Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 22
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Adam Lyons[edit]
The result was Weak Keep - arguments based in policy and fact (i.e., that it satisfies the requirement for independent, reliable sources) are stronger than disliking the guy (as justified as that may be.) One could argue this is actually a no consensus, but the outcome would be the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 July 2012
- Adam Lyons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be notable. Black Kite (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Appears to have just enough suitable coverage. Many of the other references are dead links or go to home pages which have nothing on this. North8000 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Half of the references are now dead links. Of those remaining, the Daily Mirror piece looks promotional (it suggests signing up for crash courses via his website) and the CTV piece also looks promotional (the blurb beside the video claims he "describes no-fail ways to catch your dream date" and mentions that he is to host a "pickup skills boot camp" that weekend). Delete as non-notable. Autarch (talk) 21:47, 16 June 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, The Bushranger One ping only 23:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep. Plenty of references. CTV is a legitimate television network, and its news staff do silly human interest stories like those of any other network. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Overaged teen nerd who, he has told numerous interviews, now has sex with a different woman every night ("except Sunday" -- this is England, remember?), apparently by inviting them up to see his Star Wars collection or play D&D. Most if not all sources are either dead or not independent (interviews etc.). EEng (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are more than enough acceptable (CTV, The Independent, and presumably Channel 4 [can't be bothered to watch the video]) or semi-acceptable (The Mirror) live references. I don't understand your objection to interviews. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because interviews by convention let the subject speak for himself with little or no independent verification of what the subject says (except where this is clearly indicated in the published text) they are not independent of the subject and so not usable for notability. EEng (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read WP:INDEPENDENT. Independent news organizations, as opposed to say the subject's own website, consider the person notable enough to interview. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because interviews by convention let the subject speak for himself with little or no independent verification of what the subject says (except where this is clearly indicated in the published text) they are not independent of the subject and so not usable for notability. EEng (talk) 06:30, 24 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anton Z. Risan[edit]
- Anton Z. Risan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actor/porn actor; fails WP:PORNBIO. The Bushranger One ping only 23:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, I don't see anything here that meets WP:PORNBIO or WP:GNG, and a brief search revealed nothing relevant. Ubelowme (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--per nom and Ubelowme: no notability requirements are met. What we have is a list of presumably non-notable, small-time productions and a couple of web hits. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - none of the sources cited are WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Also the article is ambigious about the person's job. This looks like a (self)-promotional job, and a bad one.BO | Talk 13:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG due to lack of notable works done and lack of WP:RS. →TSU tp* 14:47, 29 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Archdeacon of Ludlow[edit]
- Archdeacon of Ludlow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a common job in religious organizations, and further reduces its scope by referring to the job in a specific Diocese. This subject does not appear to meet notability criteria. Taroaldo (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is a chronological list of archdeacons and one of a set of such articles covering the UK. If Ludlow is considered for deletion then why not the other 30 odd articles in the series?
The lists are useful in defining the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church of England over the centuries and in tracing the early years of senior clerics in the church. The job is not common and we are not talking about a single diocese. The whole point of doing all of the archdeaconries is to see the total picture and not a picture with a hole in it to satisfy Taroaldo's inclinations.Plucas58 (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are in fact some 95 articles listing the Archdeacons of the Church of England by Archdeaconry. This makes Taroaldo's flagging for possible deletion of this particular article about the Ludlow archdeaconry all the more arbitrary. On the subject of notability Archdeacons were a considerable presence in English society in bygone days, much more so than the hordes of sportsmen who have been included on Wikipedia for playing a few games of an obscure sport for an obscure team in an obscure locality (or the villages of Northern Iran with their 100 inhabitants).
If Wikipedia is not going to descend into an online Hello magazine then the significant figures of the past, such as these senior churchmen who played such a key role in shaping the English nation, should be included and documented in their entirety (there are still 20 English archdeaconries yet undocumented). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plucas58 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It does seem that any archdeacon was quite an important person, and is still of note. This article includes all archdeacons since 1876, and it is telling that there are 5 blue links for the list of people who held this post. The Steve 10:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 03:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I find the nomination incomprehensible and not aligned to WP policy. I find 2,680 hits in Google Books, all WP:RS as far as I can see: more than enough for WP:N. -- 202.124.75.134 (talk) 12:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article is about a job title within an organization, not a particular person, and nothing in the article asserts notability under WP:NGO. Per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The policy clearly states "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Taroaldo (talk) 21:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I take it that Plucas58 (above) is arguing for "keep." -- 202.124.75.134 (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As the original author I think I must. Plucas58 (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I might point out that the list of Archdeacons of Ludlow is merely a continuation of the long standing existing list of Archdeacons of Shropshire, which were renamed Archdeacons of Ludlow in 1876.
- Keep. Let me start with a bit of common sense. Is this a topic that readers might well want to read about on wikipedia? I suggest that the answer is yes. In which case it seems more than likely that there are sources. I suggest that people who have access to libraries closer to Ludlow than I look for them. Internet searches may not be enough. This is also not just about a job title within an organization. It is perfectly OK to list holders of the office, and as noted above, the fact that several of them have articles is telling. Nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. It is also key part of a major organisation, the Anglican Church. I see no convincing reason to not keep this article. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bduke. Should be plenty of offline sources.--Charles (talk) 21:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A win-win solution to the moral dilemma of whether the Archdeacons of Ludlow are sufficiently well-known to join the Wikipedia pantheon of notable people would be to merge this article with the article on the Archdeacons of Shropshire on the grounds that the Archdeacons of Ludlow are essentially a continuation of the Archdeacons of Shropshire under a new name. The merged article (and as I authored both no one can object) would of course be named Archdeacon of Ludlow as the current title of the post. Plucas58 (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No objections posted and therefore articles Archdeacon of Shropshire and Archdeacon of Ludlow merged as Archdeacon of Ludlow 26 June 2012 Plucas58 (talk) 10:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- As the Church of England is the established church in England, this is about a notable office. Each diocese has one or two archdeacons, so that the potential number of articles is relatively limited. I am not sure that the merger with the preceding Shropshire post was in fact appropriate, as I think that archdeaconry may have covered the whole county, the part in Lichfield diocese as well as that in Hereford diocese, though I am not sure. The nom's criticism would be justified if this concerned a vicar or rector. I suspect that the lack of links for earlier holders may be due to the links not yet haveing been identified, rather than the persons listed not having WP articles. I am not convinced that every person appointed archdeacon became notable by being so appointed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThere were two Archdeacons in Shropshire- one in Hereford diocese (which was renamed Ludlow and which is the subject of this debate) and the other in Lichfield diocese (see Archdeacon of Salop).Plucas58 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 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 Diplo production discography. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diplo remix discography[edit]
- Diplo remix discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Remixing of music falls under the purview of the executive producer and the professionals who do this aspect of record production are members of the production team. This content should be merged into Diplo production discography. Generally the only subjects who require two discographies are persons with a significant discography as a recording ensemble as well as a significant production discography. See Dr. Dre production discography and Dr. Dre discography for example. I am not aware of situations where a named person essentially has two production discographies and if another example exists, it is likely itself an improper fork in content. My76Strat (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge seems appropriate in this case. OSborn arfcontribs. 03:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom as most appropriate. DocTree (talk) 01:04, 29 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amber Lee Ettinger[edit]
- Amber Lee Ettinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - non-notable internet performer. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:ENT. Whilst her works may be notable and subject to reliable third-party sources, she is not. SplashScreen (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject has managed to remain at least somewhat in the public eye for five years now. See her coverage from the last month at Google News. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GOOGLEHITS and WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Trivial mentions on 'The Hollywood Gossip' blog and the Fox News opinion pages don't amount to notable coverage. Also see WP:LOCALFAME; being "somewhat in the public eye" is subjective. SplashScreen (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Not just an Internet performer (that wouldn't be a disqualification even if true). Extensive coverage in various mainstream references. Does not fail WP:GNG (non-trivial coverage), WP:BIO (especially since "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability") and WP:ENT (multiple roles in films etc.--which nominator admits are notable). RCraig09 (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject does fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO due to non-trivial coverage (as mentioned earlier). She fails WP:ENT because it asks for the subject to have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". The subject has appeared in one notable YouTube video and has made minor cameo appearances or popped up as a non-notable talking head on a few TV shows (always in relation to the aforementioned YouTube video). See WP:SINGLEEVENT. SplashScreen (talk) 22:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep passes the GNG with non-trivial mentions in several newspapers, including the New York Times. The Steve 10:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article in question is a blog on the New York Times website that discusses the subject's voting at the 2008 U.S. election. Not only is it a trivial and frivolous piece ("NEWSFLASH: CITIZEN DOESN'T VOTE") but it only discusses the subject in relation to I Got a Crush... on Obama. She is not notable outside of that video. SplashScreen (talk) 23:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are nine NYT articles. Also, City Room® is a news blog of live reporting, features and reader conversations about New York City. It is a regular columnist, Jennifer 8. Lee, who wrote it, so I don't think its quite as unreliable as your average blog. Its more of a hybrid, which we are likely to see much more of in the future. The Steve 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right; there are nine articles. Most of which are trivial or frivolous mentions this and this, for just two examples) and all discuss the subject in relation to I Got a Crush... on Obama. You still haven't established how she is independently notable outside that video, her notability is WP:NOTINHERITED simply because she was in the video. SplashScreen (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no need. From WP:EVENT: In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. - I consider her significance in the Obama video and related coverage to be high enough that an article on her should be kept. You are free to disagree, of course. The Steve 04:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update to my earlier Strong Keep. Gentlemen, gentlemen. I've improved the referencing of the article. Categorically, Ettinger is not known "only" for her 2007 video (FYI: there were over thirty Obama Girl videos). That video was her "big break" so it's understandable that references will continue to mention it, but that doesn't negate ongoing notable developments, including: ● her modeling (verified in Maxim reference), ● her music (verified in Wired reference), ● her beauty contests (verified in Hooters reference), ● her moving on to parody technology (verified in the NYTimes article "'Obama Girl' Team Retools for Technology Parody ") ● etc. . . . Furthermore: ✷ The 2012 "Glease" video, referenced in the June 2012 Fox News Hannity interview and others, ✷ the Gordon Fox News article's citing of Ettinger's indecision in an opinion piece on national defense, and ✷ the widespread re-reporting of Ettinger's indecision from the Daily Caller--all prove that, regardless of your personal opinion, Ettinger is perceived by numerous reliable references to be a barometer of public opinion on Obama in 2012. This Wikipedia article can be improved through research and referencing, but should not be deleted. RCraig09 (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable as an actor whose work has been widely discussed in the media. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:SNOW JohnCD (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dong Cup Ball[edit]
- Dong Cup Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, unsourced, made up game. Just because it doesn't meet CSD doesn't mean we need to wait for the prod. (for reference there's a discussion on WT:CSD). I'd suggest that with a few people agreeing we can get this snowed in short order and keep mainspace clean without inventing new rules. Cube lurker (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Totally made up Seasider91 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - should have been speedied as a G3. Velella Velella Talk 22:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFT. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 23:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for things that have been made up one day.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Delete – Zero coverage in reliable sources. Also delete per Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:44, 24 June 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 Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy. This is the consensus, however there is a suggestion near the end of the AfD that the article may be able to stand alone if about the controversy, rather than being biographical. If that is the case, then if a consensus to restore and rename is reached, so be it. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil Newton, Sr.[edit]
- Cecil Newton, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The previous AfD for this article resulted in no consensus, but looking at this article again nine months later, I still cannot see how it should be able to stay on Wikipedia. The entire body is just a regurgitation of the Eligibility controversy section from Cam Newton. Cam's father is not notable enough to have a stand-alone article per WP:GNG, and I am re-requesting deletion or a merge of content into Cam Newton. Waiting nine months allows us to see that Cecil Newton, Sr. has not received continued coverage since the scandal. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Continuing coverage is not necessary. Notability is permanent. Admittedly a large portion of the article revolves around the scandal. But there are numerous other sources that fill in the article and that enable it to pass WP:GNG. P.S. I am the page's main editor.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Got coverage before this scandel to do with being released from 2 American football teams in the 80's Seasider91 (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectto Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy - his NFL 'career' fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as he never rose higher than the practice squad, and the scandal is a WP:BLP1E event. I suppose you could make the case that the two combine to squeak past the GNG, but I don't believe he's sufficently notable to merit an article outside of the scandal itself. Now, the scandal might merit its own article instead of a section in Cam's, but that's another can o' worms. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Query. For those editors arguing to keep a standalone article for the father, I have several questions for which I would like to hear answers:
- 1. Why do you not believe that WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E do not apply to Cecil's standalone article?
- Keep is based on WP:GNG which provides a broad view of his life beyond football.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 1. Why do you not believe that WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E do not apply to Cecil's standalone article?
- 2. Why do you think that Cecil is notable because he was a preseason member of one or more NFL teams and was released? Does this not contravene the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NGRIDIRON? Can you show any in-depth coverage of Cecil in independent, reliable sources for his abbreviated NFL career?
- See reply above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. Why do you think that Cecil is notable because he was a preseason member of one or more NFL teams and was released? Does this not contravene the spirit, if not the letter of WP:NGRIDIRON? Can you show any in-depth coverage of Cecil in independent, reliable sources for his abbreviated NFL career?
- 3. Can you show any in-depth coverage of Cecil in independent, reliable sources for his college career per WP:GNG?
- see above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 3. Can you show any in-depth coverage of Cecil in independent, reliable sources for his college career per WP:GNG?
- 4. Once the duplication in coverage is eliminated, can you provide your logic why Cecil's involvement in the eligibility scandal can not be covered more completely, coherently and concisely as part of the Cameron Newton article's section regarding the scandal?
- This is a biography. It is not an article about the scandal. A separate scandal article is welcome.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 4. Once the duplication in coverage is eliminated, can you provide your logic why Cecil's involvement in the eligibility scandal can not be covered more completely, coherently and concisely as part of the Cameron Newton article's section regarding the scandal?
I look forward to hearing your answers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect: to Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy. A first read through the article and I thought it was about the son. Words like "allegations" and "apparently " along with "via text message by a representative" and "he was said to have attended". There looks like a lot of speculation here, where no one is sure what happened and things should be better on a WP:BLP. Also fails WP:NGRIDIRON. --LauraHale (talk) 22:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per LauraHale. The great majority of the article focuses on the scandal involving his son. The only reference to his own football career is a throw-away sentence that, "Newton, Sr. was released in training camp during both the 1983 season by the Dallas Cowboys, as well as the 1984 season by the Buffalo Bills." For this to be kept, I think there needs to be more about why "Sr." is notable separate and apart from his involvement in a scandal involving his son. Cbl62 (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If you remove the section on the scandal, the article remains over 1500 KB of readable prose. I think you are misrepresenting the content of the article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per The Bushranger. None of Sr.'s accomplishments rise to notability other than the scandal. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy. Has only received significant coverage for his role in this scandal, hasn't done anything independently notable. The rest of his life, including unsuccessful American football career, is non-notable and it is not appropriate to have a BLP based around one negative scandal, with a few non-notable elements to puff it up. Jenks24 (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect fails WP:NGRIDIRON. Clear case of WP:BLP1E. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. In the last 24 hours, I have re-read both articles, and Google-searched Cecil. I've come to a couple of conclusions. First, Cecil's own college football, pro football, and ministerial careers are not notable under any of the specific NSPORTS notability guidelines, nor under WP:GNG. Second, his Wikipedia notability (or perhaps "notoriety" is a better word in his case) is almost entirely derived from his involvement in Cam's NCAA recruiting and eligibility controversy that arose after Cam's transfer to Auburn. But for that scandal/controversy, Cecil would not be a close call for notability under WP:GNG. In deed, there was no stand-alone Wikipedia article for Cecil until the scandal arose. Applying that "but for" text, I say redirect to the Cam Newton article's controversy section per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E, and merge what appropriate salvageable content there may be to the "yearly years," "controversy," and "personal" sections of the Cam Newton article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this is a non-notable person. I could live with a redirect. Drmies (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There was a consensus at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. after the last AfD that there was enough material to create Cam Newton eligibility controversy or Cam Newton recruiting investigation. This would avoid WP:UNDUE mention of details in Cam Newton's article for something he was never implicated. A summary in Cam's article would be more ideal, and additional sources on the scandal, identified already at Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr.. could be used to expand the contents. My recommendation then and now is to just rename Cecil Sr's article. Cecil Sr. is not notable, but the scandal is.—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Bagumba's got a real good point there.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename - indeed he does, so changing my !vote - The Bushranger One ping only 04:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it currently exists can't simply be renamed. It would have to be reworked to focus it on the scandal, rather than being a bio on the father. Effectively, the only paragraphs that would remain in the renamed article would be the ones under the heading, "Scandal details." Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes rework is needed, but the scandal portion is a majority of the article. And a summary of his personal background is relevant and can remain as he is a key figure in the scandal. Its always best to WP:PRESERVE content in IMO, especially when most of it is salvageable.—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like the more complete summary of the eligibility scandal is found in the Cam Newton article: Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy. If an article on the scandal is needed, the content there would be a better starting point. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure so there aren't some details about the scandal here that aren't in the other article also, but someone would need to rummage through the different versions to retrieve any golden nuggets; it's unfortunate summary style wasnt used instead of duplication to begin with. In the event this gets deleted, I've copied additional sources identified from Talk:Cecil Newton, Sr. to Talk:Cam_Newton#Text_on_eligibility_controversy. I'd probably have just done the spinout already if I was more of a Cam Newton fan or he went to my alma mater. I'd still prefer to leave this article here so no information is lost, but at least copied some of the talk page stuff over.—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks to me like the more complete summary of the eligibility scandal is found in the Cam Newton article: Cam Newton#Eligibility controversy. If an article on the scandal is needed, the content there would be a better starting point. Cbl62 (talk) 16:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article as it currently exists can't simply be renamed. It would have to be reworked to focus it on the scandal, rather than being a bio on the father. Effectively, the only paragraphs that would remain in the renamed article would be the ones under the heading, "Scandal details." Cbl62 (talk) 05:40, 29 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retta Rizzo[edit]
- Retta Rizzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Only two refs are Yahoo blogs both by the same author (friend?) plus own website and a Wikipedia school article. No evidence of any success or public notice. Looks very much like an autobiography from the editing history Velella Velella Talk 21:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Under both names provided, although I focused on the performing pseudonym, I found nothing to make me think this person has any notability. The "indie charts" cited are some sort of listing of self-released music from Soundclick and the Yahoo cites are from a kind of unpaid blogger ("Contributor Network") where apparently no editorial control is exercised (and I can find no other reference to the "quotations" within). This is, as near as I can tell, an artist who relies on self-publishing, which confers no notability, and who has attracted no mainstream attention from reliable sources. Ubelowme (talk) 18:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The only claim to notability is the song charting—and if that doesn't exist (per User:DUCKISJAMMMY), then the article isn't worth keeping. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 01:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - based on your list of policies I ask that you give the Retta Rizzo article a chance (I could not get the policy page for "WP:CHANCE" to link). There are other names, verifiable information and links connected to the article if time is given.
Anthony Joseph 04:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RettaRoxx (talk • contribs)
- Comment - You are referring to WP:CHANCE which is an essay which can provide some advice, but it does not represent official policy or guideline. I'll also point out that the essay states "And don't PROD or AfD it until the original editor has had a chance—a week should be enough time—to add substance to the article and list sources and do everything else people tend to use against such short articles.", and this article has been had 6 months of time. -- Whpq (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've looked for sources, and I am unable to find any signficant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability in general, or for that specific to entertainters. -- Whpq (talk) 14:25, 28 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Madison Scott[edit]
- Madison Scott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to meet the notability guideline for pornographic actors or the general notability guideline. (Prod contested, speedy declined.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't see any evidence that this individual meets WP:PORNBIO and nothing to indicate that she meets WP:GNG; there is a single article in a local newspaper. And I strongly doubt she made a million in four years, not that that affects an AfD process. Ubelowme (talk) 21:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 02:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the above assement with one caveat. As pointed out source mentioned is not creadible - looking it over it is WP:Primary Source since it is based on an interview with the subject of the article who has a vested interest in this story. The second source - is AFD. Bio and Film date sourced from that database is used in violation of its terms of service. Further more the conclusion that the subject appeared in 88 is Both WP:Synth - and out dated. These are all indicators that this BLP would be best deleted - fixing it would require rewriting it from scratch. BO | Talk 13:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) KTC (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anibar International Animation Festival[edit]
- Anibar International Animation Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Currently appears to fail WP:N. AFD #1 was closed per an invalid deletion rationale and a withdrawal by the nominator in his understanding this error. A well-intended #2 AFD was itself opened while #1 was still open and was thus speedy closed for being out-of-process. Per concerns discussed at 1st AFD, THIS 3rd AFD has been opened without prejudice with the deletion rationale of the trans-wiki'd topic currently being premature for en.Wikipedia as lacking notability per WP:GNG. As an event, the Anibar International Animation Festival IS verifiable, but currently lacks enough in available sources to show notability. If available, non-English sources should be brought forward. I am bringing this to AFD as a result of the withdrawal and concerns of AFDs #1, and per WP:WIP am not myself advocating a delete at this time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's a little tricky to find coverage since it's a small festival in a small town in a small country that has no English-speaking media and a very modest online presence. However the article already links to an article in Koha Ditore, the leading newspaper of Kosovo and I found two more in the same paper [1] and [2]. I also found a short mention of the festival by local TV station RTV21 [3]. That's still modest in terms of coverage but it's sufficient to give the article the benefit of the doubt. The article may have to be trimmed however because some of the content cannot currently be supported by these limited references. Pichpich (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think it's the other way around, Pichpich. The WP:RS I added here appears to be from the local TV station's "RTVfan" online platform, which means that if you'd add the Koha Ditore ref we'd have two RS there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the rtvfan article you dug up also appeared in Koha Ditore [4] and there may very well be content-sharing deals between these websites that we don't know about. But does it really matter? Two distinct articles in Koha Ditore shouldn't be counted as a single source. (And conversely, the same article appearing on two websites shouldn't be counted as two distinct sources) Pichpich (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No of course not, in that case. I guess there's like a wire service, or they're reprinting the same news release. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as we do not fault New York Times for different articles written days, weeks, or months apart simply because they discuss different aspects of a topic, the Koha Ditore (the leading daily newspaper from Kosovo) "Anibar” sjell në Kosovë Cynthia Overmanin"[5] was written August 9, 2011, and the Koha Ditore article "Nis rrugëtimi pesëditor i filmit të animuar në Pejë"[6] was written August 25. The RTV21 news article "Pejë: Nis Festivali ndërkombëtar i filmit të animuar"[7] covering the (then ongoing) festival, though also released on August 25, 2011, has different information and different content. So I think we can safely presume that significantly different articles in different sources are not the same. Combined with the already included Koha Ditore article "Animacioni fitues i çmimit 'Oscar' vjen në 'Anibar'"[8] of March 15, 2012, we now have (so far) four different articles from THE area news sources speaking about the festival and its events directly and in detail. I do not think we're expecting the same type of persistant coverage for something new and perhaps notable (even if only to Kosovo per our standards) as we might for far-longer-established film festivals in other parts of the world. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No of course not, in that case. I guess there's like a wire service, or they're reprinting the same news release. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the rtvfan article you dug up also appeared in Koha Ditore [4] and there may very well be content-sharing deals between these websites that we don't know about. But does it really matter? Two distinct articles in Koha Ditore shouldn't be counted as a single source. (And conversely, the same article appearing on two websites shouldn't be counted as two distinct sources) Pichpich (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I think it's the other way around, Pichpich. The WP:RS I added here appears to be from the local TV station's "RTVfan" online platform, which means that if you'd add the Koha Ditore ref we'd have two RS there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Michael. Those do indeed seem to me to be multiple WP:RS. In which case, keep. We can likely anticipate more on an annual basis. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Expected sources do not make a topic notable. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reliable sources are clearly available at this early stage, which suggests that even more will be coming soon, but even if they do not, the ones discovered appear to already pass the notability test. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see notability established within the article. More sources may come along, at which point the festival may become notable (and an article could be written). To quote, "it's a small festival in a small town in a small country..." I'd argue that there is a reason it's hard to prove notability for such a festival - it isn't notable. Otherwise, we could argue that every small-town fair is notable and worthy of inclusion. For now, I recommend a delete for this article. --Nouniquenames (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I wish to thank those who did the digging and brought topic sources forward. The article does not have to be perfect, nor does the festival have to have world-wide coverage. We do not expect nor demand a topic determinable per our guidlines as notable in and to Kosovo to have world-wide import, just so long as it can be determined through sources that it is notable enough to that country. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The topic has received significant coverage in reliable Albanian-language sources. I've added three of them to the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The organizer Mr Bajri has been deemed important enough to represent his festival at the Dok Leipzig fest in Germany in 2011 [9]. This Anibar festival is gaining international attention. De728631 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 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 per G3 - hoax. GiantSnowman 14:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kaysar M.Stephen[edit]
- Kaysar M.Stephen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I googled this and no related entries came up, so it is either an A7 or a G3. He seems to fail GNG, as there are no sources, and also might not meet to notability guidelines for athletes. Electriccatfish2 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a definate hoax, no such player exists thus fails WP:NFOOTYSeasider91 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – When the article was AfD'd it was about a footballer & has since been converted to an article about a Businessperson. Neither person seems to exist so I'm going to nominate it for speedy deletion per hoax. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:03, 23 June 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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gérard Gertoux[edit]
- Gérard Gertoux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deleted in March, but was restored and userfied in June and returned to mainspace on June 21 with additional references. IMO subject is still not notable. His claims to fame are authorship of one book, and his unsuccessful attempt to get a PhD, which one source is publicizing as a religious freedom issue. But the sources cited do not amount to much and I can find nothing additional on searching. I do not feel he meets WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. BTW he does not have an article in the French wiki. --MelanieN (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the nominator makes a compelling case, and looking through the references, it's not clear to me that any of them are independent, reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I used my access to Highbeam Research to check this guy out and got absolutely no results of any kind. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- great nomination argument from Melanie. I feel for the guy because he's gone through the trouble of finding lots of cites that make it look like a significant wikipedia article, but none of them point to evidence of significance among the scholarly community. Even if his thesis were published, that still wouldn't be enough for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have no knowledge of how valid his theories are, but the story of the rejected theses gives this the strong smell of WP:FRINGE, in which case the article is inappropriately unbalanced (only detailing positive opinions on the work and not providing content-based reasons for it to have been rejected, only giving instead vague speculation about religious discrimination). With only marginal sources available (especially as the sources we are using appear to have been cherry-picked by the subject and collected on his web site) this lack of balance is going to be very difficult to remedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We crank the machinery and find cites of 4 and 3 for his books on Google Scholar. Seems far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - per nom. →TSU tp* 15:08, 29 June 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 Central Midlands Football League. I'm going a little bit WP:IAR here, and if anyone wants to take the close to DRV, please feel free to do so without consulting me again. Whilst consensus is to delete these, I do not see any reason why the teams themselves are not reasonable redirects to the league they play in. Furthermore, redirecting them would enable the articles to be easily resurrected should any of the teams be promoted. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FC05 Bilsthorpe[edit]
- FC05 Bilsthorpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just looking through the new teams being added for the new season that have reached level 10 for the first time and have found many new club articles being made in the Central Midlands League at level 11. The articles have been contributed by I mostly edit and create articles about UK television and radio but also edit articles about roads and railways, rugby and non-league football, and York and the surrounding areas of North and East Yorkshire.
This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star. |
10,000+ | This user has made more than 10,000 contributions to Wikipedia. |
This user is a member of the WikiProject Television British television task force. |
This user is a member of the English non-league football task force. |
- Belper United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Southwell City F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Dronfield Town F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Welbeck Colliery Welfare F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Thoresby Colliery Welfare F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Easington United A.F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Westella & Willerby F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nottingham United F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thoresby and Welbeck have both been subject to a previous Afd here.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all as all fail WP:GNG for football clubs. However possibly Redirect Nottingham united to their honoury life president's pageSeasider91 (talk) 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect all to Central Midlands Football League as feasible search terms. GiantSnowman 08:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's difficult to know what to say in all honesty and I waited a while before producing a reply rather than writing in haste.
I had a previous article deleted on the grounds that it was too low in the footballing pyramid. I did think about withdrawing my efforts at that time but decided to take it on the chin on the grounds of being new to this and having not previously been aware of the football notability rule due to the team in question playing in a local(ish) league and for some reason it has been decided that clubs at this level are not worthy of articles which to me goes against the grain of a project whose goal is to produce an online encyclopedia which is as comprehensive as possible. The CML is not a local league as it covers a significant area of both the North Midlands and Yorkshire.
To explain why I decided to write the CML articles in the first place despite them being at level 11. First I had not previously been aware of the level 10 rule. However, I had seen that a number of CML teams had articles written about them, albeit in a few cases just a couple of sentences with no external references. None of these articles seemed to pose a problem so I nievely assumed that users would welcome someone taking the time and effort to, as far as possible, complete the set assuming that enough material could be sourced to produce articles which were deemed to be acceptable. Clearly I am wrong in this assumption despite me ensuring that all the articles had external references which could be checked should people see this as necessary. Therefore, I cannot prevent these articles being deleted should it be decided that I have intentionally broken the notability rules even though others have not been punished in the same way.
That aside, we are talking about many hours of time, effort and research over the last month to produce articles of a good standard and I suddenly log in and find that all of this work may well count for nothing as people want these articles deleted. Nobody is forced to write these articles and it is hardly an insentive for anyone to do this when they are 'rewarded' with their articles being deleted en masse. I have noted that the user proposing my articles being deleted described me as "obviously an able wikipedian" but I think most people would be upset to see that it seemingly is the desire for this amount of time and effort to count for nothing due to the proposal of the deletion of the overwhealming amount of time and effort I have put into the website over the past month. Therefore, I have concluded that if these articles are deleted then it would be inappropriate for me to continue contributing to wikipedia, not least because anyone looking at my contributions page will just see a list of deleted articles and I would feel very embarassed knowing that this failure could be viewed by anyone using wikipedia to read about non league football. I would therefore want the removal of everything else I have contributed so that wherever possible all traces of my efforts is removed from wikipedia to remove the embarassment of people being able to see that almost all of my efforts have been deleted. As it is my talk page is dominated by deletion propsals and that is bad enough but for almost every article that I have written to be deleted would be all the more humiliating and upsetting which is why I would want everything that I have ever done deleted should it be decided to remove all these articles. Hopefully my efforts will not be scrapped and I shall follow this discussion with interest.(Rillington (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Your other contributions can't be deleted just because you want them to be, but your account can be effectively deleted and no-one will be able to see that you were the one that created/edited articles. See Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing. Number 57 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for that, and that is what I shall do if these articles are deleted, which, regardless of what I might say, looks likely to be the case.(Rillington (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Please do not take this deletion request personally. I think you have a lot to contribute to the Football WikiProject, particularly the English non-league section. This is the time of year that oportunities arise for new English non-league football club articles to be created, as new teams get promoted to level 10. I have taken advantage of this myself in creating West Didsbury & Chorlton A.F.C. and Eltham Palace F.C.. You have created a couple of articles for teams that have just entered the NCEFL, and they will be kept. However, Wikipedia is not all about creating new pages. Part of what goes into creating a useful encyclopedia is deciding what makes a subject notable. The current consensus regarding English football clubs is that they have to have played at level 10 or played in the FA Cup or FA Vase. This wasn't something that was decided overnight. It took a long time to establish (and is still brought up in arguments over where to draw the line, both that it's too lenient, and that it's too strict). This is where consensus is right now, but consensus can change, but it has to be argued well. So far as I can see you're arguing that these articles should be kept because the clubs have their own websites, the clubs are on the FCHD, and they took a while to make. This doesn't make them pass WP:GNG. But I digress, you obviously know how to edit, and edit well. Once you know the criteria for inclusion there are many articles that have not been created that you can take up. Find teams that have played at a high enough level or played in the FA Cup and yet have no article. If these are sparing, I can point you in the direction of over 200 english football club articles that are currently only stubs and are in desperate need of improvement. There's always work to be done here, but if you're only after article creation credit and praise, you may be in the wrong place. If you're gonna throw your toys out of the pram over consensus not being in your favour, you're in the wrong place. But if you want to contribute constructively to the football content of this encyclopedia (as we all do, despite disagreements happening) then welcome to WikiProject Football, I'll be happy to help you if you need any advice on whether an article is likely to withstand AfD and if anywhere on the project needs your assistance. Thanks, and again, apologies for how harsh Wiki can seem at times. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Many thanks for the reply. Harsh is one word to describe it and I'm sure that most people would react in a similar manner if 80%+ of everything they had done was to be deleted. I don't take it personally as an individual but I do see it as a rejection of what were good intentions and a rejection of my efforts to make wikipedia better especially given that you are proposing deleting the overwhealming majority of all the articles I have written rather than the a single article as was the case before which I did accept after further thought which is why, again after further thought, I continued with my CML project.
It is worth stating that I did not enter into this looking for any credit and praise. It wouldn't have bothered me if nobody had ever contacted me or thanked me for my efforts. My motives were probably similar to the vast majority - to try to make this project more thorough and comprehensive and I saw a way to do this through finishing a job already started re the CML both through creating new articles and expanding on those already there given that the CML is a regional league rather than a local/single county league as some level 11/step 7 leagues are. After all, surely a regional league covering almost the same area as the league it feeds into (although yes I do appreciate that the league was recently split into North and South divisions) should be considered notable and even moreso given that the reorganisation saw the entire league now playing at the same level whereas for many other leagues, and also previously the CML, only the top division plays at step 7. Also, it would have given non league football a bigger presence here and as one non league fan to another, surely anything which can raise the profile of non league must be a good thing.
I note you have summed up some of my arguements for retention, and it is worth underlining that all of those articles contain references to at least two independent sources and that alone should be a major indication as to whether an article covers the requirements for inclusion as well as underlining whether the subject matter is notable. It also proves that the articles are properly written and researched and not just added for the sake of it. I often see articles being flagged up as having no independent sources and that is not the case with anything I had produced. as most would agree that articles merely consisting of a basic single sentence along the lines of the name of the club and the league that club currently plays in is not satisfactory. Again this is not the case with anything I had written and is also not the case when clicking on the articles from the page you refer to. It's also worth stating that to anyone looking in that it would seem odd that some teams in this league have articles whereas other teams do not which could lead some to suggest that some clubs are more notable and worthy than others and that is an unfair judgement to make on teams which play at a decent level of English football.
I can see why you would suggest that I am throwing all the toys out of the pram over this but anyone looking at what I have done through looking at my profile will see it being dominated by articles I had written being deleted - just a slight contrast, for example, to your talk page. That will stay there for as long as my account 'exists' and I don't want that embarrassment or reputation as someone whose articles keep getting deleted which is why I probably will throw all the toys from the pram and request the Courtesy Vanishing after these articles have been deleted because once I have 'gone', this will no longer reflect badly on me as a individual and I'd just put this down to experience and move on and hope that maybe in the future people won't be quite so tight and harsh and argueably even mean to a new user whose only intention was to try to make wikipedia that bit more comprehensive.
Finally, I had intended to do similar for rugby league's National Conference League but I don't want to experience the same humiliation with that effort as here with the CML clubs, nor do I want to spend lots of time creating and expanding articles only to have everything deleted. Who would? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rillington (talk • contribs) 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've assumed good faith for all of the pages you've made. It's why your talk page wasn't given vandalism warnings. The deletion tags on your talk page are only notifications, not permanent stamps of embarrassment. It's your talk page so you're completely at liberty to remove them all and blank the page notice once you've read them. Some people blank their talk page every now and again, others archive everything. I understand what you mean about being annoyed that the work is being deleted. But it's all down to a misinterpretation of consensus and WP:NFOOTY (which is entirely understandable as you're new here). We've all made similar mistakes though. I spent ages uploading pictures of GBC carts to WikiMedia, and it turns out they breach copyright, I misunderstood the rules. Now I come out of it more the wiser and concentrate my efforts in areas where I know the pages/files won't be deleted. It's a learning curve. Del♉sion23 (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again many thanks for your reply and I appreciate you showing me the wikipedia good faith.
- Comment I've assumed good faith for all of the pages you've made. It's why your talk page wasn't given vandalism warnings. The deletion tags on your talk page are only notifications, not permanent stamps of embarrassment. It's your talk page so you're completely at liberty to remove them all and blank the page notice once you've read them. Some people blank their talk page every now and again, others archive everything. I understand what you mean about being annoyed that the work is being deleted. But it's all down to a misinterpretation of consensus and WP:NFOOTY (which is entirely understandable as you're new here). We've all made similar mistakes though. I spent ages uploading pictures of GBC carts to WikiMedia, and it turns out they breach copyright, I misunderstood the rules. Now I come out of it more the wiser and concentrate my efforts in areas where I know the pages/files won't be deleted. It's a learning curve. Del♉sion23 (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand that this is a learning curve - everything is - and it took me a few goes to actually get used to how the software works as I didn't want to submit an article which was not correctly formatted. However, we're still talking the overwhealming majority of my time and effort being completely deleted, articles which as far as I can tell, have no faults, are properly sourced, researched and referenced and do not breach anything such copyright. Also there are/were other CML articles which stood for a long time and have not been deleted. It's hardly encouraging to someone who is relatively new to have almost all of their efforts deleted and it doesn't give me any encouragement to want to continue in case yet another huge swathe of my contributions fall foul of another petty rule as this would always be in the back of my mind.
I have noted your point about editing the talk page.(Rillington (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete all as they fail to meet the generally agreed criteria of FA Cup/FA Vase participation or having played at step 6 or above. Number 57 20:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come across the page about the WikiProject English Non-League task force and I noticed that the Central Midlands League is one of the three level 11/step 7 leagues which is mentioned in the Categories section and presumably one of the leagues which is part of this project. Therefore, if this is the case, it would seem odd to delete all of my CML articles when it seems as though I may well have, unbeknown to me at the time, been contributing to the wiki non league project.(Rillington (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- As you can see here even the lowest leagues in the English Football League system are in the scope of the task force. It extends to all non-league football related articles on Wikipedia. There is a category for Central Midlands League teams because quite a few of them pass the notability guidelines for football. Simply put, they have either played at a higher level and fallen down to the CML, or they have played in a national football competition like the FA Cup or FA Vase (i.e. they've done something something notable). Now you know this rule, so long as you can show a team has done one of those things, you can create an article about them and it won't be deleted. I hope you'll join the task force and help improve the articles within its scope, and indeed create new articles now that you know where the line is. It's been drawn there to avoid ambiguity. Cheers Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm fighting a loosing battle aren't I and my CML articles are heading for oblivion. I make it 10 out of 15 articles deleted within a month of creating my account, and I doubt many people will have had that happen to them.(Rillington (talk) 06:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Can none of this be merged to Central Midlands Football League? Having a brief description of the current teams would seem encyclopedic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. WP:FOOTYN is only an essay, not policy, and many clubs which meet those criteria still fail the general notability guideline requirement of having significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. These do not even meet WP:FOOTYN.--Charles (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to Central Midlands Football League. Agreed, these clubs fail our notability guidelines, but that just means that they should have a separate article. There's no call for removing encyclopedic information that comfortably be placed at the parent article, leaving the club names as redirects. There isn't an excessive level of detail, and the information appears to be verifiable; this seems like a no-brainer to me. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Articles do not meet GNG. The only references are generally their own websites, and whilst some use FCHD as a source, this site is primarily a database listing and does not confer notability. Eldumpo (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have a lot of sympathy with the hard work the new user has put in, and feel we should make it clearer as to what the notability situation is for clubs. As such I have made a post at Footy querying whether a List of Level 11 clubs should be created. Have a look at that and post any comments there. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to Central Midlands Football League - individually the clubs do not meet the notability criteria, but retaining the information in the main article, with the club articles redirecting there, seems a valid result here. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just so the two people proposing a merge know (the two who aren't regular football article contributors). No football league articles have detailed info on individual teams. This is because often, a team plays in the league only temporarily. Large amounts of info would have to be moved around each year as teams transfer, get relegated/promoted. The teams in the league don't stay in the same league forever. Plus the article is supposed to be about the league itself, not about the teams within the league. Even Premier League and La Liga don't have sections giving details about the individual teams. They simply list the teams. Merging these teams to the league would set a new precedent that may need to be discussed on WikiProject Football if it happens. Del♉sion23 (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all and Userfy content, if author agrees. Will post suggestion to Rillington's talk page. DocTree (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have kept an eye on this discussion even though I have made no comment for the past week or so and I'd like to thank you for the suggestion Doctree. Obviously I do not agree with having my nine articles deleted but based on that suggestion, and despite everything to still try to be helpful, I've copied and pasted the templates of these CML articles and put them in my Sandbox should these teams be considered 'notable' at any time in the future. I'm still considering the Courtesy Vanishing option after the nine articles have been deleted so I'd suggest that these templates are backed up in some form sooner rather than later because once they're gone, they're gone.
I hope at people see that from this action alone that I was a genuine editor whose intentions were always good but to have the overwhealming majority of my time and effort - altogether 10 out of 15 articles - deleted was just too harsh, severe and deflating for me to want to continue which is why, apart from contributions to this discussion, I've made zero contributions since I first read of the intention to delete my nine CML articles. It is worth reinforcing the point that I very much doubt that anyone else would have had almost all of their efforts deleted and certainly not so many articles deleted in one go and I think the majority of those who have had this happen to them would have reacted in a similar manner. Clearly, and sadly to me, my efforts have counted for just about nothing so when the nine CML articles are finally deleted I shall be gone.{Rillington (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
- Comment I've tried as best I can to persuade you from quitting Wiki, but you seem to be intent on quitting anyway. There are notability guidelines that are followed on Wiki. It takes hardly any time to check them and learn what makes a notable article. All you've done since they were nominated is play the pity-card. I've offered to help you in regards to making articles that won't get deleted but you don't seem interested (how about A.F.C. Hinksey, Wellington Amateurs F.C., Blackwood F.C., Lichfield City F.C., Littleton F.C., and all the red links here and here). People have articles deleted all the time. Get over it. Apologies for losing patience, but I've never seen so much moaning on an AfD. Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that's really unfair as I think I have grounds to feel upset. I accept that people have articles deleted but we're talking about multiple articles representing almost everything I've done and as I said earlier, I think most people in my position would feel the same.
Leaving emotion aside, please allow me to make one more appeal to save my nine articles. It is worth stating that whilst I accept that it was decided probably a long time ago that all step 7/level 11 leagues, including the CML, are not 'notable,' the CML is different the other step 7 leagues due to the massive geographical area that it covers. All the other step 7 leagues are single county leagues (although a couple are made up of teams from two counties) and they are basically the top tier of local football in England so I can see why the line was drawn at this point. However, the CML has teams competing in it from six different counties - its primary catchment area of Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and South Yorkshire plus teams from East Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and the parts of West Yorkshire which border onto South Yorkshire. This gives the CML almost the same geographical footprint as the NCEL, the next step up from the CML, thereby almost by default making the CML division 2 of the NCEL. This is hardly a non notable area in terms of area covered and due to the CML being a regional league rather than a local league I'd suggest that this league is more 'notable' than almost all of the other step 7 leagues, thereby justifying individual articles for all the teams that play in this particular league and not just those teams which have been relegated or played in a national Cup either recently or many decades earlier.{Rillington (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)}[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (U.S. season 1)#Intensity. The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
InTENsity[edit]
- InTENsity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete — This article seems to recreate the content already available at List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(U.S._season_1)#Intensity. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 16 June 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, MacMedtalkstalk 19:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List_of_The_X_Factor_finalists_(U.S._season_1)#Intensity. No need to split it for now.Cavarrone (talk) 07:29, 26 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Goshinbudo[edit]
- Goshinbudo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an attempt to highlight a series of non-noteable groups using stretched terminology. Non-of the groups are notable and neither is the term as Stand alone. Originally PROD'd by myself but DPROD'd with suggestion to AfD because it has references. The references are generally just to a few clubs which use the term in their names. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 07:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article appears to be a compilation of information on organizations that use the word goshinbudo, but that have nothing to do with each other. I don't see notability for the individual groups or the term. Jakejr (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the previous comments--there is nothing to show this is even a martial art, much less that the various entities mentioned are related in any way. Papaursa (talk) 20:33, 18 June 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, MacMedtalkstalk 19:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Upon a brief reading of the article, there appears to be no common lineage between the organisations mentioned, and there appears to be no independent assertion of the use of the name "Goshinbudo" as an established term to describe an art or system. A brief search for sources did not reveal any reliable references to support notability. Janggeom (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG. not sure why it was relisted. LibStar (talk) 03:33, 28 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CentralPlaza Rattanathibet[edit]
- CentralPlaza Rattanathibet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DePRODed because; Rmv PROD. Since another related article is being contested at AfD, that should probably be the proper venue for this article as well. Article is also promotional, (opening times, car parks, buses, etc) and was created and/or mostly edited by a shareholder in the company. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original PRODder. Fails WP:ORG; advertising; conflict of interest. The same user's created quite a few other articles, perhaps a mass AfD is necessary? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge – Unlike CentralFestival Chiang Mai, the other article currently nominated for deletion, this article is about a shopping mall which has been in operation for over twenty years, and is cited to multiple secondary sources, which I think convey notability. That said, as part of a chain I do feel there is less incentive to have individual articles for each shopping centre bearing the name, and won't oppose merging all CentralPlaza articles into a single article with a list of branches (or subsections covering each branch). --Paul_012 (talk) 07:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Original was notability topic right why you change to topic again? That's why I bothered to find and include the secondary sources and I am currently finding more informations. Not promotion or adverts news. – AnaTo (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear mr. kudpung
- All your accused subjects which I copied from other shopping mall stub template, all the subjects can easily be removed and don't have to delete article, just discuss in talk page.
It would be too long to merge all shopping malls in to main article and I wish to add all history for each shopping mall if i could find from source. AnaTo (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Old news archive (paid only) http://allsearch.myfirstinfo.com/cgi-bin/mngnewssearch2?q=%E0%AB%E7%B9%B7%C3%D1%C5+%C3%D1%B5%B9%D2%B8%D4%E0%BA%C8%C3%EC&t=8&x=75&y=10
- Weak keep, mainly because the issues raised in the nomination can be addressed by normal editing. The article doesn't read as unduly promotional, and unless the author is a very large shareholder, any COI would be pretty attenuated IMO. The sourcing I can read is a bit soft on notability, so I have to AGF here as I can't read Tai. I do think that fact this is part of a notable chain helps here, and I too would have no objection to a merge. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per WP:PRODUCT. This is an existing centre which was acquired and added to Central Pattana's business assets. I can't read Thai either, but the sources appear to indicate it's probably notable. IMO the sections entitled 'Operation Hours' and 'Parking' should be removed per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:UNDUE. -- Trevj (talk) 09:10, 2 July 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. This is really a dispute over the application of MOS to these pages, and the blunt instrument deletion is ill-suited to such cases. No consensus reached in this discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 17:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Khan v. Bush[edit]
- Khan v. Bush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Disambiguation page should have atleast more than two blue links. This one has only one blue link, and that too a redirect, so having a disambiguation page doesn't makes sense. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but not because of the number of blue/redlinks. WP:MOSDABRL has no objection to legitimate redlinks, but these are all minor cases unlikely to ever get their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several entries, all meeting MOS:DABRL and MOS:DABMENTION. Valid entries. Boleyn (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please tell that how do they meet the guidelines. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per MOS:DABRL, has red link with incoming links (click on link, then 'What links here'). Per MOS:DABMENTION: If a topic does not have an article of its own, but is mentioned within another article, then a link to that article should be included. Boleyn (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please try to understand that all the red links are unlikely to have a article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that may well turn out to be the case, I don't know, but it isn't relevant for it to be a valid entry, per MOS:DABMENTION. Boleyn (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:MOSDABRL states "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural closure This is one of a set of eight nominations today for disambig pages, five of which have already been withdrawn by the nominator.
- Shoaib Khan (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
- Camp Echo (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
- Keiler (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
- Gholam Faruq (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
- Padshah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet
- Daud Shah (disambiguation) June 23, 2012
- Rustam Akhmyarov (disambiguation) June 23, 2012 Not closed yet
- Khan v. Bush June 22, 2012 Not closed yet
- Unscintillating (talk) 17:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:48, 24 June 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 under G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page. DBigXray 18:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bagram detainees' uniforms[edit]
- Bagram detainees' uniforms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:43, 22 June 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 no agreement that the existing sources are insufficient to support the article's existence. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hopkinsons[edit]
- Hopkinsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not at all notable. No assertion of notability - it is just a bus company. No refs at all other than its own web-site Velella Velella Talk 16:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger One ping only 22:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This appears to be an ordinary and long established bus company. A perfectly acceptable bus company but one with no other WP:RS other than its own to establish its overall notability. This article is hardly going to be anything more substantial, than what it is at present. The advertising doesn't help. --Artene50 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hopkinsons is a major bus operator in Sydney, Australia. It is notable for being the first private operator to introduce air-conditioned buses in Sydney, and also for carrying most passengers into the city of Parramatta every day. Article expanded since nomination. WWGB (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - looking through the archived news there is a sufficiency of articles on it's distant history and there also seems enough in news archives to support a independently and reliably sourced article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete insufficient coverage even with improvements, need more reporting in main media not bus related sources. LibStar (talk) 15:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:GNG. The trail goes all the way back to 1897, when the first mention of a Merrylands bus appears in Trove. The "Hopkinsons' Group" of Companies gets hits on larger organizations in the U.S. and in Britain, but it is a family-owned business, where "G R Hopkinson (Transport) Pty Ltd" provides "Regulated Bus Services" under "Section 28J(2) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW)". This establishes wp:notability. FYI, here are company names that I found:
- S. Try bus service
- Sid Try bus service
- S. Fry bus service (probably a typo)
- Merrylands Bus Co.
- Graylines (Merrylands Bus Service)
- Bus and Coach Charter Division Hopkinsons
- Hopkinsons' Group
- Hopkinsons Group of Companies
- Hopkinsons Transport Pty Ltd
- Hopkinsons Coaches
- Hopkinson Bus Company
- Hopkinsons Bus Company
- Hopkinson's Luxury Coaches
- Hopkinson Metro Bus
- Hopkinson's Metro Bus
- Hopkinson's MetroBus
- Hoppies Touring Club
- Todiki Pty Ltd trading as Travelworld
- Ingleburn Probus Club
- G R Hopkinson (Services) Pty Ltd
- G R Hopkinson (Transport) Pty Ltd
- Challenges Coachlines Pty Ltd (and related agency Challenge Travel)
- related:
- Graham Roland Hopkinson
- NSW Bus and Coach Show
- Metropolitan Bus System Contract
- Regulated Bus Services
- Section 28J(2) of the Passenger Transport Act 1990 (NSW)
- NSW Transport and Infrastructure, regulating agency
- Sydney Metro Region 3
- Area 3 Management Company Pty Ltd (A3MC)
- Unscintillating (talk) 16:57, 24 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 18:19, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic wilderness zone[edit]
- Arctic wilderness zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While we do have a reliable source for the Canadian National Wildlife Area created back in 2008, I have not been able to find anything on the web to indicate that this proposed "Arctic wilderness zone" has been formally proposed by anyone. It would would appear to be entirely WP:OR, unless the article name is wrong. Am I missing something? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's clear from the text of the reference that the actual name is National Wildlife Area and that these are not a special type of area. Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't clear to me; then a redirect would be in order, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Canadian National Wildlife Area is a completely different area. This one covers a much larger region. It has not received any ratification, as it is still just a proposal. It is pointless to delete it because after it is ratified it would just need to be re-created. I will try to find out more information about it so that more references can be added. We do not delete proposed pop albums - we document that so and so is planning on coming out with the album, and then when they do we fill in the details. I will also try to find out which organizations are behind the proposal. If it is only one, it can be redirected to a paragraph about it in that organization's article. I suspect that it is a lot more than one. A search of arctic wilderness zone turns up 2.7 million results. It will take me a little while to go through all of them. Delphi234 (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You needn't go through them all. If this is a recent proposal, Google should show some results fairly prominently. I didn't see anything, as I said, but I'd be happy if you turn out to be right. But if no reliable sources can be found, we wouldn't lose much by its deletion, as it's still a very short stub. But you could have it moved to your userspace, I suppose, or we could choose to have it "incubated." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I search for the exact phrase in Google, I get only five or so web hits, and most of them are in Wikipedia. I get no news hits at all. It seems to me that an article title ought to get a good number of exact phrase hits. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I tried that too. My guess is that it will take a few months to find a source - so moving to userspace in the meantime works - as does incubation. Delphi234 (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This one is close:[10] It talks about protecting arctic sea ice. It is from 2009. Delphi234 (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the continent of antarctic is protected, but this proposal would be specifically everything south of the 65th parallel and north of the 65th parallel. It may be a slightly larger area than has been previously considered. Delphi234 (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a June 15, 2012 discussion of the Arctic in the Congress.[11] I would guess that the Sierra Club would take a slightly different approach, to say the least. Delphi234 (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is a discussion in the UK parliament, taking the exact opposite of the US discussion.[12] Delphi234 (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The WWF has a program started in 1992 called the "Arctic Programme" to protect the arctic.[13] For now this might be almost close enough to redirect the article to a paragraph about that program, but I am guessing that many other groups are involved. We currently have only a single word about their arctic program. Delphi234 (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is what Greenpeace said about protecting the arctic, in 2009. At that time they were concerned only about sea ice areas.[14] Delphi234 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Found it. It is an announcement at the Rio Earth Summit, by Sir Richard Branson, Pedro Almodovar, Thom Yorke, Emily Blunt, Baaba Maal, Lucy Lawless, Javier Bardem, Slumdog Millionaire star Dev Patel and nine Oscar winners, ten Golden Globe winners and five Grammy Award winners. They are planning to take it to the UN. "The focus of the Greenpeace campaign will initially be on pushing for a UN resolution demanding a global sanctuary around the pole, and a ban on oil drilling and unsustainable fishing in the wider Arctic. Twenty years ago in Antarctica – at the other end of the Earth – something similar was created when the mining industry was banned from operating there and the continent was dedicated to science and research."[15] Delphi234 (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All this is interesting enough, and could support a section in the article on the arctic or one of the existing subarticles on international cooperation. I don't think it justifies an article in itself. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With 2.7 million search results, I think there is more than enough material for it to have its own article, in addition to a section in the article, but for now it could certainly be redirected to a section in the arctic article. It also is a distinctly separate subject. Delphi234 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Those three words may have "2.7 million search results," but not the concept that is the subject of this article. That's a vital distinction, and one in which I agree entirely with Mangoe. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With 2.7 million search results, I think there is more than enough material for it to have its own article, in addition to a section in the article, but for now it could certainly be redirected to a section in the arctic article. It also is a distinctly separate subject. Delphi234 (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All this is interesting enough, and could support a section in the article on the arctic or one of the existing subarticles on international cooperation. I don't think it justifies an article in itself. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When I search for the exact phrase in Google, I get only five or so web hits, and most of them are in Wikipedia. I get no news hits at all. It seems to me that an article title ought to get a good number of exact phrase hits. Mangoe (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V, as it lacks reliable sources treating the "Arctic wilderness zone" concept. Even the Greenpeace press release contains no use of the term wilderness at all, much less the article's title, and claiming some sort of connection with the Antarctic Treaty, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the TV show Frozen Planet, the WWF's Arctic Programme, or any other arctic-related topics that don't involve the specific proposal set forth in the article's opening sentence constitutes unacceptable synthesis. Deor (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richard K. Olney[edit]
- Richard K. Olney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems hardly notable as per Wikipedia:Notability. Not sourced except for one obituary-type article in a US newspaper. kashmiri 14:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- one obituary-type article in The New York Times. Here's the Los Angeles Times. Dru of Id (talk) 14:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep. Notable scientist who waranted obits and other articles of interest during his life in several major newspapers (to add to the above two are major newspapers in San Francisco, Pittsburgh, and Boston among others. He was also featured in numerous science journals such as this Neurology Today article. This Google News Archive search yields multiple references. This Google Books search also shows he has authored books on neurology and that he is cited by others in their publications. I don't see how this person could even remotely be considered a good candidate for deletion. Given the ready availability of sources on the internet, I do not feel the nominator did due dilegence in source searching prior to nominating it at AFD.4meter4 (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's certainly sufficient material for an article, so passes WP:GNG. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep The nominator has not only failed to do even the most cursory search for other sources, I doubt if they have even read this biography. How is an "obituary type article" indicative of non-notability? This is not a paid death announcement in a local paper. It's an authored obituary in the New York Times. That alone is indicative of notability. However a cursory glance at Google News shows that authored obituaries also appear in multiple major newspapers in the US including the San Francisco Chronicle and Los Angeles Times, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (and syndicated in many more) which describe him as a "leading researcher", "a pioneer of ALS clinical research and teaching", etc. Not only that, he was the subject of multiple articles during his lifetime, especially when he himself was diagnosed with the disease. [16], again in major papers: New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, etc.. Not to mention this lengthy feature on him in Neurology Today, the journal of the American Academy of Neurology, who subsequently named a a fellowship in his honour, and the The American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine which gave him its Lifetime Achievement Award. I suggest this nomination be withdrawn. Voceditenore (talk) 16:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Voceditenore (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow keep per the extensive sourcing and demonstration of notability supplied in the previous comments. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep -- leading researcher whose life was covered in the most major of newspapers. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteComment. I have gone through the available obituaries - many clearly based on a single source - and it is clear that this biography does not satisfy a single criterion listed on Wikipedia:Notability (academics). (1) His "significant impact" (in research on ALS) was not mentioned or demonstrated; (2) Not satisfied; (3) Not satisfied; (4) Not applicable; (5) He did not even have a professorial title; (6) Not satisfied; (7) Not demonstrated; (8) Not satisfied; (9) Not applicable. As a matter of fact, authoring ~50 research papers in a lifetime, while definitely a form of contribution to the science, is not necessarily an outstanding achievement compared to countless other researchers. A quick Pubmed search for "amyotrophic lateral sclerosis" or ALS returns over 17,000 articles published in the last few years alone! And this is only about a single rare condition. If we had to include all researchers who wrote 50+ articles on a given medical condition (frequently having professorial titles and distinguished membership), Wikipedia would have to triple its volume: Pubmed adds to its database around 500,000 medical research papers every single year!
- @4meter4, I understand you are the author of this article - but honestly, I could not see anything special about this particular researcher or his unique contribution to the science (you don't perhaps mean that proposing two clinical trials, unsuccessful anyway, is an achievement?) that would warrant a separate Wikipedia entry. Sorry to be brutal. Delete kashmiri 21:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have struck-through your "Delete" and changed it to "Comment". As the nominator, you are already presumed to have !voted "delete". You don't add it again. Voceditenore (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead for the New York Times obit calls him "a leading physician and pioneer in clinical research". There's hardly a more notable description of a person's life to be found in medical science. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What should we understand by "leading physician"? Leading who? A dog on a leash? You can be a "lead consultant in neurology" at a given hospital, but not a "leading physician" everywhere. Wikipedia should be talking substance, not journalistic blah-blah. "Pioneer in clinical research" - is there any serious research being done by not "pioneers"? IMHO, if you do clinical research, the first requirement is that it has never been done before. — All this is not against Dr Olney who in all probability has brought very valuable contribution to the clinical research of ALS, but about demonstrating notability of that particular researcher in accordance with Wikipedia:Notability (academics). In my opinion - but I am not an ALS researcher - his contribution does not differ from one of his countless fellow researchers, authors of ~17,000 articles on ALS.
- BTW, IMHO if my contribution here is a "comment", so it should be the contribution of the original creator of the article. kashmiri 00:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep – This person has received significant coverage in reliable sources; the topic passes WP:GNG:
- John Schwartz (February 2, 2012). "Dr. Richard K. Olney, Felled by the Disease He Studied, Is Dead at 64". The New York Times.
- Top neurologist diagnosed with disease he fought - Boston.com
- Diagnosed with rare disease he studied for years, Dr. Olney struggles to find donors - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
- Dr. Richard Olney dies: expert on, victim of ALS - SFGate
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 06:04, 23 June 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. No evidence of sources which would evidence notabilty under the general notability guideline. j⚛e deckertalk 17:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renate Ackerman[edit]
- Renate Ackerman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet the WP:GNG, only sources are the Amazon page for the book (doesn't count) and a horribly written, mostly primary source press release. Specs112 t c 14:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Mrs/Miss Ackerman is a distinguished author who is well known in Southern Africa because of her work. True, the sources are somewhat limited but this is because the page is being worked on, and that takes time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Hanji31 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Tonywalton Talk 23:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The Amazon page for the book doesn't confirm that this is a "best-seller" -- judging by the sales rank of the e-book version, apparently quite the opposite -- and reveals that it is self-published through CreateSpace. Self-publishing, in Wikipedia terms, doesn't confer notability independently, and I could find nothing in the way of references to this book by any arm's-length third-party expert sources. I was surprised, because the subject matter seems contentious, to say the least, but there you have it. Ubelowme (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete. The above user does make some valid points but I again must disagree. It is because the book is so contentious that sources are not easy to find - but as I say, in Conservative circles (and while I disagree with her views) she is very well known but ignored by the media because of those views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanji31 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: If there is no attention from the media, whatever the reason, the subject doesn't meet the notability criteria. Google search for her name doesn't come up with significant coverage in reliable sources, mainly blogs and online shops and the like. ... discospinster talk 17:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per discospinster. Google simply can't save this one. -- WikHead (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Other than multiple attempts to spam forums and other websites with adverts for the book, there's absolutely nothing out there that shows up with a search. This author is completely non-notable and being on any best seller list is not something that gives notability. It makes it more likely to get coverage, but if the NYT bestseller list doesn't give notability than a genre-specific bestseller list on Amazon surely won't. As far as claims of the author being "too controversial" for the media, that's pretty much just a theory and not really a valid one when you consider that the media loves to highlight controversial people. They'll do anything for ratings. It's less likely that she's too controversial and more likely that she's just not notable enough to gain their attention.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable author, not meeting WP:AUTHOR. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andi Ali for a similar author (who created Dead Paki Walking), Andi Ali having been also created by the creator of this article. User:Tokyogirl79's comments on that AfD regarding "bestsellers" are germane to this AfD. Tonywalton Talk 23:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note to Admin Will you please stop allowing these bloody idiots with their idiotic opinions to have their say. It's people like these who get in the way of progess and have nothing positive to say.
- Note to admin: will you please block Hanji31 for making personal attacks? Specs112 t c 12:26, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have issued a warning - I think that is all that is needed for now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:39, 26 June 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) 17:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nedim Kufi[edit]
- Nedim Kufi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ARTIST التاريخ معلم (talk) 14:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:GNG significant coverage in multiple reliable sources from at least three different countries shows international notability for me. Quasihuman (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This person passes WP:BASIC and WP:GNG: [17], [18], [19], [20]. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 01:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The notability of this artist is questionable at best. A lot of text with few references. Some of the links copied and pasted by Quasihuman is nothing but interviews, one of which is an abstract. Aren't interviews primary sources and therefore not allowed on Wiki?Tamsier (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources are allowed but only for noncontroversial facts. An interview might be problemnatic re: WP:N - it can be reasonably construed as a primary source, yes, but the interviewer thoguht the subject was notable enough to be interviewed... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Appears to meet WP:GNG. I'm always a bit suspicious of a high text/references ratio, but that's not a policy-based rationale for deletion. --j⚛e deckertalk 13:46, 2 July 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 Bushranger One ping only 18:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Loser Man[edit]
- Loser Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
text is pretty much entirely unintelligible, as far as I can tell from the "sources" it's a neologism based on the fact a girl on a tv show called short men losers Jac16888 Talk 13:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unintelligible ramblings about so-called "internet jargon" that is really a widely-accepted term. Brambleberry of RiverClan Chat ♠ Watch 16:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Great example of how a well-referenced article can still be junk. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - completely unintelligible, probably not notable. CodeTheorist (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO This is almost nonsensical. --Artene50 (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep this existence to Englich language source -- 211.50.11.114 (talk) 06:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — 211.50.11.114 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Incomprehensible. Famousdog (c) 13:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep that is reference data of englich language, help upgrade it's documents. -- Almust (talk) 13:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet Hot Over Misuda Guest’s Loser Remark koreatimes 2009-11-12 (in English)
- Latest ‘Misuda’ Internet Controversy asian, Nov 11, 2009 (in English)
- `Loser` girl in hot water koreaherald 2010-03-30 (in English)
- My Seoul Called Life:How to Become A Social Outcast (in English)
- Korean girl calls you a loser! koreainsider 2010.01.16 (in English)
- How Misuda’s ‘loser girl’ lost her privacy asian, Sep 10, 2010 (in English)
- Insecurity makes headlines again as short men are called "losers" on "Misuda."
- http://news.search.naver.com/search.naver?sm=tab_hty.top&where=news&ie=utf8&query=%EB%AF%B8%EC%88%98%EB%8B%A4+%EB%A3%A8%EC%A0%80
and addition attachments of it's Korean Language Newspapers link. thank you. -- Almust (talk) 19:22, 26 June 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. No evidence provided of sources which would evidence notability under the general notability guideline. j⚛e deckertalk 17:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coimbatore Cricket Stadium[edit]
- Coimbatore Cricket Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently a non-existing cricket ground. The news source mentions that the TNCA only had a proposal to have a new cricket ground in the city in 2007. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the subject is non-existent -Anbu121 (talk me) 19:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - it doesn't exist probably. No WP:RS can be found about it and never did hear of it while watching a match. Delete it for now and re-create when the stadium actually exists. →TSU tp* 15:10, 29 June 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. No evidence presented of notability under the general notability guideline, nor of any championship at a level that would establish an overriding claim to notability. j⚛e deckertalk 17:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Warren White (racing driver)[edit]
- Warren White (racing driver) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability. No motor racing results beyond junior karting. Claims to have come from the same town as someone else who is notable means nothing beyond trivia. Falcadore (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, junior karting doesn't qualify to meet the WP:GNG. Specs112 t c 13:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:TOOSOON. If he had won the national top-level karting championship I'd be willing to give him a pass, but no, alas, nothing doing here. When he makes it to V8 Supercars, Firestone Indy Lights or the GP2 Series, let's talk again. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom, there is no WP:N. I'd support keep if he had won any championship at any notable event, but it is not a case here. →TSU tp* 15:12, 29 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sevendalino Khay[edit]
- Sevendalino Khay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This particular film worker has not been the subject of enough significant reliable sources. His working as a production staff in multiple films is not a claim to notability, unlike Grant Imahara who does have a claim to notability. I did find an article on him on a site called AppSheriff, but I'm not sure if it's reliable or not. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RESPONSE: It's not about claiming notability but relevant information and history on this person who has been working in this industry for over 12years. All the credits have been officially approved and listed on IMDB which is a highly respected internet database. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0451528/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skhay (talk • contribs) 10:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Skhay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- For your information, IMDb isn't a reliable source. Even if he was working for 20 years, if there's no reliable coverage of him, then he can't have an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDb is considered a reliable source for casting info, credits, and such; but not for reviews etc. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For your information, IMDb isn't a reliable source. Even if he was working for 20 years, if there's no reliable coverage of him, then he can't have an article. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I find no sources that indicate notability, much less significant coverage in multiple independent sources. --bonadea contributions talk 11:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't seem to find notable third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 03:06, 29 June 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. Although I think this might be salveagable, and I'll userfy it to my userspace Black Kite (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10ticks[edit]
- 10ticks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small company. Has received some mention in local newspapers but no really evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. As mentioned in the article, there is some good coverage in this book (pp. 33-34). Still, I agree with RHaworth that the local newspaper mentions are not enough to prove notability, and in the absence of any other sources, I think this should be deleted. If anyone finds another solid source, though, I could be persuaded to change my mind. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Company has 4 websites, www.10ticks.co.uk, www.10ticks.com.au, www.10ticks.co.za www.10ticks.com.my with partnerships in each region. If you can add the reference http://www.heinemann.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=149&Itemid=51 to the international book deal that could go some way to helping the page. Heinemann is an international publisher so this must surely add some credence. It is also part of a wider business Fisher Educational which owns www.websiteboffin.co.uk and www.boffinsquad.co.uk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Sorry, those things don't really make much difference to the outcome of deletion discussions. Have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies to see the kind of thing we are looking for, or this page for a quick and easy explanation. You probably also want to read the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is another article here on the Times Education website http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=2216530 and a magazine article here http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=344376 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Thanks for the post Georgejones277, it is most useful. The TES is a very respectable source, of course, and if these were normal newspaper articles then they would be a strong indicator of notability. However, from the tone and the advertisements at the end, I can't shake the feeling that these must be press releases. Press releases definitely do not count towards notability, I'm afraid. Do others agree with my assessment, and have TES been known to do this before? I am surprised to see what look like press releases on their site. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the editor who originally nommed this for speedy before RHaworth took that down, delete per RHaworth. Specs112 t c 12:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The TES is not a press release, the school one in particular was done between the TES and a local school. 10ticks also appears in a journal article and a book which uses it to research e-businesses. The innovate my school ad should also go some way to completing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- delete - small local company with a narrow, specialist product line, as reflected by the local and specialist coverage. Fails the general notability guideline.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To further the notability argument admin should read carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CORP and then follow the discussion below The book 10ticks features in is a "notable independent secondary source, All content is verifiable, All topics included are independent, There is no self promotion or advertising in the article, As over two and a half million people around the world use the products by 10ticks it fits the criteria of "whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education". All sources included are more then trivial "Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage". Sources are regional and there is more than one international source see "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary". All topics are from a mixture of sources one from south africa, two from Australia, two from the U.S, some local and some regional. Note that a specific product or service may be notable on its own, without the company providing it being notable in its own right. In this case, an article on the product may be appropriate, and notability of the company itself is not inherited as a result.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) — Georgejones277 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Redirect to Ian Fisher (mathematician) and create that article. The company is of questionable notability at present, and I tend towards a weak delete on whether it should have its own article. The company's founder though,comfortably meets inclusion guidelines (see particularly the newspaper links currently in the article), and the company information could be summarized at his page. I'm not wedded to the "mathematician" descriptor, but something is needed as the current blue link to his name is a disambiguation page with no link to this person. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone wants to create that article they can, though I see no indication he's notable as a mathematician: the only suggestion he's at all independently notable is a blog posting about tweets for maths teachers. Other than that he's an ex-teacher who owns a small company.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is consensus that the subject lacks sources for a standalone article at this time. No prejudice to recreation if sources showing notability appear in the future. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Chanchal Kumar Sharma[edit]
- Chanchal Kumar Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]I request that the page be deleted. No doubt, the author has really made some significant contributions in the most respected journals in the discipline. Also he is affiliated to a prestigious scholarly body, i.e. CMF,ISS, New Delhi. He is Associate Professor at an Indian University located in Haryana. Furthermore, after reading notability criteria it seemed that fulfilling only the one of the many criteria given on that page is enough. However, now it seems working on this page is a waste of time because "significant coverage by third party sources" is something that very few can achieve, like Presidents, Prime Ministers, or other notable politicians, Nobel Prize winners or winners of similar notable awards, Olympic gold medalists or great sportspersons, great musicians, famous social workers etc."
— User:Sweetmusician 22:17, 19 June 2012
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 09:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Contrary to what Sweetmusician seems to think, many articles on academics are kept because good sources can be found. Not so in this case. The article lists a number of External links, but all are just in-passing mentions or are an associate editor-profile for an academic journal. 100 citations in a high-citation density field like economics is also far from what we usually accept as evidence of meeting WP:PROF#1. No evidence either that any of the other criteria are met. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can all this be considered collectively for retaining the page? I withdraw my notification for deletion, if all these help. Propounding a new theory/concept in a high impact factor journal itself can be a reason for inclusion. Google scholar (107 citations soem of them very prestegious, some citations are very detailed); Google News ( 4 references) Google search (many) Recognised Expert ( See ehttp://www.forumfed.org/en/events/event.php?id=103). Fellow of a scholarly body (CMF,ISS, New Delhi) Outstanding contribution recognised (See http://haryana.punjabkesari.in/haryana/news/26052012/page/8$3) Coverage in The Hindustan Times (Live) (no weblink). Newspaper articles also make solid reference. One author has even directed the attention of the government of his country to the findings/views of the author (http://www.thefinancialexpress-bd.com/2009/06/27/71142.html http://www.brecorder.com/component/news/single/1128770/). If not then let the page go with immediate effect. Kindly see which action is more appropriate. I vote against unnecessary "pending status" for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetmusician (talk • contribs) 04:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The citation record doesn't support a pass of WP:PROF#C1, and I'm not convinced of any other WP:PROF criterion. Most of the sources in the article are primary; there are a few reliable newspaper stories but they all mention him only trivially, so the evidence for WP:GNG is also lacking. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have scrutinized the author's research work. They are very serious works and there is a breakthrough in the two most recent ones. However, it takes time for the international academic community to take note of new research. The author is a researcher with a promising future, but the story has just begun (because the most important contributions are in 2011-12). I guess the author is in the early stage of his career and will build a solid research contribution for biographical inclusion in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enlightenedb (talk • contribs) 10:17, 27 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 18:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adriana Cohen[edit]
- Adriana Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently created as an autobiography, initially written as a pure promotion piece, but that has been toned down by subsequent editing. The person does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The claim to notability in the article is that the person has been interviewed by various media but the references given are not convincing (a podcast fom CBS Boston, and a very trivial mention in Boston Herald). bonadea contributions talk 08:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should perhaps add that I have (of course) looked for more references to try and find significant coverage in reliable sources, but failed to do so. Fox News, for instance, is mentioned in the article but I fail to find any mention of Cohen on the Fox News website. --bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of notability. JoelWhy? talk 13:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I looked at the references and agree with the nominator. The piece on the Boston Herald has nothing to do with any field in which she would reasonably assert notability. I have to say that when I see a biography of someone described as a "publicist" I try to be more rigid about notability but in this case the subject doesn't meet even a low threshold. Ubelowme (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Recent edits by a user with a username identical to the article title have removed the claims to notability. bonadea contributions talk 19:26, 23 June 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. v/r - TP 18:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American Journal of Cancer Research[edit]
- American Journal of Cancer Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relatively new journal, has not yet had time to become notable. Article creation premature. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NJournals. (Note on PubMed listing: being selected MEDLINE is a rather selective process. Being selected for PubMed Central is not, but does carry automatic inclusion in the PubMed database). Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability not established with indexing in databases. JFW | T@lk 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This journal was only established in November 2011 [21] and does not meet WP:GNG. This does not mean it won't be notable in time but it isn't there yet. Note that WP:NJournals is just an essay and not a policy or guideline. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has a long way to go before it becomes a notable journal. FWIW the publisher was recently deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E-Century Publishing Corporation (2nd nomination). --MelanieN (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It was established recently and has not gained enough light. There is nothing notable about it and I can't find any notable info about it. →TSU tp* 15:06, 29 June 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 18:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deepika Singh[edit]
- Deepika Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Indian TV actress who has worked in one TV show. Doesn't pass WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep has been covered or mentioned multiple times. Was it a notable character? It seems the character brought her few awards too! --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most references covered in the google search are of fan-forums. The awards mentioned on the article are in-house awards. (Its like me giving my kids Quickest-Homework, Cleanest-Homework Awards and then making an articles on them.) Yes! The character was the lead-character of the show; but one & only show. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Times of India piece and the STAR Parivaar award look enough for this to be kept. I think we can count the FilmiTown source towards notability as well. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The TOI article says she completed her education and then started acting. So should we have articles of all people who completed their education and started acting? The Star Parivaar awards are in-house awards. (See my comment above.) Filmitown says...."FilmiTown.com does not warrant or make any representations concerning the accuracy, likely results, or reliability of the use of the materials on its Internet web site or otherwise relating to such materials or on any sites linked to this site". Perfectly good source!!! §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- & if you go by TOI's articles, this one says she fainted. Lets have articles of all people who faint. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That disclaimer on FilmiTown is no different to that found on many other websites. The New York Times says "this Web site and the content it contains, or may in the future contain, may be incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, or may not meet your needs and requirements"[22] and CNN does not "make any warranty ... as to the accuracy, reliability or content of any information" with additional disclaimers below[23]. Read WP:RS for how we actually decide if a source is reliable. And a story about an actress fainting indicates that she's considered sufficiently important to report upon. How many newspaper stories about people fainting have you come across? How many of them were about notable people? Your arguments seem to rely more on the belief that sarcasm is an all-powerful weapon than on any particular knowledge about the media, Wikipedia, or the world in general. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you recommend use of such Filmitown.coms as reference on some contentious material on a BLP? I would avoid. And if i am doing that i would avoid it for considering notability also. TOI, amongst many other Indian newspapers, has a bad repute for being as good as a Page 3 newspaper. It is known to cover trivial material and give undue importance. And what are we gonna do with that article? Include in her biography that she fainted during production?
Well.... i might not have any knowledge of media, WP and world in general. But no one stops you from using your brilliance in proving the subject's notability. Go ahead. The article is all yours. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 20:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you recommend use of such Filmitown.coms as reference on some contentious material on a BLP? I would avoid. And if i am doing that i would avoid it for considering notability also. TOI, amongst many other Indian newspapers, has a bad repute for being as good as a Page 3 newspaper. It is known to cover trivial material and give undue importance. And what are we gonna do with that article? Include in her biography that she fainted during production?
- Keep based on the sources given, awards, and a starring role in a soap opera. It seems she also won an Indian Telly Award, probably more significant than the Star Parivar awards which are, as mentioned, Star PLUS network awards. The Steve 11:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) →TSU tp* 14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Protest[edit]
- I Protest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DℬigXray 16:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails WP:GNG. There is only one source which has in depth coverage of the topic (although its dead). The dead link is not an issue, but the article has no other source having in depth coverage. This article can be also merged with Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir, but I doubt if it is notable enough for that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:05, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTFACEBOOK . The article is on a Facebook group named I Protest https://www.facebook.com/pages/I-Protest/165093133584647 for the stone throwers and rioters in Kashmir. the only source from Hindustan Times is an opinion piece on Kashmir riots and does not even talk about I Protest. Also fails wp:GNG due to lack of coverage. --DℬigXray 17:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After the nomination at AfD the article has been edited and its now claimed to be an article for a song. As clearly mentioned below the article has to pass WP:NSONG for it to stay, as evident this is not a notable song as the reliable sources only make a bare mention of the title or lyrics making it suitable only for the singer MC Kash's article which already mentions this. The article still fails notability requirements and can be deleted--DℬigXray 16:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: - this nomination is actually funny, the whole article is blanked [24] and then nominated. The protest is definitely notable and to removing it would just be a pro Indian government censorship. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you kidding? Reasons have been given for every removal. Don't try to take this AfD to another direction. Talk about how does this meet the WP:GNG. Such comments clarifies that the sole purpose of this article is to push POV. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 05:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment TopGun please refer Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Personal_point_of_view. Mocking the nominator by calling it Funny is yet another conduct issue, if you feel that article was wrongly cleaned up then follow the steps in WP:BURDEN with proper wp:RS. Sound reasoning has been given above for the deletion. Also the comment that removing it would just be a pro Indian government censorship is pure POV disregarding WP:N, if we agree with your comment then we must have a "Wiki article for every Facebook group that Hates India" shouldnt we ? The articles here are kept only if they follow WP:GNG not due to Indian or Pakistani POV as claimed above. --DℬigXray 09:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You guys got it right, it is a conduct issue when you nominate articles for deletion without making any good faith attempt to look for a source your self. Yes, I know about WP:BURDEN, but I didn't write anything in this page either... and I was pointing out that it was being nominated due to a personal view (ironic). As for actual content related reasons, other users below have cleared that burden I think. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a reason to delete content. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename if necessary. The topic of internet protests in Kashmir has broad coverage in various international sources, including The National (Abu Dhabi): Kashmiri protesters turn to Facebook, as well as Times of India Online, protesters 'hurl' tweets, spew vitriol, NDTV (India) Facebook rebels: Kashmir's online protes; Facebook, YouTube used as weapons in Kashmir fight, The Hindu The world of Kashmir's online rebels, The Guardian: Kashmir protesters are using social media to disseminate news and views..., Global Post Social media has come to Kashmir, Indian Express Kashmir violence spills on to the Net, the Wall Street Journal: Rocks, YouTube Undergird Kashmiri Protests. All sources discuss, in depth, the growing popularity of Facebook, YouTube and other social networking sites among locals in Kashmir as tools for their nationalist cause. Mar4d (talk) 12:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another baseless comment. Is there any mention of "I Protest" in all these sources? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mar4d none of your source mentions I Protest, the Facebook group. The arguements you gave hold for Media curbs and usage of social networking sites in Kashmir and not for the Facebook group article I Protest--DℬigXray 12:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The topic is surely notable. First the articles is missing much facts, that I found. Actually I Protest was a rap song by MC Kash, that was followed by this e-campaign named "I Protest". And I find it notable according to GNG per these source: pp. 81, 105, 113, 115, [25], [26], [27], [28]. --SMS Talk 17:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am afraid to say that all your efforts to save this POV pushing article are not working. Please read relevant policies like WP:NSONG. It clearly says,"Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This song doesn't meets any of them. Most sources have just a mention of the song, and some include lyrics. None of them have a critical commentary, and therefore what this article can be, is a redirect to MC Kash. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me correct you, this article fails WP:NSONG. You may like to cross check:have been ranked on national or significant music charts (completely fails), have won significant awards or honors (again fails) and have been independently released as a recording by several notable artists, bands or groups (fails). And as of other sources, I can't find even a single reliable source which has in-depth coverage of the song. The WP:BURDEN is upon you, please prove how this article meets the notability criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They just name the song. Please try to understand that song articles are not created to be a stub. All sources which you have given doesn't talk about the song much. Some of them have lyrics, but they can't be added on Wikipedia due to copyright. WP:NSONG clearly says,"a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." As of quoting the source, I am doing that for you.
- 1st source-Only the lyrics of the song, all other mention is about the author
- 2nd source-only minor mentions of the song
- 3rd source-again only minor mentions of the song
- 4th source-only the lyrics
- 5th source-just one minor mention.
- Hope that clarifies why this article doesn't meets WP:NSONG. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you missed the content I was referring in some of the above source, see the excerpts below please:
Excerpts from Sources
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
- I hope you find the in-depth coverage now. Again these are only some of the sources and there are scores of them out there, like: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]. Some of these may mention about the song but some also cover in detail. I hope that you will find the relevant text, otherwise ping me and I will put quotes here whenever I find time. Cheers! --SMS Talk 21:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per WP:NSONG...the times of India link doesn't work.No other sources explain the song's cause and it's reason in detail.The whole background section is WP:OR with no references given what-so-ever. Better to merge it with MC Kash article. ƬheⱾtrikeҾagle ™ 07:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 08:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Ample coverage of this song found. Dream Focus 03:04, 11 June 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, →TSU tp* 07:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage provided above. Cavarrone (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Vibhijain. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 18 June 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, →TSU tp* 07:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The song has received significant coverage in various global reliable publications, and as such passes WP:NSONG and WP:GNG. Source examples include:
- Valley's first rapper attracts youth by singing about turmoil - Hindustan Times
- BBC News - MC Kash raps for Kashmir protest victims
- World News: Kashmiri rapper’s fight against violence - thestar.com
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 06:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The references above are already a part of the artist MC Kash. The rationale given only supports redirection to the artists page. The article still fails WP:NSONG --DBigXray 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources I cited actually do discuss the topic of the song. Of course, they also discuss the person who wrote the song and the context of the song. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Northamerica1000. Meets the GNG, never mind NSONG. This BBC quote says it all: The track that first brought MC Kash to prominence was his title I Protest, which is about these demonstrations. The Steve 22:00, 24 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beneath the Sheets[edit]
- Beneath the Sheets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable short film. CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 06:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as TOOSOON.
I'd encourage returning to its author until film is released and gets coverage.But for now, a lack of release fails WP:NFF, and thus WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:34, 9 June 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, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:47, 15 June 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, →TSU tp* 07:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:TOOSOON per MichaelQSchmidt. However, I would recommend against userfication - judging from the author's username they may have a conflict of interest. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point. Though I try to not discourage first-time contributors, I have struck that part of my comment above, and will instead drop a note on his talk page to send him to WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for letting them know about our guidelines - it's much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Now done. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Valid point. Though I try to not discourage first-time contributors, I have struck that part of my comment above, and will instead drop a note on his talk page to send him to WP:PRIMER and WP:NAY. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- doesn't meet the relevant standard for new films. As far as userification, I'm fine either way -- this will not be an enormous job for an admin to retrieve and userfy in the future if notability can be demonstrated. Ubelowme (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:TOOSOON --Artene50 (talk) 01:00, 23 June 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 arguments for keep do not address the WP:COATRACK and WP:BLP issues. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. v/r - TP 18:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial cases involving sex offenses[edit]
- Controversial cases involving sex offenses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
Advanced search for: "Controversial cases involving sex offenses" | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
Not notable -- he is certainly not a "notable sex offender", and he's not notable as a campaigner, either. Just a guy trying to live his life and resolve an unwise decision made when young. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re your second sentence, FR might just as well prefer publicity for the cause of his removal from the sex offender lists. WP provides neither publicity nor privacy, only accuracy and discriminateness. In those interests, I replaced the category "Sex crimes" with Category:Statutory rapists, as the former specifically states to not use it on BLP articles. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a fake biography—there is no record of birth date or place, occupation, or achievements. The article and each of its 8 references make it totally clear that the person is not notable—he is known only for one event. The fact that a particular individual fell foul of a legal quandary is gossip, and not of encyclopedic interest. What is encyclopedic is the fact that certain laws lead to controversial results, and there should be an article on that topic which may well mention this incident. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you realize that there are extenuating circumstances to your definition of this article as ONEEVENT, or you would not have continued to "legal quandary", and "controversial results". So, yes, ideally we could have a Disparity of age requirement for statutory rape debate article, and this person and event would be the sole examples. There are only three examples given in the larger context provided by the statutory rape article. But this would seem to be impractical. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and eventually merge, once an appropriate destination can be found. Merging would be appropriate because there is a lack of much expandability of this stub article due to the limited amount of reliably sourced information available about Rodriguez. I do not think deletion would be appropriate, because the media found his story notable, and we usually follow their lead. Maybe it could become a section in an article of controversial cases involving sex offenses. We could move the article to that title and expand it to include other cases. There are organizations like Reform Sex Offender Laws, Women Against Registry, Sex Offender Solutions & Education Network, etc. whose newsletters provide links to news articles on these sorts of cases, so that could be a starting point for this research. Actually, now that I think about it, there are a lot of court cases that appear in the Criminal Law Reporter pertaining to controversies surrounding the sex offender laws. It might take awhile to build this house, but there's enough material out there that it can be done. Leucosticte (talk) 11:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There could be a merge to Statutory rape, but I do not trust much in the tender mercies of editors there. It would not last a year. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're not building a house at all. You're taking the entirely wrongheaded approach of thinking that an encyclopaedia has present things like this in the form of biographies. See the big green box at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 23#Crystal Gail Mangum for the error in that. You don't even get to claim that you're following where the sources have led. The principal source here, Pesta 2011 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFPesta2011 (help), actually spends half the article talking about the law in general and a reform movement, and a subordinate source, Friedersdorf 2011 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFriedersdorf2011 (help), states outright that this is an "anecdote" that is "part of a larger story". This is at most a footnote or an example in a discussion of sex offender registration#United States.
It's amazing and saddening that you thought that writing one-thing biographies was a way to expand our coverage of sex offender registries and the debate over reforming them in the United States. It's extremely disappointing that you didn't think "What on Earth am I doing?" when you decided not only to write a one-thing biography of a living person when you had sources telling you that this was an anecdotal example, but to write that as a biographical article with "(sex offender)" in the title when the sources told you the disputed nature of this label for this person. This is a quite wrongheaded approach to encyclopaedia writing. Don't stuff everything into biographies. Don't even make collections of such anecdotes and hope that encyclopaedic coverage will arise by magic of its own accord once you've added enough of them.
Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The big green box can be better summarized with another link: WP:ONEEVENT. So what? The article can clearly be written either as a bio or an issue. Half of a four page news article (Pesta/Marie Claire) on the larger issue, and half on a biography? Sounds like significant coverage for either to me. I do not even understand what you are getting at with the criticism of the 'larger story' wording in Friedersdorf/The Atlantic. That wording is yet more evidence that the sources support both a bio and a discussion of the larger issue. I agree that Wikipedia's mission is to report on the controversy surrounding their required display, but never your assertion that Wikipedia's mission is to itself simultaneously sew as many Scarlet Letters on as possible. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just incorrectly attributed your own assertion to me. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Touche. I'll agree that it was rhetorical assertion, but it gets a bit too much traction to be entirely a straw man, if I do say so myself. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have just incorrectly attributed your own assertion to me. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The big green box can be better summarized with another link: WP:ONEEVENT. So what? The article can clearly be written either as a bio or an issue. Half of a four page news article (Pesta/Marie Claire) on the larger issue, and half on a biography? Sounds like significant coverage for either to me. I do not even understand what you are getting at with the criticism of the 'larger story' wording in Friedersdorf/The Atlantic. That wording is yet more evidence that the sources support both a bio and a discussion of the larger issue. I agree that Wikipedia's mission is to report on the controversy surrounding their required display, but never your assertion that Wikipedia's mission is to itself simultaneously sew as many Scarlet Letters on as possible. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She was only 15, but he was only 19, freshman and senior, and then they got married...Mr. R. is indeed a "notable sex offender" in that he has been punished as one, while common sense must lead us to ponder whether he is one...And the article has the nine or more national news stories to prove it, including an interview the couple did with the Today (NBC program), which I can assure you many campaigners would not disdain. Jamie Lynn Spears was 16 and the father of her child, 18, and the most they could be prosecuted for is a misdemeanor, but so far the authorities have lacked the nerve. Anarchangel (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
Move to Frank and Nikki Rodriguez.Per Uncle G. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, this is a highly inappropriate way to write about what the sources were actually discussing; which was sex offender registration in the United States and one of the (several, different) groups of people who would have it further reformed, with this "anecdote" as merely a case in point. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree; the sources can support either substantial coverage of the larger issue or a biography. They show no interest whatever in discussing registration, outside of delineating the limits of its good practice. Anarchangel (talk)
- This feels more like an essay rather than an article. I'm not sure it belongs on Wikipedia on that ground, especially since there's no particular reason why the two men's stories are linked together in one article like this. This is not a very good example of a biography and it feels more like an essay on sex offender registration laws or newspaper editorial on the same than an encyclopedia article. DrPhen (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Whilst I was composing my opinion here, the article's creator renamed the article. Invoking the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, I have used my administrator tools to delete the redirects that were left behind, and have used the ordinary edit and rename tools to update all incoming links, the AFD discussion notice, and the title of this AFD discussion page, to reflect the article renaming and to excise the old article title. Uncle G (talk) 13:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Nor a valid list. Carrite (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's all do that Crazy Hand Wave. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that comment was pretty fucking obscure, I must say. I'll file that under Obscure retorts involving fairly straightforward comments at AfD along with some other vaguely related example. That'd be at least as solid in WP notability terms as this piece... Carrite (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's all do that Crazy Hand Wave. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongest Delete First, clearly a WP:COATRACK. BLP issues abound. This article is basically a list too, and it fails per WP:LIST and is also WP:LISTCRUFT. List inclusion is vague, because 'controversial' is a relative term. Even sex offenses is a somewhat relative term. What is a 'case?' A court case? An event where the courts weren't involved? Essentially unlimited and unmaintainable and could be difficult to verify.Roodog2k (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I love WP:VAGUEWAVEs; assertions require nothing more than contradictions: 1. Not. 2. Don't. 3. Isn't and doesn't and isn't. The rest of your arguments I will leave for others to read; I doubt my abilities to make more humorous what is already quite funny haplessness or disingenuity, I make no claim of knowing which. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did I meantion WP:SOAPBOX? Article as an agenda beyond the intended subject of the article. That's why I said it was a coatrack. Roodog2k (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a COATRACK because it is a SOAPBOX? Perhaps it is strategically just as well that half your arguments are unsupported. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only haplessness and disingenuity I see is interlacing your comments with statements I made, after-the-fact, to make it appear I was responding to you, when I was not. Roodog2k (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, but my indentation was faulty, I agree. My apologies. I have put an extra asterisk, to indent my statement as I had intended. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The only haplessness and disingenuity I see is interlacing your comments with statements I made, after-the-fact, to make it appear I was responding to you, when I was not. Roodog2k (talk) 13:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a COATRACK because it is a SOAPBOX? Perhaps it is strategically just as well that half your arguments are unsupported. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The applicable list inclusion criteria don't seem vague at all. Don't we usually rely on reliable sources to indicate what the facts are? Thus, if the reliable sources say it's a controversial case, then would we not conclude that it is suitable for inclusion in a list of, or article about, controversial cases, assuming notability requirements are met? Also, what constitutes a "sex offense" is clearly and explicitly defined by statute in most jurisdictions, because they use those definitions to determine who gets put on the registries, and for other purposes. See for example Ohio Code 2907.10. I don't see the tone as soapboxing at all; the article merely states facts, including the facts about what opinions are being propagated. Granted, there might be some legitimate undue weight concerns at this time. Leucosticte (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list criteria is based on opinion. 'Controversial' is opinion-based. What's controversial to some is not to others. A sex offense does not need to include arrests. It could include cases where NO arrest was made. That's also another matter of opinion. What's a sex offense in one state is not in others. What's a sex offense in one country is not in others. The definitions of inclusion are extremely soft. Now, this smacks of soapboxing, because the focus of the article is actually people who are registered sex offenders and maybe they shouldn't be. This is another matter of opinion. It's a coatrack, because the article is really about people who shouldn't be on sex offender lists (in someone's opinion), but they are.Roodog2k (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree; I do not care for "controversial", either. However, what has been done during this AfD only shows how easy that would be to reverse. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The list criteria is based on opinion. 'Controversial' is opinion-based. What's controversial to some is not to others. A sex offense does not need to include arrests. It could include cases where NO arrest was made. That's also another matter of opinion. What's a sex offense in one state is not in others. What's a sex offense in one country is not in others. The definitions of inclusion are extremely soft. Now, this smacks of soapboxing, because the focus of the article is actually people who are registered sex offenders and maybe they shouldn't be. This is another matter of opinion. It's a coatrack, because the article is really about people who shouldn't be on sex offender lists (in someone's opinion), but they are.Roodog2k (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thoroughly annoyed comment: it really makes a hash of an AfD when someone moves an article while the AfD is underway. I hope it won't matter, in the sense that this absurd article ends up being deleted whatever name it's under. But other contributors should note that I started an AfD on an article regarding an individual, and that article was then moved, hence the shift in the discussion above. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If one waits till the AfD is over to move an article in an effort to help address the reasons why people want to delete an article, then the opportunity might be lost due to a deletion decision that bars posting the content anew. Leucosticte (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I believe that that sort of move during AfD is against policy.Roodog2k (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- [citation needed] Leucosticte (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch the snark, please. You didn't break any bright-line policy, but this is poor etiquette. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Moving an article at AFD is a pretty radical step, and it shouldn't be done without loud, clear disclosure. --BDD (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think BDD said it better than I had. As move, rename, merge, etc. are valid responses to an AfD, renaming the page in the middle of the vote isn't the best thing to do. It sort of breaks the process, as it invalidates the votes prior to the move/rename. I was thinking of the policy that states that you can't userfy a page during an AfD discussion. Roodog2k (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably any change made to an article during AfD that is relevant to issues people have objected to potentially "invalidates" those early votes. It could have been left at the old title, but it seemed like some people were of the opinion that the BLP issues pertaining to the title were in urgent need of being addressed. I guess it was a kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of situation. Leucosticte (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking matters of degree, it depends on what changes, how much it changes, etc. Near Vertical Incidence Skywave was once listed once in an AfD. The way the article was written, it looked bogus. In fact, NVIS is notable, so I did a major clean-up of the article, after the article was getting delete votes. But, I made sure I made a comment to its AfD, so everybody could know what it was they were voting on and no one would be confused. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Vertical Incidence Skywave. Changing the name or moving the article is a radical enough change that at the very least, that change should have been clearly noted here. Roodog2k (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess that my failure to move the AfD page when I moved the article was a shocking display of wikindolence. It won't happen again. Leucosticte (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking matters of degree, it depends on what changes, how much it changes, etc. Near Vertical Incidence Skywave was once listed once in an AfD. The way the article was written, it looked bogus. In fact, NVIS is notable, so I did a major clean-up of the article, after the article was getting delete votes. But, I made sure I made a comment to its AfD, so everybody could know what it was they were voting on and no one would be confused. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Vertical Incidence Skywave. Changing the name or moving the article is a radical enough change that at the very least, that change should have been clearly noted here. Roodog2k (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Arguably any change made to an article during AfD that is relevant to issues people have objected to potentially "invalidates" those early votes. It could have been left at the old title, but it seemed like some people were of the opinion that the BLP issues pertaining to the title were in urgent need of being addressed. I guess it was a kind of a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of situation. Leucosticte (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think BDD said it better than I had. As move, rename, merge, etc. are valid responses to an AfD, renaming the page in the middle of the vote isn't the best thing to do. It sort of breaks the process, as it invalidates the votes prior to the move/rename. I was thinking of the policy that states that you can't userfy a page during an AfD discussion. Roodog2k (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AHEM! As the original author of the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion and one of the people who worked on the AFD templates years ago specifically so that articles could be renamed without breaking the AFD notice, as they used to, I point out that this action is not a policy violation. Addressing concerns whilst the AFD discussion proceeds is not a bad thing, either, and whilst I strongly condemn the writing biographies approach, I commend Leucosticte for the renaming, to address the severe titling problem, which I noted here so that my actions were explained, as I am a participant in an AFD discussion who is using administrator tools. Let's get back to the article at hand, rather than a meta-discussion of the AFD discussion, now, please. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then: it should still be deleted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete; hideous soapbox. Quite frankly, an illogical one, too - find me a sex offense case that is not controversial, please? Ironholds (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One definition of controversial is "contentious; causing or likely to cause an argument." So, suppose a person rapes a child, gets caught, and everyone, including the offender, agrees that it was a morally depraved act that should be punished severely. That's not a controversial sex offense case. It is only a small minority of sex offense cases that end up being extensively discussed in the mass media for raising controversial questions of what types of sexual behavior are harmful and/or morally wrong, and if so how severely harmful and/or morally wrong, and what, if any, punishment should be meted out. Leucosticte (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then write encyclopaedia articles about the subjects, not individual one-thing biographies of the people proffered as anecdotal evidence, in the hope that the encyclopaedia article about the subject will mystically arise on its own if only enough one-thing biographies are written. Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One definition of controversial is "contentious; causing or likely to cause an argument." So, suppose a person rapes a child, gets caught, and everyone, including the offender, agrees that it was a morally depraved act that should be punished severely. That's not a controversial sex offense case. It is only a small minority of sex offense cases that end up being extensively discussed in the mass media for raising controversial questions of what types of sexual behavior are harmful and/or morally wrong, and if so how severely harmful and/or morally wrong, and what, if any, punishment should be meted out. Leucosticte (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Classic coatrack as stands, delete with prejudice. --Jenny Longlegs (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeh, we don't do that. You can grit your teeth and say "Boo-rah!" while looking at the AfD result or something, if you want. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, what is with the use of the asterisks for identation all of a sudden? I thought that messed with the closer's ability to count votes. I made some bold type plain for the same reason. Anarchangel (talk) 00:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not en Wikipedia policy compliant. - The name is still nonsense for an encylopedia subject and the living people are not notable for a wikipedia article of their own , so their one minor crime doesn't belong here either - the cases are not in any way special examples of anything. Youreallycan 08:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Using Wikipedia to draw attention to two people who are not specifically noteworthy otherwise is against the spirit of WP:BLP. I could imagine a legal article on Wikipedia which did not focus on the named individuals, but on the legal arguments about the broadness of the "sex offender" definitions - but such an article would not need to name people. There are, in fact, a lot of legal discussions which sould be the basis of a legitimate article. Collect (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to imagine an article about "Controversial cases" which did not give examples of cases. This is not a Biography of Living Persons article, but an article on the larger legal issues, in particular as they are perceived by the community. Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Collect. --John (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete also per Collect. Naming them is unnecessary. Quinn ✹SUNSHINE 03:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a BLP1E case. If someone was hit by a bus, and the incident was later used in ads by a taxi company telling you to stay away from buses, the taxi ads wouldn't count as a second event. If there was also a serial killer who used the incident as an excuse to kill bus drivers, that wouldn't be a third event, even if they spoke out on television about how bad the serial killer is. With respect to the person, their involvement in the extra events is an extension of their involvement in the first. It's still one event for the purposes of BLP1E. Ken Arromdee (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect the effort to build an elaborate model with which to elucidate an argument, but it is flawed in at least two respects. One, there are "Controversial cases", plural, so it is not a single event, but a continuing issue. Two, it is not a BLP. Even assuming the continuing coverage of this issue could be tortuously squeezed into the definition of a single event, WP:1E still says, "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is basically two BLP1E-violating articles, each about a single person, placed under one heading. Just placing the articles under one heading doesn't change this from two articles about people into one about an event. There's no standalone event "combined controversy over case A and case B" that this article might be about. It would be like writing an article "criticism of Democratic presidents" which had one paragraph about Barack Obama and one paragraph about Bill Clinton. Ken Arromdee (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I respect the effort to build an elaborate model with which to elucidate an argument, but it is flawed in at least two respects. One, there are "Controversial cases", plural, so it is not a single event, but a continuing issue. Two, it is not a BLP. Even assuming the continuing coverage of this issue could be tortuously squeezed into the definition of a single event, WP:1E still says, "the general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Anarchangel (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Sex offender registration#Effectiveness and consequences - these individuals aren't notable, this list isn't notable enough for a stand-alone article per WP:LISTN, and no list of this type (regardless of name) can be created that won't generate controversy. The section that I recommend merging to could use some expansion that help demonstrate issues with automatic mandatory registry. --Joshuaism (talk) 13:45, 29 June 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. v/r - TP 17:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Travis Hellstrom[edit]
- Travis Hellstrom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Notability has not been established in accordance with the general notability guidelines, which require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Subject wrote a self-published work that additionally fails to establish notability in accordance with WP:NACTOR. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 05:20, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - So far as I can tell, only one out of the 20 citations in the article comes close to being a solid reference: http://artofmanliness.com/2009/08/12/so-you-want-my-job-peace-corps-volunteer/, and that's a primary source (a transcript of an interview with the subject). The other nineteen sources either don't mention the subject, or are sites that belong to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoriSmith (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 June 2012
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per whoever forgot to sign the comment above me. Specs112 t c 13:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the sources are either social ones or un-reliable ones. The subject doesn't seem to have done anything notable enough to have an article on wiki. →TSU tp* 14:53, 29 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 04:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Darren Conquest[edit]
- Darren Conquest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, regardless of the number of refs, most of which do not cover him. No GNews hits. GregJackP Boomer! 03:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I had thought to speedy this, but the claims seemed notable so I BLP-prodded. Refs appeared, so I removed the prod and tagged. To my shame, I didn't actually check the refs. Well done GregJackP Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Interesting list of references that have nothing to do with the subject and or unquestionably fails WP:RS. Non-notable and for that matter no indication that it's not a hoax. KTC (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No picture, no infobox, no headings or subheadings, no real biography. Simply a few facts about the man thrown onto a page in fifteen minutes with no thought or consideration. An article I created called Bluetongue Lizard (mythology) is very short, but that alone took me an hour. The fact that there aren't even proper bulletpoints tells you something right off the bat, not to mention that the bulletpoints are used only once, when it would have been acceptible three times. Brambleberry of RiverClan Chat ♠ Watch 16:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability criteria needed for article. As noted, most sources offered do not mention the subject and while a search of the sites mentioned did bring up two mentions of the subject (and the references amended to point to the correct web pages), they didn't really go very far in establishing general notability, apart from the obvious problem that they would be primary sources anyway.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It appears to be a 'joke.' I've just reverted a link to it by User talk:203.189.146.231 JRPG (talk) 20:03, 25 June 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 03:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
VEISHEA[edit]
- VEISHEA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable carnival at Iowa State. I'm sure it's fun, but it's not even close to being notable. No third party sources to show notability. GrapedApe (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Aren't there adequate sources? --Bonkers The Clown (talk) 07:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- They are all either WP:SELFPUB or sources connected to the university. These fail WP:GNG, which requires a demonstration of multiple third party sources on the topic. The University ones, while they may be reliable, are not third party sources. See the "nutshell" of WP:N, which states that notability requires that the subject has "gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large." A college newspaper reporting on a college parade isn't sufficient for that standard. If it were, every single tiny club at a university would be notable, because college newspapers report on everything--GrapedApe (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – This topic certainly passes WP:GNG: [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please follow WP:BEFORE to avoid pointless AFDs and the problem of notable articles being deleted by mistake. Significant coverage has been found. Dream Focus 05:14, 26 June 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. v/r - TP 13:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jessica Nigri[edit]
- Jessica Nigri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a non-notable cosplayer. There is no chance of building a balanced biography on this person, as the only media coverage in reliable sources is about her appearance at a Penny Arcade Expo. This should be deleted under both WP:BLP and WP:BIO1E. Kaldari (talk) 02:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Specs112 t c 13:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The focus should be on the fact that there is media coverage from reliable sources, which makes her notable. That the coverage is about her wearing skimpy costumes shouldn't be used to argue against notability. She's a Guest of Honor at the upcoming Anime Expo, which should be a good indicator of notability. She is known for more than one event, so I don't think WP:BIO1E applies here. I also don't see any balance issues, the article seems to have an NPOV. -- Norvy (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The focus of my argument is the fact there there isn't adequate coverage in reliable sources. I don't care so much what the coverage is about. I've revised my wording to make this more clear. The gossipgamers citation isn't a reliable source as it's an obscure community blog that doesn't seem to have any professional writers (See WP:USERG). The other sources seem to be more established news blogs, but they only cover one event. The new Anime Expo source that you found does cover an additional event, so WP:BIO1E may not apply. It's questionable, however, whether the Anime Expo source would qualify as "3rd party", since they are merely covering their own event. Kaldari (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She's borderline notable and I'd rather err on the side of caution and keep the page for now. There has been some coverage at UK Official Playstation Magazine website (Cosplay gallery). Also she is popping up in other places, such as a kickstarter project (not funded yet, but quite likely to be funded) as a guest card in a zombies-versus-survivors downloadable trading card game called Z (link). She is the face of Lollipop Chainsaw (a video game, which reached #1 in various game charts). CodeTheorist (talk) 22:10, 27 June 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. This is a paradigmatic case of WP:HAMMER and the consensus below is that the arguments there apply with their full force and no exception is warranted. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Gaga's third album[edit]
- Lady Gaga's third album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. She is working on new music, yes, but there is no set release date and it isn't even known what type of release it could be. Most of this is based on speculation. Statυs (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep and rename, hey Status vashappening nothin much You know YOLO, anywho i think they will be more and more news in the coming weeks about the topic, i think it should be renamed "Lady Gaga's third studio album" , and the rumoured collabs need to be removed wikipedia should NOT be speculative things need to be confirmed, I'm out :D AdabowtheSecond (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You have not provided a reason why this article should be kept. Statυs (talk) 02:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well to support this, she has stated that she has plans for releasing the album this year, as well as releasing the album's title in September and news is slowly coming more and more each week. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 02:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A new album could mean many things. It could be another EP for all we know. RedOne, Zedd and Lady Gaga are all unconfirmed as producing the album, and the Cher duet was cancelled, as stated by RedOne on his Twitter account. All of the relevant information about her next release is located on her biography. Statυs (talk) 02:48, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well in all the sources she says album not EP and she has confirmed that she has plans for something this year for the album so I don't see why it can't be kept while news is developing. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 02:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- An EP is a type of album. Because again, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Statυs (talk) 03:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I guess I guess I can't argue with Wikipedia lol so ok we'll just start it up in due time then. teman13 TALKCONTRIBUTIONS 03:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:CRYSTAL/WP:HAMMER concerns. Doesn't even have a name yet, and doesn't plan on revealing one for several months, if the article is accurate. No release date. No track list. Just passing mentions here and there. I'm sure if it all pans out as planned it'll be clearly notable someday, but right now, it's too soon. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bring down the hammer! --BDD (talk) 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above, WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL Plenty of time to recreate this if and when it appears. Ubelowme (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as classic WP:CRYSTAL. KTC (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop! WP:HAMMERtime. (Delete) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - smash that WP:CRYSTALBALL with a WP:HAMMER! >:) CyanGardevoir (used EDIT!) 00:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "KEEP!"- Many Information Are coming, so the best thing to do is to keep the article and include the future information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.64.9 (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2012 (UTC) — 89.210.64.9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - fight Rumorpedia --Red-Blue-White (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:HAMMER/WP:CRYSTAL DISEman (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She just premiered a new song from the album today, and with the first single release not being that far off, info will soon start to pour in. It makes no sense in deleting it when it would be re-opened in a matter of days anyways.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 16:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More new info should be coming in soon, considering that a new song from the album was played live yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.112.193.174 (talk • contribs) 18:24 28 June 2012 (UTC) — 24.112.193.174 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven Rain[edit]
- Heaven Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is about a metal band that has no references at all and no verification of notability. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 05:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bosnia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 16 June 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing to meet any of WP:MUSIC's rules for establishing notability for musical groups. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:MUSIC at present. Article can be restored or recreated if they become prominent. --Artene50 (talk) 19:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't seem to find notable and third-party sources. SwisterTwister talk 02:53, 29 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 03:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Qipa[edit]
- Qipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Combination of a dictionary definition and unsourced OR. Also falls foul of WP:NPOV. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) 04:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 16 June 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No attempt to establish any sort of notability, sources or sense. It's also kind of sad that our criteria for Speedy Deletion doesn't seem to cover such obvious cases like this.
- Query: should redirects be wp:bundled, or are they included implicitly? The pages in question are 奇葩 and Qi pa. Rich(Contribs)/(Talk to me!) 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The 'close' tab admins who use the easy-closing script have includes a 'delete redirects' tickbox. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 22:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:DICT, I don't see any WP:RS that might make this phrase otherwise notable. - The Determinator p t c 21:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Nothing significant for Wikipedia. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 29 June 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 Bushranger One ping only 03:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doan Van Chan[edit]
- Doan Van Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Aside from more specific considerations such as WP:BLP1E (his alleged notability stems from maybe being the oldest person in the world but probably not, thus the one event I refer to here is "getting really old" not "an individual birthday" as is sometimes claimed) and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, this individual does not seem to meet the general guidelines of WP:N. Specifically, I do not see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent third-party sources. He seems to have had a brief burst of attention in mid-2007 for his age and nothing since (that I could uncover), meaning he lacks the sustained coverage that would distinguish him from thousands of other individual claiming (falsely or otherwise) to be very old. Canadian Paul 20:53, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 June 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and add to table at Longevity claims. He doesn't seem to meet criteria for List of the verified oldest people. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 15 June 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, The Bushranger One ping only 00:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - only source listed doesn't demonstrate enough notability to even be mentioned on a general article on allegedly long-lived persons. DreamGuy (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Being that he is Vietnamese, I can't seem to find other news articles (specifically English) supporting this article. SwisterTwister talk 02:50, 29 June 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 - no assertion of notability and very spammy plus nominator's comments here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IQ Elite[edit]
- IQ Elite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I tried to list this at AFD already using Twinkle but received a notice that a link I had put in the description was in the blacklist and the page would not save. I had provided links to two discussions on Google Plus (copied from a Google search) where people were complaining that they were getting spam from IQ Eliter that asked for their email passwords and that sent more spam to everyone in their address books. I do not need to link to those, as they are readily available by doing your own Google search.
Site appears to be blatant advertising of deceptive scam site. There are no reliable sources (hell, almost no sources at all) mentioning the site in any way. The so-called references previously provided in article only discussed online dating in general and not this site. Claims of having millions of members are highly dubious based upon the amateurish nature of the site and lack of anyone talking about it except as a spammer/malware distributor. Also claims it was started by Mensa members, but no Mensa sources mention its existence. DreamGuy (talk) 00:54, 22 June 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. Consensus to keep WP:PROF (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Tomlinson (philosopher)[edit]
- Thomas Tomlinson (philosopher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor academic, fails WP:PROF. Faculty at a minor school (graduate program is unranked). Sole book is from a minor publisher. Has a book forthcoming from Oxford, but that's not enough to for notability. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- full professor and director of ethics center at a large Research 1 school (Michigan State is not a minor school). The "unranked" is in one survey, for comparison choosing all 3s for weight on [47] puts MSU around 40, one step above Yale. Oxford book is appearing this year, so it's not a crystal ball but a reliable indication that one of the top presses in the world finds his work notable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:27, 15 June 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, The Bushranger One ping only 01:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Gscholar [48] makes it clear he has the "several highly-cited works" -- add the book and he's in.
And really, when you call Michegan's grad program unranked, you need to start slowing down a bit.EEng (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unranked on the main ranking used. Hairhorn (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's I who need to slow down, apparently. I was thinking of U. of Mich. -- this guy's at Mich. State U. (I even misspelled Michigan.), so you're right about the ranking. But my overall evaluation stands. (I would never base it on the ranking of the subject's institution anyway -- Post did important work while teaching high school math.) EEng (talk) 04:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is unranked on the main ranking used. Hairhorn (talk) 02:18, 21 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:40, 22 June 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. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Trio Sonata For Two Flutes[edit]
- Trio Sonata For Two Flutes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is associated with a notable composer, but shows no notability for a separate article and is not even sensibly clear as to what it is. Stedrick (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wilhelm Friedemann Bach.- The Bushranger One ping only 02:08, 14 June 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, Wifione Message 02:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The work has entry in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, the measuring stick for notability of the WikiProject Classical music. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep thanks to sources found. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:43, 21 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Very obviously meets the usual requirement for classical music. The consensus was clear before the last relisting. DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 29 June 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. v/r - TP 02:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Stoykewych[edit]
- Peter Stoykewych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable first year college hockey player. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NHOCKEY. Prodded, but removed. TerminalPreppie (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A single non-notable year in Tier I junior, a single non-notable year in college, fails NHOCKEY going away. No evidence of meeting the GNG. Prod removed without comment by anon IP. Ravenswing 02:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails NHOCKEY. Can be re-created if he ever does meet it. Patken4 (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - See no evidence of meeting WP:NHOCKEY or WP:GNG. Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete How can this person pass WP:NHOCKEY if he never played hockey at a professional level or played only 1 year of junior league hockey? --Artene50 (talk) 01:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In theory he could pass GNG even if he doesn't pass NHOCKEY. But in this case, I see no evidence that he passes either. Rlendog (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I created this article under a little confusion of WP:NOTABILITY. keystoneridin! (talk) 05:54, 23 June 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 Guitar Center. I'm going to IAR/supervote this one (I know, someone trout me) because the arguments just don't make sense and Trevj has made a perfectly legitimate comment. Even were I to delete this article, a mention could still be made in the Guitar Center article. Feel free to go straight to WP:DRV on this one if anyone disagrees. v/r - TP 13:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harmony Central[edit]
- Harmony Central (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no coverage in multiple searches. Fails WP:WEB SL93 (talk) 00:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and I hate to. I used to love that website in the early days. Haven't been there in ages. It appears that no one that writes articles has either, as I can't find anything that approaches significant or even mild coverage. Feeling nostalgic perhaps, but not enough to overrule my sense of criteria. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletiomn discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Guitar Center. I believe the site has some history and ownership changes. [49][50] -- Trevj (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:27, 31 May 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, →TSU tp* 07:08, 7 June 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, →TSU tp* 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: apparently, there is some coverage, but I have difficulties understanding whether it creates sufficient notability.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep : This is bonkers really. I remember HC from about 1993, and it keeps coming up on Google searches, way above this page. However, I believe the following sources count, as they are all on company websites and contain editorially reviewed content. :
- In fact if you google for "harmony central awards", you'll find a number of corporate websites referring to HC reviews of their products. Just because you have to scroll to page 3 or 4 to find them, doesn't mean it fails WP:RS --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, scrolling to page 3 or 4 doesn't make the site fail WP:RS. Those sites fail WP:RS on their own merits. Having to scroll to page 3 or 4 means the coverage is trivial, however, so even if those sites mentioned did meet WP:RS, not being the main focus of the coverage and only appearing as a footnote would mean the mention does not meet WP:GNG, which is the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your assessment. A corporate website is established and has strict peer reviewed content. You can't just wander in and promote something on the spur of the moment. --Ritchie333 (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, scrolling to page 3 or 4 doesn't make the site fail WP:RS. Those sites fail WP:RS on their own merits. Having to scroll to page 3 or 4 means the coverage is trivial, however, so even if those sites mentioned did meet WP:RS, not being the main focus of the coverage and only appearing as a footnote would mean the mention does not meet WP:GNG, which is the criteria for having a Wikipedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 02:15, 22 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails general notability guidelines quite dramatically. Links given above do not even meet basic WP:RS standards for the site to be allowed to be mentioned in passing in articles on other topics, let alone meeting the much higher standards required to get an entire Wikipedia article to itself. DreamGuy (talk) 02:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RS for establishing notability of a standalone article is one thing. But strictly applying it for supplementary content within the context of another article is something else, and I question whether this is in accordance with policy. The policy is WP:V, and WP:SOURCES states
The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.
-- Trevj (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Furthermore, if the subject failed the general notability guidelines "quite dramatically", it would have been speedy deleted. Please explain why, in your view, the quoted sources are not "reliable", as, for reasons stated above, I believe they are. --Ritchie333 (talk) 06:32, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- RS for establishing notability of a standalone article is one thing. But strictly applying it for supplementary content within the context of another article is something else, and I question whether this is in accordance with policy. The policy is WP:V, and WP:SOURCES states
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. v/r - TP 13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Triple-A season pages[edit]
- 1994 Charlotte Knights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- 1993 Charlotte Knights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2008 Charlotte Knights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2009 Charlotte Knights season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1977 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1978 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1979 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1980 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1981 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1982 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1983 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1984 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1985 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1986 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1987 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1988 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1989 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1990 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1991 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1992 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1993 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1994 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1995 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1996 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1997 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1998 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1999 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2000 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2001 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2002 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2003 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2004 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2005 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2006 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2007 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2008 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2009 Columbus Clippers season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Since when do we have season pages for Triple-A? It's not the highest level of baseball in the country. This is a greater quantity of articles than I expected when I thought I'd only be nominating a few, but they are all real short and boiler plate. I haven't added these yet, but they should be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unnecessary pages with sparse information. Minor league seasons are not notable.. FYI..Plenty of more AAA season articles exist and a few AA ones also.. mostly created by the same user... see Category:International League seasons.Spanneraol (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2008 Rochester Red Wings season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2009 Rochester Red Wings season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1993 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1994 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1995 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1996 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1997 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1998 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 1999 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2000 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2001 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2002 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2003 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2004 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2005 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2006 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2007 Ottawa Lynx season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Merge any encyclopedic content/Delete the rest. The articles have so little info that even a merge is questionable. Most only have the total number of wins and losses which could easily be put in a table in the main article on the team. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:00, 15 June 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, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BASEBALL. Minor league seasons and players are not considered notable....William 01:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor league baseball persons are not presumed to be notable per WP:BASEBALL/N. Minor league baseball seasons are not presumed to be notable per WP:NSEASONS, and must be weighed by the criteria set forth there and at WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. IMO, the overwhelming majority of, if not all, minor league baseball seasons fail those notability guidelines, and they are also deemed to be non-notable per the established consensus of WikiProject Baseball. Three strikes—yer out! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in agreement with Dirtlawyer and others - minor leagues aren't notable. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just as teams can be notable although the individual players aren't so can seasons be notable when the individual players and games aren't. The WP:BASEBALL criteria are quite possibly too narrow, and saying something meets their criteria for deletion is not a reason for deletion. We have consistently accepted a somewhat broader range of minor leaguers than they would like. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Teams are certainly notable, but individual seasons in this case is certainly not. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:02, 29 June 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.