Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 February 24
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Transwiki. Tone 21:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of words that comprise a single sound[edit]
- List of words that comprise a single sound (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Deprodded to send to Wiktionary, but I don't think it belongs there either. Unsourced OR through and through. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary Appendix space. More likely to find the attention it needs there. – Fayenatic L (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's what's happening to two similar articles. — kwami (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- namely the ones on which there was no consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Words without consonants – Fayenatic L (talk) 09:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki-ing to a Wiktionary appendix sounds like a good idea to me. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:04, 29 February 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The result was keep (withdrawn). (non-admin closure) JayJayTalk to me 04:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KUMM[edit]
- KUMM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete.The article has one source that is used to cite ownership of the station. There are no sources that are contained in the article, or the indication of the existence of any sources that support a claim of notability. Naturally, when there is an existence of significant coverage, the article does not need to cite all or any of them aside from when a reliable source is required. A good example of this would be WCCO (AM) (The article does have it's own set of issues. However, there is existence of such sources in easy to find places throughout the web without too much digging)
- The Wikipedia policy for notability of a Radio Station is not merely the presence of an FCC license. Please see WP:BROADCAST.Aaron Booth (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support and Speedy Close: User has clearly not read WP:BROADCAST, as it says a station that has a license and is broadcasting (which this one is) is inherently notable. There are also numerous other AfDs that have show that community consensus is that radio and television stations are notable. This station is notable, it has sources (one going to the FCC) and WP:BURDEN is on User:Aaron Booth to source the page, not us. Page also stands up to GNG as well. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:33, 24 February 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 February 24. Snotbot t • c » 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please point out to me the line under Radio, dealing with negotiability, that it is stated that an FCC license automatically establishes notability. The line I am reading reads as such: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming." Thanks.Aaron Booth (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:BROADCAST: "Notability can be established by either a large audience, established broadcast history, or unique programming. Local affiliates of notable networks are themselves presumed notable unless they are translator stations." This pretty much allows all stations (unless they are a translator or a TIS) to have a page. If they are a translator, they are redirected to the main article (see K-LOVE), if they are a TIS, they are merged into the article about the associated town, park or other site. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, WP:Broadcast gives an example to a type of licensed station that does not meet notability requirements. Also inconsistent with the "inherently notable" statement.
- "On the other hand, licensed Travelers' Information Stations are generally not presumed notable, but might redirect to an article about the highway, park or tourist facility they cover, or about the company that operates them if that company meets WP:CORP. Editors might consider creating a table listing the radio stations in an area which might be redirected to rather than creating dozens of stub articles."
- Aaron Booth (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this station is NOT a TIS station, part of a park or tourist facility. It is a college station run by college kids with college programming. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral admin comment: I looked at this with an eye towards closing as a speedy keep. I may be missing something, but I can't find anything in WP:BROADCAST that says any US broadcast radio station which has an FCC licence and is broadcasting, is taken here as inherently notable (and the policy hasn't been edited for months). Hence, so far, this AfD doesn't look like a speedy keep to me. Moreover, I don't see anything in this short discussion that shows the article text as yet meets anything in WP:BROADCAST, though it does seem to have been broadcasting since 1972, which if cited in the article might lead editors (perhaps only the two of you) to a quick consensus that the topic is notable owing to an "established broadcast history." Gwen Gale (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer: The "FCC License" comes into play from the top of the WP:BROADCAST section. "Notability may be presumed for a radio and television broadcast station if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of a variety of factors, such as importance to and history in the station's market, as well as the uniqueness of the programming." That "reliable source" would be the Federal Communications Commission or FCC (a US Government entity) and the "FCC License". The other "factors" are also covered, since the programming is unique (ie: not from a satellite network like K-LOVE) and it has importance to the community (in this case the University of Minnesota-Morris community). Those are the main standards for creating a radio station page. Now, granted, I would like to see more of a history to the page and I can find a resident radio research (User:Dravecky) for that, but as it stands now, it is a standard stub of a radio station article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The verifiable FCC licence in itself is neither verification nor reliable sourcing that a staion has "importance to and history in the station's market, as well as the uniqueness of the programming." Hence, no, the policy does not say that any US station with an FCC licence is inherently notable. Something further must be shown, though given all the ways to do that, the bar is set rather low. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We kinda have to set it low, if we set it any higher, we pretty much limit ourselves to stations like KDKA (AM) and WCBS (AM), which have been around since the '20s. It would be a handful of stations. So, we set the bar low, but we take great care to make sure that we only let in stations that have unique programming (actually coming from that station), stations that are actually broadcasting (there are TONS of stations with licenses, but not all get a page cause they aren't broadcasting (we require a "license to cover" to have been issued before making a page), translators won't get a page (those little 1 watt stations in downtown wherever) as they are redirected to the main page...even if they are a full-power "translator". So, while the bar is low and it is set that way on purpose in notability, the members of WP:WPRS who patrol and update these pages, set the bar higher when making the pages. We need the bar to be low, it helps, but we arbitarily set it higher so not ever station and it's brother get a page...whether it is on the air or not. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The verifiable FCC licence in itself is neither verification nor reliable sourcing that a staion has "importance to and history in the station's market, as well as the uniqueness of the programming." Hence, no, the policy does not say that any US station with an FCC licence is inherently notable. Something further must be shown, though given all the ways to do that, the bar is set rather low. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The best solution I can see at this point would be to delete the page, and include it in the article University of Minnesota Morris which is the institution that runs the Radio Station. I believe it is likely a suitable bit of information to be included on that article. Any objections? -Aaron Booth (talk) 23:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, since it looks to me as though the text could be written and cited in a way that shows this topic is notable, this discussion is likely to head much more towards keep than delete. I'm only saying that going by the article text alone, this isn't a speedy keep, much less a speedy delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of objections. Not happenin'. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, since it looks to me as though the text could be written and cited in a way that shows this topic is notable, this discussion is likely to head much more towards keep than delete. I'm only saying that going by the article text alone, this isn't a speedy keep, much less a speedy delete. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, WP:BURDEN has mostly to do with the need to show verifiability of the content one has added to an article, if asked to do so. If there's a lack of content and claims in the article, the only burden, so to speak, would be on the editor who indeed goes so far as to click on the edit button and go about adding some. However, the verifiability policy does not say Aaron Booth or any other editor must click on the edit button at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see how notability is an issue, it was alot of radio stations that have their own article would be deleted. In mind this article has been around since 2004. Page views says to me people are interested even though its not much its still means people are interested JayJayTalk to me 03:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now due to improvements I think we have gotten ourselves to the best possible situation in that the article was improved now to establish notability under WP:Broadcast due to "established broadcast history". The article has established that in my opinion, as well as now provided two third party sources. So at this point I will now rescind my previous objections to the station meeting the notability standards. I would hope that in the future such comments that were initially posted to my talk page in regards to my proposition for deletion, will be rephrased in a more civil manner. We were able to get much farther once we moved towards refreshing specific Wikipedia policy and precedent and improving the article due to this discussion to rectify the initial objection. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So nomination withdrawn? JayJayTalk to me 03:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination Withdrawn Yes, I withdraw my nomination. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:56, 25 February 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. Salix (talk): 07:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SADDOLLS[edit]
- SADDOLLS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence of this band being notable by our standards. They appear to have two albums but not on a notable label; the article has no references to reliable sources and I haven't been able to find any either. Drmies (talk) 20:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article does not appear to assert the importance of its subject per WP:MUSICBIO. -- WikHead (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lunatic Asylum record includes famous bands like mandragora scream.The band's second album includes featurings such as Jape Peratalo (to die for) Juska Salminen (HIM) Roberth Karlsson (Scar Symmetry) and Morgan Lacroix (Mandragora Scream) Also the first single from Happy Deathday called Bloodred is included on Sonic Seducer's compilation album "Cold Hand's Seduction Vol.128" Also the band's management in Germnay is handled by HIM'S Manager Silke Yli Sirnio. Here are some RELIABLE sources that this band is proffesional,and under a serious discography.
- Deathstars band promoting band's new album Happy Deathday : http://rockoverdose.gr/news_details.php?id=9499
- Album Happy Deathday Available on Nuclear Blast label's shop: http://www.nuclearblast.de/de/produkte/tontraeger/cd/cd/saddolls-happy-deathday.html
- First single Bloodred included in Sonic Seducer's Compilation album "COLD HANDS SEDUCTION VOL.128" http://www.sonic-seducer.de/index.php/CD-Beilage/_.html
- SadDoLLs Supporting Moonspell in Athens September 2012 http://rockoverdose.gr/news_details.php?id=9580&fb_source=message — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeDeSad (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How this is NOT Notable? --GeorgeDeSad (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeDeSad (talk • contribs) 23:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find enough sources to indicate WP:NBAND is met. I did find this but I'm not sure if that's even 'reliable'. SmartSE (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lunatic Asylum record includes famous bands like mandragora scream.The band's second album includes featurings such as Jape Peratalo (to die for) Juska Salminen (HIM) Roberth Karlsson (Scar Symmetry) and Morgan Lacroix (Mandragora Scream) Also the first single from Happy Deathday called Bloodred is included on Sonic Seducer's compilation album "Cold Hand's Seduction Vol.128" Also the band's management in Germnay is handled by HIM'S Manager Silke Yli Sirnio. Here are some RELIABLE sources that this band is proffesional,and under a serious discography.
- Deathstars band promoting band's new album Happy Deathday : http://rockoverdose.gr/news_details.php?id=9499
- Album Happy Deathday Available on Nuclear Blast label's shop: http://www.nuclearblast.de/de/produkte/tontraeger/cd/cd/saddolls-happy-deathday.html
- First single Bloodred included in Sonic Seducer's Compilation album "COLD HANDS SEDUCTION VOL.128" http://www.sonic-seducer.de/index.php/CD-Beilage/_.html
- SadDoLLs Supporting Moonspell in Athens September 2012 http://rockoverdose.gr/news_details.php?id=9580&fb_source=message
- Still not reliable? --GeorgeDeSad (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this http://www.rockrebelmagazine.com/recensione-saddolls-happy-deathday/ (talk) is one of the many reviews that was written about the band's second album Happy Deathday.They are all ove the net.--GeorgeDeSad (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The band's management DID NOT created this page,only edited parts that were incorrect,did not know this were against the rules of this site. Anyway if you think that this page shouldnt exist,and this band is not notable do whatever you think. (Also there is a another Greek band (Sorrowful Angels) that has inserted similar sources as we (and the creator of page) did,but you have not "speedy-delete" that page.SadDoLLs are an establshed band,and we think that this is unfair,the rest is up to you.Good day.--GeorgeDeSad (talk) 07:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel the other article is not up to standard, feel free to tag it. -- WikHead (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Dont know how to do this,can somebody help me? i want to make this page official because this band deserves to have one,in my opinion. Please double check the page,its well written.--GeorgeDeSad (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but whether you think it deserves a page is immaterial. You've added an enormous number of links to websites to the article, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory, and what the article needs are references to reliable sources that establish notability. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So if this page as you say,has become a web directory,this page has not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrowful_Angels I Think all music artists that have a full discography and an ACTIVE record label,should be treated the same in this community,am i right? --GeorgeDeSad (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_In_Your_Trip is concidered "notable" on wich standards? You have deleted (Happy Deathday (2012)) for not being an notable release (wich includes well known names that do featurings from around the world) and you leave this? This is ok with your standards? If SadDoLLs profile should be deleted then this should be too,or leave both profiles be!--GeorgeDeSad (talk) 12:57, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This band SadDoLLs from Greece is well known and popular here in Greece (they were popular even form their first album when they appeared on many television shows)
and now as i know they have released their new album called happy deathday,and they go by the management of Silke Yli Sirnio (HIM's manager) over Germany,so the band has interviews on magazines like Sonic Seducer,Orkus,Metal Hammer and Rock Hard. Also this site and article proves that this album actually has some big names involved [TO DIE FOR ...SadDoLLs] --MikaLipstick (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please end this debate any time soon?I Like saddolls and i dislike watching this This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Feel free to edit the article, but the article must not be blanked, and this notice must not be removed, until the discussion is closed. For more information, particularly on merging or moving the article during the discussion, read the Guide to deletion on their page for no good reason--Fantazma1234 (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted as promotion of a non-notable YouTube account. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misterduncan[edit]
- Misterduncan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a Youtube account of someone who isn't notable. There are only 2 Wikipedia articles about someone named Duncan James and neither one looks like it matches this article. Georgia guy (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, promotional information, non-notable Youtube personality. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete It was already tagged as such until the template was removed by the page creator, who has since been blocked. I've subsequently restored the speedy tag. Rorshacma (talk) 20:12, 24 February 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 Jeremy Strong per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's A Viking In My Bed[edit]
- There's A Viking In My Bed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure how this article based on a TV series passes the notability guideline. I tried looking at old news sources, but I'm not sure if any of them are reliable enough to make the article notable. Minima© (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It might be worth changing this to an article about the book with a mention about the TV series. Since it was a tv show on BBC, that might cause it to pass WP:NBOOK. I'll see what I can do.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 February 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:51, 16 February 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, BusterD (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jeremy Strong. The book is mentioned here and here, but there is no in-depth coverage; the articles are really about the author. --Cerebellum (talk) 03:27, 1 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mary D'Angelo Performing Arts Center[edit]
- Mary D'Angelo Performing Arts Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable college performing arts center. No third party sources to establish notability. No particular importance to development of performing arts to make it otherwise notable. Entire article is unreferenced and original research. GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 8 February 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The current version of the article is not written well according to Wikipedia standards, so I can understand why a reader might think it's not worth keeping. However, I'm inclined to think that this is a notable concert hall of the sort that we usually keep. Thousands of GNews hits--most, to be sure, are newspaper listings, but there are also articles with more content such as [1][2], and some sources about its role as one of the first U.S. theaters to use geothermal energy e.g. [3]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'll admit that the article is atrocious when it comes to citations, but the theatre appears notable in the Eerie, Pennsylvania region. Just a quick look gave three articles that should suffice as "significant coverage":
- The PAC is back -- and celebrating 15 years of arts and entertainment - Article about the 15th anniversary of the center with references to how important it has been to the community.
- Mercyhurst reorganizing arts center, looking for new director - Article referring to a current restructuring of how the center is run.
- PAC Celebrates 15th Anniversary - Another article from the center's 15th anniversary
- I found hundreds of articles referring to performances there and several about people associated with the center.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep based on the sources found, although it needs some incubation and TLC. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 27 February 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 East Carolina Pirates. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PeeDee the Pirate[edit]
- PeeDee the Pirate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously prodded concern from ip was non notable mascot does not meet WP:GNG. Sources are primary and can't find sufficient coverage. Suggest merge into team article. Edinburgh Wanderer 11:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Insufficient sources provided to qualify as notable college mascot. --GrapedApe (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom with East Carolina Pirates. Only the description and a synopsis of the history should be merged. The rest should go to the wastebasket.---Michaelzeng7 (talk - contribs) 17:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect Until such time as PeeDee is visiting children's hospitals regularly, helping in community cleanup drives, appearing on annual telethons for some worthy cause, or just basically is in the spotlight outside of the stadium performing some notable deeds, I see PeeDee as an integral part of the East Carolina Pirates article. Ken Tholke (talk) 17:18, 24 February 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, BusterD (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mascot information belongs in the coverage of any college sports program. Whether Pee Dee needs his own page right now is a borderline call, and I don't have any great problem with the proposal to merge to East Carolina Pirates, but deletion would not be appropriate here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:47, 24 February 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 without prejudice. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harold G. Fox Moot[edit]
- Harold G. Fox Moot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Advert for a moot lacking notability. Sourced mostly by it's own site or by an article written by a founder. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying WP:N. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 February 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, JohnCD (talk) 11:12, 16 February 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, BusterD (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- it's too new to have many good sources proving notability. We are not going anywhere; this can be re-created when it becomes notable in a few years. Bearian (talk) 21:50, 27 February 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 Diana Haddad. Redirecting per WP:NSUPER. Consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anida[edit]
- Anida (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Album lacks substantial RS coverage (having checked gnews and gbooks). Also, the article is no help in reflecting notability -- zero refs. Was PRODed, but PROD was removed without explanation and without any reflection of notability. Epeefleche (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 8 February 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, Gongshow Talk 06:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Diana Haddad. I can't find anything on this album as such, but remember there might be some information to be had in non-english sources. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:35, 22 February 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, BusterD (talk) 19:37, 24 February 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 as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of This is Palm Girl Episode.doc[edit]
- List of This is Palm Girl Episode.doc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any references to "This is Palm Girl" nor to "This is Plam Girl" (see article for typo!). If it aired, where did it air? So I conclude that it is neither Notable nor Verifiable, and has no place here. Happy to be proven wrong. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. I've tried various searches. The only hit was the Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question since this is unverifiable, is it a hoax? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as a likely hoax - the pattern is very similar to a blocked user with a history of sockpuppet attempts to create similar hoaxes. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Per Mike, has all the JJ trademarks of hoaxish writing, and a lovely bit of Plaxico'ing by keeping that .doc extension in the title on accident, showing they knew they were trying a woolpull with us. Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 24 February 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. There is no serious rationale for deletion, the issues can be done by editing. Tone 21:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
August 2010 in sports[edit]
- August 2010 in sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP is not for news reports or for lists of statistics. There must be another site for this kind of data. BigJim707 (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Split or Delete As long as the length of the article goes down dramatically, I am OK with either splitting or deleting it. I don't believe that this collection of facts is needed. If it was split from another article due to length, then splitting the month into days is acceptable. If the article should not be split into days, then it should not be there at all. Thanks! The Phoenix--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:25, 24 February 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 February 24. Snotbot t • c » 18:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What about other months (e.g.,December 2010 in sports)? What about other years (e.g., August 2009 in sports)? Have a look in Category:2010 in sports and at Template:Events in sports by month links. Somebody's doing a lot of work that will need to be undone. —Wrathchild (talk) 00:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily keep but split per its already being split-tagged and at least 2 of the "August XX, 2010 in sports" lists already having been created. AfDing it seems premature, unless there's a clear failure to come to consensus to split it. There's a zillion articles like this. Deleting one month-in-topic article wouldn't make any sense. This should be speedily closed as a frivolous (though not bad-faith) nomination. No insult intended, but the nomination just doesn't make sense in a broader context. It's not like this is an article about someone's garage band; it's part of a systematic series of stand alone lists, and deletion of it would be blatantly disruptive to that system just to make a point. If someone want to get rid of the entire series of all such lists, then that needs to be a mass AfD that is advertised via Centralized Discussion and Village Pump, because it would be a Very Big Deal. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 00:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I mainly agree with your thoughtful comments. I would like to point out that if someone nominates one article of a series for deletion people will ask: "Why nominate only one when there are so many the same?" On the other hand if he nominates a bunch they will say: "He is disrupting the project by making so many nominations." :-) -BigJim707 (talk) 16:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is extremely difficult to navigate a page that is over 300 kB, this is one of the reasons that I started splitting the page. If the dates can be linked to via the August 2010 in sports, then clicking to one particular date is no big deal.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment I did nominate this article more to make a protest than as a serious suggestion. What I think is really needed is a new policy: "WP is not a Database." I am also aware that I am kind of a lightweight here to be proposing such a major policy change. BigJim707 (talk) 16:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment May I politely suggest you read WP:POINT? -- Jelly Soup (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep of course, like all of the other year in whatever articles where there is enough content. Am encyclopedia is, actually, a database "an organized collection of data for one or more purposes" . Not a database of everything that exists, but certainly a database: that is actually the basic intent. What else is it supposed to be--a place for advocacy or speculative fiction? DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 2 March 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 PANDAS. Anything that editorial consensus finds useful can be merged from the page history. Sandstein 13:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome[edit]
- Pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have not put up a merge dicussion because the author who created the PANS article previously attempted to create similar at PANDAS, so we need to get community consensus on this.
Here are the only two sources mentioning PANS in Google scholar:
- Google scholar (One an advocacy group, not a MEDRS)
- Update: In spite of my long explanations here and on talk about the incorrect use of primary sources, synthesis, POV, and false info in the article, Buster23 has now reverted to that version.[5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect. Merge salvageable sentence or two to PANDAS. Most of what is written here is not about PANS, but PANDAS, is based on primary sources, and the only new info is that Swedo has now proposed PANS as a subset of the hypothesized PANDAS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch from delete to the more correct merge/redirect, which better addresses this situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to PANDAS. I agree that there's no way this merits a content fork at present, and it can be handled with a couple of sentences (at most) in the PANDAS article. I think it can just be redirected without a fuss, although perhaps that's naive. Disclosure: saw notice of this AfD at WT:MED. MastCell Talk 21:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect. Does not appear to be of significant material to justify its own article yet. Yobol (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you basing that on the content of the article at the time it was nominated for deletion, or its content after it had been edited to remove content that the nominator believed was false or otherwise problematic? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "false"? The text I removed was 1) text from PANDAS sources with no mention of the newer PANS hypothesis, based on 2) primary sources when multiple secondary sources compliant with WP:MEDRS are available, and 3) POV because it cherry-picked those primary sources to present one side of the argument (not all supported by secondary reviews compliant with WP:MEDRS). In other words, as well discussed long ago with the creator of this article, there are multiple secondary sources that can be used to write neutral text at PANDAS; he chose instead to create a POV content fork to a new hypothesis PANS, utilizing primary sources in spite of knowing about MEDRS, and based on only two sources available that suggest that the (failed) PANDAS hypothesis might now become PANS instead. If he had 1) added text based on the multiple secondary reviews available, 2) to the correct article (PANDAS), and 3) mentioned the emerging idea of PANS instead of PANDAS, then 4) should medical consensus or sources emerge over time that support PANS over PANDAS (which could eventually happen, who knows), we would instead be discussing writing the PANS article with PANDAS being a shorter article about a failed hypothesis that points to the new PANS hypothesis. We aren't yet at that point; even if we were, creating a POV content fork and chocking it full of primary sources that don't even discuss the PANS hypothesis-- after I had educated him about WP:MEDRS and the secondary sources available-- wasn't the best use of his time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By "false" I meant the material that you removed or altered with edit summaries such as "false"; [6][7] and similar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok, yes-- thanks. I did remove some info that was false. For example, there was an infobox attached to the article that was blatantly false and misleading; it used ICD codes etc for OCD, leaving the impression that PANS was a recognized diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By "false" I meant the material that you removed or altered with edit summaries such as "false"; [6][7] and similar. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (reply to Demiurge1000) The original version, as far as I can tell, has only one reference that actually speaks to the new diagnosis (PANS); every other one is a discussion of PANDAS or speaks to neither specifically. That out of 43 references only one uses the actual term in the title of the article suggests something is wrong in this situation. Yobol (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (reply to SandyGeorgia) PANS is by definition a subset of OCD and therefore the infobox was not false. Buster23 (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PANS is not "defined to be" anything until/unless it gets its own ICD code or is added to DSM-5. One paper does not make consensus for recognition of this as a condition. Now given that Swedo (the originator of the PANDAS hypothesis at NIMH) is the head of the DSM-5 committee, that may well happen, but it hasn't yet, and I'm not aware of any move in that direction. Are you? The infobox is false and misleading, and you are edit warring to reinstate it. I have searched DSM5.org (where most proposed changes are well underway and have been for quite some time) and find no mention that PANDAS or PANS are proposed additions to DSM5, and Leckman had a few things to say about that wrt PANDAS (which, again, is not PANS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is likely better for the PANS talk page than on a discussion of whether the article should be deleted or not. I'm very glad to hear that you are saying PANDAS is not PANS -- that's exactly why the articles shouldn't be merged. Buster23 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no, the discussion is here where others less informed about these highly contentious hypothesized conditions can learn. I'm glad you acknowledge that the new hypothesis PANS is not PANDAS, after building an entire article on PANS using PANDAS sources that don't even mention PANS. The new hypothesis-- about which only one article has been written to date-- can be mentioned in the article about the old hypothesis it is replacing, until there is some consensus or research. Any article should use MEDRS-compliant sources correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say PANDAS is not PANS, I'm highlighting that there are differences between the two that led to the workshop and the concensus position of defining PANS. PANS does not replace PANDAS but is in addition to it. PANS is focused on sudden onset OCD regardless of etiology. PANDAS focuses on etiology (i.e., the anitbody response). I agree with you that the history and context is quite important. I disagree with you about the balance. The recent review by Murphy and Kurlan indicates 72 papers that are PRO pandas and only 17 that are CON. The CON paper did not look at onset. Buster23 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- More misunderstanding: the Murphy/Kurlan is not a review, it is yet another proposal for a way forward on the failed PANDAS hypothesis, exactly as this one (PNAS) proposal is. Again, until some more literature supports which proposal will take hold, only a brief mention in warranted in the PANDAS article of proposals for how to move forward on that failed hypothesis. There are no reviews of the PNAS proposal, and the one article about it is not even PubMed indexed at this time. How many "pro" and "con" sources are included in one paper, that is not a review, and is not even about PNAS, is an irrelevent red herring. Consider that there is less need to cite multiple "con" sources because those that are available are quite well researched and written and enjoy consensus among most researchers outside of the NIMH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I say PANDAS is not PANS, I'm highlighting that there are differences between the two that led to the workshop and the concensus position of defining PANS. PANS does not replace PANDAS but is in addition to it. PANS is focused on sudden onset OCD regardless of etiology. PANDAS focuses on etiology (i.e., the anitbody response). I agree with you that the history and context is quite important. I disagree with you about the balance. The recent review by Murphy and Kurlan indicates 72 papers that are PRO pandas and only 17 that are CON. The CON paper did not look at onset. Buster23 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no, the discussion is here where others less informed about these highly contentious hypothesized conditions can learn. I'm glad you acknowledge that the new hypothesis PANS is not PANDAS, after building an entire article on PANS using PANDAS sources that don't even mention PANS. The new hypothesis-- about which only one article has been written to date-- can be mentioned in the article about the old hypothesis it is replacing, until there is some consensus or research. Any article should use MEDRS-compliant sources correctly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is likely better for the PANS talk page than on a discussion of whether the article should be deleted or not. I'm very glad to hear that you are saying PANDAS is not PANS -- that's exactly why the articles shouldn't be merged. Buster23 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- PANS is not "defined to be" anything until/unless it gets its own ICD code or is added to DSM-5. One paper does not make consensus for recognition of this as a condition. Now given that Swedo (the originator of the PANDAS hypothesis at NIMH) is the head of the DSM-5 committee, that may well happen, but it hasn't yet, and I'm not aware of any move in that direction. Are you? The infobox is false and misleading, and you are edit warring to reinstate it. I have searched DSM5.org (where most proposed changes are well underway and have been for quite some time) and find no mention that PANDAS or PANS are proposed additions to DSM5, and Leckman had a few things to say about that wrt PANDAS (which, again, is not PANS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by "false"? The text I removed was 1) text from PANDAS sources with no mention of the newer PANS hypothesis, based on 2) primary sources when multiple secondary sources compliant with WP:MEDRS are available, and 3) POV because it cherry-picked those primary sources to present one side of the argument (not all supported by secondary reviews compliant with WP:MEDRS). In other words, as well discussed long ago with the creator of this article, there are multiple secondary sources that can be used to write neutral text at PANDAS; he chose instead to create a POV content fork to a new hypothesis PANS, utilizing primary sources in spite of knowing about MEDRS, and based on only two sources available that suggest that the (failed) PANDAS hypothesis might now become PANS instead. If he had 1) added text based on the multiple secondary reviews available, 2) to the correct article (PANDAS), and 3) mentioned the emerging idea of PANS instead of PANDAS, then 4) should medical consensus or sources emerge over time that support PANS over PANDAS (which could eventually happen, who knows), we would instead be discussing writing the PANS article with PANDAS being a shorter article about a failed hypothesis that points to the new PANS hypothesis. We aren't yet at that point; even if we were, creating a POV content fork and chocking it full of primary sources that don't even discuss the PANS hypothesis-- after I had educated him about WP:MEDRS and the secondary sources available-- wasn't the best use of his time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you basing that on the content of the article at the time it was nominated for deletion, or its content after it had been edited to remove content that the nominator believed was false or otherwise problematic? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (reply to SandyGeorgia) The reference to Leckman's commentary on DSM-V is quite good and seems quite balance. In the body he states that "A growing body of evidence supports the existence of the PANDAS subtype.[124]" he also balances this with "However, PANDAS remains a controversial area of science, with a significant fraction of experts doubting its existence.[49,128]." Leckman continues discussion in "From Reseach Subgroup to Clinical Syndrome" http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/PANDAS-to-PANS2012.pdf highlighting that "The acuity of symptom onset is the hallmark feature of their clinical presentation and the basis for the name proposed for an expanded clinical entity: Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS)." and "studies that did not clearly establish acuity of onset for their PANDAS cases found few differences between the cases and non-PANDAS controls." I appreciate that the discussion here is about PANS and not necessarily PANDAS, but the two are related which is why the context/history is part of the article. Buster23 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've left out quite a bit, but focusing only on your last sentence, to keep this brief-- you've given another reason why this should be merged to PANDAS until/unless more is written. And you've failed to note (in several places) that PANS is proposed for research purposes, specifically to help clear up the many problems with the PANDAS hypothesis. It's not ready to stand alone yet; it may be, with more research and more publication, but it's not yet, and I'm concerned that because this is a very difficult topic even for physicians, misinformation about all four conditions (TS, OCD, PANDAS and PANS) is now being spread across multiple articles, based on misreading of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So just clarifying, your argument is that until you have more articles referencing the paper, you aren't ready to include it in wikipedia -- despite review by the National Institute of Mental Health (http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/web.htm) and the international OCD Foundation (http://ocfoundation.org/PANDAS/)? How many other reliable sources would be required before it will gain your support for an article? Buster23 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An advocacy organization repeating one paper-- which is a working hypothesis for resolving the problems with the PANDAS hypothesis-- does not notability make, and the requirements for notability have already been explained to you at length on article talk. This is a one-paper proposal, not even PubMed indexed, not yet subject to secondary review. Yes, on any topic, we need more than one source-- unrelated to the subject-- to establish notability. Swedo is as related to PANDAS/PNAS as can be, considering she launched the unproven hypothesis. Leckman is part of a proposal to redefine the unproven PANDAS hypothesis. Until there is more to go on, that proposal belongs in the PANDAS article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So just clarifying, your argument is that until you have more articles referencing the paper, you aren't ready to include it in wikipedia -- despite review by the National Institute of Mental Health (http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/web.htm) and the international OCD Foundation (http://ocfoundation.org/PANDAS/)? How many other reliable sources would be required before it will gain your support for an article? Buster23 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You've left out quite a bit, but focusing only on your last sentence, to keep this brief-- you've given another reason why this should be merged to PANDAS until/unless more is written. And you've failed to note (in several places) that PANS is proposed for research purposes, specifically to help clear up the many problems with the PANDAS hypothesis. It's not ready to stand alone yet; it may be, with more research and more publication, but it's not yet, and I'm concerned that because this is a very difficult topic even for physicians, misinformation about all four conditions (TS, OCD, PANDAS and PANS) is now being spread across multiple articles, based on misreading of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (reply to SandyGeorgia) The reference to Leckman's commentary on DSM-V is quite good and seems quite balance. In the body he states that "A growing body of evidence supports the existence of the PANDAS subtype.[124]" he also balances this with "However, PANDAS remains a controversial area of science, with a significant fraction of experts doubting its existence.[49,128]." Leckman continues discussion in "From Reseach Subgroup to Clinical Syndrome" http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/PANDAS-to-PANS2012.pdf highlighting that "The acuity of symptom onset is the hallmark feature of their clinical presentation and the basis for the name proposed for an expanded clinical entity: Pediatric Acute-onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS)." and "studies that did not clearly establish acuity of onset for their PANDAS cases found few differences between the cases and non-PANDAS controls." I appreciate that the discussion here is about PANS and not necessarily PANDAS, but the two are related which is why the context/history is part of the article. Buster23 (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Include. Please read the original article before the severe edits. It is true that the article relies on ( http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2161-0665.1000113 that can be viewed at http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/PANDAS-to-PANS2012.pdf) published in Pediatrics and Therapeutics this month. This article provides the new name PANS and represents a consensus position of the workshop at the NIH. This article is noteworthy for its consolidation of clincial assessments. You may also wish to review the description at the National Institute of Mental Health http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/pdn/web.htm -- which was used as a secondary reference in compliance with WP:MEDRS. The history that was moved incorrectly moved to the talk page provides the context as PANS is a derivative of the PANDAS critiera providing better specificity to enable epidemiologic studies. Buster23 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Buster23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Anything published by the NIMH should be viewed in context: the PANDAS hypothesis originated at the NIMH, with Susan Swedo, and has been forcefully pushed by them in spite of independent medical studies that have never supported it; they are not an independent source on the matter. That consensus may finally be emerging that they were wrong-- and PANS may be the newer hypothesis-- is well and good, but we still don't write an article using primary sources that don't even mention that subject, based on one legitimate paper that suggests that PANS may be the newer emerging hypothesis. When you take out all of the incorrectly used primary sources about PANDAS, there is nothing left in this article except one source that proposes that PANDAS becomes PANS. That can be added to PANDAS, and PANDAS should be written correctly, using the secondary reviews available. If/when there are more sources to support PANS, that article can be written-- but not using primary sources that don't even mention PANS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh goodness. The consensus position (including Dr. Leckman who is an author on the paper) and the content from Dr. Kurlan (who provided content to the paper and reviewed the quote) that "studied that adhered closely to th PANDAS diagnostic criteria produced positive dataa and were seen as supporting a role for GAS in the etiology of neuropsychiatric symptoms". The specific issue highlighted in that paper was that papers disputing PANDAS did not look at onset. This is specifically why the PANS criteria was create -- to ensure parties are comparing the same sample group. Buster23 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it is well and good that credible researchers the likes of Jim Leckman are proposing a way forward on the PANDAS notion pushed by Swedo and the NIMH, but one paper does not a diagnosis make. And the single source available is clear that it's not a diagnosis, rather a definition for research purposes.
The article presents this as a diagnosis, based on one source, that postulates a working definition for research purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]The goal of the new PANS criteria is to attempt to define the clinical presentation of a relatively narrow group of patients in order to improve the comparability of research samples. ... The proposed criteria should be considered as "working criteria", which will undergo modifications and refinement as additional clinical and research experience is accrued. ... The draft criteria must now be validated through careful, systematic application in clinical practice and research investigations. ... Research investigations are required to evaluate the validity, reliability and utility of the draft criteria, as well as to evaluate potential etiologic factors and mechanisms of disease that might be common to the disorders subsumed under the PANS clinical description.[8]
- I'd be supportive of changing the word "diagnosis" to "working criteria" Buster23 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion is already on article talk, the numerous errrors in the article and not supported by sources are laid out there, and since you have already breached the WP:BRD cycle by reverting to that incorrect text without discussion, it would behoove you to address those comments on talk by correcting the article yourself, since the errors were re-introduced by you. That, however, has nothing to do with the deletion discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be supportive of changing the word "diagnosis" to "working criteria" Buster23 (talk) 08:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, it is well and good that credible researchers the likes of Jim Leckman are proposing a way forward on the PANDAS notion pushed by Swedo and the NIMH, but one paper does not a diagnosis make. And the single source available is clear that it's not a diagnosis, rather a definition for research purposes.
- Oh goodness. The consensus position (including Dr. Leckman who is an author on the paper) and the content from Dr. Kurlan (who provided content to the paper and reviewed the quote) that "studied that adhered closely to th PANDAS diagnostic criteria produced positive dataa and were seen as supporting a role for GAS in the etiology of neuropsychiatric symptoms". The specific issue highlighted in that paper was that papers disputing PANDAS did not look at onset. This is specifically why the PANS criteria was create -- to ensure parties are comparing the same sample group. Buster23 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.A.N.D.A.S. was first identified in the late 20th century. The literature internationally has grown exponentially over the past decade. This is a formally acknowledged disorder in virtually every country with modern medicine, from Finland to New Zealand, Japan, Western Europe, South America, you name it. It remains "controversial" in the United States for political reasons. The two primary political reasons are firstly that the crowd at Harvard and Johns Hopkins bristle at the notion that someone other than they discovered something in vigorously denied the existence of this until about 2006 when Harvard tried to claim that they discovered it to the vast amusement of the world medical community. Secondly, the NIH has been slow to formally acknowledge it and continues to keep it "under investigation" because of pressure from the insurance industry. The PANS article on Wikipedia was a much better article on these conditions. It had more up to date information and did a better job of explaining the condition to someone who might be looking up this type of condition on Wikipedia. It seems that it has now been edited to reduce its usefulness ...for what reason I can only speculate. Maybe someone associated with Harvard or the insurance industry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Werelived (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Werelived (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This page is not a forum to discuss PANDAS or PANS in general but is a discussion on whether the PANS page meets notability guidelines or not. Please refrain from conspiracy minded digressions and focus on the point of this discussion. Yobol (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention that most of what Werelived (another SPA) wrote above is utter and complete bunk (history is wrong, mention of Harvard is from left field, they were never major players in the PANDAS issue, the NIH statements are wrong, and the insurance issue is a red herring. And no one working on the PANDAS articles on Wikipedia is from Harvard or works in the insurance industry-- Tim Vickers CV is well known and documented on Wikipedia). I should mention that there are now at least three internet support groups for parents supporting PANDAS (which in some cases, translates roughly to-- I insist that antibiotics will cure my child's neurobiological, genetic condition, and I want insurance to pay for unlimited antibiotics even when my child has no active strep infection), so we should expect more PANDAS SPAs to show up, and likewise refuse to engage WP:MEDRS. Oh, I guess I'm now associated with Harvard or the insurance industry. Sorry to disappoint, Stanford SAHM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RESOLUTION?
- I'm not experienced at AFD-- it wasn't my intent to change my position (you'll see that I mentioned a "merge" proposal in my nomination blurb), but I misstated what should happen here. A Delete makes it harder to recreate the article should the situation change (that is, should PANS gain consensus, more sources, etc). Considering that PANS may advance as an accepted hypothesis, and additional sources may eventually be available, a merge/redirect for now allows us to recreate the article if warranted at a later date subject to developing consensus to do so. So I misstated what should have been merge and redirect all along: I'm sorry for any confusion created. We merge correct text to PANDAS, from whence the PANS hypothesis developed, and should literature eventually support it, we can discuss then whether to write a new PANS article-- with correct sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 29 February 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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
82d Troop Carrier Squadron[edit]
- 82d Troop Carrier Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A small logistics unit. I don't think there is any encyclopedic notability , or references to show it, besides the government unit history. I prodded, was deprodded as "of historical interest" I'm usually very inclusive here, but for a support unit, think that's too minor for an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep an aircraft squadron with a history that includes active operations during the second world war must be notable. MilborneOne (talk) 18:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unit engaged in combat operations, not a support unit such as a supply or maintenence or base support squadron. The unit Received a Distinguished Unit citation for dropping the 82d Airborne Division over Normandy on D-Day, other combat operations during the Northern France Campaign (1944); Operation Market-Garden, Invasion of Southern France, Operation Varsity, 1945. Bwmoll3 (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per WP:MILUNIT. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Flying squadrons can be assumed to have had sufficient coverage to have met WP:ORG. Nick-D (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Air force squadrons are generally considered to be notable. The fact it was a "logistic" unit is neither here nor there - non-combat units are not inherently less notable than combat units in anything except the narrow minds of some, usually immature, member/veterans/wannabe members of combat units. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Necrothesp; even if it was noncombat, it oculd still be notable. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 27 February 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. The consensus below is that there are not sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pi Xi Chapter - Phi Mu Alpha Fraternity[edit]
- Pi Xi Chapter - Phi Mu Alpha Fraternity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on a single chapter of a single fraternity. A few routine charitable accomplishments. All the references are purely local. I do not consider this to have any claim to notability. Actually, I do not consider this has having even any claim ti importance, and I nominated it for speedy, but an ip removed it, after adding an alumni section. I don't think that's enough to rescue it, so I'm bringing it here. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the IP who removed the speedy is also the one who claims that you are from a rival greek organization, so I wouldn't really put much weight. However, its here now. Syrthiss (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to locate any significant third party coverage, certainly not enough to overcome WP:CLUB. Possibly redirect to Chapters of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia.Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Do Not Delete", the Pi Xi Chapter has among its Notable Alumni Dr. David Holsinger, one of the most notable and accomplished conductors and composers of Wind Band music is the world. There is a sufficient number of third-party sources cited within the article. As the article reflects, this is a very global-minded organization. They have just partnered with an NGO to build a home in Cambodia for a family living in a garbage city. This is a work in progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.33.102.112 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 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. " Lorraine Bow is about to break into mainstream music education." That about pretty much says it. Consensus seems pretty clear . DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lorraine Bow[edit]
- Lorraine Bow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. Few references given don't confer real notability, only fleeting interest when the media was briefly interested in the ukulele. The article reads less like an encyclopaedia entry and more like a resume. Fundamentally she doesn't meet the general notability criteria, nor the musician notability criteria. Bob Re-born (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, no significant coverage elsewhere, no good reason for this article to remain. ⊃°HotCrocodile…… + 17:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFD#KEEP.
"Someone finds them useful" [1]
"Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." [2]
This page is useful to people who are in the know in the ukulele scene, and beyond. Lorraine Bow is about to break into mainstream music education. She has taught thousands of people how to play the ukulele, many of whom have become very successful, other students are notable themselves. She has also inspired thousands more ukulele players via her free jam night, Ukulele Wednesdays, and band, KaraUke. The media interest in ukulele is not temporary, or short lived. It has been ongoing for the past 5 years, since Lorraine started Ukulele Wednesdays, a very popular night in London, which has over 1000 participants on facebook, and 100 weekly attendees, celebrity attendees include Keira Knightly and famous band members after recording sessions in Denmark Street. Lorraine has been laying low as she has been writing a book, which is due for release in May. She will receive more media coverage at that time, and this article should be given a chance.
Can you suggest ways in which to make it less 'like a resume'? I took information from her interviews and things I have gleaned from others and formatted it in a way that I felt was concise and chronological. I am new to wikipedia and want to update on new ukulele happenings, right now, rather than past dating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveuke (talk • contribs) 19:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You're misquoting the idea of WP:USEFUL. The point of that is to say that it isn't a valid reason to keep an article. Being useful is never a good reason to keep an article. It doesn't matter if it tells you how to turn cure the common cold. If it isn't backed up with multiple reliable sources to show that this particular case is notable, then it cannot be kept. Also, I want to mention that we're not a crystal ball. (WP:CRYSTALBALL) It doesn't matter how soon it may or may not be before Bow "makes it big", the point the nominator is trying to make that right now it doesn't appear that she has enough consistent and reliable coverage to have notability in the here and now. We can't keep an article just because her book might push her into the public limelight. Wikipedia doesn't work that way because while it's possible that the book might get tons of media attention, it's just as likely that the book will end up flying under the radar and never getting any media attention. As far as the public interest in ukeleles goes, the notability of the ukelele does not extend to any of its performers. For example, if Israel Kamakawiwo'ole had not gotten as much media coverage as he had, he'd never have merited an article- regardless of how talented he was. Talent does not give you notability, nor does playing a notable musical instrument. Playing the ukelele did not give him instant notability and just because Kamakawio'ole achieved fame does not mean that everyone else that's played the ukelele has notability. The same thing goes for famous people that might have attended her performances: just because they attended does not give her notability. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I'm not trying to be mean, it's just that none of these arguments are ones that can keep the article. Now you might want to see if you can WP:USERFY the article, which means that it would be moved into your namespace so you can continue to work on it until the point comes when it would pass notability guidelines. During this time I heartily recommend that since you are new, that you look into getting someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Music and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians to help you. They can help walk you through the common pitfalls that many new users stumble into.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Additional. I don't want you to feel bad about not knowing any of this or misapplying any of it. ALL of us were new here once and I guarantee that 99.9% of us made these exact same mistakes when first editing. Even now I'm still making mistakes that others have pointed out, and I've been using Wikipedia for a long while now. (Some of the stuff I used to do is actually sort of embarrassing now, lol.) Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Additional additional: I wanted to voice a small concern that a few of us have had. I have to ask, are you Lorraine Bow or someone who knows her? I only ask because the amount of coverage she's had is rather small in comparison to other musicians. If you are, then there's nothing about this that is against the rules. You can be Ms Bow or one of her friends/relatives/students/coworkers and still edit the article. The only thing is that you should be upfront about your involvement because if someone else were to discover this connection and you weren't already upfront about it, it would cast a shadow on your involvement in the article and AfD. I'm not trying to gang up on you or discourage you, just saying that it would be a conflict of interest and you should tread with caution if you are. (WP:COI) If you are, then no worries- you can still contribute to the article, but it'd be better to work with someone in one of the WikiProjects I've mentioned above so that everything is on the up and up. It's just that it's so incredibly easy to misinterpret notability and to write non-neutral statements when you're personally involved with the article's subject. I know that if some of my author friends were to ever make it big, I'd never be able to work on their articles for the exact same reason.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Comment. I did a HUGE cleanup of the article and took out all of the extraneous information out as well as the decidedly non-neutral parts out. I will say that I'll have to weed through the sources to see if this helps her pass WP:MUSICBIO. The information I posted above still stands and I would encourage the original editor to read through it carefully.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Comment. I removed one of the sources. I also looked at the remaining sources and I'm a little concerned that [9], [10], [11] were all written during a short period of time and wouldn't be considered enough to keep the article. She received a brief spurt of attention in 2010 as an oddity, but hasn't received any media attention since then. As far as the performances she's done are concerned, I'm not sure if those would count since she wasn't really the focus of those segments, but a guest performer. Also, from what I've read of the documentary in the Warrington link, the documentary isn't about her- it's about George Formby and she'll just be briefly appearing in it. Neither of those really count as far as notability goes, I'm afraid. I'm still working on this and I don't want iloveuke to think that I'm completely against the article, but unfortunately I'm not certain that this passes WP:MUSICBIO.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. I thought about this for a good long time and I just don't see where Bow has achieved the amount of notability needed to pass WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:BIO. She did get a brief spurt of news articles about her, but has not gotten any media attention since then. The thing about "once notable, always notable" does not mean that a brief amount of news coverage will always give notability. Bow did participate on a BBC radio show and supposedly sang on a TV show, but was not the focus of either the radio or TV spots. This doesn't mean that these performances are meaningless, just that they aren't enough in and of themselves to pass WP:ENTERTAINER. This was a tough decision because she really is thisclose to being notable, but she just hasn't crossed over from "occasionally noticed oddity" to "notable oddity". (I mean no disrespect by the usage of the term oddity.) The article's claims of her teaching or working with notable people don't give her notability either, as notability is not inherited. (WP:NOTINHERITED) I'm unfortunately not sure that her upcoming "how to play the uke" book for beginners will be enough to give her notability, as most "how to" books of any kind tend to fly under the radar, but I do encourage the article creator to look into userfying the article back to their namespace. I have no problem with them working on it until/if the point comes when she does pass WP:ENTERTAINER.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)Tokyogirl79[reply]
Thank you. These comments are all very helpful. Bow is notable, there are more up to date references to her. She was my teacher, a few years ago, but I moved away from the area so we're not in touch at the moment. I follow her on twitter and know that she did a concert with 200+ children at the V&A in December. Stu Heritage, the writer from the Guardian tweeted about it. [fr.twitter.com/stuheritage/status/144810938321731584] and it was featured in the Times Educational Supplement Pro, but the article wasn't online. There is a link here. [12] and the editor tweeted about the front page of it. She also arranged a 40 strong concert band at Shakespeare's Globe Theater in January. [13][14]
She is an entertainer and music educator, notable in many circles, and featured when she performs or arranges shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.249.120.224 (talk) 00:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I edited the links slightly so they would show up here and I had to remove one since it's on Wikipedia's blacklist, which means that the links are not supposed to be used on Wikipedia at all. While you should use reference linking in the articles, you need to use [ ] in other areas since there's no reference areas elsewhere. In any case, the links you just gave us don't count as reliable sources. Twitter is pretty much never usable as a reliable source and in this case, the twitter post by Stu Heritage pretty much just lets people know of an upcoming performance. It's not really the type of thing that's used as a reliable source. The second link [15] just has a list of links, one of which is a link to Bow's uke page and is unusable as a reliable source. The link to a twitpic of a magazine cover is good, but we need to know what the article inside of it was like. I also have to ask if it was about Bow or about the performance as a whole, because there's a big difference there as far as notability goes. If the article was predominantly about ukuleles and the performance, with Bow being briefly mentioned, it wouldn't be something that could count towards notability and would be usable more as a reliable source. It doesn't really matter that it was about a class or band she worked on or in, the article wouldn't be able to show notability for her. Now by supplement, does that mean that is something that was put in a newspaper or is it something that was just handed out at an expo? If you have a copy of the magazine or can get a copy of its contents, I recommend that you bring this up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if it's usable as a source. The issues with the last two links is that the first link [16] is just a press release and press releases are never usable as reliable sources. (Plus it never mentions Bow by name, so even if it wasn't a press release it'd still be unusable to show notability for her even though it mentions something she worked on.) The second link [17] is also unusable since it's just a mention of an upcoming performance and routine listings of upcoming performances aren't usable as even trivial sources. So pretty much the only thing that you might be able to use is the supplement, so if you can get your hands on that, please do.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
Here's the article, via Lorraine's Google+ account: https://plus.google.com/photos/105515087014331546653/albums/5713783074835728705?hl=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iloveuke (talk • contribs) 12:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice - if there was any evidence that she'd toured nationally throughout the United Kingdom, I'd like to keep this per WP:MUSICBIO, but right now it appears she's not yet notable. 1,000 facebook followers is not that high. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 7 March 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. Tone 21:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas Schulze[edit]
- Andreas Schulze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Being the spokesman of someone notable (designated President) does not make himself notable. RJFF (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable Green political consultant, high profile spokesman of top politicians (currently the President-designate of Germany, and formerly of Renate Künast in her various capacities including Federal Minister), formerly head of the Green party's press office in the Bundestag, subject of media coverage[18], described[19] as the one who proposed the nomination of the current President-designate. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, he is "the inventor of the designated President"[20] and according to Bild, the "Gauck maker."[21] And yes, being spokesman can make you notable. This is a close aide of the designated President of Germany and is reported[22] to be likely to remain so for the next years. His designated position can be compared to White House Press Secretary. Josh Gorand (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Presidential press secretary is a high profile position, his predecessor Olaf Glaeseker also has an article in the German Wikipedia. Josh Gorand (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yaloe —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep per Josh Gorand.°°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:25, 1 March 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 Dragons of Summer Flame. Anything useful can be merged from the page history. Sandstein 13:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chaos War[edit]
- Chaos War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was previously nominated for deletion in a mass group nomination here, but the discussion was muddled with so many varying articles. The closing administrator suggested that the articles should be nominated individually, which is what I am doing now. A search for reliable, secondary sources reveals an insufficient amount of significant coverage. This article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for elements of fiction. Neelix (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or merge and/or redirect to Dragons of Summer Flame. BOZ (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too in-universe, with nothing showing significant coverage from outside of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Dragons of Summer Flame as an important component of that novel. —Torchiest talkedits 21:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Torchiest. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:23, 24 February 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wodefit Gesgeshi, Widd Innat Ityopp'ya[edit]
- Wodefit Gesgeshi, Widd Innat Ityopp'ya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Revision: First
- Text: Translated lyrics
- copyvio: Score in the [23] or M. J. Bristow "National Anthems of the World".
--kahusi (Talk) 14:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. I doubt that a national album is copyrighted, and a national album is certainly notable no matter how you slice it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep per TPH rationale; this is certainly a notable subject, and in the unlikely event that the lyrics are copyrighted, there is enough here for a stand-alone article with the lyrics removed. Note that many articles on national anthems contain the lyrics in their entirety, or at least the lyrics of the verse(s) commonly sung; see the articles in Category:National anthems. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It seems unlikely to me that the anthem, its transliteration, or its translation are original to that website or M. J. Bristow either; the transliteration is essentially mechanical. But I would suggest moving this to March Forward, Dear Mother Ethiopia, the English translation. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to English name as per User:Ihcoyc ("Smerdis of Tlön"). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:34, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
August 30, 2010 in sports[edit]
- August 30, 2010 in sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Do we really want to go down this road? We are not the news; we are not a collection of statistics. 2010 in sports? Fine. August 2010 in sports? Maybe, although that needs serious trimming, not splitting off into individual days, which just seems absurd. - Biruitorul Talk 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related page:
- Delete both and entire concept as well. WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an almanac of sports data. BigJim707 (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have to agree with BigJim707. This article just cites other events that already have their own pages and adds nothing more then the fact those unrelated sporting events took place on the same day. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this article and "August 2010 in sports" OR Keep this article
As long as the length of the August 2010 in sports article goes down dramatically, I am OK with either splitting or deleting August 2010 in sports. I don't believe that this collection of facts is needed. If August 2010 in sports was split from another article due to length, then splitting August 2010 in sports into days is acceptable. If August 2010 in sports should not be split into days, then August 2010 in sports should not be there at all. Thanks! The Phoenix--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Wikipedia does not need individual articles about single days in sports. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Wikipedia does not need an individual article about August 2010 in sports either.--Jax 0677 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I don't see the reason for that, see Template:Events in sports by month links would deleting ONE month really make sense? JayJayTalk to me 03:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If August 2010 in sports remains, then it should be split. If it shouldn't be split, then it should be deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No matter what the outcome is the article is vital to wikipedia and needs to remain JayJayTalk to me 19:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is extremely difficult to navigate a page that is over 300 kB, this is one of the reasons that I started splitting the page. If the dates can be linked to via the August 2010 in sports, then clicking to one particular date is no big deal. Musician Award, Band Member, Discography, Songs and Tours pages (case in point Slipknot) come about because the page about the artist becomes too long, and the same thing is happening with August 2010 in Sports.--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The month articles should be heavily trimmed, not spun off into even narrower subpages. Wikipedia does not need pages which compile the scores of every individual sporting event that happened to be played in any given time period, be it a day, a week, a month or a year; even the month lists really only warrant the listing of important events, such as Olympic Games or the Pan-American Games or the annual NHL Draft, not individual game stats. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 26 February 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 there is simply no consensus below as to whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability or not. I do not believe that further relisting this will generate any clearer consensus, but that might change in a few weeks or months. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Murder of Casey Kearney[edit]
- Murder of Casey Kearney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article about a recent murder committed in the United Kingdom in somewhat unusual circumstances. The article was created this evening and PRODded shortly thereafter as WP:NOTNEWS. I feel, however, an AFD debate is more appropriate on something like this. I personally believe the victim's age and the nature of this crime make it notable, and there are certainly a lot of sources available on this subject. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per nominator, victims age, nature of the crime itself makes this notable. The article is in its infancy right now and will become better over time. Much like the Murder of Joanna Yeates article which was proded for the same reasons a few years back. Passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME as it is now. A quick search on Google gets alot of hits so no shortage of sourcing for the article as nominator points out.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't normally like speculating, but on this occasion hold off a little while until we have a better idea of whether it will meet WP:NCA. Whilst I agree there wasn't anything particularly unusual about this murder, it's got a lot of attention in the national press for one reason or another. If I had to make a guess now, it would be that this would get sustained coverage when this goes to trial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I should perhaps slightly clarify my comments here. A stabbing itself is not unusual, but the circumstances of this one are thankfully less common, and consequently they do tend to receive more media coverage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of the reason I put up the prod tag is because it gives a few days for people to look before there is any discussion. I think the fact the body and alleged perpetrator were found so quickly means this probably isn't going to get any persistent coverage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your point of view, but I have been involved in similar discussions so many times (see Murder of Joanna Yeates, Death of Linda Norgrove and more). And it always becomes a matter of guessing the future and as long as no human have the ability to see what is going to happen in a week or a month time then it will remain a guessing game. For now this story has recieved attention beyond your average "stabbing" and should be kept, I would even go as far as saying that this case has recieved enormous amount of attention considering the attention a stabbing murder usually gets in the UK. And if in a couple of weeks/months this case has recieved no further coverage or attention then it should certainly be deleted. Hope you understand my point of view. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the substantial amount of breaking news coverage this subject has gotten, should any new issues come up that clearly make it notable then you will most likely have more than enough sources to back it up and can feel free to recreate the article. Deletion is not the end. At some point in history any subject on Wikipedia would have failed to satisfy the inclusion criteria.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect your point of view, but I have been involved in similar discussions so many times (see Murder of Joanna Yeates, Death of Linda Norgrove and more). And it always becomes a matter of guessing the future and as long as no human have the ability to see what is going to happen in a week or a month time then it will remain a guessing game. For now this story has recieved attention beyond your average "stabbing" and should be kept, I would even go as far as saying that this case has recieved enormous amount of attention considering the attention a stabbing murder usually gets in the UK. And if in a couple of weeks/months this case has recieved no further coverage or attention then it should certainly be deleted. Hope you understand my point of view. Cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While sad, and locally horrific, this event doesn't rise to the level of a historic event as needed for WP:VICTIM or WP:BLP1E. --Tgeairn (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Historic event? crystal ball much? Its been four days.. Your reasoning just doesnt add up, sorry. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree with that interpretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The subject of this article is an event that does not (yet?) pass WP:NEVENT, specifically it does not meet WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, or WP:DIVERSE. We should expect a notable event to meet most or all of those criteria. It may be that this event will eventually meet those criteria, but without that crystal ball we cannot tell now. A compromise position would be to Userfy the article until such time as the criteria for WP:NEVENT are met. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to agree to disagree and thats OK. I think it do pass WP:NEVENT per above already stated reasons. And IF in a few weeks time this article subjects coverage etc has faded then we can have new AfD discussion or talk page discussion on deletion of the article. User Chris Neville-Smith is right that we should hold off for now and see if the coverage fades down or future events concerning the case will continue to get the same massive attention as it has already got. But for now this should stay on Wikipedia. Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm happy to close the debate if you wanted to move it to your userspace. It would save it from the axe and give it time to see how things develops. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully decline that. I rather let the AfD go on and see if it is kept which I think it should be. And if deleted so be it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If crystal ball or guesses of the future notability of a article which is notable now is a reason for deletion then I take it. But I personally dont think guesses and visions into the future are enough when we have the present notability. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is proof also of continued front page coverage of the Casey Kearney case, well beyond the "murder and arrest" part of the investigation. Have many more news links from this present day if necessary...--BabbaQ (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If crystal ball or guesses of the future notability of a article which is notable now is a reason for deletion then I take it. But I personally dont think guesses and visions into the future are enough when we have the present notability. cheers.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully decline that. I rather let the AfD go on and see if it is kept which I think it should be. And if deleted so be it.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually I'm happy to close the debate if you wanted to move it to your userspace. It would save it from the axe and give it time to see how things develops. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to agree to disagree and thats OK. I think it do pass WP:NEVENT per above already stated reasons. And IF in a few weeks time this article subjects coverage etc has faded then we can have new AfD discussion or talk page discussion on deletion of the article. User Chris Neville-Smith is right that we should hold off for now and see if the coverage fades down or future events concerning the case will continue to get the same massive attention as it has already got. But for now this should stay on Wikipedia. Sincerely.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree with that interpretation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. The subject of this article is an event that does not (yet?) pass WP:NEVENT, specifically it does not meet WP:EFFECT, WP:GEOSCOPE, WP:INDEPTH, WP:PERSISTENCE, or WP:DIVERSE. We should expect a notable event to meet most or all of those criteria. It may be that this event will eventually meet those criteria, but without that crystal ball we cannot tell now. A compromise position would be to Userfy the article until such time as the criteria for WP:NEVENT are met. --Tgeairn (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Historic event? crystal ball much? Its been four days.. Your reasoning just doesnt add up, sorry. --BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now -- We need to see how this story develops, and consider it on a new AFD nomination in a few months time. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's difficult to determine notability so soon after such an event, it certainly has the potential to merit an article and may well do so already. One would also expect a great deal of further coverage given the demographics of the victim. I do suggest people avoid linking to The Sun as proof of coverage, we can do far better than that, coverage in the various reliable sources makes a far better case. In conclusion, keep for now I think.--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, the past 24 hours have shown a dearth of coverage. Seems the issue is quickly falling off the media radar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Still you dont seem to get the point that users want to give the article a few weeks to later evaluate if there has been coverage. Even if this story doesnt get coverage now for a few days it doesnt mean that it wont get more as time goes by. The article has so far recieved extensive coverage by the media, and even if the story is not in the media in the next few days it will not cange that fact. If anything coverage in a weeks time or later could indicate even more notability (while it has actually already established notability) because why would the media be interested when weeks has passed by if it isnt notable or a special case?--BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, the past 24 hours have shown a dearth of coverage. Seems the issue is quickly falling off the media radar.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy for a few weeks until the appearance/non-appearance of further coverage can be established. At present, fails WP:CRIME, and so shouldn't be in mainspace; Wikipedia is not a news service. Yunshui 雲水 10:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually this passes WP:CRIME in my opinion. WP:NOTNEWS is always used on these kind of articles as a reason for deletion, but actually it doesnt apply here as it has been extensivly covered by media beyond the "crime and arrest" part of the investigation. Its not a "one day coverage" kind of case. I will not myself userfy this atleast as I am convinced that it belongs on Wikipedia already. And by the way, in where lies the harm in waiting a month or so to establish further coverage as most users who has said their opinion has pointed out? As already pointed out by many users above the case has recieved already an unusual high amount of coverage for a stabbing murder so It goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT and also passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•keep for now and revisit in a month or so.--94.234.170.83 (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued coverage, have more if point is needed...[26] --BabbaQ (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It has been a week since this happened and the media interest has dropped to a trickle of WP:ROUTINE coverage. No objection to putting this article on ice to be recreated should new significant coverage emerge, but for now there is no indication this is anything more than a significant news story that does not merit an encyclopedic article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Has recieved more then usual coverage for these kind of events from the start that cant be disregarded. And as several users states there is no harm in keeping this article and in a/few months time re-evaluate the situation. For now it still passes WP:GNG and the coverage it still gets ahead of trial makes it pass WP:ONEEVENT. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You yourself even label it a "significant news story" and most articles on Wikipedia comes from news at one time or another back in time. And as long as there are sourcing and the news has recieved significant coverage it should be included atleast for a month or so before someone can claim that their is no long term coverage of a story. Just saying...--BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Has recieved more then usual coverage for these kind of events from the start that cant be disregarded. And as several users states there is no harm in keeping this article and in a/few months time re-evaluate the situation. For now it still passes WP:GNG and the coverage it still gets ahead of trial makes it pass WP:ONEEVENT. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Significant in this context would include international coverage. "more than usual" is not sufficiently significant for articles on current crimes, which like this one involve BLP considerations. That includes the top half of everything, and on a scale from utterly trivial to historic, halfway up is still trivial; I've usually been very inclusive about covering murders, but this seems a local story. I do not see the special circumstances except the apparent absence of motive, but that's not unusual. If there should be some important further developments, then there might be reason for an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already coverage in The Netherlands.[27][28] and I've only done a very brief search. Also if it were simply local then Welsh and Northern Irish publications wouldn't be bothering with it either.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:03, 25 February 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, Black Kite (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist rationale - to give the article another week to see if the coverage is indeed declining / does not reach the required level (per DGG). Black Kite (talk) 15:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Per DGG. Wikipedia is not a compendium of every homicide in the world which gets a splash of coverage. It could be userfied in case there is someday reason to think it satisfies WP:N, such as if there are new laws, societal changes, books/movies/plays about the killing. Edison (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Making news yet again on BBC.. the logic of some users here are quite astonishing. Should we avoid the guidelines when it fit us and then slam it in the face of users when it is the opposit? It clearly passes WP:GNG and WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either Keep or Userify, pending review in 3-6 months, when the position is clearer, from events unfolding. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWSPAPER is policy, there is no indication that this crime is of any significance, it of cause receives coverage, but that coverage is the type you would expect of such a crime, no indication that it will be of any lasting significance. Mtking (edits) 01:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per prodder. We don't need to have an article on every subject where the media go crazy for a short while. Significant coverage for events that are normally routine would mean either worldwide coverage or long-term sustained interest, e.g. news stories or more stable coverage being published about this event years from now. Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This story has been covered by media now for weeks. If you dont own a crystal ball then I dont think we can say now that it will recieve consistent coverage years from now so that becomes speculations at best. But for now this story has recieved consistent coverage and do pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS per this.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or userfy for a while - at least till the trial so we can determine its notability. The fact it has continued to receive news coverage means it probably goes beyond WP:NOTNEWS. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - borderline, but 13-year-olds don't get murdered every day in the UK, so I'd be inclined to say this one is probably notable on that basis. It's really too early to tell, though; if this is kept, it should be re-assessed for AFD in a few months' time when we can take a more long-term perspective. Robofish (talk) 18:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even rarer for them to be murdered by someone raised in the Mormon faith, I would imagine, if this Daily Mail article is accurate. Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy I find the DGG logic to be most sound. At present it appears to be more a local story than international. It may be that as the investigation and/or trial progresses it will develop a wide enough audience that it would meet WP:CRIME and WP:GNG (although that's getting into a WP:CRYSTAL area I think at present. — Ched : ? 18:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my Keep reasoning. This article subject has passed beyond WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS by far. Local story means it would only be covered by media in the area of the crime but it has been covered by national media which doesnt make it only a local story of low significance.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Continued coverage,[29] have more if needed.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Now let's turn an old argument on its head. When you consider there are something like 700 murders in the UK each year, most of which rate little more than a few paragraphs in the national media, the fact (for whatever reason) this one has received more press coverage speaks for itself. I believe WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS are satisfied here. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've decide to take a more concrete stance due to the continued coverage and due to the arguments presented in favour.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The continued coverage is all very limited and offers nothing significant about the event. Per WP:INDEPTH: "Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree now. The amount of coverage is unusual. People asked for international coverage and there's been more of that too. Not just in the Netherlands, but also the Republic of Ireland and even Australian now (and that's just from examining February 16th coverage).[30][31]--Shakehandsman (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The continued coverage is all very limited and offers nothing significant about the event. Per WP:INDEPTH: "Reporting with little thematic connection or contextual information is often considered to be routine reporting."--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I see nothing notable about the victim or suspect (except for this incident), and nothing unusual or notable about the incident itself. Also seems to be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Boneyard90 (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You dont expand beyond a personal opinion based in no guideline of the Wikipedia. It is not a violation of WP:NOTNEWS as it has recieved coverage ever since it happened on a local national and international level. Also per WP:GNG. if this article is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS then most articles on Wikipedia should be deleted on the same "one handed" bias.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's "received coverage ever since it happened". It only happened two weeks ago! It's still news. But let me add:
- As per WP:NEWSEVENT#Inclusion criteria: Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths... ) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
- Same page: In evaluating an event, editors should evaluate various aspects of the event and the coverage: the impact, depth, duration, geographical scope, diversity and reliability of the coverage, as well whether the coverage is routine.
- I submit that the article has not satisfied any of those "various aspects", and nothing described gives the incident additional enduring significance. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I on the other hand think this article covers the aspects that you just listed. It has recieved continued coverage ever since it happened which is shown in reliable sources in the article. Your second point cant be evaluated yet as impact and duration cant be evaluated until a few months has past. If we should start to speculate about that it would become crystal ball-reasonings. But for now it has continued coverage the article contains reliable sources. --BabbaQ (talk) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course it's "received coverage ever since it happened". It only happened two weeks ago! It's still news. But let me add:
- You dont expand beyond a personal opinion based in no guideline of the Wikipedia. It is not a violation of WP:NOTNEWS as it has recieved coverage ever since it happened on a local national and international level. Also per WP:GNG. if this article is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS then most articles on Wikipedia should be deleted on the same "one handed" bias.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)--BabbaQ (talk) 11:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I'll go through them one item at a time:
- Impact: What is it? I don't see it. One girl killed another girl, and was arrested. Nothing precendent-setting there.
- Depth: Not much depth to go into. See "Impact".
Duration: Only 2 weeks, but ongoing. This item can be set aside for now.- Geographical scope: Happened in Doncaster, England; confined to Doncaster, England.
- Diversity: Two English girls. In England. Not very diverse.
- Reliability: BBC took notice. Some other news agencies noticed.
- Coverage: I repeat: whether or not... widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.
- Ok, I'll go through them one item at a time:
- There. One item set aside, one barely passes. The rest all look like fails to me. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:15, 3 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shiva Ayyadurai[edit]
- Shiva Ayyadurai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Vanity page. See talk: and talk:Email. This person has recently been problematic for some overblown claims regarding their claimed invention of EMAIL, claims that have even been echoed from WP into major newspapers, to the embarrassment of all concerned. Many editors have been involved, some stripping the dubious claims, others (including IPs and accounts with few other edits) re-adding them. Whether this person is judged notable or not, the current article is a mess and warrants immediate and careful scrutiny. Some of the claims, whilst perhaps true, are nowhere of the standard to convey real notability, as judged by another competent worker in that field (see the talk: comments). Others, including the ostensibly simple "four degrees from MIT" are unsourced. Although that one does have a "source",[37] and from MIT too, it's not a reliable enough source for an article that has already been tainted by so many dubious claims and recycled press releases (as the current ref clearly is). Recently PRODed and tagged for notability, although these have also been removed. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If it turns out that the claims have indeed been exaggerated, then notability promptly comes into question. And besides one dubious claim, I see nothing of note. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This doesn't read in the slightest like a vanity page, nor is it full of spurious claims. Instead, it's a richly detailed portrait of a well-known public figure, warts and all - it's by no means a flattering article - with a strong list of citations including a New York Times article on Ayyadurai. The fact that he as a business leader is known to have made at least one false claim is itself of interest - Wikipedia covers rogues, scoundrels, even fascist dictators and mass-murderers get their articles. He's a character who has a proven track record of interesting the public and journalists. A highly notable figure, like him or not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "well-known public figure" Got a source for that? A source that isn't one of his own press releases? Just what is he notable for? This needs to be both notable, and to be verifiable. All too many of these claims are one or the other, but if they're not both, they have to go.
- I have sympathy for the "notable scoundrel" viewpoint, but whilst that might justify keeping the article, it only justifies keeping an article that says "overblown claims for email invention" and nothing else. Whether we delete the article, or simply prune it heavily, we need to expunge any of these claims that aren't either relevant or verified, and that's looking pretty thin at the moment. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thankyou for the reply. I note that the New York Times thought him notable enough to justify an article on him, not just a minor mention, and I believe it is a fairly reputable source, not especially likely to have been written by Ayyadurai's PR assistant. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If for no other reason than to provide the counterpoint to his claims that he invented Email at age 14. I took a quick look online and here's a reference from 17 February 2012 Washington Post which claims he did. BTW, about lying and notability... If lies of fact were a reason to take people out of Wiki, we'd be missing at least two U.S. Presidents ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That utterly misleading Washington Post article is what has made this problem so urgent to address. It's certainly no reference. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There has been so much analysis around the world on his claim after the articles on TIME and WP (some examples: [38], [39], [40], [41]). He has become himself the main subject, we cannot just say that he is not notable. Also the fact that his work has been accepted to the Smithsonian's American History Museum, whether he deserves it or not, is notable. Also there was a topic about his push to get USPS to change their business model like in this article [42]. In that article, it does not mention his claim about invention of email as the basis of the article. So his work is not only around the invention-of-email claim. Z22 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That argument equates to redefining Wikipedia notability as, "If you're not notable, but you run the wiki-scam for long enough to fool a newspaper, then you become notable."
- No way. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You might be partially correct. I got your point. However in my argument, I didn't use TIME and WP as the sources for the establishment of his notability. It is more on other secondary sources that covered a story about his false claim. If someone runs a wiki-scam and fools two reputable newspapers long enough, but no one else cares about it, then that person is not notable. This is not the case. Beside, as mentioned, he is not only known for the email claim. Z22 (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what else is he notable for? Let's pick a section that we can all understand, "Social activism":
- " led and participated in demonstration for social causes."
- " In 1985, he participated in a demonstration against South Africa under apartheid."
- "[In 2008] Ayyadurai demonstrated against the Iraq War."
- This utter trivia is the level of this whole article. Who (especially anywhere near a campus) didn't protest against Iraq? How many students of his age didn't protest against apartheid? (Trafalgar Square for me, right outside their embassy) A "Fulbright Award" sounds impressive, but it's actually just one of a number of scholarships awarded annually - great news for your personal finances, but encyclopedic notability? We'd be hard-pressed to justfy List of Fulbright Scholarships as an article, let alone claim it as notability evidence for a personal article. Anything in this article is either self-serving self-publication, trivia, or outright fakery. Just pick a chunk and scratch the surface - it's all base metal underneath.
- Maybe he is notable after all, as the WP:author of “The Internet Publicity Guide” - after all, he does seem so very good at it! Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- So what else is he notable for? Let's pick a section that we can all understand, "Social activism":
- Although, at this point, I don't think it is required now to show other topics to establish the notability. Just for the benefit of showing something, here is just one topic:
- Keep. Unfortunately, as is can be a way for restoring the truth about his false claims about email. If high-standard newspapers like TIME and WP keep their unverified and misleading articles available forever, then Wikipedia must be there to correct the situation, for future generations... But that would be the only reason. Evoisard (talk) 18:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly the puffery needs to go, but given his appearance on Time, The Washington Post, Nature and the Smithsonian etc he is notable. Snori (talk) 10:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The one thing he's very clearly not notable for is his appearance in the Washington Post etc. as the inventor of email. He didn't invent email. These sources are unreliable. We can only use those sources to support a claim that he did invent it (which he didn't). We can't use those sources to support a claim that he didn't, as that would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. We might use the sources from TechDirt or a pretty clear article here, so long as we consider those sources to be adequate to verify this, and we consider what is a very minor act of fooling journalists to be notable per WP:SCAM, WP:CRIME (or whatever the relevant standard is). This isn't the Piltdown Man, or selling the Eiffel Tower, after all. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. But remove any of the press release-sounding self promotion stuff. Article should be trimmed down to a very brief bio and a summary of the more recent articles that have researched his claim to have invented EMAIL or whatever. The worst thing that you can do is remove all discussion about his claim, as the articles that are still hanging around on the web that support his claim will have no central place to refute them. --Alan Davies (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Only because I think it is important to keep a record of and clarify that this individual did NOT invent the concept of email or even the first implementation. Now that these claims have been published by mainstream media it is important to have accurate and correct information available for future research by fact checkers. --BenFranske (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've copy-edited the article to remove weasel words and peacock phrases. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snowball keep, sadly. I suspect "making exaggerated and false claims" is not what he would want to be known for, but he does in fact appear to be notable for that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the blogosphere sufficient WP:RS to support such a defamatory BLP? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe he'll get his own Ayyadurai Effect in the future; a variant of the Streisand Effect, whereby someone tries to make themselves famous for something positive, and ends up becoming famous for something else in the process. --Alan Davies (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the blogosphere sufficient WP:RS to support such a defamatory BLP? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if the rest of the non-notable material is removed. In spite of my original statement on the article talk page, he has now indeed become notable for managing to scam the press with his false invention claim. But other trivial matters should be removed from the article. Some of this has been done already. Jpgs (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I came to the page totally independent of any deletion votes, which in and of itself should tell you something. He's done something (whether that something which he claims to have done or not, I do not say), and appears to have received notability for that. So keep the article, but keep an eye on it to make it accurate. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 20:44, 29 February 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 by nominator. (Non-admin closure). — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:17, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QupZilla[edit]
- QupZilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. I can't find any sources on Google Books, and only one news article in Russian on Google News - not enough to satisfy the general notability guideline. I can see this becoming notable in the future, but I think at the moment it may be too soon for us to have an article on it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Nsda (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Nsda, and thanks for participating. I just wanted to say that this is a discussion, not a vote, so just saying "delete" won't hold much sway on the final decision. Could you let us know why you think the article should be deleted? (Bear in mind that the best rationales are based in Wikipedia's deletion policy.) Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have moved the article from Qupzilla to QupZilla following discussion on Talk:QupZilla. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the article already links to OMG! Ubuntu and Free Software Magazine articles about it, which satisfies WP:GNG. While OMG's review is routine (despite the name), FSM's article (again in contrast to its name) implies notability by noting QupZilla's "features that other browsers should emulate", so it satisfies WP:NSOFT. I also added the articles from PC Week/RE (magazine's staff blog, Russian, positive impressions after month of usage), OpenNet (reliable Russian source with Linux-related topics, project's history, probably the most comprehensive description) and Root.cz (reliable Czech source, though article is an entry of weekly column "Software picks", which doesn't help much with verification, but shows notability). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, ok. :) I wasn't sure that the references in the article already counted as reliable sources, but if you think they do, then I will trust you. Coupled with the other references you found, I agree that it looks like enough to prove notability, so I think I'll withdraw this nomination. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:14, 25 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Williams (engineer)[edit]
- John Williams (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Williams appears to be a local man who oversaw the project and was not notable in any other way. The article was nominated for speedy deletion when it was created, but two editors asked for time to expand the single sentence. Over four years later, no additional information has been found. I notified the two original editors, but neither has responded after several weeks.
Hadfield (Canals of the West Midlands p.194) confirms the statement, but adds nothing else. Skempton (Biographical Dictionary of Civil Engineers p.362) has a similar sentence in an article on Josias Jessop, but Williams does not merit his own entry. His name is mentioned in Arnold's "The Montgomery Canal", but nothing else. I can find no other details of his life or work, and the single sentence is adequately covered in the article on the Montgomery Canal.
Bob1960evens (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete -- Nsda (talk) 14:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (or even speedy delete) per nom, especially as all of the information in this article can already be found in Montgomery Canal. Zad68 (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is it possibly the same Johm Williams mentioned here [48] ? Derek Andrews (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is the same and the dates are about right, but John Williams was a fairly common name in Wales, and I can find nothing to confirm the link. (I had a similar problem recently with James Abernethy, where the Dictionary of Scottish Architects Biography had muddled two men with the same name together). The fact that the Biographical Dictionary gives dates for the John Williams on p.430, but not for the one on p.362 would suggest they are probably different men. Bob1960evens (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete (without prejudice to recreation of an expanded article). I'd love to be able to claim that this was an unexpanded stub on a character who had some further as-yet unmentioned influence elsewhere. However if he did have, I can't see it (or in any of my canal books). Montgomery Canal's coverage seems to be enough to say everything we can do about him. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Given the lack of material available at this time, I would say he is not notable. I think it is probably worth considering that by 1820, canal engineers were probably two a penny and, other than doing the job they were paid to do, were generally not making any advances that would make them notable. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:45, 27 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Key & Peele characters[edit]
- List of Key & Peele characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"There aren't any main characters on the series" pretty much sums up my objection. Listing every unnamed character that ever appears in a sketch on sketch show just isn't a reasonable basis for an article. —Kww(talk) 13:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom — complete no-brainer here. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One article telling readers about the show should be enough. BigJim707 (talk) 15:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I just can't see how an article about the characters of a series without any main characters is in any way worthy of an article. An exhaustive list is not necessary, and the concept is already mentioned at the parent article, Key & Peele. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 22:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yet another contribution of listcruft provided this week by TBrandley, who is getting to be an AfD regular with their run of unneeded list of and programming block articles (to the point where he created a WikiProject about programming block articles that should definitely be merged to WP Televison). Very poorly written article about a show which has no regular characters outside of their Obama impression.Nate • (chatter) 23:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBrandley (talk • contribs) (comment moved down by Nate • (chatter) to differentiate rationale)
- Comment I don't think that a verifiable statement about editing history is a personal attack. For example, the fact that the editor has created a lot of similar articles that were quickly deleted by the community is a fact. See WP:NPA#WHATIS. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No personal attack was leveled and it is highly inappropriate to use that template within an AfD. I simply stated you do have plenty of AfD's up and stated the quality standard has not been met with this article. Please redact the template. Nate • (chatter) 11:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- merge selectively to Key & Peele per WP:ATD and WP:NNC. A sketch show can indeed have notable characters, but these aren't them. Jclemens (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What information would you merge that isn't already in List of Key & Peele episodes?—Kww(talk) 04:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and block editor per WP:DISRUPT. Logical Cowboy (talk) 23:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is nothing of any substance. I don't even suggest merging into the current article; outside of Obama/The Anger Translator, there are no notable recurring characters anyway.--BarryTheUnicorn (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please block editor per WP:IDHT and outrageous accusation of personal attacking. See also Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TBrandley. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:55, 4 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cameron Caldwell[edit]
- Cameron Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article's subject was a candidate in the forthcoming Queensland election, but has subsequently been disendorsed prior to the election. Thus he isn't a candidate, and has held no political positions, so accordingly to WP:POLITICIAN we can't assume notability. In regard to the sources, none currently provide the sort of coverage we need, and most are there to provide background and don't mention Caldwell.
There is now some news about Caldwell being disendorsed, but it isn't the sort of thing likely to have legs, and at best it hits one event problems. So I can't really see him passing the GNG anytime soon. - Bilby (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nomination. Aside from the notability issues, the article also appears to have been written by someone associated with his political campaign. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yaloe —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per nom. As Nick-D said, the article had a clear promotional slant before it was largely blanked and appears to have had some COI issues. Frickeg (talk) 02:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICAN. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 1 March 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 (nomination withdrawn). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 00:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biological small-angle scattering[edit]
- Biological small-angle scattering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:PROMOTION: This article is biased beyond repair, promoting almost exclusively scientific work and software by one group. After removing this highly special material, nothing remains that isn't covered by the articles small-angle scattering and small-angle X-ray scattering. -- Nsda (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Until today, Small-Angle X-ray Scattering was a redirect not to Small-Angle X-ray Scattering but to Biological small-angle scattering - looks to me like another indication that the Biological small-angle scattering article is a flagrant self-promotion activity. Other redirects should also be checked. -- Nsda (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article has useful information that is not present on the other pages. Protein SAXS theory and data analysis is not a large field, so it should not be surprising that the cited work is only from a few groups. This does not automatically mean that the content is biased. Unless those criticizing it can point to factually incorrect material, it should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.34.128.250 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I second the above comment, this article indeed contains a large amount of information not present on other SAXS-related pages. As the above comment correctly states, the biological (protein) SAXS field is quite small and relatively new, and as a result there are only a very small number of software packages available for SAXS data processing and in particular, model building. Furthermore, the software referenced in Biological small-angle scattering is the de facto standard in the scientific community. I would estimate that at least 90% of SAXS protein models published in the last 10 years were constructed using this software. This fact is unavoidable, and thus frequent references to this software are not an indication of bias. As a final point, I would add that the other pages do not adequately address the process of constructing protein models from SAXS data, and thus Biological small-angle scattering is a valuable reference that should not be removed. -- p212121 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced, but as I have no hope to win this debate, I withdraw my deletion request. -- Nsda (talk) 00:13, 29 February 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. We do not delete articles for being stubs. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technical College Balapitiya[edit]
- Technical College Balapitiya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Extremely short, only 1 reference, but STILL falls short of A7. James1011R (talk, contribs) 12:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I've upgraded the article somewhat and it now has an External Link. It's a state-run college, and by long-established convention secondary and higher-level schools and colleges are considered "notable". PamD 09:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article still extremely short. James1011R (talk, contribs) 13:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as stated above secondary and higher educational institutions are generally notable. I have already found references and no doubt local searches will find many more. Bringing such institutions forward for deletion less than 24 hours after creation is hardly the best way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nominator has not provided any remotely policy-compliant rationale for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Secondary and tertiary educational institutions are generally considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:48, 26 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uber (company)[edit]
- Uber (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Deelte. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy snow close - bad nom, please use WP:BEFORE.[49] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Plenty of sources to assert notability. White 720 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:There are refs to support notability. Does read like promotional material, so should be cleaned up for POV and promotion.--NavyBlue84 03:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is sourced, stylistic issues can be fixed. MakeBelieveMonster (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is about a taxicab business that started in 2011. The gimmicks that got it a flurry of startup coverage are using fancier cars, and a mobile phone application that is used to summon the cabs and allows the passenger to track his summoned cab moving through the streets. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and while these aspects of this business are verifiable, I don't believe they represent the sort of lasting achievement that makes this business an appropriate subject for a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion about Uber is noted, but the press coverage of the company makes it notable. This is a company that provides a new way of reserving and charging for transportation — not according to me, but according to many reliable sources which are cited in the article. When the child in Africa receives his Wikipedia disc a few years from now, he'll want to know about how two entrepreneurs challenged a century-old industry. White 720 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's apparently yet to be seen whether this business is even operating legally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Legality is not a requirement for a business to have a Wikipedia article. To the contrary, Uber's legal challenges so far have actually made it more notable. White 720 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When the courts rule that the business plan was in fact illegal --- which seems inevitable; in the USA, taxicab licenses are usually state monopoly privileges granted by local governments, and zealously guarded by licensed operators in the purest form of rent-seeking --- all that will be left is a business notable for one event, that operated for maybe a couple years. While notability is not temporary, this business will be. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for agreeing that the subject of this article is notable — and not just for one event, but for its introduction, subsequent expansion, and challenges. However, I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum in which to discuss the legality of a business. Blogs and newsgroups work better for that purpose. White 720 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other online businesses that have operated on shaky legal ground: Napster, Grokster, Kazaa, Paypal, Airbnb, VRBO, RelayRides, Full Tilt Poker, BetonSports, All Headline News, Moreover Technologies, Wikileaks, google, and YouTube. Point? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for agreeing that the subject of this article is notable — and not just for one event, but for its introduction, subsequent expansion, and challenges. However, I must remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum in which to discuss the legality of a business. Blogs and newsgroups work better for that purpose. White 720 (talk) 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When the courts rule that the business plan was in fact illegal --- which seems inevitable; in the USA, taxicab licenses are usually state monopoly privileges granted by local governments, and zealously guarded by licensed operators in the purest form of rent-seeking --- all that will be left is a business notable for one event, that operated for maybe a couple years. While notability is not temporary, this business will be. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Legality is not a requirement for a business to have a Wikipedia article. To the contrary, Uber's legal challenges so far have actually made it more notable. White 720 (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's apparently yet to be seen whether this business is even operating legally. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Your opinion about Uber is noted, but the press coverage of the company makes it notable. This is a company that provides a new way of reserving and charging for transportation — not according to me, but according to many reliable sources which are cited in the article. When the child in Africa receives his Wikipedia disc a few years from now, he'll want to know about how two entrepreneurs challenged a century-old industry. White 720 (talk) 16:46, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose my point is this one. We have a startup business of dubious legality, one that steps on the toes of highly motivated people. What notability they have is largely the result of controversy they brought themselves because of flaws in their business plan. It doesn't relate to issues of general public concern like the Napster startup did. At this point, I'd question whether the controversy has enough legs to turn this business into one whose notability will be undimmed by time. I don't feel all that strongly about the current version, but I'd still wait and see at this point. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're either misreading things or perhaps you're not properly framing this article within its subject area. Online consumer tech, "dot com" if you will but these also include mobile-based businesses like Uber, is a major sector of the US economy, and the venture capital startup mill is a huge business in its own right, $30B+ invested in 2011. Uber is one of the most prominent of the new pack. It has received $40M+ funding from top tier venture firms and a "who's who" (per the sources) of prominent tech angel investors. It's operating internationally - not only San Francisco, Boston, New York, DC, LA, etc., but also Toronto and Paris. It gets written up on a daily basis within the technology and general business press, not primarily for its local regulatory difficulties. One could not have a broad encyclopedic understanding of the tech startup world without considering this company and its peers. Within that world, not knowing about Uber would be considered a mark of ignorance. The notability standards are designed to catch companies like this, even for people who don't know the subject area. It clearly passes the objective test in WP:CORP for having multiple mentions in independent reliable sources, as there are hundreds of them on a variety of issues (for the most part, not the local regulatory challenges) for three years, 2010 through 2012. The real question isn't whether the sources establish notability, as they clearly do. The question is why, despite the article clearly meeting the objective notability standards, there might be an argument that it is not worthy of note in the encyclopedia. Opining that the business plan is faulty or that the company will soon go out of business (a gripe you hear about the entire business sector, and remains to be seen) isn't really pertinent. The claim that all of the coverage is of a single legal problem is simply not true. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What I keep coming back to is "startup." Wikipedia is not a directory of new business ideas, whether they are promising or dubious. We wait to see whether startups have significant impact or fizzle. No amount of startup-related buzz is going to get around that. I wouldn't propose deleting it with prejudice, even. It's still just an original idea; nobody knows if it will work. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're either misreading things or perhaps you're not properly framing this article within its subject area. Online consumer tech, "dot com" if you will but these also include mobile-based businesses like Uber, is a major sector of the US economy, and the venture capital startup mill is a huge business in its own right, $30B+ invested in 2011. Uber is one of the most prominent of the new pack. It has received $40M+ funding from top tier venture firms and a "who's who" (per the sources) of prominent tech angel investors. It's operating internationally - not only San Francisco, Boston, New York, DC, LA, etc., but also Toronto and Paris. It gets written up on a daily basis within the technology and general business press, not primarily for its local regulatory difficulties. One could not have a broad encyclopedic understanding of the tech startup world without considering this company and its peers. Within that world, not knowing about Uber would be considered a mark of ignorance. The notability standards are designed to catch companies like this, even for people who don't know the subject area. It clearly passes the objective test in WP:CORP for having multiple mentions in independent reliable sources, as there are hundreds of them on a variety of issues (for the most part, not the local regulatory challenges) for three years, 2010 through 2012. The real question isn't whether the sources establish notability, as they clearly do. The question is why, despite the article clearly meeting the objective notability standards, there might be an argument that it is not worthy of note in the encyclopedia. Opining that the business plan is faulty or that the company will soon go out of business (a gripe you hear about the entire business sector, and remains to be seen) isn't really pertinent. The claim that all of the coverage is of a single legal problem is simply not true. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:04, 26 February 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, Ankit MaityTalkContribs 11:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am admittedly reluctant to disagree with Smerdis of Tlön, as his decisions in deletion debates are (from what I've seen) almost always right. With respect, I am leaning towards keeping this article, because I believe the sources have established notability sufficient to pass WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Impact is definitely a thing to consider, but I still think that notability has been established. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: actually, the notability of the company in the article is derived from one of its products. This is a very bad practice that should not be endorsed, as the notable element in this case is (if any) the software (service) itself. The company itself has nothing to prove its notability except for regular financial noise that doesn't actually show any kind of notability: the companies are supposed to make profit, thus being profitable as many others is nothing special. Otherwise any company mentioned in www
.killerstartups .com or whatever similar resources automatically becomes notable, which is quite damaging for Wikipedia, as such position spawns endless similar articles about some companies that are just financially successful. If absolutely needed, the company background can be added to the article about the product. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Shall we move "Uber (company)" to "Uber (service)" so that the service is the subject of the article instead? White 720 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to tell what the argument is. Nearly any web service (e.g. Yelp, Inc., OpenTable, LinkedIn, eBay, Amazon.com) exists simultaneously as a website or mobile application and as a company. Wikipedia is not consistent on whether these are titled or described as a service offering or as a business entity. Actually, that's true of lots of brands as well - are we talking about the product / service, or the company that produces it? It's a distinction without a difference, as these online companies are each a single distinct subject. In a few rare cases, e.g. google, they get so big and multifaceted that their service offerings get their own articles Google Search, youtube, etc. Incidentally, there is a lot of sourcing here not only about the Uber service but the company behind it (funding, how it was founded, its strategic decisionmaking). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With each of these entries it is trivial to determine the topic: company (BTW, should be deleted, article on web site should be created), service, service (wrong infobox though), company (notable), company (notable). The eBay and Amazon services are actually not notable apart from respective businesses (they are plain archetypal auction services), which is the opposite situation to what we see here. Remember, our decisions have an impact on the whole project, as they get referenced in future discussions and end up being a practice, so it is a good time to stop and think, whether the current situation of a complete mess is acceptable from the position of its long-term impact. And no, this article shouldn't be moved to Uber (service), it should be deleted and Uber (software) or Uber (service) created with clean history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article on Yelp should be deleted too? eBay is not a notable web service? That's certainly a novel approach to notability. I won't debate the merits of the proposal, but things like that are more apt to get a hearing at Village Pump than in deletion discussions. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My position (apart from other articles' evaluation) exactly corresponds to WP:PRODUCT, which requires the proper separation between products and producers and forbids deriving producers' notability from that of products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. Shall we move Uber (company) to Uber (service), then? Would the latter article be allowed to exist? White 720 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't the matter of naming, it's the matter of topic: the article on Uber (company) can't exist per WP:NCORP unless this company is notable with no regard to its products (like eg. Apple, Miscrosoft, Red Hat, etc.). If both the article is moved and rewritten to be about the service, it's OK. Though I think that keeping the edit history of the article about unnotable company is damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to naming one way or another, because both the service [50][51][52] and the company that makes it[53][54][55] are clearly notable, but as with most of these online companies best covered in a single article. It would be useful if there were a uniform naming convention across Wikipedia for online service companies, or to enforce one if it already exists. It would also be helpful to expand WP:CORP to specifically address venture startups, or WP:WEB to include services and not just content. But that's a job for a wikiproject, not a deletion discussion, and not terribly germane here. The company passes the general notability guideline by a mile per the sourcing, and in substance it's a worthwhile topic for any interested lay reader who wishes to develop a comprehensive encyclopedic understanding of American business. The business press certainly thinks so, they have covered this company continually and extensively since its founding. It's hard to fathom why we're even discussing this. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't the matter of naming, it's the matter of topic: the article on Uber (company) can't exist per WP:NCORP unless this company is notable with no regard to its products (like eg. Apple, Miscrosoft, Red Hat, etc.). If both the article is moved and rewritten to be about the service, it's OK. Though I think that keeping the edit history of the article about unnotable company is damaging. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good. Shall we move Uber (company) to Uber (service), then? Would the latter article be allowed to exist? White 720 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My position (apart from other articles' evaluation) exactly corresponds to WP:PRODUCT, which requires the proper separation between products and producers and forbids deriving producers' notability from that of products. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Our article on Yelp should be deleted too? eBay is not a notable web service? That's certainly a novel approach to notability. I won't debate the merits of the proposal, but things like that are more apt to get a hearing at Village Pump than in deletion discussions. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With each of these entries it is trivial to determine the topic: company (BTW, should be deleted, article on web site should be created), service, service (wrong infobox though), company (notable), company (notable). The eBay and Amazon services are actually not notable apart from respective businesses (they are plain archetypal auction services), which is the opposite situation to what we see here. Remember, our decisions have an impact on the whole project, as they get referenced in future discussions and end up being a practice, so it is a good time to stop and think, whether the current situation of a complete mess is acceptable from the position of its long-term impact. And no, this article shouldn't be moved to Uber (service), it should be deleted and Uber (software) or Uber (service) created with clean history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hard to tell what the argument is. Nearly any web service (e.g. Yelp, Inc., OpenTable, LinkedIn, eBay, Amazon.com) exists simultaneously as a website or mobile application and as a company. Wikipedia is not consistent on whether these are titled or described as a service offering or as a business entity. Actually, that's true of lots of brands as well - are we talking about the product / service, or the company that produces it? It's a distinction without a difference, as these online companies are each a single distinct subject. In a few rare cases, e.g. google, they get so big and multifaceted that their service offerings get their own articles Google Search, youtube, etc. Incidentally, there is a lot of sourcing here not only about the Uber service but the company behind it (funding, how it was founded, its strategic decisionmaking). - Wikidemon (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What is Uber (company) notable for? I see no evidence that the company (as opposed to service) passes WP:NCORP (WP:GNG is not a prequisite here). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The company is notable, among other things, for raising a lot of money from top tier venture capital firms, having an "a list" of private investors, its structure and relationships with partners, the way it was founded and for what reason, the founders themselves and their role in the company, its business strategy, marketing decisions, etc., and the evidence for this is that all of these are covered extensively in major independent reliable sources, e.g. New York Times, as well as the trade publications that cover general business and tech startups, e.g. techcrunch. Coverage of the objections from local regulators go both to the product and the company. Some sources cover it as a flaw in the product, others as a deliberate decision by the company and founders to challenge and change the way this particular business is done in America. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are two arguments put forth in support of the deletion of the article. Firstly it is argued that the long-term importance of Uber is uncertain. While this might be true it doesn't affect the notability in the wikipedia sense, either the current coverage is enough to meet WP:GNG or it is not. It doesn't matter if the coverage is the result of startup controversy. If the coverage in reliable sources is deemed substantial there is no case for deletion. Secondly it is argued that the notability of the company and the service should be separated. This is clearly not a straightforward question and a move to Uber (service) needs to be discussed further within the relevant wiki-projects as Wikidemon suggests. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:15, 1 March 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. We have a "keep per precedent", but the three listed similar AFDs all ended in "no consensus", so hardly a precedent there to keep this one. The other keep is basically "it's useful". No actual sources, no references showing that this is indeed a topic that has been the subject of significant coverage, mean that the delete opinions have the better basis in policy and the keep opinions in this case carry less weight. Fram (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Austrian presidents by longevity[edit]
- List of Austrian presidents by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a sortable table masquerading as an article - I don't see this as a standalone encyclopaedic topic. Note that List of Federal Presidents of Austria exists, and is longer in historical scope. If considered necessary the page List of Federal Presidents of Austria (already a series of small tables) - could be converted into a larger sortable table. I should also note [[Mddkpp (talk) 21:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of German Chancellors by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Secretaries-General of the United Nations by longevity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by longevity (all the same author)Mddkpp (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Note that previous decisions at AfD were made for similar pages such as United States and the Philippines, and also the comments of the reviewing administrator at a related deletion review CanuckMy page89 (talk), 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now I discover Category:Lists of political office-holders by age - not sure what is going on here - I suppose I should propose them all.. suggesting delete and merge - Mddkpp (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - my main proposal is the destruction of these standalone-articles, not the content - I can see the value of merging in somecases where not already duplicated in the obvious "parent" article. Thanks.Mddkpp (talk) 21:35, 20 February 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 February 20. Snotbot t • c » 21:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per precedent at previous AfDs of related articles. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It really doesn't help the encyclopedia to delete content like this. It may seem silly to some, but this is exactly the sort of thing you might find in almanacs.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to agree - but I think these articles (essentially tables IMO) should be merged into the relavent xxx within Category:Lists of presidents.Mddkpp (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No need to merge anywhere. What could this comparison possibly be used? Somebody, somewhere in this world may find this useful at some point along the timeline of human existance but I can't fathom this as being more than just a temporary deviation from someone's legitimate attempt to learn. To merge it, the bulk of readers will surely be scrolling past it whatever article it is in after a momentary scan of the content.
- Readers have numerouse links to follow in pages that would be relevant to the members of this list. Their choice on which of those links to follow is challenging enough (if they are even remotely like me). We should not be throwing stones such as this longevity list in their path. My gut feeling says that less than 1% of readers landing on this page will leave with any lasting memory of it or its contents. For me to retain any of this info, it would have to be in the form of a statement: The longest-lived was Kurt Waldheim, the shortest-lived was Thomas Klestil. Start throwing more than those two at me and I've lost interest. Ken Tholke (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've got to totally agree with this sentiment - it's the conflation of two apparently unrelated factors - "being austrian president" and "lifespan". It isn't even a list by "time in office" which. Why not cut to the shit - WHO WAS THE TALLEST? - Is it not a joke? Mddkpp (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Rlendog (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
XBML[edit]
- XBML (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lack of Notability and Commercial Advertising Nickmalik (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page describes a self-titled method specific to a single software product. Method is not notable. It has not been adopted by researchers or other products. No papers have been written in the research community and no third-party (neutral) sources can be found. The software company has been able to sell the product to a number of companies. However, use of a product does not make the method notable. (It doesn't even make the product notable). The only conceivable reason for this page to exist, therefore, is to build the credibility of the software product itself. The page is therefore advertising. On the basis of lack of notability and advertising, I nominate this page for deletion. Nickmalik (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unambiguous advertising: ....enables consistent, complete and detailed business process models to be created, and provides a disciplined methodology to describe a business and its underlying processes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Smerdis above. OSborn arfcontribs. 17:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: file format of some software, even if named, doesn't become notable because it is used or useful. File formats can be properly reviewed and analyzed (see DOC (computing), Office Open XML or OpenDocument for examples within a single industry), and I see no evidence that this format was ever found notable enough to invest some effort in reviewing or analyzing it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:31, 21 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ennuitheism[edit]
- Ennuitheism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable neologism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This fails WP:GNG - there are no sources on Google Books, News, or Scholar. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete article itself states term is NEO and has a single not-yet-published source. At best, this could be TOOSOON, but basically it's a non-notable neologism with no sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's fairly evident who Drbulbulia (talk · contribs) is. Dr Bulbulia this is an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of first instance. You wouldn't walk into the library at Victoria University and start writing your new and as yet unpublished ideas directly into the encyclopaedias there. Please apply the same standards of academic good practice here. Get your idea published, peer reviewed, and acknowledged and written about by other scholars. Then approach encyclopaedias. I strongly recommend reading what the other Victoria University has to say about non-peer-reviewed self-publication, as well as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the subject of original research. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess we interpret that as at !vote to delete :) ? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:37, 25 February 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Firhouse Clover FC[edit]
- Firhouse Clover FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability; article consists solely of original research. Cloudz679 11:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 12:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - extremely low-level team; no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 12:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Not notable and unreferenced. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not played at high enough level and does not establish notability. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:29, 3 March 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. There is a clear consensus that the qualification "since 1945" is problematic, but there is no consensus this can't be fixed other than by deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of non-league clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup since 1945[edit]
- List of non-league clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup since 1945 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod removed so moving to AFD. A trivial list based on a single Guardian article which identifies a curious set of intersections, namely non-league clubs, with a specific round of the FA Cup with a specific year. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Trivial intersection Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Number 57 09:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as above, trivial intersection, no evidence of actual notability or worth. GiantSnowman 09:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think there's good policy justification for keeping this, much as I like it as a curiosity. It's the latter that's prompting me to try to be creative: is there a way to incorporate much of the list into a (possibly new) article about non-league clubs in the FA Cup? --Dweller (talk) 11:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-league clubs in the FA Cup proper? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly. I presume you're thereby excluding the preliminary rounds, which seems sensible. Is it called the "main draw", or have I made that up? --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I would personally find that kind of list interesting (if structured by round reached) I think it could end up being very long as many non-League clubs qualify for the first round. There would also have to be some differentiation for the period when League clubs did not come in at the first round (and also before the League existed). Number 57 13:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly. I presume you're thereby excluding the preliminary rounds, which seems sensible. Is it called the "main draw", or have I made that up? --Dweller (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-league clubs in the FA Cup proper? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trivial list. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks like I am likely to get out-voted here, but it seems to me that the notability of this information is decided not by editors' preconceptions but by the sources, and here we have multiple sources which have reported on this magical little group of non-league clubs enjoying unusual success in the Cup. In addition to The Guardian I quickly pull up stories about this from ITV[56], The Sun[57], and the FA Cup official website[58]. (See also a 2008 TheFA.com story on the same subject, which I found on the Kidderminster website[59]). In any event I appreciate Dweller's efforts to maintain the information.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of information, first three links don't mention 1945,
the fourth is dead for methe fourth now says "since the war". No indication of 1945. So a good start would be to recommend removing the "since 1945" caveat perhaps? The sources don't back up the title, and if we did remove "since 1945", who else would be included in this intersection of intersections? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Are you disputing that "since the war" means "since 1945"? It's hardly original research to interpret that statement in the obvious way. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, there have been many wars.... Why might it not be since the First World War? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In British English the phrase "since the war", without qualification, has for the last sixty-something years meant "since World War II". Once again, do you seriously believe that the use of that phrase on the FA web site means anything else? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't British English Wikipedia, you know that, right? And actually, working with many military veterans, they all have various interpretations of "since the war" so perhaps you need to think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just done a literal 2 second Google search, second hit was this - British source, "since the war" - yep, it's about...the Falklands War. GiantSnowman 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's obviously not comparable, because the context of the Falklands had clearly been established before the phrase was used. The same question to you: do you seriously believe that the use of that phrase on the FA web site means anything else? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it matter what one or two of us "believe"? Verifiability is the key. It appears that "since the war" is not synonymous with the Second World War for everyone in the world. Perhaps in your world, but not in mine, and not in everyone else's. You're probably right, that's probably want the person who writes pages at the FA meant, but it's not directly equivalent to saying 1945, as I'm sure you now know. Sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's obviously not comparable, because the context of the Falklands had clearly been established before the phrase was used. The same question to you: do you seriously believe that the use of that phrase on the FA web site means anything else? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just done a literal 2 second Google search, second hit was this - British source, "since the war" - yep, it's about...the Falklands War. GiantSnowman 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't British English Wikipedia, you know that, right? And actually, working with many military veterans, they all have various interpretations of "since the war" so perhaps you need to think again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In British English the phrase "since the war", without qualification, has for the last sixty-something years meant "since World War II". Once again, do you seriously believe that the use of that phrase on the FA web site means anything else? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, there have been many wars.... Why might it not be since the First World War? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you disputing that "since the war" means "since 1945"? It's hardly original research to interpret that statement in the obvious way. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of information, first three links don't mention 1945,
- Keep. Disputing the title isn't a reason to delete the article. It appears that it has already been established by Arxiloxos that the list is not based on a single Guardian article. The content is verified by reliable sources per policy and is unusual enough to only have six instances in over sixty years. If the title is not suitable then this can be discussed in an appropriate place. Cloudz679 09:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why "since 1945" then? Why not "since 1930" for instance? What's the justification for the cut-off point? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:07, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, "since 1945" plays an important part here because, as far as I can tell, this "intersection", trivial as it is, is entirely unnecessary. The sources variously use "since 1945", "since the war", "ever".... Prior to the Second World War I could find no record of any non-league club making it to the "fifth round", either because there were no non-league clubs involved or because there wasn't a "fifth round". So yes, it IS an important part of this discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Arxiloxos argues persuasively that the intersection is notable. Cloudz points out that even if the "since 1945" is disputable, that's not grounds for deletion. I tend to concur, but am interested to see more discussion before changing my opinion. --Dweller (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Coming out of hibernation for this, and apologies for the rather long comment. (Nice to see so many people from the rather brief previous discussion at WT:FOOTY joining in here; as promised last year, a golden raspberry to The Rambling Man for nominating this for deletion ;-p There is also some relevant historic discussion with Dweller here, but he seems to have changed his mind about the value of this article since last year.)
- The Rambling Man's original rationale seems to be that the topic is not notable. In itself, the presence of a non-league football club (from the fifth level of the English league system or below) in the last 16 stage of the premier English football knockout competition is unusual and is reported upon extensively each time it happens or when one of the relevant teams has another good run in the FA Cup; for example, [60] We even have a separate article on a relevant fourth-round tie, Yeovil Town v Sunderland (1949). A fortiori, the collection of such instances into one article is notable. (If not, you could similarly question the notability of List of Scottish football clubs in the FA Cup or List of Premier League hat-tricks or York City F.C. Clubman of the Year, which are all featured lists, and the latter survived an AFD in August 2010. I know, other stuff exists, whatever.)
- In addition to questioning notability, TRM also seems to be saying that there are no or not enough reliable sources (or possibly that the sources do not verify the content), and that someone (who?) should write a different and better article instead. On the last point, if I had the time and the inclination, I might write something better on "giant-killers" (which is clearly a notable topic - see for example [61] and [62]) or Non-league clubs in the FA Cup proper, but I don't see how the non-existence of a different article affects the argument about this one. Someone else is free to do better, of course, if they wish, but until they do, this all we currently have. On verifiability, there clearly are some sources, which are reliable. I have just updated the ones in the article, and added one by John Motson. This is precisely the sort of thing that you might find in an football encyclopaedia. Whether the sources verify all of the content surely does not inform whether the topic is notable. In any event, I think the sources do support the content, and demonstrate its notability.
- To be frank, it seems a bit daft to be quibbling about what the Football Association means by "since the war". They clearly mean "since 1945", not the Falklands War or the Boer War or English Civil War or the Hundred Years War (nor indeed since the first (world) war). The FA Cup was suspended between 1939 and 1945, of course, so that creates a natural break, as does the period from 1915 to 1919. I would like the article to go back beyond 1945, as I originally thought it should be possible to do, but you quickly run into three issues if you go back earlier: (i) Spurs won the FA Cup as a non-league team in 1901, and Southampton was the losing finalist as a non-league team in 1902, and there may be other instances. (I note in passing that the third paragraph of FA_Cup#Giant-killers and the source relied upon there is factually incorrect without the qualifier "since 1945" or "since the (second world) war".) It would be a bit time consuming but hardly original research to go through the official FA Cup records to see which teams were in the fifth and subsequent rounds (or equivalent) of the FA Cup since 1901, or indeed since it was founded, and which league division they were in at the time. But I have not done that, nor have I located a source that has done so, yet. (ii) The expansion of the Football League, which only had one division from 1888 until 1892 (so all teams were "non-league" from the foundation of the FA Cup in 1871 until 1888), then two divisions until the Third Division was created in 1920, and then two Third Divisions (North and South) from 1921 until the reorganisation to the existing four sequential divisions in 1958 (ignoring the detail of the First Division becoming the Premier League in 1992). So "non-league" means a slightly different thing before say 1920 or 1921. By way of example, Southampton was a founder member of the Third Division in 1920, but was "non-league" in 1902. Spurs was "non-league" in 1901, but was elected to join the Second Division in 1908. So this is a reason to qualify "non-league" by a period of time, "since 1945" in this case. (iii) As I understand it, the names of the rounds in the FA Cup changed in 1926; before then, there was no "fifth round", so the title would have to be "last 16" rather than "Fifth Round".
- On my talk page, The Rambling Man asks "[why] non-league clubs into the fifth round? and then, since 1945". As mentioned above, the list of non-league clubs involved at any stage in the FA Cup would be rather long, even if preliminary rounds are excluded. Feel free to write that article, if you wish, but the most notable participation of non-league clubs is surely their presence in the later rounds, and since 1945, that means the Fifth Round. But these are points of detail on scope and coverage, which might be relevant at WP:FLC, but not about the notability of this topic and its suitability for an article in the first place. -- Testing times (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Refer to original referencing and multiple tenuous intersections. Many refs say "ever", some say "since the war" and "since 1945", thanks to Testing Times for clarifying the significance of 1945, but that's not necessarily clear in the article itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Non-league teams reaching the Fifth Round of the FA Cup seems to be a rare enough event for it to warrent its own article, and there is a lot of coverage when such an event occurs. The problem here seems to be the fact that the definition of "non-league" has changed significantly over time. As Testing times points out, non-league has even been at level two if you go back far enough. A discussion may need to be had about whether the article has the correct name, or whether the article goes far back enough, but they aren't reasons to outright delete it. Del♉sion23 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine, but the name defines the inclusion criteria, which defines the article. It's fine to say "we'll give it a new name later" but what are we actually talking about? Do you want to just keep a generic article about non-league teams progression in the FA Cup or are you particularly interested in their progress since 1945 or are you interested only if they made it to round 5? What are you expecting from this kind of article, specifically? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The list would be the same if you would go back to 1925-1926, the first season using the current format. Before WW1 it was very common for non-league clubs to reach this stage of the competition. Non-league clubs played in round 4 or better (present day round 6) on 35 occasions between 1889 and 1914. Source: The Guinness Record of the FA Cup by Mike Collett page 597 (published in 1993) Cattivi (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems a notable topic to me although since 1945 is arbitrary. Should probably be List of non-league clubs in the Fifth Round of the FA Cup.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:28, 3 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kundhanagurthy[edit]
- Kundhanagurthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Contested PROD. Unable to find any substantive coverage, falling short of the general notability guideline. NTox · talk 08:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess, geographical locations have inherent notability. So this may not be deleted. Amartyabag TALK2ME 05:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY KEEP - Villages and other places are generally notable by virtue of existing as real places, as now proven by adding a Wikimapia link. Therefore neither PROD nor AfD should be necessary. I have copy-edited the article and added section headings. Since further citations are not required to prove notability I suggest a speedy keep. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Merely to clarify Wikipedia standards, is there a policy or guideline to assert this? I came across WP:NGEO, but it was an essay. Perhaps, if you are speaking from consensus, that it is an example of WP:IAR? My nomination merely reflects my hesitation to see an article with little possibility for verifiable content. Thanks for your help. NTox · talk 09:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm not a great one for standards but Notability#Wikipedia_content does say "Once defined, notabiity is established by convention, such as considering all names of places to merit placement in an encyclopedia, and can thus be objectively assessed as inherent notability..." and this principle does seem to be widely followed in practice. Ultimately the justification for it is simply that people may reasonably expect to look a place up in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I think this would be an interesting community discussion, if it hasn't already been one. For good or bad, it seems to me to be a use of the WP:IAR clause to make exceptions for geographic places that don't have significant coverage. My personal expectation is to get a comprehensive summary from an encyclopedia article, but I'll stand by the consensus. Interesting article, by the way (Notability#Wikipedia_content). However, I've tagged that quoted statement as unverified in the referent. NTox · talk 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there have been dozens, nay hundreds, of such discussions already. Probably there are reams and reams of essays and guidance, too, but as I'm not an insomniac, touch wood, I haven't gone there. ;-} Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. I think this would be an interesting community discussion, if it hasn't already been one. For good or bad, it seems to me to be a use of the WP:IAR clause to make exceptions for geographic places that don't have significant coverage. My personal expectation is to get a comprehensive summary from an encyclopedia article, but I'll stand by the consensus. Interesting article, by the way (Notability#Wikipedia_content). However, I've tagged that quoted statement as unverified in the referent. NTox · talk 10:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm not a great one for standards but Notability#Wikipedia_content does say "Once defined, notabiity is established by convention, such as considering all names of places to merit placement in an encyclopedia, and can thus be objectively assessed as inherent notability..." and this principle does seem to be widely followed in practice. Ultimately the justification for it is simply that people may reasonably expect to look a place up in Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. Merely to clarify Wikipedia standards, is there a policy or guideline to assert this? I came across WP:NGEO, but it was an essay. Perhaps, if you are speaking from consensus, that it is an example of WP:IAR? My nomination merely reflects my hesitation to see an article with little possibility for verifiable content. Thanks for your help. NTox · talk 09:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's been the general consensus as long as I can remember that verifiable, legally recognized communities are inherently notable. It's been so at least long enough for it to show up on the common outcomes page WP:NPLACE. If we can find somewhere that shows that a government in India recognizes this place as existing, it should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grandmartin11 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - Looks like a real village to me. [63] Long standing convention is that all settlements no matter how small are inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 13:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kopa (lion)[edit]
- Kopa (lion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Character from a unnotable series of licensed books. The only references cited in the article is to a wikia, which is obviously not a reliable third party source, and after searching around, that's about the only place that does have any information, so the article clearly fails WP:RS. The character could potentially be menioned at List of The Lion King characters, but it fails the notability requirements to have its own article. PROD was turned down, so I brought it here for consensus. Rorshacma (talk) 08:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete No evidence that isn't just in-universe. The books might have coverage to justify an article, but there's nothing indicating this single character does. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Oh dear. I would say this should be merged into the characters list page, but it's such poor quality that I think Kopa's entry would have to be rewritten entirely. "Raficky, along with Simba and Nala up to heaven Kopa, the son of the new couple in fact, sovereign of the cliff" - what does that even mean? A poor Google Translate job.
- Kopa is a legitimate character who was considered canon in the extended universe until the second film retconned his existence. Fans then invented theories so that his absence in SP could be explained, to keep him in the canon, but these fan theories are not supported by any Disney source. I'd be happy to find references and write a short section for him on List of The Lion King characters as his enduring popularity does give him enough notability to be mentioned, I think. ~ Kimelea (talk) 23:54, 25 February 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mitzi McGilvray[edit]
- Mitzi McGilvray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable person. No further evidence for notability is the past three years. Previous discussion was more about inherited than inherent notability. Thompson Is Right (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One of the two references mentions them, the other is old and off line and I couldn't check. The external link to them at a game company is d4ead. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is coverage out there about her [64] not included in the current article, though her positions don't strike me as a strong case for notability. Software companies got much more of a pass in 2006.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Though there's not a lot of information about her in the article yet, there are definitely other sources.[65] The fact that she was chair of the IGDA is sufficient to meet WP:BIO. She was, and is, an important figure in the game industry. --Elonka 04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited and IGDA is barely notable in itself. Given the failure to meet WP:GNG which get-out at WP:BIO do you rely on? I fail to see one myself. Thompson Is Right (talk) 12:07, 11 February 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) 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is the equivalent of posting a company's employee list as a Wikipedia article. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 02:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Last relisting for this debate.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete I'm finding plenty of information on her through searches, but none of them really count as reliable third party sources. And even if the company she works for can be considered notable, there isn't anything I'm finding that would indicate that she, herself, has any independent notability. Rorshacma (talk) 08:14, 24 February 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. The consensus below is that sources demonstrate that it was notable in the past and so is worth covering on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Frontier Fiesta[edit]
- Frontier Fiesta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable campus festival. Only sources are a festival playbill from the 1959 and a stack of yearbooks. I don't see anything salvageable in that article. GrapedApe (talk) 05:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep,
for now. - Looking at the Frontier Fiesta's webpage, it lists its run from 1946-1959 as its height of popularity when it achieved national acclaim, prompting Life Magazine proclaimed it the “Greatest College Show on Earth.”[66] As notability is not temporary, this does seem to suggest that the article could be salvaged and these claims should be further explored before deletion. This also could fall under WP:LOCAL. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Update. I have located a Life Magazine story on the festival, which would seem to denote notability, although I have not yet sourced the quote. I will add the Life Magazine coverage to the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also seems to have made it into a United Press article that found its way to newspapers at least in New York and Oregon.[67] My guess is that more of these will be uncovered and that this festival was indeed notable, at least in its heyday. CrazyPaco (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC). Also found a Houston Press article describing controversy surrounding the festival.[68]. The more I look, this certainly is a notable festival.CrazyPaco (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I have located a Life Magazine story on the festival, which would seem to denote notability, although I have not yet sourced the quote. I will add the Life Magazine coverage to the article. CrazyPaco (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is severely bloated and needs to be cut drastically, but CrazyPaco's diligent efforts demonstrate the notability of the subject.--Arxiloxos (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:EVENT this lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, what sources exist are either local or do not cover the event in significant detail. Mtking (edits) 09:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article needs to be trimmed down.. but the amount of information now available demonstrates notability.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sufficient sources are (now) present to establish notability. The article desperately needs to be shortened and rewritten, though. ElKevbo (talk) 21:23, 26 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Loughborough Students Hockey Club[edit]
- Loughborough Students Hockey Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Student field hockey club. Does not meet general notability guidelines requiring significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete Just because it has the words 'student club' does not mean it should be deleted. As already stated, it is a significant element in the sport and produces many international players, so it deserves its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mok9 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Relevant guidline (beyond WP:GNG, which they don't meet; I can only find this reference in a local paper, which isn't sufficient) is WP:CLUB. Their activites are not national, they do not appear in multiple RS, they aren't nationally famous and they don't seem to have attracted widespread attention - thus, no pass of this guideline either. Yunshui 雲水 13:04, 24 February 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. There is disagreement on whether the notability guidelines are met. As the article has been relisted twice, I see no reason to keep the discussion open. Since the article does have sources, the basic criteria of WP:V and WP:BLP appear to be satisfied so the lack of consensus defaults to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lindsay Pearce[edit]
- Lindsay Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable person. Her only claims to fame are appearing on a reality show (in which she was only a runner-up) and appearing in just 2 episodes of a TV show, in which she was not a major role. JDDJS (talk) 20:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Clearly fails WP:NACTOR. The role in Glee was not just "not a major role", it was very minor. She only appeared in two songs and had a bit of dialogue in episodes 1 & 8 of season 2 (i.e. not even in sequential episodes). There are plenty of non-notable actors who have appeared far more often on Glee. --AussieLegend (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: She has had lead roles in two stage musicals (Los Angeles and San Antonio) and will be playing the lead in Spring Awakening in Los Angeles next month. Just because her article does not yet reflect these things does not mean she hasn't done them, nor that she hasn't received significant critical mention for both her Glee debut and her theatrical performances. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only thing about the musicals is that you have to show that the musicals themselves were notable in that they received lots of coverage through independent and reliable sources. Starring in lead roles in a musical is good, but it really only counts towards notability if you have the sources to show it's notable. When it comes down to it, sourcing is usually what decides whether an article is kept or not.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Keep: While San Antionio is not a major theatrical outlet, LA is- and Spring Awakening (assuming its a professional and not CT production) is a major work. Also- she has won 2nd place in a reality TV show and had a minor role in the 3rd season of Glee. Knowing Glee- it is entirely possible she could return. I would say Keep for now- but if she does not continue to progress, then reconsider later.Nightenbelle (talk) 03:25, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Her appearances on The Glee Project and Glee don't meet the notability requirements of WP:NACTOR. Rather than keep a non-compliant article, the article should be deleted and recreated if she meets the requirements, not retained and then deleted at some indeterminate time in the future if she doesn't meet the requirements. If we were to do what you suggest we could create articles on anyone, not just those who should have an article. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No claims in article or this discussion suggest that WP:ENT, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG is met. Good faith media search likewise didn't yield any coverage that suggest that. Bongomatic 14:56, 16 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article's current sources clearly demonstrate notability. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which source or sources do you think demonstrate notability? This is (in its current form) not a policy-based rationale. Bongomatic 22:37, 5 March 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Disciples[edit]
- The Disciples (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:Books. The book has not received any non-trivial reviews. Interchangeable|talk to me 18:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've found two reviews, but I'm not sure if that's really enough to keep it. As a side note, I've found that the book was co-written by VC Andrews. Not sure if that counts towards anything, though.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Two reviews in notable third-party publications (as per Tokyogirl's references in the article) = multiple, non-trivial, independent sources, and hence a pass of WP:NBOOK#1. Yunshui 雲水 13:18, 24 February 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Joel Bloom[edit]
- Joel Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This person's only possible claim to notability is being president of a university, but New Jersey Institute of Technology is not what you would describe as a "major academic institution", which is one of the criteria (number 6) outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He seems to have done nothing of not outside of being appointed to this post. Source - bio at NJIT. Biker Biker (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT: I was the first to arrive at this article and I had noticed a copy/paste biography written for the article (which required a blanking of most of the content in this article). I read his credentials and he has accomplished quite a bit prior to the appointment to the post. Honestly, I would hold off on deleting the article until the copyright issue is resolved.--Ctoshw (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:04, 9 February 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, ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:12, 24 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diarmuid Griffin[edit]
- Diarmuid Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet WP:GAA or WP:AFL notability guidelines Gnevin (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Meets WP:NSPORT Generally acceptable standards "participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level such as the Olympics". In this case, he played for the Ireland national Australian rules football team, which is the highest level of competition for Australian rules football.
The article is currently very weak, with a lack of sourcing to independent reliable sources, so I see a case for merging it to a list until more sources are found. But the subject is notable, so the page and its history should not be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:36, 6 February 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, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sorry about the copy paste from other ones. After the second one, I realised I wasn't going to write up each individual vote. The tournament is the major international amateur competition for Australian rules football, which uses a modified rule set to allow the game to be more readily adapted for use where Australian rules isn't as popular. The tournament is televised in Australia and receives media coverage in the Herald Sun and The Age. It is also covered on the AFL's website. It is likely that if these sources were searched, this player would be mentioned. It passes WP:NSPORT and there is a possibility it may pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk) 05:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the AFL International Cup is purely a development league played by amateurs and is a much lower level of play than most suburban leagues, it is nowhere near the "highest level of competition for Australian rules football". None of the references provided are significant coverage in major independent reliable sources. The-Pope (talk) 15:43, 13 February 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, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: Last relist for this debate.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:13, 24 February 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 incubate. Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Strange Frame Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strange Frame[edit]
- Strange Frame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased, arguably non-notable film. Although it's apparently in post-production, it doesn't have a release date or any distribution schedule, and doesn't seem likely to get finished any time soon. Meanwhile, it only seems to have received relatively brief, trivial coverage from reliable sources: [69], [70], [71]. While it does involve various notable people, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from them. In short, while this film may become notable in the future (if it is ever finished and released), it's too early to have an article on it at the moment. Robofish (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate for a short while. We can wait until the film is released and gets coverage, but there is not enough yet available to meet WP:NF. If it is never released, the article can be deleted from the incubator. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:12, 24 February 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. Note that I have disregarded both WP:JUSTAVOTE keeps posted after the relist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paydirt Pete[edit]
- Paydirt Pete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources in article at all.Non notable mascot does not meet WP:GNG. No substantial sources can be found to make it do so. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Did you make any initial effort at all to find any possible sources before tagging this for AFD? I'd say Paydirt Pete would just as notable as any other mascots that have articles here on Wikipedia. SaveATreeEatAVegan 21:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly notable, unless there is a special GNG offshoot making it more difficult to keep mascot articles. From the news search link above: 1) Dallas Morning News, 10/18/2002; Virginian-Pilot, 12/7/2010 mascot national championship final coverage (The WSJ covered the final on 1/1/2011, but the seach link is dead; 3) dozens of local & regional cites in major Texas dailies and radio stations about the mascot competition, Pete's origin, and, of course, trival local events; and, 4) a few nationsl cites (Chicago Tribune, ESPN, Seattle Times) that may not support "notability" by themselves, but do support encyclopedic coverage, since they are likely to tease readers into looking for information about Paydirt Pete and WP is the top search result.--Hjal (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- first of all a mascot which is essentially a human dressed in a costume is not inherently notable. The sources I found were essentially primary or trivial coverage. And as nobody since its creation had put any refs in it it's a valid nomination. I will look at your sources and comment further shortly. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Yaloe (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep NThomas (talk) 01:43, 29 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SEParation[edit]
- SEParation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NALBUMS. Couldn't find anything in a Google News search. Bbb23 (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No need for track-listing-only articles. This one serves only to justify abuse of a fair-use image in the infobox.—Kww(talk) 11:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 06:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the band is of borderline notability at best and this article is just a tracklisting. Fails WP:NALBUMS as stated in the nomination. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 12:00, 3 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ITEA Project AURORA[edit]
- ITEA Project AURORA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG, but perhaps I'm looking in the wrong places? SarahStierch (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There have been a whole raft of articles created and deleted about minor EU research projects. This would appear to be another from the series. This one is more readable than the typical one, but it remains quite vague, and doesn't really contain an assertion of minimal significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The external links are perplexing: the first purports to be to the project domain but seems instead to be for a project called "EASY Interactions" (and for a human-system interaction page has some of the most shocking hover-and-shudder graphics I've ever seen; how long before the EU funds "research" into blinking marquee Comic Sans text?); the second is to a root directory. All very exciting. I speculate that this project never got beyond the proposal stage? At any rate, no notability and should be put out its misery. AllyD (talk) 20:01, 24 February 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 Rivals.com. (non-admin closure) ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JCGridiron.com[edit]
- JCGridiron.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Article could also be merged into Rivals.com. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Rivals.com. cmadler (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect no independent reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:01, 24 February 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. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cilla Kung[edit]
- Cilla Kung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From what I can tell this is just a minor actress. PROD was contested. Eeekster (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think she should be in an article, I compared the article Cici Chen and she hasn't been seen since her win. Cilla Kung is an actress that's seen more often than her.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 04:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A known+developing actress in HK. Dengero (talk) 16:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, passes WP:GNG. [72] (cited in article) and [73] are two examples of biographical interviews of Kung in major newspapers in Hong Kong. Deryck C. 20:02, 25 February 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. Existence is not notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 13th doll[edit]
- The 13th doll (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe this article to be of no notabilty TucsonDavidU.S.A. 03:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article relates to a real product and so is notable kutuupU.S.A. 03:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.152.101 (talk) [reply]
- Comment. Existing is not notability. Since the game hasn't even been released yet and has been "in production" for about 8 years, it's a bit early to say that a fan-made game has notability. I'll see what I can find, but most non-official games don't get enough attention from independent and reliable sources to qualify for a Wikipedia article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- comment Notability on Wikipedia means that the subject of the article has had multiple cases of non trivial coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject.--70.24.208.34 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's no reliable coverage in independent and reliable sources. I did see a handful of blogs, but none that would be considered to be reliable. The rest of the sources were either primary sources or "junk" sites that just mirror whatever you type in. If the game ever gets released and if it gets reliable coverage at that time, it can be re-added, but right now it's a pretty clear case of WP:TOOSOON and it doesn't pass any of the notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Comment: This article has been deleted before. I'm not sure why it isn't coming up correctly in the box. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The 13th Doll Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete per Tokyogirl79. As an unreleased, fan-made game with minimal third party references, it presently lacks the notability required to keep. Rorshacma (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree, there are any number of such products listed on Wikipedia. The product has been referenced on a number of websites and is widely known. kutuupU.S.A. 03:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.152.101 (talk) [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article seems to make a better job of demonstrating the notability of its inspiration (and competitor?) rather than itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also if the consensus is found to be to Delete. I also recommend that it be Salted see WP:SALT. Becuase it has been recreated before see comments by Tokyogirl179 TucsonDavidU.S.A. 04:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fine, do what you want. Salt it if that makes you happy, I'm done contributing to this site only to be incessantly shot down even when providing valid sources on articles. I won't be resubmitting it after release since I have no intention of wasting my time to contribute to this site any more. This is the fifth article I have written for this site on a range of topics and apparently every one has been "unnoteworthy". I'm past caring now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.242.168 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lack of coverage in third party, reliable sources. Does not meet the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 15:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I already told you you can delete it if you want. I already withdrew my support for the article and my financial support for this site. Like I said, I have written a number of articles for this site on a range of subjects in an apparently futile attempt to contribute and been shot down on every occasion. If you're going to delete it just delete it already. I'm past caring what your reasons are and have already lost interest in your pseudo-academic reasoning. Your whole validity policy relies on "reliable" (ie. popular) 3rd party coverage anyway so the academic validity of this site is moot. Here's a hint on how to be a journalist: Not being reported in popular media does not render a topic non-existant. That should be lesson one. The level of amateurism on this site was enough to convince me to convince me that financial investment in it is a waste of time and money. Now please stop the emails asking me for money. They're just insulting. if you're going to E-beg, at least make sure you're sending the messages to people who might be stupid enough to actually send you some money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.152.101 (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles at AFD are typically open for 7 days, so that's why the discussion is still open. I skimmed the rest of what you said, and it looks like you're venting about your Wikipedia on a whole, which does not belong here at AFD, and as such, is being directed towards editors who don't know or don't care. Please stay on topic, and vent elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 16:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am keen to have it deleted to avoid damaging the reputation of the people who are working on the product. The makers of the game had no part in this article being written. I added the article as an impartial 3rd party after reading about the product on various websites and, seeing that it wasn't listed on here, I decided to add it. As far as "venting" goes, you can delete those comments if you want, you guys are good at that after all. I have already had the article published elsewhere and so it no longer needs to exist here. Since Wikipedia provides no forum for debate on essentially any matter, I was forced to voice my frustration here. At the risk of being told I've been naughty, what exactly is stopping me blanking the article? Will I receive a strongly worded email? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.148.152.101 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Furthermore, what do you mean by "your Wikipedia"? Since when was Wikipedia mine? Since you decided to only skim my last comment might I suggest that you at least pay some attention to what you are writing?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of number-one hip hop albums[edit]
- List of number-one hip hop albums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ambiguous title aside, this list represents a genre of albums that reached number one on the Billboard 200. Is there a need to have a breakdown of number ones from this chart for each genre (Rock albums, Country albums, etc.)? There are already individual lists of all number one albums on the Billboard 200 and all this does is pick out the albums that happen to be hip hop. Plus it's confusing to have alongside Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums, which already has lists of albums from that chart. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as trivial intersection. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is neither a indiscriminate collection of information, nor a directory. This list fails the criteria for standalone lists. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:42, 3 March 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. It's likely that mock chops exist but the consensus here is that they are not notable. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mock chop[edit]
- Mock chop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating for deletion on behalf of proposed deletion nomination: "No substantial proof has been provided that this 'meat' related food item actually exists. The article appears to be based on rumour and myth. No sources have been provided that suggest this meal is of Scottish origin. Deletion is proposed as being a possible failed item under WP:GNG for not being adequately supported by sources, and per WP:IINFO for being a possible indiscriminate piece of information which if it were merely true,, or even verifiable, does not automatically make it suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Proposed deletion was contested at requests for undeletion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence that this product exists. The source is a passing mention. Otherwise unsourced. I found one mention in a reader's letter to a Dundee newspaper.[74] Certainly no in-depth coverage in RS. Tigerboy1966 02:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete If the item is "almost mythical" there should be more than one source. BigJim707 (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I asked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Scotland#Mock chop just in case. But, google books etc. shows nothing. Google search shows a rumour chasing its own tail. This appears to be both non-existent and disgusting at once. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not delete I have eaten a mock chop. They are a standard part of the menu at chip shops around Perth, Dundee and Blairgowrie, and it would appear this is also the case throughout Angus and Aberdeenshire. For evidence that it forms part of the standard takeaway menu, please see here: http://www.chinachinaperth.co.uk/chip-shop-menu/, http://www.hongkongperth.co.uk/takeaway.html, http://www.eateasy.co.uk/Angus-takeaways/Dundee-restaurants/De-Niro%60s-DD3-8RE-menu.php?category=FishandChipsCategory. It is also considered a speciality by 'Speyside Specialities', and is grouped together as 'burgers/mock chop' http://www.speysidespecialities.co.uk/pages/view/products. A mock chop was one of the categories in the Scottish Federation of Meat Traders awards - http://www.craftbutchers.co.uk/index.php?ID=28&CATEGORY=7-Award%20Winning%20Products. The following, I can verify, is an authentic picture of a battered mock chop with chips (a 'mock chop supper'): http://mockchopsupper.blogspot.com/2011/04/mock-chop-supper.html. I maintain that the article should be kept, as it refers to a very real product, although it does need a bit of a tidy up and I'm not so sure about the 'mythical' status. Where I come from, it is just another item on the chip shop menu, akin to white pudding, chips, fried rice, pickled eggs, etc. I believe it is basically reformed beef (à la beefburger) in the shape of a pork chop (hence 'chop'), fried in batter. Not particularly healthy, but tasty as an occasional treat. Mcruic (talk) 10:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the above sources are passing mentions on menus apart from one blog which means there is still no in depth coverage in reliable sources. They prove that the food exists, but not that it is notable. If the Scots really eat that stuff they are truly a race of fearless heroes. Tigerboy1966 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, one of them says that there's only one other picture of mock chops on the WWW and quotes this Wikipedia article verbatim as its only source. Far from being "authentic", all that that demonstrates is that someone — against all advice — uncritically believed a Wikipedia article that has zero sources with identifiable authors.
The icing on the cake here is that Mcruic's description of this purported subject is entirely at odds with the article at hand. So not only is xe showing nothing to demonstrate that either description is accurate, xe is supporting content that xe outright disagrees with. Of course, a source documenting the subject would settle the issue, but Mcruic hasn't found anything explaining in detail what this purported subject truly is (or even that it's the same thing in different places). Uncle G (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, one of them says that there's only one other picture of mock chops on the WWW and quotes this Wikipedia article verbatim as its only source. Far from being "authentic", all that that demonstrates is that someone — against all advice — uncritically believed a Wikipedia article that has zero sources with identifiable authors.
- Comment the above sources are passing mentions on menus apart from one blog which means there is still no in depth coverage in reliable sources. They prove that the food exists, but not that it is notable. If the Scots really eat that stuff they are truly a race of fearless heroes. Tigerboy1966 10:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Delete c'mon guys, this is a wee hoaxie, is it not? To be plain, NO RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For all future reference - this is not a hoax, or a wee hoaxie. Mock chops do exist - I've eaten them. There is nothing fearless about eating what is basically a beefburger (or lambburger?) in batter. As for passing reference - the fact that it appears on a menu is enough isn't it? That makes it at least as notable as the other items on the menu - which appear to have their own pages, or at least be mentioned on other pages. Also, there is the fact that an award was given for the best mock chop in Scotland (a nationwide contest is surely notable?). Type (in quotation marks) "mock chop supper" into Google, and you will get 2,540 results. Many are comments by people who have eaten (and liked) them. Does this make them notable? Another product of Central Scotland (the 'Tayberry') is largely unknown, even in Tayside, yet has its own page (thus must have been deemed notable). The fact that the chip shops don't go out of their way to promote the mock chop does not make them 'unnotable', as the same can be said of the white pudding, red pudding and black pudding which are found on their menus. In my opinion, the fact that it is a common chip shop menu staple across a large part of Scotland makes it notable. Mcruic (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Carefully-pruned search finds little I'm sure you did. However personal experience doesn't create notability and there are awfully few actual sources out there. Google searches are confounded by music pages of that name, and phrases such as "chop suey" which are unrelated. I ended up with the carefully-pruned search Google for mock chop without music etc which yields just 34 results, none of which are too convincing as reliable sources. Notability isn't established. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of you are wrong in your approach here. Counting Google hits is not research. You have to actually read the articles that the search engines turn up to see what, if anything, they say. And notability is not fame nor importance, nor indeed subjective. A menu does not demonstrate notability, Mcruic, because it doesn't discuss the subject. There is exactly zero information it imparts for the building of an encyclopaedia article. Our Primary Notability Criterion is that a topic must be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy that are independent of the subject. You're here to build a verifiably accurate encyclopaedia, remember. Wikipedia isn't intended to be a grab-bag of half-remembered or plain-made-up-from-whole-cloth hokum. If there aren't multiple independent published works discussing a topic, Wikipedia doesn't get to have a topic. Uncle G (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I did not rely on counting ghits, nor did I advocate that. As I explained, I filtered away the redundant ghits to reveal that what was left was, on examination, not usable as RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you did. Your counting and finding the number 34 none too convincing is right there for all to see, above. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh I see what you are thinking. I mean, and meant, on examination of the 34, none of them proved too convincing. (I would never have imagined anyone claiming that a mere number could convince...) Read them for yourself. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you did. Your counting and finding the number 34 none too convincing is right there for all to see, above. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I did not rely on counting ghits, nor did I advocate that. As I explained, I filtered away the redundant ghits to reveal that what was left was, on examination, not usable as RS. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are wrong in your assumption that I didn't actually read the articles. This is how I was able to say that 'Many are comments by people who have eaten (and liked) them.' Pandering to published works and the scientific establishment may denote notability, but it ignores a common part of everyday life for a sizeable section of Scottish society in doing so. That the majority of people who purchase this item happen to be working class may go some way to explaining why this item has not appeared in the omnipotent world of non-trivial publication. I find the 'half-remembered' comment slightly bemusing and somewhat condescending - the 'plain-made-up-from-whole-cloth hokum' was just superfluity for the sake of it and does little to encourage potential new and valid content to enrich the encyclopaedia and provide knowledge to visitors to Scotland who may wish to know about the local food. Hardeep Singh Kohli (who has his own Wikipedia page) mentions the mock chop in his weekly Scotland on Sunday column (which is also mentioned on his Wikipedia page). The reproduction of the Scotland on Sunday article can be found here: http://www.hardeepsinghkohli.co.uk/site/?cat=5&paged=5. In Charles Jennings' book "Faintheart: An Englishman Ventures North of the Border", there is also mention of the mock chop, the author apparently having a mock chop supper in Aberdeen as part of his exploration of Scottish cuisine. "In Aberdeen, he savours a mock-chop supper, but finds it impossible to source a deep-fried Mars bar" [note: has own Wikipedia page]. The review of this book can be found on Page 10 of the 29th July 2001 edition of the Sunday Herald; the reviewer being Alan Taylor. Again, none of these sources explain what a mock chop is - which is frustrating. They are certainly more common than deep-fried Mars bars, which seem to have become famous (and thus written about) for their unusual nature, despite the fact that practically nobody eats them. I have taken the liberty of writing to Speyside Specialities, who make mock chops, to ask for ingredients, a description of their product and a photograph, in the hope that at least it will provide the basis for an article. I am not sure what else can be done to support my cause until someone writes a scholarly article on Scottish fish and chip shop fare. Even if I could produce a list of 1,000 fish and chip shops that sell the item, complete with sales figures, I'm not even sure that would satisfy the glorious Primary Notability Criterion. Mcruic (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Brown[edit]
- Tyler Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 February 16. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no secondary sources that aren't routine reporting. CrazyPaco (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Played two years at a community college, is now in first year at Illinois State. He does seem to be one of the better players on the team, but this is a team that hasn't been invited to the NCAA tournament for 14 years and has had a poor season even by their standards. Of the article's refs, the first is a directory listing and the second is primary (from his college). In the last, he is the focus of an upcoming game preview in a local paper. It helps the case a bit, but is nowhere near enough, and other web search results look trivial/routine. Substantial coverage from WP:RS sources is lacking, and there's no reason to expect such coverage. Fails WP:GNG. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I suppose I can !vote here, having been the one who deleted it in the first place. Hobbes Goodyear says it better than I could... Peridon (talk) 18:08, 1 March 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amoy Street (Hong Kong)[edit]
- Amoy Street (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
prod contested without improvement- no indication why the road is notable. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 07:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources. –Ugncreative Usergname (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A source has been added. Will further expand the article. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 17:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]- Delete unless shown to be notable, source added shows V but not N. content can be moved to locality or umbrella article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The source demonstrates its notability in the history of the Wan Chai area and the early City of Victoria. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]If in case you don't already know, the source is a study conducted by the Antiquities and Monuments Office of the territorial government. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Blocked as sock[reply]
- Keep. "Marine Lot 40", on the seaward side of Queen's Road (the first road of Hong Kong), was among the first batch of lands that were auctioned off at the very beginning of the colony. Reference: A History of Hong Kong, by G. B. Endacott. -- User:YauKwanKiu 07:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Yau Kwan Yiu and AMO. 147.8.246.68 (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.246.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and very likely a sock of the struck IP above[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist comment: The "keep" opinions do not address the issue of notability (i.e., substantial coverage in reliable sources). Sandstein 07:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I would rather see this article being kept for the moment. Although I was not convinced initially, there happens to be quite a bit of interesting information about this street available on the internet, and I hope that I can have a chance to include it into the article. If the article then still fails whatever criteria people in the discussion consider as important, then the expanded material could be merged somewhere else. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there enough material out there, can you just show two reliable source links that demonstrate notability? I understand writing it into the article could take time, but just show some links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Are you placing the burden of proof on those advocating the conservation of articles? If you do the search, you'll find them. I am currently busy 1) in real life and 2) improving other Hong Kong related articles. The recent mass-prodding and AfD'ing has generated a massive amount of work for those who actually care about improving the body of HK articles. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm placing the burden of proof on those advocating the conservation of the article. I'm busy too, the top links from find sources above (removing Hong Kong disambiguator) finds a lot of information about Singapore. If we're supposed to evaluate sources just show a few so we can evaluate the independent notability of the street. I'm hoping there is more than just what has been shown. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- The concept of "Hope" is rather irrelevant here. If you read my initial comment, I was just asking to hold a potential deletion until content is added to the article and then potentially merged somewhere else. In the spirit of WP:TIND. I am not advocating for or against keeping it in the long term, just keep it for the moment. I will not take any of the "burden" here. Still, I "hope" to see you more applying your expertise at improving Hong Kong related articles. Cheers. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'm placing the burden of proof on those advocating the conservation of the article. I'm busy too, the top links from find sources above (removing Hong Kong disambiguator) finds a lot of information about Singapore. If we're supposed to evaluate sources just show a few so we can evaluate the independent notability of the street. I'm hoping there is more than just what has been shown. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Are you placing the burden of proof on those advocating the conservation of articles? If you do the search, you'll find them. I am currently busy 1) in real life and 2) improving other Hong Kong related articles. The recent mass-prodding and AfD'ing has generated a massive amount of work for those who actually care about improving the body of HK articles. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If there enough material out there, can you just show two reliable source links that demonstrate notability? I understand writing it into the article could take time, but just show some links. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Keep and expand per Underwaterbuffalo. Should it be moved to Amoy Street, Hong Kong or Amoy Street, Wanchai instead? 147.8.102.172 (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2012 (UTC)— 147.8.102.172 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. and very likely a sock of the struck IP above(blocked for block evasion)[reply]- Keep. Cited source [1] in article "Steps in Amoy Street" is, despite commissioned by the government, an independent (because the study is by a different government department as the ones who built or maintains it) academic study of the street's features. The source suggested above by User:YauKwanKiu also suggests in-depth coverage for the early uses of the land. Deryck C. 12:12, 22 February 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, Black Kite (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2nd relist comment - Keep votes still don't demonstrate notability, though I am uncomfortable closing this as Delete at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is our policy that Wikipedia is a gazetteer and so all named geographical places should be retained as blue links. Also, it's notable as its history is documented here, for example. Warden (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're trying to say there is a policy that if someone writes an article about their nondescript cul-de-sac we have to keep it? No, I don't think so. The proper place for this documented information is a local neighborhood, unless the street has some significant notability on its own. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- If one random person writes, no. But if two or more people of relevant academic standing do, as is the case for the two sources referred to in this discussion, then yes because that now becomes "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Deryck C. 19:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're trying to say there is a policy that if someone writes an article about their nondescript cul-de-sac we have to keep it? No, I don't think so. The proper place for this documented information is a local neighborhood, unless the street has some significant notability on its own. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Keep I've added a couple of refs to contribute to establishing notability. The scmp.com ref may be behind a paywall but the cited URL includes a scan of the article. I think it highly unlikely that there was not more coverage of this at the time. The article as it is begs the question "So, what happened?" Deleting it will preclude other editors from building its entry in the encyclopedia. Meeting WP:GNG has yet to be proved but that is not to say definitively that those refs are not available or likely to be included. [75] is one further ref I found, albeit from a primary source. -- Trevj (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I've been thinking about this one for a while, and it seems to me that the sources added since nomination are just barely sufficient to meet WP:GNG. If someone has valid arguments why each of them isn't (or enough of them that there are no longer 2+ good ones), I'm content to be overruled. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 7 March 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. Convincing evidence for WP:NMEDIA's guidelines for magazines has been presented here, specifically for guideline #5. Non-admin closure. -- Sailing to Byzantium (msg), 16:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Motorcycle Consumer News[edit]
- Motorcycle Consumer News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:27, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sufficient reliable sources are given in the article for a strong claim under WP:GNG. Given the paucity of the nomination, it's more than sufficient. tedder (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is of insufficient notability judging by Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep A very lazy search of Wikipedia can demonstrate that Motorcycle Consumer News easily meets criteria #3 and #4 of Newspapers, magazines and journals in WP:NME. The article itself makes an important claim to notability, and even uniqueness, in the second sentence: "It stands out in its industry by being wholly subscriber-supported and does not accept advertising", with a citation of a third party book, Chilton's Motorcycle Handbook, which recommends MCN specifically because they don't accept advertising. And then the article goes on to list notable and award winning writers on the MCN staff: David L. Hough, Ken Condon, Lee Parks, Glynn Kerr, Fred Rau, and Flash Gordon (physician), who have been cited many times on Wikipedia. It is without a doubt recognized as an authoritative source particularly for motorcycle testing; though MCN is not a perfect source, there can't be any other publication that is more trusted, since they have the greatest degree of independence in their industry. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is WP an encyclopaedia or is it the trade press?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What? The subject meets the notability criteria. What else is there to discuss in here? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is WP an encyclopaedia or is it the trade press?? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Demonstrably a notable publication in its field.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sneering at the subject because of its audience is not to the point, Newspapers, magazines and journals notability criteria specifically recognize "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". Brianhe (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep even from the UK I know that 'the other MCN' is a reputable and significant publication in the motorcycle world. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a lazy nomination for something which is well referenced, even from my UK perspective. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This subject meets 3 of the 5 criteria from the Newspapers, magazines and journals notability criteria and it only needs one. Tripnoted (talk) 05:10, 2 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dogs For Kids (magazine)[edit]
- Dogs For Kids (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I know it's hard times for publishing and magazines are often rather transient. However if a closed magazine hasn't generated any real notability so far, it won't be doing it in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:25, 3 March 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Schöne[edit]
- Richard Schöne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a footballer who has yet to make a professional first team appearance, thus failing the WP:NFOOTBALL guidelines. Jared Preston (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Jared Preston (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:36, 24 February 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Critters USA[edit]
- Critters USA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced and fails to demonstrate notability. It's a real magazine and it might even be notable. However it's the article creator's responsibility to demonstrate this, and they haven't done so here. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This may be non-notable, but it's the nominator's responsibility, per WP:BEFORE, to make a good-faith search for sources before nominating at AfD, and in good faith, I assume you did so. My cursory search on Google News turned up some reliable sources (there's a Dallas Morning News article, for one), but I'm not taking the time to see if their coverage is in-depth. Could you explain why those sources are inadequate? - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:04, 2 March 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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrets Magazine[edit]
- Ferrets Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable magazine. Looks like the magazine WikiProject won't link it. See Wikipedia:MAGAZINE#Notability -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It was a notable magazine in its field, and one that survives in an online format. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But not notablie enough for WP. See Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read that again: "... are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets'". Are you suggesting that ferret owners are a trivial niche market? Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you're wrong, but hopefully saner minds will prevail here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wrong", "Saner minds". Very subjective... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As is your nomination, and assumption of what you believe to be "a trivial niche market". But let's see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that my nomination and my opinion that the ferret owners market is trivial is subjective stance. That is the purpose of AfD's. To come to a consensus using collective opinions (which are of course subjective).-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not presume to patronise me any further. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And can you please assume good faith and do not make any more personal attacks. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not presume to patronise me any further. Malleus Fatuorum 01:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you that my nomination and my opinion that the ferret owners market is trivial is subjective stance. That is the purpose of AfD's. To come to a consensus using collective opinions (which are of course subjective).-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As is your nomination, and assumption of what you believe to be "a trivial niche market". But let's see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wrong", "Saner minds". Very subjective... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you're wrong, but hopefully saner minds will prevail here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you read that again: "... are significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets'". Are you suggesting that ferret owners are a trivial niche market? Malleus Fatuorum 00:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But not notablie enough for WP. See Wikipedia:Notability_(media)#Newspapers.2C_magazines_and_journals. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not a ton of coverage out there, but mainstream media sources tend to bring it up when they do ferret-related stories [76][77][78][79]. I think that's a decent indication of notability for a niche publication. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To quote the obvious policy, '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail,'
- For Fox News to ring Ferrets Magazine when they need a comment on a ferret story is not coverage of Ferrets Magazine by Fox, even if they credit the byline. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep My subjective opinion is that ferret owners are a niche market but not a trivial market. There is no need for editors to bicker about such matters - please present your best case and move on. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't an article on the ferret hobby. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly a significant publication in its field. In 2001, NPR even ran a feature about the battle for ferret supremacy between Modern Ferret and Ferrets Magazine.[80] To the extent this nomination is based on some preconception that ferrets are "trivial": well, it may not be true (as David Brooks asserted), that "more people own ferrets than watch Fox News"[81] but as of 2007 the American Veterinary Medical Association said that more than 500,000 American households owned more than 1,000,000 ferrets.[82]--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - While my chicken-owning neighbours would be aghast if I decided to keep ferrets, were I to choose to do so, I would certainly refer to Ferrets Magazine to help me in my choice. It's a notable landmark in the ferret-keeping world. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Cullen is on target, as usual. I also note that there is a Modern Ferret magazine, so the "ferret culture" is probably bigger than the nominator imagines. Carrite (talk) 16:14, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but a notable ferret culture doesn't imply that this individual magazine is thus notable, let alone that this negligible article is demonstrating that this magazine was notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:44, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ferrets are common pets. So ferrets are notable, and there's clearly a niche for ferret magazines and even notable ferret magazines. However is this a notable magazine? I'm not seeing that. It seemed to be a short-lived failed magazine on paper and it certainly wouldn't pass WP:WEB. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an article that fails to show notability as a paper magazine. Nor does it get a second chance as an online one. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huff and puff as much as you like, but WP:WEB is irrelevant. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although it's an essay, perhaps Wikipedia:Notability (periodicals) would be more relevant. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 00:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per being notable as suggested by sources already noted by Mark Arsten and other users above. As penance, nominator is charged with creating an article on Modern Ferrett,[83][84][85][86] which we clearly need.--Milowent • hasspoken 20:22, 27 February 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) 16:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BowTie Inc.[edit]
- BowTie Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is the leading publisher of pet magazines in the United States, and is the publisher of both Cat Fancy and Dog Fancy, each the #1 magazine in their category for decades, with paid circulations in the range of a quarter million. They publish about 70 magazines, and also publish books about pets. It can be difficult to reference article about publishers, as searches mostly show their own work rather than independent sources about their work. Here's a BusinessWeek profile. Here's an InsideView profile. Here's their Hoover's profile. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A significant publisher of pet-oriented publications. Dozens of potential sources[87] are identified at GNews by searching its previous name, "Fancy Publications", including, for example, [88][89][90][91][92]. In the words of a 1999 L.A. Times article, Fancy Publications is "a pet publishing empire that includes such titles as Koi World, Ferrets, Natural Cat (sample headline: "Holistic Hairball Fighters"), Critters (sample story: "What's Hot in Pocket Pets: Flying Squirrels, Chipmunks, Gerbils and More!"), Rabbits and Natural Dog (which tells you "How to Massage Your Dog")." --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Arxiloxos. The publisher of Joyce Jillson's Astrology for Cats not notable? Perish the thought. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Although the claim is self-sourced, BowTie asserts that they are "the world's largest publisher of animal- and pet-related content." That should give us sufficient pause regardless of the sourcing state of this piece. Obviously, magazine articles about companies that produce rival magazines are hard to find, but Cullen is on the right track in observing that there is business coverage out there. Carrite (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although supporting the deletion of most the questioned magazine title articles, I see no reason to question the notability of their publisher.
- It would also be reasonable to list these magazines (but not redlinks) within that publisher article. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant history going back to prior name.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:28, 28 February 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.