for the 7th time and another about DiMaggio being replaced in the Opening Day lineup. Here is a Times article that discusses briefly the Yankees' changes in Opening Day shortstop for 6 straight years through 1996 and a New York Post story on a change in the team's Opening Day lineup from 2010 to 2011. Here is an article that while not discussing the 1923 Opening Day lineup in detail or comparing with other Opening Day lineups reports that lineup of being worth of commemoration 85 years later.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlendog (talk • contribs) 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Rlendog, I will readily concede that there is probably more than enough coverage to satisfy the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG guidelines for the Yankees opening day lineups, largely owing to the Yankees presence in the New York media market. It ain't there for the other teams, however, and the current sourcing of the other articles based on Baseball-Reference.com is considered trivial and disregarded for purposes of determining notability per WP:NSPORTS (See WP:NSPORTS/Basic criteria.). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about the Orioles, Mariners or Rockies specifically, and don't have time to look at each team individually. But I am pretty sure the Dodgers, with half their 100+ year history in LA and the other haif in NY, and one of the most famous Opening Day lineup changes of all time in 1947, have more than enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, Rlendog. This is not my AfD, and, instinctively, I would not have nominated a cluster of articles about the Yankees and these other teams in a single AfD. Perhaps we should split this AfD into separate discussions for each list; otherwise, it's going to become a very confusing discussion as each list is addressed on its specific merits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dirtlawyer1 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CRRaysHead90, as the nominator, would you consider withdrawing this AfD, and renominating these lists individually? There are elements of an excellent discussion above, and I believe that I could quickly summarize those points in a single bullet-point post following your individual re-nominations. I would also suggest that the Yankees list probably has more than enough substantial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guidelines of GNG, whereas most of the other lists do not. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest a discussion at WP:BASEBALL. OTHERSTUFF and WP:IGNORE really should be addressed as far as the existence of related opening day pitchers FLs, but it will be difficult to get due consideration of the broader topic in an AfD forum.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been at least one AfD discussion of the starting pitcher lists here, but much of the discussion centered around the fact that being the Opening Day starting pitcher is a particular honor, which makes the case for those lists stronger than for everyday players. Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening day pitcher AfD referred to had a consensus to keep mostly because it was considered inherently notable, though it generally did not got to the level of demonstrating significant coverage. The delete arguments in this current AfD are being more stringent. There are annually many article written for every team on the current year's projected opening lineup. Is that enough for notability, or do sources need to discuss multiple years at a time for notability? Do starting pitchers have the more stringent coverage or are they inherently (i.e. subjectively) notable? WP:IGNORE says its fine to decide that a topic is inherently notable, sources be damned, if the consensus is that it improves WP. If that is the general reason for having the starting pitchers lists, it could also be a valid reason to keep the general lineup list.—Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bagumba, I have been a proponent of holding XfD discussions on WikiProject talk pages when the subject of the XfD is within the particular expertise of the WikiProject (e.g., proposed merges of navboxes, proposed merges of related articles, etc.). With regard to notability issues, AfD is the best and most proper forum and it attracts non-baseball editors who have a wider grasp of the notability guidelines. A more proper issue for WP:Baseball would be whether we should include the individual opening day lineups (e.g., the 1960 Los Angeles Dodgers opening day lineup) in the individual team season articles (e.g., the 1960 Los Angeles Dodgers season). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There has been at least one AfD discussion of the starting pitcher lists here, but much of the discussion centered around the fact that being the Opening Day starting pitcher is a particular honor, which makes the case for those lists stronger than for everyday players. Rlendog (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would suggest a discussion at WP:BASEBALL. OTHERSTUFF and WP:IGNORE really should be addressed as far as the existence of related opening day pitchers FLs, but it will be difficult to get due consideration of the broader topic in an AfD forum.—Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about the Orioles, Mariners or Rockies specifically, and don't have time to look at each team individually. But I am pretty sure the Dodgers, with half their 100+ year history in LA and the other haif in NY, and one of the most famous Opening Day lineup changes of all time in 1947, have more than enough coverage to satisfy GNG. Rlendog (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rlendog, I will readily concede that there is probably more than enough coverage to satisfy the WP:NLIST and WP:GNG guidelines for the Yankees opening day lineups, largely owing to the Yankees presence in the New York media market. It ain't there for the other teams, however, and the current sourcing of the other articles based on Baseball-Reference.com is considered trivial and disregarded for purposes of determining notability per WP:NSPORTS (See WP:NSPORTS/Basic criteria.). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI.. the Dodgers season pages DO include the opening day lineups... but many of the other teams seasons do not. Spanneraol (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not trying to be a wise guy, Spanner, but that may be the most appropriate place for this opening day lineup information, and it's not subject to any discussion about its notability as part of an article whose subject is already presumed to be notable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO, the argument for both starting pitchers and lineups is WP:IGNORE. Starting pitchers will probably never be overturned in an AfD by non-domain (or even baseball) experts that might believe GNG is met by an article bombarded with a multitude of sources that point to trivial facts about a team's opening day pitchers that have never been discussed in a general article about opening day pitchers. Maybe we should add a sourced breakdown on lefties vs righties in historical starting lineups as well as a breakdown of players in the HOF vs those who are not and those who are not eligible yet (all common "facts" in a lot of baseball FLs). —Bagumba (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bagumba, I empathize with your frustration over the apparent inconsistency, but this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia written by volunteers. Inconsistencies are inevitable, especially when every XfD discussion is effectively an ad hoc committee composed of whatever editors wander by. The solution is not to ignore the notability guidelines in a current XfD because a previous XfD did. That just makes the problem worse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The list is sourced and satisfies my requirements for notability. Opposers points seem strained and unconvincing. Jusdafax 20:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jusdafax, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but the logic of "opposers" is hardly "strained," as you suggest. The burden is on those editors voting to "keep" to demonstrate the notability of each of the lists nominated in this AfD by providing links to multiple, independent, reliable sources for each list per WP:NLIST, WP:GNG and WP:RS. In absence of multiple, independent, reliable sources for each of the lists nominated, those voting to "keep" have failed to satisfy that burden and those lists lacking such sources should be deleted by the closing administrator. That's the way it works. If you and other "keepers" fail to provide such sources, the closing admin may disregard your !vote as unsupported. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats your opinion.. if the consensus of the participants in this winds up deciding that the articles are notable then they can be kept, regardless of what you are asking for.. and I remain convinced that the articles are notable based on my reasoning above.. I understand you have a different opinion but that doesnt mean you are automatically right. Spanneraol (talk) 21:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, no. "Notability" is one of the core principals of Wikipedia, and the primary determinant of what gets included. If you believe that notability is determined by a simple majority vote, I suggest that you re-read WP:CONSENSUS, which is actual Wikipedia policy. And, for the record, WP:WL is an essay, not policy. If actually arguing notability based on policy is "wikilawyering," as you suggest, then we should just do away with AfD altogether and let editors include whatever articles they choose to create . . . at which point Wikipedia will be no different than BleacherReport.com. Somehow I don't think that's what this all about. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) Common sense seems to me to be the operative principle here. To quote: "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." Are we building a free encyclopedia with reasonably sourced information that readers can use, or are we stuck quibbling? I would argue opposers have lost perspective on our project and that, to be blunt, the deletion argument you cite seems to me to be a simple case of WP:WL, and I call on the closing admin to take this view into serious contemplation. Jusdafax 21:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Common sense" does not trump policy, especially in the absence of a very good reason for an exception supported by a solid consensus. Otherwise, AfD simply becomes an exercise in IDONTLIKEIT and ILIKEIT. Moreover, one man's "common sense" is often another man's simple disregard of policy and inability to present a logical argument based on policy. And, for the record, the "common sense" section cited by you above is a part of an essay, not Wikipedia policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I looked at the links provided above regarding the Yankee opening lineups, and I feel they all fall under the category of routine sports coverage, as they basically say "X is in the opening lineup" (and sometimes "in the place of Y") or "Z is not in the opening lineup". (The one about the commemoration of the 1923 team was really not about the opening lineup, which was not even listed.) By its nature of beginning the season, naturally there is more sports writing about the opening day lineup. However similar articles have been written comparing other points in a season, such as a team's home opener lineup, or the lineup in the first game after the All-Star break.
I think for this topic area to be notable as a set, there should be some significant, independent, non-promotional, reliable coverage from notable sources discussing the topic of opening lineups itself (and not just the list of players who are or aren't in them). I believe the topic of becoming the regular starter for a team at a given position may have significant coverage. Although becoming a team's starter has a high correlation with the opening day lineup, it is not a perfect one, and I think a list of the regular starters for a team would have more sources to draw upon to establish notability. isaacl (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with regular starters is that it is somewhat ambiguous, e.g., there can be a platoon, or an injury replacement that plays a lot of games. While the Opening Day starting lineup is a verifiable fact. As for routine coverage, those stories (other than the reference to the 1923 lineup, which is a different issue) all reference changes in the Opening Day lineup from one (or more) season to another. There are not many articles about changes in a team's 80th game lineup, or even final game lineup, from one season to another. And I specifically looked for articles about changes across seasons, because that was the suggestion of what needed documentation. There are many more articles specifically about the opening day lineup each season itself. Rlendog (talk) 23:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In the majority of cases, there are one or two players at a position who start most of a team's games (whether or not it is due to injury replacement doesn't affect the player's status as a regular starter). Sabermetricians have set definitions for purposes of study that can be used. I appreciate that this is less definitive than who started in game 1, but I think a list of regular starters is more notable from the perspective of the overall season: there is ongoing coverage of a team's starters throughout the whole season. Also, I think articles that discuss changes in opening day lineups are using this as a proxy for discussing changes to the team regulars. isaacl (talk) 23:55, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Taylor Christoffel[edit]
- Taylor Christoffel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously a Prod with rationale "Passing mentions of the subject are insufficient references to establish that he meets the WP:CREATIVE notability guidelines." The Prod notice was removed by an IP some 5 minutes before a set of edits by the original contributor. In its current state, one reference (a passing mention in an article about someone else) has been added, so I am bringing this to AfD on the same rationale as the earlier Prod. AllyD (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, notablity by association is not a valid criteria anyway. --Phazakerley (talk) 05:15, 13 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Softwarelint[edit]
- Softwarelint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy deletion template (A7) removed by an IP while the creator asked for a grace period to add references. However, at least half the article should be deleted to get past the G11 speedy criterion, and none of the sources qualify as reliable. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 06:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If half of it needs to be deleted, then delete half and see what's left. Give him some time to get good sources in order, or better yet explain to him what does or does not constitute a reliable source. Give the guy at least a week to get his stuff together, and then we'll talk deletion. Let's see what he's building before we start tearing it down. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 07:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would it be better to just userfy this article if notability is not established by the end of the AfD? That way he'd be able to work on it at his leisure rather than have it potentially deleted outright.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe worth pointing out that a similar version of this article exists at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Softwarelint where it was submitted by User:Zemandi; it was also submitted yesterday by User:TannerJonesDriver and speedy-deleted, before the current version submitted by User:Thedeepsinghal (close to the name of the owner of the website). So while the original authorship of the submitted text is unclear, it does seem that there are enough versions available to be worked on. AllyD (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:WEB, Nothing notable about this website for inclusion into an encyclopaedia. Mkdwtalk 07:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and Speedy Delete unlikely notable and also fails to meet WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Sources like Facebook and those sites in relation to the subject is very unreliable. Mediran talk to me! 10:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can not find any reliable sources not associated with the company. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCOMPANY. -- LuK3 (Talk) 22:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Several source searches have not provided coverage in reliable sources. Appears to fail WP:WEBCRIT. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of coverage by secondary sources. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No WP:RS found to indicate that the firm meets WP:CORPDEPTH or its product meets WP:NWEB. AllyD (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Cant find reliable sources to establish notability. Arunram (talk) 02:57, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Starship Troopers: Invasion "Mobile Infantry"[edit]
- Starship Troopers: Invasion "Mobile Infantry" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I only found a single reliable secondary source providing significant coverage of the game [22]. Delete per WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 06:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The game has a place in the universe's canon. It's been approved by the creators of the film itself, and uses its assets, which I felt made it significant enough to include. Additionally, I found another review at [23]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MechaDev (talk • contribs) 08:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk). — Frankie (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other options as well. That would include a merge of redirect to either the Starship Troopers franchise page or a to the legacy section Starship Troopers (film) page where this is mentioned.--199.91.207.3 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am usually against merging uncited content, especially into an already Featured Article. If the material that is merged could be cited to the SlideToPlay review then I would definitely consider that as an option, but I would not support merging uncited material in this case. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a straight up redirect? The film page already mentions this so it can redirect there without requiring a merge.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-redirects in the page are sorta bad, so if the article gets deleted or redirected then that link should be removed. The film page doesn't mention the game, but the novel one does. I think a redirect to Starship Troopers#Cultural_influence would be fine if we get a consensus for it. I would support it. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that the Invasion film page, for which this game is a prequel, DOES mention the game. -- MechaDev 10:19, 15 December PST —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about a straight up redirect? The film page already mentions this so it can redirect there without requiring a merge.--64.229.167.20 (talk) 22:56, 14 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Independent sources only indicate it WP:EXISTS, not that it is notable. 1292simon (talk) 12:41, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meteor Parking[edit]
- Meteor Parking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable parking lot company, promotional, no references, stub that has not been edited in over a year, article originally part of a larger corporate grouping but has now been spun off Jusdafax 05:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Mediran talk to me! 10:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Miles from meeting either wp:notability or RW notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:17, 12 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ridge (roof)[edit]
- Ridge (roof) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Travelbird (talk) 05:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.--Wakowako (talk) 07:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. – Richard BB 09:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Mediran talk to me! 10:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pretty obvious one under NotADictionary.....the whole article is just a short dictionary type definition. North8000 (talk) 12:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nothing but a dictionary definition. Lugia2453 (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:DICDEF. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into roof and redirect until someone starts writing a proper article. See de.wiki article for scope. --ELEKHHT 01:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters. MBisanz talk 20:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kagura (Azumanga Daioh)[edit]
- Kagura (Azumanga Daioh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Redirected to the character list, but the redirect was undone due to one list naming her as a top character. This is literally the only source in the article, and it makes no other out-of-universe assertation of notability at all. Furthermore, the list that nominated her does not seem of any importance. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The list mentioned in the article was published by Mania.com, which is generally considered to be a reliable source, especially since it appears it was written by staff members. Since Mania.com is reliable, the list does appear to have a semblance of importance and credibility, but I'm reserving judgement on this one unless some one who is more knowledgeable about such reception decides if it's enough to establish notability. However, since there aren't any other sources, I'm leaning towards a redirect to List of Azumanga Daioh characters, but perhaps there are Japanese sources out there. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. –Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:02, 12 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Sources do not indicate real-world notability. 1292simon (talk) 12:43, 18 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crime Prevention through Neighborhood Watch Programs[edit]
- Crime Prevention through Neighborhood Watch Programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is written like an essay, and I believe cleanup is not the way to go, considering Neighborhood watch already exists. Rarkenin (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An immense list of problems. First the subject is a reworded duplicate of Neighborhood watch. Has no real references, just a few unfollowable fragments. Written like a personal essay from start to finish; there is little or no usable material to salvage. North8000 (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article IS written as a personal essay. I had to make a wikipedia page for a university class that I am taking. As for the missing references I just added all of my references, I am new to wikipedia and I stopped working on the page to go to class and when I came home I found these notices. I am going to be deleting the page in a week or so once I have recieved my grade. Sorry if anyone feels I have violated policies, but the fault is more with my professor's choice of assignment and not my personal fault. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hcorriga (talk • contribs) 03:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You may need to point out to your professor that he is actively encouraging his students to essentially break the rules of Wikipedia for his class. Please instruct your professor to WP:NOTESSAY and adjust his curriculum accordingly. I also realize that you may have misunderstood his instructions. Several university courses such as WP:MMM have successfully integrated Wikipedia contributions into the course but as article writing. There is quite a big difference. Mkdwtalk 21:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per rationale of article creator "This is a personal essay" see WP:NOR Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - WP:OR as directly stated by article creator. Mkdwtalk 07:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research. Hcorriga, ask your professor if s/he's read the guidelines at WP:School and university projects. Articles like this really aren't appropriate for Wikipedia. DoctorKubla (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per original research and format. No use in cleanup of this page as Neighborhood Watch exists, and has more globalized and encyclopedic content. Rarkenin (talk) 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTESSAY. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTESSAY and WP:NOR. Also, while there is some sourced content in the article, significant elements of synthesis are present within it. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an essay full of original research, and also because Wikipedia isn't the Web host for your essays. The professor assigning this appears to misunderstand the goal of Wikipedia. There's no reason why students should have to upload their essays here rather than e-mailing them, or, better yet, handing it printed copies. CtP (t • c) 23:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per NOTESSAY and NOR (and maybe WP:SNOW too). Well-meaning I'm sure, but non-encyclopedic. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 02:00, 15 December 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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dark fluid[edit]
- Dark fluid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be a diverse collection of interesting but singular ideas trying to unify dark matter and dark energy into a single concept either through Chaplygin Gas formalism, dark matter/dark energy alternatives, or a complex scalar field. The sources which use the term all appear to lack appropriate peer review. The one peer reviewed article cited has a main thrust that explains generalized covariant phenomenology with respect to gravitation rather than a true "dark fluid" proposal. Another peer-reviewed article in the See Also section just talks about certain corrections to scalar fields in the context of quantum gravity. Another article was apparently published in Open Astronomy Journal which is only a step above Vixra in editorial rigor.
As such, this idea does not represent a standard theory or hypothesis which can stand alone as a singular article. The various proposals that use the term "dark fluid" can be covered, subject to their notoriety, on pages devoted to the individually notable dark matter/dark energy alternatives or, perhaps even better, in articles about notable theoreticians who might famously make such proposals (as my research shows, however, it looks like there may be only one researcher who got press coverage for this, though, according to his own webpage, he appears to have moved on to other more promising lines of inquiry).
Essentially, I'm asking the community to delete this page as being either a non-notable side proposal or, at worst, an example of an attempt to advertise for obscure theories and bringing them to a greater prominence than they might otherwise enjoy by including them in Wikipedia before there has been a proper peer review. Junjunone (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick search of "Dark Fluid" and "Dark Fluid Theory" turns up very little, only a few forum threads with very few posts and an article or two, but nothing from the past couple of years or so. I'm not a physicist, nor am I even a student of physics, but this appears to be at best, a significantly obscure theory which is not being worked on by many or any current physicists, and has not been worked on since the bulk of this article was written in 2008. I could be incorrect, so while I believe this article should be Deleted, it is only with low-moderate (20 - 40%) confidence that I do so. Regards, Jeremy -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The dark fluid topic itself seems notable. Searching for "Dark Fluid" on Google Scholar yields many hits. Just on the first page are 6 articles all published in mainstream peer-reviewed journals, all by different authors:
- 1. "Cosmological model with viscosity media (dark fluid) described by an effective equation of state", J Ren, XH Meng - Physics Letters B, 2006 - Elsevier http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269305017259
- 2. "Dark fluid: A complex scalar field to unify dark energy and dark matter", A Arbey - Physical Review D, 2006 - APS http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v74/i4/e043516
- 3. "Vacuum dark fluid", I Dymnikova, E Galaktionov - Physics Letters B, 2007 - Elsevier http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269306015929
- 4. "A FRW dark fluid with a non-linear inhomogeneous equation of state", I Brevik, E Elizalde, O Gorbunova… - The European Physical Journal C, 2007 - Springer https://doi.org/10.1140%2Fepjc%2Fs10052-007-0357-9
- 5. "Non-adiabatic dark fluid cosmology", WS Hipólito-Ricaldi, HES Velten… - Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2009 http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2009/06/016
- 6. "Constraining the dark fluid", M Kunz, AR Liddle, D Parkinson, C Gao - Physical Review D, 2009, http://prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v80/i8/e083533
- The nominator pointed out the Science daily article which counts as a secondary source. If a topic is notable but the article is deficient, the article problems are surmountable and it should be improved, not deleted. AfD is not for cleanup, as explained in WP:NOTFORCLEANUP. The main problems I see with the article are that it doesn't seem neutral in viewpoint of all the different ways of modeling dark fluid, and it has insufficient references, leaving it somewhat essay-like. Mark viking (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your searches are telling because they all refer to varying concepts surrounding a "dark fluid". The last one, in particular, is an interesting take because it merely treats the dark sector as a "fluid" in the sense of searching for a vocabulary term that allows for unification of the two components that they would like to parametrize. This is a different sense of dark fluid from the other suggestions including your source 2), 3), and 5). Source 1) uses a viscous term to break a degeneracy similar to one described in 6), but their preference for a "fluid" is related to a proposed set of equations which diverge from those recommended in 6).
- This is a somewhat interesting cul-de-sac in the discussions of theoretical cosmology, but there isn't a simple definition for what a "dark fluid" is other than a mean combination of dark energy and dark matter. To write an article about this topic will require any author (including the current state of the article) to synthesize a discussion into something like an original manuscript. That's the only way forward for treating this subject as I see, so it looks to me like the "clean-up" you are proposing is against Wikipedia's rules.
- The secondary source deals with only one treatment by someone who has used the term "dark fluid". If we were to base the article on that secondary source, it would necessarily exclude most of the other sources you cited.
- Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I agree that there are a variety of approaches to modeling dark fluid. It seems the field of cosmology often has multiple theories proposed to explain experimental facts. For instance, within the topic of dark matter, there is cold, hot, warm, or mixed dark matter. There are baryonic sources of dark matter, such as MACHOs in the form of brown dwarfs, jupiters, and intermediate size black holes, and various distributions of molecular hydrogen clouds hitherto unobserved. The non-baryonic sources include many kinds of proposed particles, such as kinds of WIMP, axions, and tau or muon neutrinos. Non-Newtonian gravity theories could be considered a kind of non-baryonic source, or maybe a third category.
- But none of the many, wildly different approaches to dark matter preclude the writing of article(s) about them. It is a matter of trying to summarize the different approaches, with references for verification and further reading. The dark matter article does a good job of this in my opinion and a similar type of summary could be created here for dark fluids. Mark viking (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, dark matter stands in contrast to this subject very well. Dark matter as a concept is very well defined from a particular theoretical response to a set of observational conundrums: it is the unobserved matter that is causing excess gravitational and dynamical effects. This is why we can have discussion of proposals such as "alternatives to dark matter" and define precisely what constitutes a "dark matter proposal" and what does not. The concept is well-defined in the secondary literature and throughout the field. Rather than a half dozen poorly-cited papers of marginal significance, there is an entire library of literature on which to write a set of articles.
- Contrast this with dark fluid. There isn't even an agreed upon definition aside from the suggestion that there could be a connection between components of the dark sector (incidentally, dark sector is a term that is much more commonly used in the field, but I notice we don't have an article on the topic, perhaps because it is simply defined as the combination of dark matter and dark energy components of the energy budget of the universe). I just don't see how we can write an article based on a handful of speculative works that have no community development or robust investigation. Theoreticians come up with ideas every day that go nowhere. I don't think that a collection of proposals that happen to use the arbitrary term "dark fluid" deserve to be cobbled together to form the basis of an article on Wikipedia when no such other "review" exists in the wild. Junjunone (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But none of the many, wildly different approaches to dark matter preclude the writing of article(s) about them. It is a matter of trying to summarize the different approaches, with references for verification and further reading. The dark matter article does a good job of this in my opinion and a similar type of summary could be created here for dark fluids. Mark viking (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An idea with sufficient discussion in academic literature to be notable. Even if people do not agree what constitutes dark fluid, it is still possible for an article to set out the main theories without original research. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The reason given for deletion "As such, this idea does not represent a standard theory or hypothesis" is not a good one. There are plenty of article son topics that have not reached the maturity needed to be standard theories or have even turned out to be incorrect and are now of historical interest. Derek farn (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although fringe topics are generally not encouraged on Wikipedia, the fact that no one currently knows what dark matter or dark energy are makes this theory a plausible explanation to what is currently observed in the universe. I see no reason to delete. The simple fact that this is not a standard theory is no reason to delete; it's not like this article requires a rejection of established physics such as quantum mechanics. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no consensus on what the term "Dark Fluid" even represents, as has been observed above. The current article certainly does NOT represent any broad scientific viewpoint. Yes, the term is being used, but since there's not much agreement on what it means, an article that purports to claim that one definition is the correct one is skirting original research, neutral point of view, fringe science, and a number of other no-nos. For now, I would say delete the article until there's some broader agreement on what the term means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PianoDan (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only a few sources, mostly ArXiv. Several hundred references are usually required to make a topic notable (or noted). Xxanthippe (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- According to which policy? WP:GNG requires only two or more (independent) references for notability.--Cyclopiatalk 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG isn't a policy, it's only a guideline. To that end, there is an excellent guideline for Scientific Notability: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences). It looks liks this shows that the sources aren't good enough for science. Junjunone (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The link you mentioned is a pretty good guideline, if a bit naive in parts. The author seems ignorant that there is some peer review done for ArXiv (there are virtually no crank papers there, for instance), but they are correct in that ArXiv papers should not be considered as fully peer reviewed papers. But some of the sources quoted above are published in high caliber, mainstream physics journals: Physical Review, Physics Letters and The European Physical Journal. IOP publishes Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics and seems legit, but I don't have personal experience with it. Mark viking (talk) 04:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG isn't a policy, it's only a guideline. To that end, there is an excellent guideline for Scientific Notability: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (natural sciences). It looks liks this shows that the sources aren't good enough for science. Junjunone (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- According to which policy? WP:GNG requires only two or more (independent) references for notability.--Cyclopiatalk 23:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Where are the secondary (non-primary) sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Secondary sources I found with a quick Google search:
- "Dark Fluid: Dark Matter And Dark Energy May Be Two Faces Of Same Coin", Science Daily [24], as noted above
- "New Cosmic Theory Unites Dark Forces", Space.com, [25]
- "Dark Matter and Dark Energy… the Same Thing?", universetoday.com, [26]
- "Has 'dark fluid' saved Earth from oblivion?", New Scientist, 06 March 2008, [27]
- The Science Daily and New Scientist sources I consider reliable. Space.com and universetoday.com seem journalistic, but I cannot comment on reliability. Mark viking (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All these reports are about Hongsheng Zhao's PhysRevD paper. Junjunone (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Previously you were complaining that all of the sources were about different things, but now you are complaining that these sources are about the same thing. Please at least try to be consistent in your arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The secondary sources are all about one idea from Hongsheng Zhao. The primary sources are all over the map. It's really simple: there was a slow news day at the Science Journalist Bull Pen and Science Daily decided to write an article on a PhysRevD article by Zhao. This got picked up by space.com, UniverseToday and New Scientist. That's the sum total of the secondary sources for this topic. If you want to look at primary sources, I listed them above and they're all about different things. Clear? Junjunone (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Previously you were complaining that all of the sources were about different things, but now you are complaining that these sources are about the same thing. Please at least try to be consistent in your arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All these reports are about Hongsheng Zhao's PhysRevD paper. Junjunone (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Science Daily and New Scientist sources I consider reliable. Space.com and universetoday.com seem journalistic, but I cannot comment on reliability. Mark viking (talk) 23:17, 9 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now Appears encyclopedic and wp:notable, but hard to tell because of the (so far) lack of secondary sources in the article. North8000 (talk) 01:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A Google search in regards to peer reviewed knowledge might not be a suitable test in this case. As long as notable scientific sources report back, in this case multiple academic journals, then a Google search of popular links might not be an accurate indication of its importance to science and in this case an encyclopaedia. Mkdwtalk 08:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable per sources above, meets WP:GNG, disambiguating between competing concepts under the same name could be in order, if this is an issue, but this is dealt with editing, not deletion, per deletion policy. --Cyclopiatalk 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: With rewriting for correct tone. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:25, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nihal Sri Ameresekere[edit]
- Nihal Sri Ameresekere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vanity page. Lots of big claims, lots of big name domain names are name-checked in refs, but none of them are giving substantial coverage about the subject of this article.
The one website that does host content specifically about him is glowing - and so it ought to be, as the copyright footer indicates that this is merely a recycled press release from the subject's own consulting company. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Promotional, and no evidence of notability. In fact, I wouldn't complain if it were speedily deleted as spam. Only one of the 11 "references" even mentions him, and that one, as Andy Dingley has indicated, is clearly a promotional page written by or for the subject of the article. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepI have cleaned up the promotional expansion of User:GDJ12 and User:C21Publications and added references which could establish the subject's notability. The subject is well known in Sri Lanka for his public interest related activities and page for him on Wikipedia is justifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjulaperera (talk • contribs) 10:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I stub-sorted the article many months ago and have no other interest in it, but today received an email from User:Manjulaperera informing me of this deletion discussion and claiming that there was a witch hunt going on. I do not think this was an appropriate use of Wikipedia email, as any message alerting other users to an AfD should be done openly and on-Wiki so that issues of Canvassing can be considered. PamD 10:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, but with the last para on my email, Please have a look on the issue and cast your vote appropriately. You are free to cast your vote, even a Delete here.Manjulaperera (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I received a similar e-mail, which I'm reproducing here, both in interests of full disclosure and because it includes some potentially useful sources on the subject:
- I did, but with the last para on my email, Please have a look on the issue and cast your vote appropriately. You are free to cast your vote, even a Delete here.Manjulaperera (talk) 10:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<<Since I have interacted with you on the subject Lasantha Wickrematunge, I need your review on the above subject, "Nihal Sri Ameresekere". There is a deletion discussion on the above subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihal_Sri_Ameresekere
There is a possible which hunt on this issue.
Recently "Association of Business Executives(UK)" page was deleted by User:JamesBWatson and there was a argument on ANI.
User:Andy Dingley also commented there more or less against User:EconomicTiger who created "Association of Business Executives(UK)".
Then User:EconomicTiger raised the issue with User:JamesBWatson on his/her talk page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson#Association_of_Business_Executives.28UK.29
After that User:Andy Dingley placed the deletion tag on Nihal Sri Ameresekere which was once created by User:EconomicTiger and deleted and then created by me. And the first "Delete" was cast by User:JamesBWatson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nihal_Sri_Ameresekere
Nihal Sri Ameresekere has contributed a lot on Sri Lanka's sensitive and controversial "Public Interest" issues. I think he deserves a page for him.
Please see some of the reference about him and by him.
http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/11/15/bus10.htm
http://www.thesundayleader.lk/archive/20090809/issues-2.htm
http://www.dailynews.lk/2012/01/14/news37.asp
http://www.dailynews.lk/2008/01/25/bus12-1.asp
http://www.nation.lk/2007/10/28/busi10.htm
http://www.dailynews.lk/2004/03/29/fea02.html
Please have a look on the issue and cast your vote appropriately.>>
- Keep Believe there are now sufficient reliable sources to show this subject to be notable in Sri Lanka, per WP:GNG. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still doesn't actually make any actual claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, in its current form. It's not good enough to list a bunch of potential sources in the deletion discussion, if they don't also find their way into the real article. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what "make any actual claim of notability" means. Per GNG just need sources, which we have, in the article. They are not inlined citations but that shouldn't be a reason to delete the article outright, just a reason to tag it for cleanup. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 07:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article still doesn't actually make any actual claim of notability, as opposed to mere existence, in its current form. It's not good enough to list a bunch of potential sources in the deletion discussion, if they don't also find their way into the real article. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also received the same e-mail from the same user, so I'll repeat here the same basic information that I e-mailed the user in response: a deletion discussion on Wikipedia is fundamentally an assessment of the quality of the article as written, and not a "personal attack" on the topic. An article can be kept if it's properly written and properly sourced, but can be deleted if it isn't — that's not a reflection on Mr. Ameresekere as a person, but on the quality of the article.
As currently written, for the record, this article asserts and demonstrates his existence, but fails to present any credible reason why he should be considered notable enough to be in an encyclopedia — in its current form, the article's entire body text consists of the sentence "Nihal Sri Ameresekere is a Sri Lankan Author and Public interest Activist.", followed by a list of inappropriate offsite links to Google Books pages for his published works. It fails to include any content which explains why he should be considered a notable author and public interest activist; it just asserts that he exists and then supplements that with advertising links, which is not the same thing as a credible notability claim.
That obviously doesn't necessarily mean that he isn't notable, but merely that the article doesn't demonstrate his notability properly. As such, it needs to be deleted if it isn't significantly improved by closure, but can be kept if it is — and even if it does get deleted, then a new version which cites real sources and makes a real claim of notability can still be recreated at a later date. Another alternative would be to move it to the user's own sandbox so that it can be worked on at that user's leisure.
But the article simply cannot be kept in its current state, because it simply does not meet our inclusion and quality standards as currently written. Keep if sourcing and content improvements are in place by closure; delete if not. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A deletion discussion most certainly is not about the "quality of the article as written". Whatever gave you that idea? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it can be. WP:BURDEN means that the author demonstrates notability (not just handwaves on an AfD) or else it goes. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, the fact that policy explicitly states that an article has to make a properly sourced claim of notability to be keepable, maybe? The fact that a new article which makes a better, more properly sourced claim of notability than an earlier version did can be kept even if the earlier one was deleted as "non-notable", maybe? The fact that the user in question was claiming that the existence of this discussion constituted a personal attack against a person whose article wasn't actually making a claim of notability at the time, maybe? The fact that the difference between a deletable article and a keepable one is the absence or presence of reliable sources that support a credible claim of notability, maybe? Bearcat (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote where in policy you find all of that. According to deletion policy the decision about keeping or deleting depends on the existence of sources, not whether they are currently cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD: An article about a person, living or dead, can be deleted on sight if it doesn't explicitly make a claim of notability — which, at the time of my comment, this article didn't. (It still doesn't make a particularly strong one, but it at least makes enough of one to no longer be speediable.) Also technically WP:BLPPROD, by which an article about a living person must contain at least one source that's present in the article (although since this article did, and that's a process which takes as long as this one does, it doesn't apply here.) Either way, it's important to remember that articles about people are subject to stricter inclusion rules than articles about concepts or inanimate things are; the mere fact that sources may exist is not sufficient if the article doesn't directly contain at least one of them and/or doesn't even make a claim of notability in the first place. And either way, the process is not a political attack on the person, as the editor claimed, but an evaluation of whether the article is good enough to meet our inclusion and content standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but once the AfD process starts, CSD no longer applies. ie. this article is currently not subject to Speedy Deletion. Also, the phrase "make a claim of notability" is problematic. The article doesn't need to claim notability which is what the SNG rules cover - claims of accomplishment etc, rather at a minimum we just need show significant coverage by multiple sources per GNG. Ideally the article would be cleaned up and rewritten during the AfD process but it's not strictly required for it to pass AfD. Although often what happens is an article will pass AfD without being cleaned up then someone will 2nd nominate it years later. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, yes, I know that CSD no longer applies once an article's actually in AFD — that's why I commented on the article's lack of a notability claim in this discussion, in response to an assertion that the topic was being "witch hunted", instead of speedying it. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes but once the AfD process starts, CSD no longer applies. ie. this article is currently not subject to Speedy Deletion. Also, the phrase "make a claim of notability" is problematic. The article doesn't need to claim notability which is what the SNG rules cover - claims of accomplishment etc, rather at a minimum we just need show significant coverage by multiple sources per GNG. Ideally the article would be cleaned up and rewritten during the AfD process but it's not strictly required for it to pass AfD. Although often what happens is an article will pass AfD without being cleaned up then someone will 2nd nominate it years later. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CSD: An article about a person, living or dead, can be deleted on sight if it doesn't explicitly make a claim of notability — which, at the time of my comment, this article didn't. (It still doesn't make a particularly strong one, but it at least makes enough of one to no longer be speediable.) Also technically WP:BLPPROD, by which an article about a living person must contain at least one source that's present in the article (although since this article did, and that's a process which takes as long as this one does, it doesn't apply here.) Either way, it's important to remember that articles about people are subject to stricter inclusion rules than articles about concepts or inanimate things are; the mere fact that sources may exist is not sufficient if the article doesn't directly contain at least one of them and/or doesn't even make a claim of notability in the first place. And either way, the process is not a political attack on the person, as the editor claimed, but an evaluation of whether the article is good enough to meet our inclusion and content standards or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quote where in policy you find all of that. According to deletion policy the decision about keeping or deleting depends on the existence of sources, not whether they are currently cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 14 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep? WP:notability appears to have been established. The question mark is because I did only a fast review. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With recent changes article appear to be maintaining the Wiki standards. Nishadhi (talk) 16:38, 15 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca Masterton[edit]
- Rebecca Masterton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete, unsourced BLP that claims notability but nothing found in google search thus failing WP:GNG Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found some things, but I'm having some trouble with them. I found some links to where she was shown as being on TV, ([28] for example]), but they're not on official channels, meaning we can't link to them. I don't know if she'd pass WP:EDUCATOR as of yet, but there are some sources. I briefly thought of speedying it, but there's just enough here to bring the question of whether more sources exist in other languages. She's certainly someone that could be used to source other articles, but being an authority doesn't always translate into notability. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I would say that if notability isn't easily shown by the end of the AfD, I have no problem with the original editor userfying it. They seem to genuinely want to improve the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I defintely agree they are acting in good faith for sure! The main thing about this is that the person is at least right now not notable. I might suggest userfication if the author agrees then they can flesh it out on a slower time frame. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have found the links to her TV channels (official), I have also found the website of her book and the college she works for. I think there are enough proofs to show her notability. Thank you both the ladies for helping me out. Lubnarivi(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.200.243 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great but make sure that the sources you provide are independant from the source and that they are inline with the policies WP:RS and WP:GNG. Also fyi I'm not a lady 8) I'm a guy with long hair! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. LOL!( Sorry about the sex confusion) I have no idea. I have never made any page before. SO please take your deletion request back so that I can ask someone to work on it. I have to figure out how to put the resources. Thanks for your help anyways.Lubnarizvi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's great but make sure that the sources you provide are independant from the source and that they are inline with the policies WP:RS and WP:GNG. Also fyi I'm not a lady 8) I'm a guy with long hair! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have found the links to her TV channels (official), I have also found the website of her book and the college she works for. I think there are enough proofs to show her notability. Thank you both the ladies for helping me out. Lubnarivi(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.200.243 (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I defintely agree they are acting in good faith for sure! The main thing about this is that the person is at least right now not notable. I might suggest userfication if the author agrees then they can flesh it out on a slower time frame. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, th issues with the books being the key to notability, she hasn't won any awards and most of them are available through small independent or online avenues like Amazon where anyone can get their books published. Now is translating for others books enough to pass the Academics part of notability guidelines as a Academic, I'm not sure we have enough for that either. I have asked a editor who appears to be fluent in Farsi to pitch in as maybe there are more sources that we can use to establish notability in others languages. Still thinking overall though that for right now the person doesn't pass guidelines. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Morning, Give me a break! I am working on it. --Lubnarizvi (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I have no problem with userification, but based on present sourcing and claims in article, subject appears to fall under the "competent professional" rule -- most competent professionals are not notable just by being competent professionals. This goes for many academics, doctors, executives, etc., because typically they don't meet WP:GNG, no matter how worthy they are.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a prominent member of the society as well as a religious scholar, I do not see anything missing. I have provided with enough sources to prove her as an author, religious scholars and a TV presenter. She falls in the category of WP:GNG. You need to be open minded about it otherwise all the wikipages can be deleted since they do not match the category.--Lubnarizvi (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Press TV is a mainstream media not only in Iran but in West, for goodness sake do not blind yourself with the fact that she is revert Muslim. She had been interviewed by BBC Radio 4. If you do not watch or read foreign newspapers and TV, do not tell me that she is not a notable figure. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. "Sources",[2] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Sources are not required to be available online, and they are not required to be in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. She matches these criteria btw. --Lubna Rizvi 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
- I would try to use Milowent as your tool of help in this one. I believe in deletion more often then not, Milowent does not, he's part of a group that wants more things included then deleted I'd listen to what they are trying to say and try to help work with him. He may be able to get this article kept and he is clearly telling you hee wants to. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2005_36_mon_06.shtml I think BBC is a mainstream media and only interviews or takes opinion of a prominent figure. I have contacted her to forward me more of her work. Google is not father of all searches! --Lubna Rizvi 16:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
http://www.economist.com/node/7950162 Here you go! her interview in economist. --Lubna Rizvi 17:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
- Comment: Both of you who have objected the page seemed to have forgotten. Can you please remove the tag now? Page meets all the categories in accordance with wikipedia rules.--Lubna Rizvi 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
- I haven't forgotten. The deletion discussion will run for 7 days. You cited some articles where she is mentioned, but I am looking for profiles-- meaning articles completely about her. I am afraid to say that as things are going so far, the article is likely to be deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what I tried to explain on my talk page, in fact that we do have the discussion for 7 days works in the authors favor because more people can see the article and make a decision. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't forgotten. The deletion discussion will run for 7 days. You cited some articles where she is mentioned, but I am looking for profiles-- meaning articles completely about her. I am afraid to say that as things are going so far, the article is likely to be deleted.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Mostly based on original research and a passing reference in the Economist. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep PressTV called her a "prominent academician"[29]. I'd rather error on the side of caution on this one. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:13, 8 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Though an 82 word unsourced stub being actively when first nominated for deletion 21 minutes after first being contributed,[30] some patience and an incredible amount of work by User:Lubnarizvi and many others,[31] has given a sourced start-class article that enlightens our readers nicely. Yes, more work to be done on style and format, but the project is improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article lacks the non-trivial secondary references that would make her notable. Primary sources from the various Iranian-government-owned media outlets she is employed by doesnt count. --Phazakerley (talk) 16:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Press Tv is owned by Iranian Government only. Ahlulbayt TV is not owned by Iran. You sound pretty biased, no matter who owns who, she is a notable person and is well known all over the world. --Lubna Rizvi 17:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
- Careful of WP:ADHOM. But another consideration is that for a female, even an England-born and later-turned-Muslim Islamic scholar, educator, public speaker, Qur'anic interpreter,and television presenter, any coverage in Iranian media is worth our consideration. Were she an Iranian citizen, we might never have heard of her and they might never have written about her. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no beef with her. The point I was making is that the sources are not independent of her and fail WP:BASIC criteria. Leaving not enough to establish notability. --Phazakerley (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand your opinion, but surprisingly, just enough ARE independent. For who she is and what she does, Wikipedia is improved by our enlightening readers with this information. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be surprised to learn that a mention in a 2006 Economist article and an interview in 2005 for BBC Radio are even enough for WP:GNG especially when they do not establish her notability, but report on the phenomenon of western converts to Islam in general. --Phazakerley (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The viewership of the TV she works for is global, Notability is not reliant on BBC, CNN, ABC and NBC only. She has an audience of millions around the world. I have read and seen the biographies on Wikipedia quite similar to that one. She is a living person and there are new horizons waiting for her. --Lubna Rizvi 12:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubnarizvi (talk • contribs)
- I would be surprised to learn that a mention in a 2006 Economist article and an interview in 2005 for BBC Radio are even enough for WP:GNG especially when they do not establish her notability, but report on the phenomenon of western converts to Islam in general. --Phazakerley (talk) 10:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand your opinion, but surprisingly, just enough ARE independent. For who she is and what she does, Wikipedia is improved by our enlightening readers with this information. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no beef with her. The point I was making is that the sources are not independent of her and fail WP:BASIC criteria. Leaving not enough to establish notability. --Phazakerley (talk) 05:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful of WP:ADHOM. But another consideration is that for a female, even an England-born and later-turned-Muslim Islamic scholar, educator, public speaker, Qur'anic interpreter,and television presenter, any coverage in Iranian media is worth our consideration. Were she an Iranian citizen, we might never have heard of her and they might never have written about her. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this article. A stub tag could be added instead of directly deleting the article to discourage users. --SMSLet's talk 09:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - Technically this subject is WP:TOOSOON as the references are all blogs and self publishing etc, but I think it is one reference away from a solid entry. I'm inclined to give the enthusiastic editor and subject, both in weak areas of WP, a few months to develop.--Nixie9 (talk) 19:20, 18 December 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. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vert skating[edit]
- Vert skating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
History is odd, but in more of a weak dicdef. Sourcing talks around subject matter, not enough to justify a stand alone article. Appears creator has been unwilling to merge (reading summaries only, I've never edited) so deletion seems the only alternative. The long list of names probably presents some challenges as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of those names seemed to have individual articles sourced solely by blogs, so I'm getting the feeling a major cull might be in order. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very hard for me to find web sources to place in the articles.. most ESPN or X-Games links are broken due to vert skating not being part of it anymore (or at least not in the United States), US X-Games only hosts vert skateboarding and vert BMX competitions. These 3 books explain what vert skating is. They talk about techniques and the history behind it. Skating By Jed Morga By Steve Glidewell by Michael Shafran There are many newspaper articles that also talk about the sport and its athletes. There are hundreds of vert skaters around the world and just a few got to be professional since X-Games started back in 1995. Now the only way to become professional is to go to Shanghai, China and compete in the Asian X-Games and win a medal. XK8ER (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What we need is general coverage by main stream websites or publications that cover the subject itself, as a separate product. I'm not difficult, but it has to be significant coverage, where Vert is the primary subject of the article, not just one thing mentioned in an article about skating in general. I would love to be proved wrong and withdraw, but we need to have some kind of sourcing to maintain it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not require that sourcing is in English. When we can choose between two sources, we prefer the English simply because that is the native language here, but we don't discriminate: sources are sources. I use Chrome, so it will translate on the fly anyway. By all means, provide the link and lets take a look. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Dennis, I am still looking for good reliable and independent sources for the Vert skating in English, can you please check out these 3 and let me know if you're happy with them..
- >>What is vert in aggressive inline skating? http://inlineskating.about.com/od/inlineskatingglossary/g/vert.htm
- >>a Beginner Guide to Vert http://www.aggressive.com/m/discussion?id=887108%3ATopic%3A61
- >>this is why Vert Skating is no in ESPN anymore http://www.inlineplanet.com/Articles2/part2xgames.html XK8ER (talk) 05:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All three of these won't pass WP:RS. About.com isn't reliable (some exceptions have been made, but I don't think apply here). The other two are self published, which you can't use for WP:RS. I think you are still looking at having the closing admin put this in your user space and see if you can develop it over time. I have no problem with that, and maybe some references can be found in time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Dennis, don't tell me you have never seen vert skating.. its simillar to skateboarding on a vert ramp. have you head of Tony Hawk? but its vert skating with inline skates.. anyways I have found a few more maybe they can help you.
- XK8ER (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Haven't seen Vert skating, but I wasn't looking for it. I gave up the skateboard in the early 80s. I did see the first moon landing when it actually happened, but I was quite young at that time so only vaguely remember that. As for the links, I will leave that for the reviewing admin and community to review and decide on. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:53, 29 November 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, —Theopolisme 04:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, the article on vert skateboarding suffers the same problem. I'd suggest merging these two articles into
vert ramphalf-pipe (EDIT:Vert ramp most likely need to be merged as well). SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:57, 29 November 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, MBisanz talk 04:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - maybe I'm seeing stuff that others won't consider to be reliable sources but I've managed to find a few mentions in books, articles and other sources that would seem to cover the subject quite nicely:
- Lifestyle Sport: Consumption, Identity and Difference by Belinda Wheaton (Routledge, 2004) - which has a section on the subject with some background and would appear to be fairly academic in nature and reasonably well-sourced in its own right.
- In Line Skating by Steve Glidewell (Lerner Publications, 2003) - more a how-to guide but gives plenty of background.
- Skating the X Games by Allan B. Cobb (Rosen Publishing Group, 2009) - includes a section on the subject at the X Games.
- I've been careful not to fall into the trap of citing potential sources that actually talk about Vert skateboarding which is a different activity covered by a great many more sources. I think the sources above and the previous coverage on ESPN and in the X Games suggest that even if the sport is not popular now, it was previously notable and notability is not temporary. That's enough for me to consider it (as an activity) to be notable. Stalwart111 05:56, 3 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Aggressive inline skating. The references I can find so far all describe vert skating as a form of aggressive inline, and I can't see the rationale for a separate article. I'm not a skater myself, so I'm happy to be corrected (with references :-D ) if I've got that wrong. Altered Walter (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vert skating and aggressive skating is different. Aggressive skating is also with inline skates but its main purpose is to slide on ledges or on a coping in many different ways. It could be using skateparks or on the streets. Vert Skating is performed on a U shaped ramp called a vert ramp, its usually 14ft in height as you have seen in the XGames.. If I were to compare the closest sport to Vert Skating I would say Superpipe skiing XK8ER (talk) 05:13, 15 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
District 187: Sin Streets[edit]
- District 187: Sin Streets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I was rather startled to find this article had been accepted at AfC, because of the 3 references, 2 are from the company;s web site, and the 3rd is not about the game; and some of the article is even written in the 2nd person. But then I saw that the person who accepted it was the same editor who wrote it. I would have speedied as promotional and A7-web except that I wanted to call attention to this obvious gap in our procedures. (Of course, the result is no worse than writing directly in mainspace, but moves from AfC to mainspace are not easy to identify.) DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deletefor a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, but I don't think there's anything we can do about users "accepting" their own submissions. Huon (talk) 03:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although the article appears to be complete on the basis that it contains all of the "necessary" information that one expects in an article about a game, there are issues. First, there is a lack of third party sources, making the majority of the content unverifiable. Second, the majority of the language is subjective and much like that of an advertisement. Third, the language used in the article breaks down several times and is difficult to understand.
- Delete for unverifiable, advertisement content. DavidLetteer (talk • contribs) 05:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rep- oh i didn't see carefully this comment. wtf advertisement content did u see??Arghya Roy (talk) 14:55, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep or delete all on wikipedia.but i didn't get a single help:(.
Don't know what's the rush for deletion.I accepted the article for-
source 1- From gamepress, the article is not by the game company or not any personal entry. Gamepress is a non-commercial network for news about games around the world.There were no third party comments. source 2- Netmarble, a subsidiary of CJ Corporation is a is a Korean developer, publisher, and sponsor of free online games. They made this game and released it at September '12 but most of us didn't know there is another korean site by Netmarble and players there are from Korea with more high levels than world.Even their contents are larger than the games official website. had a little confusion about this source. source 3- This is not directly about the game but indirectly about the game. The security system by which the game is protected.This is to express the game's good security system.How this new game is better than other famous fps games like CS,combat force from the sight of security.
"don't know how many reliable sources do u want?why don't u tell the minimum number of sources needed to create an article in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources?r u telling me to create sources:(.if there are no other reliable sources about the game then what to do?tried my best,collected and changed non/reliable sources,searched whole google, asked for help in the talk page to find some reliable sources for the article."
(*read Minor edited article)
Arghya Roy (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the claim that you received no help is flat-out wrong. For example, here I already told you that the first source is a press release and thus not considered reliable. Since then you've found a different host for that press release, but it's still the same press release and the host doesn't make it any more reliable. And here I commented on the "hacking" section that seemed off-topic. By now it cites a "source" which mentions neither District 187 nor hacking, but the most relevant content is still unverifiable and it still has its essay-like qualities when discussing what people should do. And here the reviewer J.s.071991 commented on the types of sources we need. Now apparently there are no good sources on the game - in that case we don't ask you to create sources (that would border on original research, and unless you manage to get the sources you create published with a reputable publisher with some editorial oversight they'd be useless for Wikipedia's purposes anyway), but we simply shouldn't have an article on the topic which appears non-notable. Regarding the number of sources: WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which is usually interpreted as "more than just one source". Beyond that it becomes less clear and depends on the quality of the sources. Half a dozen passing mentions or primary sources will probably be too little, while two independent reviews by reputable gaming magazines (not just user-submitted reviews!) that provide some detail may be enough. Huon (talk) 13:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rep- I knew press released are reliable sources-
Scholarship
Shortcut: WP:SCHOLARSHIP
Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves. See Wikipedia:No original research. Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars. Arghya Roy (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If my given references are and were not good then how the sources given in the wp game articles Counter-Strike: Global Offensive,Counter-Strike: Condition Zero would capable to fulfill your criteria?with some bad and dead links yes I found a dead link in the article Counter-Strike: Condition Zero, 4 wikipedia links as references in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.I gave a press release which is my current ref 1 is a press release and a ref(no. 2) in the article Counter-Strike: Condition Zero are taken from same place, mine was press release with no 3rd party comments and their is a type of same with a lot of comments, mine is not accepted but that's totally ok.:confused: Arghya Roy (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, other insufficiently sourced articles exist, but that's no reason to keep this one. Each article must stand on its own merits. Secondly, your source is a press release and explicitly says so: "This unedited press release is made available courtesy of Gamasutra...". The source for Counter-Strike: Condition Zero is hosted at the same site, but is not a press release but a news article under Gamasutra's editorial control (the comments, though, would not be considered reliable sources). Thirdly, while especially the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive article heavily cites primary sources, both of those also show significant coverage in truly independent, reliable sources, including even a review by the BBC. As an aside, are you confusing press releases with peer-reviewed academic sources? I'm not quite sure what I should say to that beyond pointing out our articles on these subjects: Press releases, peer review. Those have nothing in common. Huon (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All links I have found on the web, pls check these-
1. http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/district-187-sin-streets 2. http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/27/gamescom-2012-district-187-hounds-and-monarch/ 3. http://my.mmosite.com/3181232/blog/ritem/district_187_sin_streets_ammunitions_thoughts_on_the_core_gameplay.html 4. http://www.gamerevolution.com/preview/district-187-sin-streets 5. http://www.gaminglives.com/2012/09/11/cj-games-globals-mmo-future/ 6. http://mmohuts.com/review/district-187 7. http://www.destructoid.com/district-187-sin-streets-now-available-on-steam-239460.phtml 8. http://www.gamesradar.com/district-187-sin-streets-preview-free-play-gang-warfare/ 9. http://www.gamesradar.com/district-187-sin-streets-preview-free-play-gang-warfare/ 10. http://www.gamershell.com/companies/cj_internet/1049243.html 11. http://www.zam.com/story.html?story=31136 12. http://www.mmoreviews.com/district-187-sin-streets-is-now-live/ 13. http://www.allthatsepic.com/Game_Reviews-detail/district-187-sin-streets-review/ 14. http://www.gamegrin.com/game/preview/district-187-sin-streets-gamescom-2012-preview 15. http://www.gamershell.com/companies/cj_internet/1018394.html 16. http://d187.mmosite.com/news/11202012/district_187_sin_streets_launches_with_massive_content_update_unveiling_new_maps_and_game_mdes.shtml
I have changed all the refs in the article.Tell me what can I do more? If everything fulfill your criteria then how to stop deletion? Will I have to resubmit it? Arghya Roy (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I've rewritten the article from scratch based on what I considered the best of the sources provided by Arghya Roy. Many of the others were blogs, user-submitted or self-published sources, and yet another copy of that same press release - which is still a press release no matter where it's hosted. I would have liked to use the GameGrin preview for a "reception" section, but I found no indication that it's a reliable source and not just some random people publishing their personal opinion. Sources are still rather weak, but since the game was released one or maybe two weeks ago (sources disagree on that; I went with Metacritic), maybe we'll get some better reviews as opposed to previews. Huon (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rep-
I don't know why did u make the article too short,what's wrong with that?why the hacking section was deleted?it's about the security system of the game.my straight opinion is i don't like it.I need answer.You guys had problems with my sources, why did u do these major changes without confirming me?why u edited the picture section, where is the requirements?I want my own written article back.
Another thing that the game i'm going to tell u that i'm playing the game from september '12, so i took it but the game's official release date is 20th Nov '12 , not 27th. Arghya Roy (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've replied at Talk:District 187: Sin Streets, the correct venue for what's basically a content dispute. Huon (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for well sourced, well written, well designed page. Need to expand introduction section.ANIMAXWATER (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC) — ANIMAXWATER (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- comment 2 of the 5 references are still from the company itself. Zam is a minor announcement. That leave the gamestar and gameerevolution articles. Both of them are pre-release reviews, saying the game might become notable. I don't think that's enough. If they write about it and say it has become important, they would be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 8 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I cleaned the article up a bit more, added more refs, and replaced a primary source with a secondary one. The game appears notable per the GNG, and it was developed by a major South Korean studio and was made available through the widely popular Steam platform. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AFC Comment Regarding the AFC of this article, it was actually created by User:Arghya Roy, declined here by AFC helper User:J.s.071991, then it was self-approved by User:Arghya Roy after making a few changes. The article DGG nominated would definitely be considered WP:JUNK, but the article as it stands now is passable to me. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Eh, it passes GNG by a hair (much obliged to those who saved it). Some of the sources are still shaky per WP:VG/S and the legit coverage is drenched in PR-speak, but there's enough here for inevitable future growth (WP:TIND). czar · · 18:24, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LeafChat[edit]
- LeafChat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Of the three references, 2 are mere directory listing; the first is a review in a personal blog. This field is not one of my specialties, so if the blog author is a true authority it might be OK. DGG ( talk ) 19:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but they are the best references I can find. It is notable as an IRC client, as useful software. Just nobody has written about it yet. I know OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a bad argument but why do you pick this, instead of the thousands of unreferenced species articles that are lying there unlocked at, stubs, instead of AfDing articles about software which needed to be created. And also I think the blog author is quite important, so it "might be OK". Rcsprinter (state the obvious) @ 21:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think my comment that it "might be OK" is a pretty clear indication of my lack of bias--I bring it here for those who know the subject to consider it, as I would any specialized article with weak sources, and in light of the previous discussions of similar software, many of which did end in deletion. FWIW, Every biological species with an accepted name must by definition have been a major subject of an article in a RS, so I know they're findable. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record I use LeafChat regularly as my IRC client. Rcsprinter (post) @ 15:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that if those are the best references you could find then the subject probably isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia isn't the place for "raising awareness" of a new product / service / program - once other people talk about something then we can cover it here.
The blog in question seems to be a normal self-published blog. I don't think it could be considered a reliable source.Stalwart111 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm afraid that if those are the best references you could find then the subject probably isn't notable by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia isn't the place for "raising awareness" of a new product / service / program - once other people talk about something then we can cover it here.
DeleteNeutral - as per subsequent discussion.on the basis of my response to Rcsprinter123 above.Stalwart111 02:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment I am not a wikipedia policy wonk, but FWIW, I was looking for a new IRC client and found LeafChat as a result of this article. I have not made a final decision yet, but Leafchat is in the running, and I probably would not have seen it if it were not for the page here. I know this probably does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia, but know that at least one Wikipedia user found the article useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.185.118 (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: consistent listing in multiple books by many different authors as a popular, or suggested client. This is many referrals in substantial books over multiple years, from 2001-2012 not just one or two: [32]. Yes, these are not reviews, or substantial discussions, but per WP:N, quantity of references over time should be considered when depth of references is in question.
- Special Edition Using the Internet and Web. Michael Miller. QUE. 2001. p. 224
- Mastering XML premium edition. Chuck White, Liam Quin, Linda Burman. SYBEX, 2001. p. 913
- Fundamentals Of Computing And Programming A.P.Godse, D.A.Godse, D.A.Godse. Technical Publications Pune. 2008. p. 3-45
- Introduction To Computer Science. I. T. L. Education Solutions Limited, Itl Esl. Pearson Education India. 2004, p. 417. 2011, p. 446
- Introduction To Information Technology I. T. L. Education Solutions Limited, Itl. Pearson Education India. 2005, p. 421. 2011, p. 519
- Windows XP in a Nutshell: A Desktop Quick Reference]. David Karp, Tim O'Reilly, Troy Mott. O'Reilly. 2005. p. 209. Mentioned first in list of two.
- Computer Concepts And C Programming. D.A.Godse, A.P.Godse. Technical Publications Pune. 2008. p. 6-31
- Also, this blog review from last year, indicating continued relevance, as "one of the best":
- "IRC – The Most Popular Internet Chat". techbuzz.in. October 30, 2011.
- --Lexein (talk) 15:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- +Motori di ricerca: come cercare e farsi trovare sul web. Roberto Marangoni, Alessandro Cucca, Roberto Marangoni. Hoepli Informatica. 2004. p. 236. Yet another book mention.
- +Ottinger, Joseph (April 5, 2010). "LeafChat 2: excellent IRC client, but it’s still only a start" (review). Enigmastation.com. (Joe Ottinger is reliable for Java commentary as former editor of Java Developer's Journal1 and former editor-in-chief of TheServerSide.com)2.
- +"Support » sga IRC Chat Setup Guide (For Windows)". The Simple Genetic Algorithm project. SourceForge.net. The SGA project suggested LeafChat for IRC for live developer support contact, and thoroughly outlined its setup.
- +"Fedora Project FAQ-IRC" fedoraproject.org. yet another terse suggestion
- +"LeafDigital LeafChat 1.7 DoS Vulnerability". Security Focus, June 25 2000. (yes, old, but important enough for a BugTraq report)
- --(addendum) Lexein (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Firstly, nice work finding some of those and for going to the effort. Unfortunately, I still don't think they (collectively) could be considered significant coverage. Yes, quantity is also a consideration but these aren't even paragraphs on the subject - they are one-off passing mentions, some in longer lists of IRC program "examples". Beyond that, some of the sources are by the same people - so even if they were substantive references, these would be considered one source each for the purposes of WP:N. The last one is from a blog so wouldn't normally be considered a reliable source. In total it's probably enough to change my "vote" to "weak delete" but, in my opinion, we need more to justify a keep. Stalwart111 22:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response to addendum) - on the basis of your comment, the Ottinger blog might be okay. But the rest, in my opinion, are still passing mentions or how-to guides, not "significant coverage". I've said many times before, 1 or 2 good articles will often be better than dozens of non-specific passing mentions or directory listings. Stalwart111 07:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been on your side of this argument, and though I categorically agree that one or two good articles are great, I have never excluded an arguably extensive list of nine book mentions in multiple language by a multiplicity of authors over a period of twelve years, since that indicates "breadth", if not depth. This is not an insubstantial, fly-by-night, bluntly non-notable client: I've seen 'em, and this is not one of 'em: see Orion here, which had an article and a list entry based solely on primary sourcing and an odd reading of WP:SELFPUB with which I disagree. I also don't exclude how-to guides covering the topic - that is substantive independent coverage: in this case, the "review" value is that it's easy to set up, and preferred (by the authors) because it's free. --Lexein (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, certainly not "bluntly" non-notable. There's a far better case for this than for other stuff but then, WP:OTHERSTUFF. But I'm not for a minute suggesting that's your argument. Agree entirely it indicates breadth, but most WP:N guidelines call for depth. On how-to guides, there's actually been a bunch of recent AFDs where how-to guides were offered up as sources. While I'm not suggesting there have been enough cases to establish any sort of consensus, it has consistently (from my experience) been argued that how-to guides are not considered significant coverage. However, in most of those cases, the how-to guides were created by the product's creators/manufacturers so they were also not independent. That is not the case here. It's clear the subject is important to certain people and has been recognised as such, even if not in depth. The Ottinger blog is a good source (having another look at it) though I remain concerned that it seems to be the only "significant coverage" available. On balance I'm still not strongly convinced it should be kept but the arguments presented convince me there is no particularly strong argument for deleting it either. Am changing my "vote" to Neutral and will keep watching the discussion with interest. Stalwart111 12:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It seems to me that this is a case of extreme WP:EXISTS. All those references do nothing more than prove that this application exists, but not that it is in any way, shape or form actually notable. WP:NSOFTWARE is quite clear on this. There are no useful claims to actual notability here. I'd be sold on something like the first IRC client written in Java or written by <insert renowned developer> or product of <notable company or notable software project>. None of the quoted reviews, to me, serve to establish notability. There is nothing superlative or special about it. It just exists. Like dozens of other IRC clients and thousands of other computer applications, commercial or free or open or otherwise. §FreeRangeFrog 20:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacre bleu indeed. To demand "special" or some archly heightened meaning of notability is not called for, and is dead against the guidelines you link to. Wikipedia is not a collection of elites. You are ignoring the simple fact that this has been suggested as a credible client among its peer clients for twelve years, in multiple languages, in books by a multiplicity of authors and co-authors including Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media, at your mere whim, and selective reading of guideline. --Lexein (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well your job then is to try and convince everyone that a phrase such as "suggested as a credible client" is somehow a claim to notability - a higher standard and threshold than simple verifiability and mere existence of sources (which I note you have indeed provided in this case). And those "elitist" guidelines are created by the community to improve the quality and depth of the encyclopedia, not to ruin your morning. §FreeRangeFrog 21:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, WP:NSOFTWARE is an essay and not a guideline. There are at least 2 or 3 of these essays floating around in project space and the community has repeatedly rejected using them for guideline purposes. Because of the diversity of computer software, no hard and fast rules can really work for everything. PS, I see what you did there. [33] --Tothwolf (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sacre bleu indeed. To demand "special" or some archly heightened meaning of notability is not called for, and is dead against the guidelines you link to. Wikipedia is not a collection of elites. You are ignoring the simple fact that this has been suggested as a credible client among its peer clients for twelve years, in multiple languages, in books by a multiplicity of authors and co-authors including Tim O'Reilly, founder of O'Reilly Media, at your mere whim, and selective reading of guideline. --Lexein (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- After all this discussion, I'm finally going to !vote keep for this article that I created because people have provided plenty of extra sources which I am convinced proves its notability. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 16:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very large number of mentions in eminently reliable sources, over a very long period of time. This can be argued to constitute significant coverage, even though the individual mentions themselves are much shorter than would be ideal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients. I'm surprised no one offered up redirecting it as a solution. It seems ideal. The client clearly exists and has received trivial mention in multiple book sources which makes it a perfect redirect name to our Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients article. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:38, 25 November 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, Go Phightins! 01:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- !votes so far: Nom, 1 neutral, 3 keeps, 1 delete, and a redirect. --Lexein (talk) 02:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote-counts are a bit pointless because AFDs are not decided by votes but by WP:CONSENSUS and weight of arguments. Besides which, you missed a Delete vote in your count.
"Dismissing" someone (above) is not particularly friendly - you might want revisit that.Stalwart111 23:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]- @Stalwart111, I also count only one Delete? Ottawahitech (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote-counts are a bit pointless because AFDs are not decided by votes but by WP:CONSENSUS and weight of arguments. Besides which, you missed a Delete vote in your count.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 04:39, 3 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - for reasons stated by FreeRangeFrog. Not much has been written about the subject by reliable sources and the application is just not very significant. - MrX 01:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With the references that Rcsprinter found, I'd now say that it meets the notability criteria. (X! · talk) · @821 · 18:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran talk to me! 09:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Derwick Associates[edit]
- Derwick Associates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page exists only to promote a variety of unproven charges against the article subject, and was constructed entirely by one person recently. The article fails to meet notability guidelines WP:N, does not meet NPOV standards, and since almost all of the sources are low credibility blogs, cannot be attributed to reliable sources WP:V. FinanceReferee (talk) 22:41, 3 December 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 December 3. Snotbot t • c » 22:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The argument for deletion is based on 1) a lack of WP:RS, 2) a lack of WP:N, and 3) WP:NPOV.
- As far as sources go, there are at least 8 sources in this article that meet the standards of WP:RS
- Globovision (According to the BBC, "the only terrestrial TV station still openly critical of the government.[34] They were "fined in 2011 for a report about a prison riot that the authorities said 'promoted hatred and intolerance for political reasons.'")
- Latin American Herald Tribune (Has been used as a reliable source before. See Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/July 2010)
- El Universal (Discussed in th RS Noticeboard and described as "one of the leading newspapers". Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 55#Break)
- Últimas Noticias (This is probably the premier national newspaper in Venezuela. Definitely a WP:RS)
- Law.com (This is merely used as a secondary source on a court case in which the facts are uncontested.)
- El Venezolano (Appears to have a publication in Miami, Orlando, Houston, Panama, Costa Rica, and Venezuela, among other places. I would be surprised if it is not considered a WP:RS)
- TJS.gov (.gov site, primary source, obvious WP:RS)
- El Mundo (I think it goes without saying that El Mundo is a RS)
- The following three sources have never been discussed and it is probably worth starting a discussion on the noticeboard:
- Analitica (Has been used as a source on the talk page for Hugo Chavez. Talk:Hugo Chávez/Archive 21)
- Etorno Inteligente
- Soberania (soberania.org)
- In terms of notability, Derwick is a multi-national, multi-billion dollar corporation comparable to Quanta Services, Fluor Corporation, or Jacobs Engineering Group, except it is Venezuelan. Notability Guidelines require that it have significant coverage that directly address the subject. The current draft of the page meets that requirement.
- As far as WP:NPOV goes, all I can say is that the page accurately reflects the media coverage of the company. Justiciero1811 (talk) 01:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the company is notable per WP:COMPANY, and if there's WP:UNDUE weight on any particular allegations, then they should be trimmed appropriately: we should fix rather than delete the article. Altered Walter (talk) 20:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Altered Walter (talk) 20:41, 4 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to have significant coverage in media and is large enough to meet notability under WP:COMPANY AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:35, 12 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crashcourse On The State Of Being (2012)[edit]
- Crashcourse On The State Of Being (2012) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFILM. The apparent claim to notability is that it got a "Silver Screen" award at the Nevada Film Festival... however, this does not appear to qualify as a "major award". As best as I can tell from the festival's website, they have three levels of award (Platinum, Golden, and Silver), with 10 feature films awarded each level... if so, this means that this wasn't even in the top 20 feature films at this festival, which ain't exactly Sundance in terms of significance. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The claim that the Nevada Film Festival is not 'established enough' because it only has 3 levels of awards, and the further assertion that because 'Crashcourse: On The State Of Being' itself (apparently in consequence of previous statement) didn't make the top 20 but the top 30 instead not only doesn't follow, as an argument, but seems to forget the very subjectivity of the term 'notable'.
- The 'fact' of being noted would imply that the film is available and has been recognised, be it only by a couple of hundred people. If a body of people who profess to be in an industry (ie film or film festival), and decide together that something is notable are to be deemed irrelevant, I might ask those editors who have put this page up for deletion, I wonder how that given body were so easily able to simply throw away (or find in the first place) $16,000 for the top prize?
- The Nevada Film Festival is not Sundance, which was an insightful point. Indeed, it appears that the Nevada Film Festival, is the film festival for Nevada state in the US. I might add that although it is not one of the big 10 international festivals, that the IMDB have a very strict 'notable' policy which only allow films that have been selected into one of their 500 'recognised' film festivals to have a page on their website. Not that I wish to overestimate the fact that the IMDB might have a very good understanding of notability in the film world, but I would have thought that that is evidence enough that 'Crashcourse: On The State Of Being' is not merely an amateur production that has got knowhere, and was shown at a private screening only!
- [[Merlinmerton (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)]][reply]
- I'm not sure who you're quoting when you quote "established enough", but the point is not that having three levels of award means that the NFF is not established. The point is that having three levels of awards, each of which has ten winners in the category, makes it hard to consider ending up in the third category as "major". If you have any sources that suggest that the Silver Screen award means anything more than being in a ten-way tie for 21st place, please put it forth. That is separate from the question of whether the NFF is itself a significant festival... although that would seem to be a very real question to consider.
- Our guideline for notability for films make it quite clear that inclusion in IMDb does not connote sufficient notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, the last of MerlinMerton's points above re:IMBD is incorrect (ex. an IMDB page exists for To Boldly Flee, which has not been screened at any film festival ever). Secondarily; I will not claim to be an expert or even somewhat knowledged on the notability of various film festivals, there does not seem to be much or any retrievable coverage of this film external to the Nevada Film Festival. This is problematic in terms of notability. I therefore believe that the article should probably be Deleted, but I have only a moderate (40 - 60%) confidence level in that belief. Regards, Jeremy -- =) khfan93 (t) (c) 19:53, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point of the silver award is to establish that 'Crashcourse' has been recognised out of a larger pool of entrants. Thirty awards means top thirty out of how ever many entrants put their film forward. For example (admittedly on a larger scale), the Sundance have forteen major awards for the 'feature films' section. At the 2011 festival, they reportedly got 10,000 entrants of which only just over 100 were nominated. Other than the overall winner, the nominees are not put in order of preference (1,2,3). Films are either nominated or the overall winner for each category. So whether 'Crashcourse' came 21st or 30th is irrelevant. Smaller film festivals tend to have more nominations to make up for having less categories.
With regards Jeremy's point about the film festival coverage, I literally just typed in nevada film fest into google and came up with these on the first page from yahoo to timesofindia: http://movies.yahoo.com/news/2011-nevada-film-festival-feature-films-events-overview-174500562.html http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/regional/telugu/news-interviews/International-honour-for-Hyderabadi-filmmaker/articleshow/17033989.cms http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/12/03/1167000/-Nevada-Film-Festival-selects-Over-Troubled-Waters-as-best-documentary-short http://catchingonmovie.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/winner-best-short-at-the-2009-nevada-film-festival/
I can link some more if these don't seem enough! Regards, [[207.10.141.17 (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)]][reply]
- Our guidelines on awards granting notability to a film is that it must be a "major award". No matter how you slice it, 21st place in a relatively minor festival is hard to frame as a major award. And Jeremy was not saying that the festival gets no coverage; he said that he finds no coverage of the film outside of coverage of the festival. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see exactly where you're coming from, and I suppose you're arguing against the subjectivity as a 'major award'. The key point you made about the festival being 'relatively minor' is interesting, because it is precisely that: minor, but relatively only. It is not, I would argue, altogether to be considered as minor as it does have coverage and it's awards can hardly be described as meagre ($16,000). Admittedly there are probably festivals that do give out larger prizes, though not 'relatively' more: Sundance, as we have been using that a lot as our example, gives out prizes of $25,000. Now, of course you may argue that the amount money doesn't substantiate claims to be 'major', however it cannot be discounted when the amount of prize money will be one of the key incentives towards whether a filmmaker will bother paying the initial entry fee to enter a festival. http://mancunion.com/2012/09/18/a-crashcourse-in-film-making/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_As_I_Know_it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.10.141.17 (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the amount of the award were relevant (and it's not, otherwise my first-one-to-bring-me-a-cookie-gets-a-nickel award for my kids the other day would be of more import than an Oscar), the award in question, the Silver Screen, was not a $16000 award. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose relative to the worth of each trophy given by the Oscars, your one nickel award to your children is not ungenerous, given perhaps the locality of the 'first-one-to-bring-me-a-cookie-gets-a-nickel' award. Admittedly I haven't heard of it either...obviously not enough coverage on your behalf. Let's assume that it did get recognition as an award, and your Child A won it, then the very fact of Child A receiving that award would implicate his/her being deserving of a nickel, and by extension your pat on his/her head is saying 'well done, here's a badge of recognition so other people recognise your talent, even though I know you aren't known as a good cookie-runner in the cookie-running business'. In similar terms, the Nevada Film Festival is recognised (now that we've established that), so by extension, so should all associates. [[160.39.199.38 (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)]][reply]
- Ummm, no, actually, there is a strong Wikipedia standard that notability is not inherited. If you wish to change guidelines such as the ones we have for notabiity of films, then you should engage in discussions at the guideline pages. To engage in deletion discussions, you should really be addressing things in terms of the existing guidelines. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does it not actually say notability IS inherited, rather than what Nat has set it as? In fact, I am not necessarily denying that you could be right, however, that three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances. [[Merlinmerton (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)]][reply]
- Yes, it does say "Notability is inherited"... as a header on the page "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Does this film hit the certain circumstances? No. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, I don't suppose the film was trying to harm anyone or thing in particular, even dear old circumstance. [[Merlinmerton (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC) ]][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now as currently failing the inclusion criteria set at WP:NF. We might consider incubation for a while, as the film is still touring and coverage may be forthcoming. Sad truth is that, even if not impossible, low budget independent films have a difficult time establishing notability. I might have suggested the article be userfied to its creator, but I have concerns toward its author User talk:Merlinmerton possibly being the sdame person as film director Merlin Merton and the resulting problem then with WP:COI. To Merlinmerton, I would advise you study just what conflict of interest means to Wikipedia and how as a project, Wikipedia strongly discourages editors writing about topics with which they have a vested interest. If and or when the film receives coverage, analysis, and commentary from independent reliable sources, someone else might very well write an article about it. We need not digress into a discussion on the possible notability of the Nevada Film Festival for, even in acknowledging that the film received that festival award, that award win did not result coverage. If/when that changes we could consider a WP:REFUND of the article. And Merlin, while we do appreciate your generous contribution, I would like you to broaden your understanding of how Wikipedia determines notability. Please visit WP:PRIMER... and to understand what makes a source "reliable" enough for us, please visit WP:Identifying reliable sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:40, 9 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either delete due to the fact that the film has not yet established notability under WP:MOVIE, or as a second choice userfy if the film may become notable in the future and anyone wants the draft in their userspace. Nat and Michael have explained the issues here above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Incubate per lack of significant coverage. However, as mentioned above, shows some promise. CinephileMatt (talk) 04:59, 17 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wendy E. Long[edit]
- Wendy E. Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As page creator. I originally built this stub several years ago after seeing her engaging in advocacy on behalf of conservative SCOTUS nominees. I remember at the time straining to find unconnected sources. While she got some coverage in the recent failed senatorial election, I'm not seeing anything reliable documenting any part of her career outside of that election bid. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. BusterD (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Dear BusterD, As a new page contributor, we are currently putting together more information to add to Wendy E. Longs page. We would really prefer to keep the Wendy E. Long page up and add more notable events to her Wikipedia page. Wendy is still going to be active in her aspiring political career. The information that you refer to has not been added yet but will be soon. Also, the Wendy E. Long page is not violating any Wikipedia guidelines. WP:BIO WP:PEOPLE WP: Author --Ausstone (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep although the article is weighted to the election. Even without the senate race section, however, I think the article passes WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: If the article survives deletion, it will need to be rewritten placing the election as a past event (instead of upcoming). Chris857 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Needs to be trimmed to be written primarily from secondary sources, but there appear to be sources which meet WP:GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to United States Senate election in New York, 2012, as I had attempted to do two months ago (and which was reverted with absolutely no AGF by an editor with a grand total of 17 edits, seven of which are to this article or its talk page). I held off running this through AFD at that time by BusterD, who asked me to wait until after the campaign, in the interest of eliminating a perceived bias on Wikipedia, something of which I am aware and to which I am sympathetic. Absolutely zero of the references (and nothing I could find online in reliable sources) about the subject is not about her senate campaign or something which is self-published by her non-profit organization. She doesn't meet the bar for notability under the GNG, and she manifestly fails WP:POLITICIAN. The reason she fails under the GNG is WP:BIO1E, since all of the independent sources are about her senate campaign. I think the article should be deleted outright (along with a host of other articles about failed candidates), but I am not dead-set opposed to a redirect to the campaign article. I do not think that retention of the article is appropriate, however, since she lacks notability outside the context of the senate campaign. Horologium (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. LtNOWIS (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article passes WP:GNG, and Long's work with the Judicial Conformation Network is sufficiently notable that she does not fail under WP:BIO1E. Furthermore it is inaccurate to state that all of the independent sources covering Wendy Long are about her senate campaign. There is sufficient coverage of her in independent sources prior to her run for the senate, particularly surrounding the Judicial Conformation Network's name change and opposition to Obama's judicial nominees. [35][36] --Tdl1060 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first link you provide has a one-sentence quote from Long, in the context of a substantial article about opposition to potential Obama appointees. The second one has a single paragraph dedicated to a Long quote; there are several other Judicial Confirmation Network member quotes which would help to establish notability for the organization (note the redlink for the group), but not enough to establish notability for Long herself. Show me something other than a press release from the group, her senate campaign, or passing references, and I might reconsider, but what has been shown so far does not push her into WP:GNG territory, and she still clearly fails under WP:POLITICIAN. Horologium (talk) 01:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The first of these new links is primarily about Sonia Sotomayor, not Wendy Long; although it was inspired by something which Long wrote, it is not about her, it's about Sotomayor and her qualifications (or lack thereof) for the Supreme Court. The second link contains a brief precis about Long in a single paragraph; it's not primarily about her (in fact, that paragraph talks more about the Judicial Confirmation Network and its website than about Long). The third story is is simply a quote of her entire (brief) statement about Sotomayor; again, it's not about Long, it's about Sotomayor. It does help to establish notability for the Judicial Confirmation Network (for which I think I may have to create at least a stub article, based on some of the references here), but not for Long herself. None of these articles are about Long, they are about the JCN and its opposition to Sotomayor. Long was simply the spokesperson for the group. Horologium (talk) 04:00, 12 December 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, MBisanz talk 00:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe it passes WP:POLITICIAN #2, and certainly WP:GNG. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does being a candidate for office meet WP:POLITICIANcriterion#2? She has never held any office, which is a prerequisite for the criterion you have cited. Horologium (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, #2 only states "political figures" with no implication of actual office-holding. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 11:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How does being a candidate for office meet WP:POLITICIANcriterion#2? She has never held any office, which is a prerequisite for the criterion you have cited. Horologium (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:POLITICIAN AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Fails WP:POLITICIAN by not holding statewide office and by lacking "significant press coverage" in RS that are actually ABOUT her. References that do exist are trivial outside of the 2012 NY Senate race, so page should be redirected to that article. Celtechm (talk) 07:43, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per past outcomes. We have tended to delete losing candidates for city, county, state legislature, and even the House of Representatives. I have been a firm and consistent advocate of the same. However, we have tended to keep losing candidates for major statewide offices in larger states, e.g., Harry Wilson (businessman), especially if they have some bare notability before they ran and lost. The subject gained significant coverage on television, radio, and newsprint media. The fact that she lost so badly is actually historic; she will be perhaps most notable for having gotten the lowest percentage of votes of any major party candidate since 1934. In any case, she passes my standards for attorneys: an editor of the Northwestern University Law Review, Order of the Coif, post-doc fellow, law clerk for Ralph K. Winter and Clarence Thomas, etc. FWIW, I voted for the winner. Bearian (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable per WP:POLITICIAN (#3), unelected but still sufficient coverage from independent secondary, WP:Reliable sources. Altered Walter (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Bearian puts it best. A failed House candidate with no other notability we would delete. A failed major-party Senate candidate, for a large state like New York, I would be very reluctant to delete. Add in Long's legal background, and this is a clear keep decision for me. -LtNOWIS (talk) 08:37, 16 December 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 Gangnam Style. This does not preclude merger to another appropriate article. MBisanz talk 20:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Effects of Gangnam Style[edit]
- Effects of Gangnam Style (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a content fork. There is no notable content here that cannot be found in similar article forks. There is already an article about this song. We don't need any more. See WP:RECENTISM --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gangnam Style. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gangnam Style North8000 (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (without redirect) to Gangnam Style --Cavarrone (talk) 00:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant impact of both economic nature, cultural nature, also, noteworthy mass participation worldwide, and significant coverage of this particular aspect in secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the pop culture Gangham article. The reader does not deserve these myriad articles. Its just a super popular song, its not the second coming of Christ.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not just because of its significant impact on South Korea but more importantly, the song changed the music industry and this part needs to be expanded -A1candidate (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: and expand! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. There needs to be consensus to either keep or merge.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley 00:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Merging it would be foolish. The main article is already WP:TOOLONG and its already established the content is suitable for inclusion and thus making it an appropriate sub article. Mkdwtalk 07:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't think there is a need for this article - I don't think it is very notable, OK so it had a billion views, and people did a few flashmobs, but in any case I think it is far too early to have an article like this even so. Mikeo34 (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Recentism? FYI the song is almost half a year old. -A1candidate (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your point but I still think Gangnam Style is very 'current' so to speak. As I already stated though, I just don't think the effects of a song needs its own article - as one of the above stated this is not the second coming of Jesus, it is just a very famous song. Mikeo34 (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've mentioned earlier the song has had a significant impact on South Korea and it also influenced the music industry. It may be a silly and foolish (albeit famous) song, but its unprecendented popularity has far-ranging effects (Im assuming everyone who voted here has spent a fair amount of time reading the article itself) -A1candidate (talk) 23:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand as the article has importance. Per Mkdw, merging it to Gangnam Style is foolish due to the article size is large. Mediran talk to me! 11:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge The nom is bang on here. This article is unnecessary. AniMate 22:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge I think this page meets the definition of WP:CFORK. Should either be merged or deleted. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 01:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gangnam Style. This page is mostly speculation and commentary. It lacks concrete substance on the effects of the song because the event is still in development. TreboniusArtorius (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Effects_of_Gangnam_Style#South_Korea. Obviously you aren't even bothered to read the article...sigh... -A1candidate (talk) 07:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gangnam Style. Even if the effect of the song on the music industry proves considerable in the long run, there's no reason that can't be incorporated into the article about the song until the amount of encyclopedic information about the effect grows too large for the parent page. Circumspect (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that this article has to compete with List of notable people who have danced Gangnam Style and Gangnam Style by country to merge with the main article. -A1candidate (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gangnam Style in popular culture, quite trivial for a standalone article. Brandmeistertalk 16:54, 18 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Die My Darling[edit]
- Die My Darling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This topic about an industrial/trance band appears to fail WP:N. While the topic may possibly meet point #5 of WP:BAND (depending upon whether or not Trisol Music Group is considered as a "major label"), this may not be enough to qualify overall topic notability. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — sparklism hey! 13:41, 4 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:07, 11 December 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, Mediran (t • c) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. One album with a major label isn't enough to pass WP:BAND. 1292simon (talk) 12:16, 18 December 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 00:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Choreography (Lauren Hoffman album)[edit]
- Choreography (Lauren Hoffman album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable album, fails WP:NALBUM. ukexpat (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Artist is notable and the album was reviewed in at least two reliable sources: [40], [41], [42]. --Michig (talk) 21:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 8 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Michig Mediran talk to me! 11:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Michig. Was WP:BEFORE followed here? postdlf (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Just improve and expand it, she should probably have articles for all of her albums. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 20:59, 13 December 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. MBisanz talk 20:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deepak Jaikishan[edit]
- Deepak Jaikishan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete notability appears related to WP:ONEEVENT and does not meet WP:GNG as well. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reliable resources, nuff said.DPakkk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Has been reported in the Malaysian media for some time. Foreigners don't know about this issue, so they should butt out.1bodohsohai (talk) 06:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that this is your first edits on a brand new account. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Foreigners don't know about this issue, so they should butt out" will not be much help to your vote. SwisterTwister talk 22:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 8 December 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, -- Cheers, Riley 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Notability only tied to WP:SINGLEEVENT Murder of Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa. --Phazakerley (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all above. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 19:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh The article definitely focuses on a single event in precisely the way BLP1E was designed to prevent. And yet, the fellow does have other sources about his investing: [43], [44]. I'm not quite willing to call this a delete because of the sources, I"m not quite willing to call it a keep, merge or redirect because of the content. I have no ability to judge the existence of Malaysian-language sources, but the claim that they exist for a relatively well-known investor (as the Malaysia Star article perhaps suggests) isn't crazy. So firmly, I reiterate, meh. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:48, 18 December 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 Hillsong United (band). Courcelles 06:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zion (Hillsong United album)[edit]
- Zion (Hillsong United album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Future album with no independent notability. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sourcing is one short announcement and a bunch of posts by the organisation behind the album. I found nothing bettter. Nothing satisfying WP:NALBUMS duffbeerforme (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Hillsong United for now. I'm unable to find evidence that this upcoming release currently meets WP:NALBUMS, though it's likely that independent coverage will emerge in a couple months when the release date is closer, which is why I think a redirect is reasonable. If "keep" and "delete" were the only choices, I would support the latter at this stage. Gongshow Talk 21:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 29 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy per WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 4 December 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, Courcelles 00:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect for now. No objection to userfying or incubating, but the lack of independent coverage means that an article is not yet appropriate. --Michig (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for now to Hillsong United per Gongshow. I've improved the references to include more WP:RS, but it still doesn't quite pass WP:NALBUMS for future released yet. Once it's released in February, no doubt there will be enough coverage to split it back out. Altered Walter (talk) 09:58, 14 December 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 Cornell University Glee Club. Courcelles 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Hangovers[edit]
- The Hangovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not just a non-notable college a capella group, it's a mere subgroup of Cornell University Glee Club. Lots of sources, but completely fails WP:GNG, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Fails, WP:BAND notability as well. Wikipedia:No one cares about your college a capella club's subset applies.GrapedApe (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Article is pointless. Merge with the glee club. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 29 November 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, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:05, 4 December 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, Courcelles 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge None of the sources is even close to being wp:notability-suitable. As an additional sidebar, its not a very encyclopedic or informative topic. A subset of a college glee club does drinking songs. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 11 December 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. Courcelles 05:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ekrem Yigit[edit]
- Ekrem Yigit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable thus Fails notability WP:BIO Greatuser (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:06, 8 December 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, Courcelles 23:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Shorthate (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Google News found some results here and Google News archives found more. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent with Turkish but if any of these are not relevant and helpful, I say delete because there really isn't much here and it has remained nearly the same since its creation. SwisterTwister talk 22:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As written, the article clearly makes no attempt to document its claim of notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:46, 12 December 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.