Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 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.
The result was delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Boac (rapper)[edit]
- Boac (rapper) (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 artists. Koala15 (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 May 7. Snotbot t • c » 00:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. czar · · 01:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can't find sources to justify this article. It might be a case of NOTYET as opposed to NOTEVER, though - one good release that charts and we're back again. But there isn't enough of a case for notability at the moment, and no sources to back up what notability there is. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:52, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 00:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Searching sfbg.com, sfgate.com, thebaybridged.com, sfweekly.com, insidebayarea.com and eastbayexpress.com turned up mentions here,
here, here here and here. Wikipedia will be here if and when he makes his mark. - Richfife (talk) 17:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for now. Definitely a case of WP:NOTYET, and he might be back if he gets more notice from Independent Reliable Sources, or joins a notable group. --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. There are a few mentions in independent, reliable sources, but not quite substantive enough at this point. TheBlueCanoe 12:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was soft delete. J04n(talk page) 13:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Teroy de Guzmán[edit]
- Teroy de Guzmán (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, about an actor from the Philippines, is sourced only to IMDb, and internet searches turn up very little in reliable sources. I moved this to AfD from proposed deletion because the article was previously prodded and deprodded back in 2006, and also because the long list of credits at IMDb, extending from 1951 to 1989, as well as the desire to reduce cultural bias, weigh in favor of giving this the more extensive attention of a formal AfD. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Arxiloxos (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:NACTOR. Even the Tagalog article is unreferenced. LibStar (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lagisatu.com[edit]
- Lagisatu.com (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)
Contested PROD. Concern was "Notability not established; promotional". Eeekster (talk) 09:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, I am the author of Lagisatu.com and I hope you would reconsider deleting this. I went through and cant seem to locate any promotional text and it is a reputable new brand in South east Asia as evidence from the citation and media coverage it receives. A quick google will show you a few news in English, Thai, Russian, and Arabic language. Thanks Mohdfaeez (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It has so many notable sources as quotation which supports the article. I also found lagisatu.com on an award page below :-
- http://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.php?news_id=2006408&c=setreg®ion=4 Salto22 (talk) 13:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Profile Defenders[edit]
- Profile Defenders (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 business. Not the "first" of anything, and inclusion of prices, etc shows more promotion than anything. I fail to see anything remotely encyclopedic about this business. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 09:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Probably a useful honey pot article. Keep this one in good shape and we can see who whitewashes it, and see what else they whitewash. This would arouse suspicion of conflict of interest if the edits are uniformly whitewashing. -- ke4roh (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we do that? Sounds POINTy to me. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, we don't do that. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we do that? Sounds POINTy to me. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no coverage in independent reliable sources. I can only find press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Swords in Sword Fights on the Heights[edit]
- Swords in Sword Fights on the Heights (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)
Extremely unnotable article about a list of swords in an extremely unnotable game. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable list is non-notable. FallingGravity (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable third-party coverage of the game --BigPimpinBrah (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 00:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
David Angelo[edit]
- David Angelo (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)
Comedian who seems to fail WP:ENT and WP:GNG. While searching for sources I didn't find anything that could be described as significant coverage, only short mentions. Emmy and WGA nominations are for the whole Late Night writing team not for Angelo personally and Time Out New York's Joke of the Year is very minor award, so I don't think those count for notability either. Asilv (talk) 10:34, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Article's subject does not meet WP:BIO. Miniapolis 20:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete On what's there, I don't think notability can be justified (for reasons given by others). Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Mediran (t • c) 08:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of Molossia[edit]
- Republic of Molossia (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 just finished reading this entire article. I am at a loss for words. I do not understand how something that seems more suited for Uncyclopedia made its way onto the Wikipedia mainspace and has stayed here for years. I don't see how this is notable at all. I would really like to see someone defending its inclusion in the encyclopedia. This will make for some interesting discussion. Feedback ☎ 18:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral for now: Looking at the sources in the article, we have (ignoring the ELs) one NPR interview whose primary focus is about a book which mentions the micronation, two Wikinews articles, with the rest sourced to the micronation's own site. However, the further reading section contains some actual, decently in-depth pieces, which ought to be the one's sourcing the article. Chris857 (talk) 23:19, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the points brought up in the first AfD (specifically by gene_poole). I suggest the nom read the other articles on List of micronations, as well, since those are pretty much the same.
What policy besides a small undefended mention of WP:N are you citing to delete, anyways?Ansh666 00:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC) (unstruck after thinking about it again. does need to be fixed up still though) Ansh666 06:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is your official keep rationale? Feedback ☎ 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, so I'll quote: "Keep and rewrite. AFD is not cleanup. Molossia is probably the best-known "personal artistic project" micronation in existence, and has been around for over 2 decades. Its significance is reflected in the 7-page entry it is given in the recently-published Lonely Planet micronation guide - one of the most extensive in the entire book - larger even than the entry on Sealand. --Gene_poole 22:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)" and "Keep. After taking some time to consider it, I do believe that it passes WP:N and WP:A. While it is not of mass notability, neither is Albert A. Michelson, who happens to be a very important physicist. Also, suggesting that this article should link to reality is like suggesting that articles relating to fiction should be deleted (like the United Federation of Planets, for example). --myselfalso 05:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)"...granted that this is from '07, I still think that it meets WP:N - burden is on you to show that it doesn't. Ansh666 06:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is your official keep rationale? Feedback ☎ 05:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The burden is on me to establish its non-notability? That just shows a severe lack of understanding of how notability on Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on those to provide notability. It appeared in a book that lists a bunch of people who decided to declare fake nations, so what? This whole article reads like a satirical uncyclopedia article. Should we also create a separate article for Molossia's war with East Germany? Why not? No one has "proven it's unnotability yet". Look, I understand your good intentions to give this article a fair shot, but let's be reasonable here. There's nothing about this guy playing make-believe satire that is notable for the encyclopedia. In fact, I'd say that most of the individual articles listed at List of micronations should be done away with. Molossia can stay on that list, but it doesn't need to have its own article talking about its borders, it's "correspondance", it's war with Germany, and it's owner's real estate history. Also, it's important to note that Molossia's creator edited most of the article himself in a possible COI violation. Feedback ☎ 12:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, sorry, yeah I did misunderstand that, whoops. Yeah, I don't really know, this is one of those "grey area" subjects here. They exist, and people live there, but nobody recognizes them. I've struck my keep !vote but I'm still tending towards keep since there has been some media coverage (including on Wikinews, apparently), but the article would need another major overhaul to be up to standards, including third-party sources. Ansh666 19:20, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Who keeps nominating this? It has been discussed already. It's notable, although it needs a bit of a cleanup. "I don't understand why he would do this because I know nothing of micronationalism huehuehuehue" — Preceding unsigned comment added by OCCullens (talk • contribs) 00:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Molossia may not be the topic of the year, but it's notable in the micronation community and we already had a debate about this where most agreed that this article should stay. Icedog (talk)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable micronation--Yopie (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this has nothing to do with Uncyclopedia. The subject's notability is affirmed by the article's references to significant coverage of the subject by reliable, independent sources. Please read the the general notability guideline before making claims about lack of notability. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as notable micronation. Individual dislikes or outrages that a micronation subculture actually exists (& has been clearly established notability-wise) are welcome, but likewise exists among us a collective 'counter-aversion' to oppose irrational censorship on the basis of mere dislike or unfounded outrage. --07:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. It looks like there has been some real good faith compromise and editing as a result of this discussion, so despite Miniapolis's questioning of the WSJ source will close as keep. Also, I checked and the subject is indeed mention in the NYT article. J04n(talk page) 14:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Kitces[edit]
- Michael Kitces (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)
Further to the original AFD, I propose that this is a vanity page created by and serving to advertise User:Finplanwiki and his real life business. Furthermore, this editor is contributing WP:OR to the encyclopedia and inserting material citing references which are WP:SPS - see this edit at Roth IRA. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know why this is up again. We've been through this once already. I've written several biogrpahies for advisors in our industry, Kitces is just one of several I've done. Are you going to propose taking down the other biographies I've written as being vanity pages too, in case I have multiple personalities? :/ Finplanwiki (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - To be clear, the previous AfD was not adjudicated. I withdrew it as a courtesy to allow improvements, which have not been made. And yes, the other biographies Finplanwiki created as cover, should be considered for AfD. There are no claims or citations supporting notability other than being female or having a job. Sorry.--Nixie9✉ 16:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have indeed been through this once already. However, after your activity at Roth IRA I am reopening it. I note that first time round, the editor voting to "speedy keep", RinkyDink2013 had one contribution to their name, and funnily enough, it was the vote to speedy keep the article. [1] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This article started as a vanity piece. DGG suggested giving him time to make it encyclopedic. This has not happened, and in fact much more fluff has been added. In my opinion, Finplanwiki is more than connected to the subject. Next he (by he I mean Michael Kitces) will bring RinkyDink2013 or Mkitces out of retirement to vote for speedy keep. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF (practitioner editor is not the editor of an academic journal - it is someone who writes for free in exchange for self promotion).--Nixie9✉ 16:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mkitces (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC) One of my readers just pointed out this discussion to me, so I just wanted to chime in quickly to say that while I'll obviously stand by whatever the Wikipedia moderators decide, since it's out of my control anyway, I didn't write this entry. I did start making modifications shortly after it got created by whoever did it last year when it showed up in my Google Alerts, but stopped adding once I was told by a friend that it's against the rules here for people to add to entries written about them on this site. Since then I haven't touched it, for all the no-self-publishing reasons being discussed here. Obviously I can't really speak to the notability issue since I'm clearly biased. :) But I was just included in Investment Advisor's 2013 list of the most 25 influential individuals in and around the advisor business (http://www.advisorone.com/2013/04/29/the-2013-ia-25-special-report).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I wrote all this up last time, once again for AfD... this is not a self-publishing vanity page (it's one of several bios I've written up for people in our industry, as you can see in my history), and according to WP:ANYBIO, notability is evaluated based on significant awards and honors, or made widely recognized contributions that are part of the historical record to his/her field. Our industry has three major industry publications that provide awards recognition: Financial Planning, Investment Advisor, and Investment News. Kitces has been recognized, separately, by all of them, including twice for Financial Planning[1][2], twice for Investment Advisor[3][4], and once for Investment News[5], over the span of 7 years. In addition, he received a Heart of Financial Planning award[6] from the industry's largest association, which is awarded specifically for "extraordinary work contributing and giving back to the financial planning community" which for him was founding NexGen[7]. And Kitces's role in founding NexGen was also acknowledged in "The History of Financial Planning"[8] which is THE book that outlines the historical record for the field. If notability is based on "making widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record to the field" and this person's contributions are explicitly recognized through every major industry publication, the awards of its largest association, AND the actual book that IS the enduring historical record of the field, then why is this entry still being questioned for notability??? Finplanwiki (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding Nixie's comment, the last AfD suggested adding citations for the articles, so I did. If there's more to be added, say what else is supposed to be added. I'm sorry I do financial planning for a living, not train in how to write encyclopedias. Doing the best I can here. As for the claim that "fluff" was added since the last AfD, I'm sorry but that's total BS. I added citations as specifically asked in the last AfD, within a week of the AfD being withdrawn, and haven't touched it since, just look at the history of the article!!! Finplanwiki (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fluff Illuminated: Nearly all of the information in the article ultimately cites original research, or the subject's mere inclusion in long lists. There is one true piece of editorial coverage of the individual (which is then reiterated in 4 separate References[2]). Notability is not derived from self publication - even if extensive. Key citations reference his company website and his actual CV, and the rest reference his own research; self serving statements include "He is known as a prolific writer in the industry", "Kitces has been dubbed a "Deep Thinker" and "Technical Guru", "In addition to the above Journals, his research...has been cited extensively in the industry" (referencing its citations his own newsletters); the listing of a dozen WP:OR articles; "Accolades" section listing 5 20+ person lists which include his name - none of which are an actual individual award. The simple fact is that one genuine editorial reference is overwhelmed by the original research attached to it. There is no repeated editorial coverage of the individual. --Nixie9✉ 11:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re- Fluff Thank you Nixie for the feedback. Think I'm finally starting to understand the issue here. So you'd rather see this reference (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578304491492559684.html with the last section about Kitces's research on pegging withdrawals to stock valuations) rather than this reference (http://www.kitces.com/assets/pdfs/Kitces_Report_May_2008.pdf which is the actual research on pegging withdrawals to stock valuations)? In your view, the former is a reference, and the latter is "fluff"? The way I was taught in grad school was the exact opposite - third-party media discussions are "fluff" and real references go to the original source. I was actually trying NOT to include discussions like the WSJ reference on the research as that's pure fluff to me, but it sounds like your view is that that's the "right" kind of reference and the original source is not? I can certainly try to adjust it that way if that's what you've meant by "more encyclopedic" - to me, more encyclopedic meant more references to original sources, not fewer!! I think I was actually working harder to strip out what you were looking for?? If you can confirm I'm understand right - more stuff like the WSJ references about the research, and not the actual research - I can try to adjust what I wrote next week. Finplanwiki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree fully with Nixie9. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists, technologists and academics around the world engaging in and publishing research involving far more "deep thinking" than Michael Kitces's in the frankly intellectually un-challenging field of financial planning, yet they do not get their own Wikipedia page full of flowery language describing their activities, publications and supposed mental capacities. Financial planning is a service industry that works off commissions, and just because a member of it is active on its conference circuit and writes for the industry's internal newsletters, that does not make them notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re- Red Hat And as for Red Hat's comment - seriously, learn ANYTHING about what real financial planners do before you criticize it, ok? Financial planning IS NOT ABOUT COMMISSIONS. At National Association Of Personal Financial Advisors we're celebrating the 30th anniversary of doing real fee-only financial planning. Our firm accepts NO COMMISSIONS, and no NAPFA planner accepts commissions. Globally commissions have already been banned from financial planning this year in the UK and Australia, and we're working on getting it done here in the US. Financial planning is an entire profession unto itself, with its own body of knowledge and educational requirements, a fiduciary standard for all advice, and recognized international standards under ISO 22222[9]. I'm sorry if you may have had some terrible experience with a bad commissioned salesperson posing as a financial advisor, but that's not what REAL financial planning is about. Saying financial planning is an unprofessional unchallenging field because someone once sold you a commissioned product is like saying medicine isn't a real field because there were once snake oil salesman. The doctors cleaned house, and we're doing it too. And I really don't see how it's your personal call anyway about what fields do and don't qualify for Wikipedia. It's a field, it's a recognized field under international standards with almost 150,000 people certified[10], and our profession is as entitled to have our people recognized as any other field. Having an issue with someone I wrote up because you don't think he's notable is one thing (though given your apparent ignorance of financial planning, it's no surprise you don't understand who's notable in our field either); trashing my entire profession is another and entirely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign Finplanwiki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Commissions/fees - whatever. My point is that your industry is composed of individuals who sell their services, and you are coming here on Wikipedia and creating what are basically advertisements for those individuals. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Re- Red Hat And as for Red Hat's comment - seriously, learn ANYTHING about what real financial planners do before you criticize it, ok? Financial planning IS NOT ABOUT COMMISSIONS. At National Association Of Personal Financial Advisors we're celebrating the 30th anniversary of doing real fee-only financial planning. Our firm accepts NO COMMISSIONS, and no NAPFA planner accepts commissions. Globally commissions have already been banned from financial planning this year in the UK and Australia, and we're working on getting it done here in the US. Financial planning is an entire profession unto itself, with its own body of knowledge and educational requirements, a fiduciary standard for all advice, and recognized international standards under ISO 22222[9]. I'm sorry if you may have had some terrible experience with a bad commissioned salesperson posing as a financial advisor, but that's not what REAL financial planning is about. Saying financial planning is an unprofessional unchallenging field because someone once sold you a commissioned product is like saying medicine isn't a real field because there were once snake oil salesman. The doctors cleaned house, and we're doing it too. And I really don't see how it's your personal call anyway about what fields do and don't qualify for Wikipedia. It's a field, it's a recognized field under international standards with almost 150,000 people certified[10], and our profession is as entitled to have our people recognized as any other field. Having an issue with someone I wrote up because you don't think he's notable is one thing (though given your apparent ignorance of financial planning, it's no surprise you don't understand who's notable in our field either); trashing my entire profession is another and entirely inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 03:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC) Oops forgot to sign Finplanwiki (talk) 03:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The new WSJ article is indeed valid editorial coverage, and yes, you must refer to the editorial coverage, not your original research. That's how Wikipedia works, plain and simple. Although I wouldn't call your coverage "repeated" yet, you can now say it has continued. I've edited the article to remove all of your original research, references to your own blogs and employer site, and unsubstantiated fluff, like accolades. If you can live with this streamlined article, which more closely adheres to Wikipedia standards (ie referencing your personal website & CV is verboten), I personally can overlook the borderline notability, despite being WP:TOOSOON. If you insist on adding exponential fluff to borderline notability, I and I expect others, are driven to be policy sticklers.--Nixie9✉ 15:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with Nixie9's revamp. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re-Nixie Nixie I struggle to understand how that's "more encyclopedic" but thanks for finally helping me to understand that's what you've been looking for. Still not my research/blogs/etc - once again, I read the guy's work and we use his stuff regularly in our practice, but I'm not him (he?). I would still suggest that his Heart of Financial Planning Award and NexGen founding be included in the article, as that's really some of his greatest notability in the industry. I will try to add detail according to what I'm understanding your guidelines to be. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finplanwiki (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NexGen Nixie I added material on NexGen. Is this more of how you want to see it done? Finplanwiki (talk) 17:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References Nixie just looking around for more outside editorial coverage on Kitces now that I understand the issue. So articles like these - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/your-money/401ks-and-similar-plans/22money.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/your-money/individual-retirement-account-iras/29money.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 - are what I should be using, right? It's ok to reference this - http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/03/more-flexibility-added-for-roth-401k-conversions/ - but not this: http://kitces.com/blog/archives/463-Financial-Planning-Implications-of-HR8-the-Taxpayer-Relief-Act-of-2012.html right? Just want to really be certain I'm getting it here before I put more time into this!! Finplanwiki (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I think the addition of the two NYT articles to the WSJ indicate that two important newspapers regard him as a significant financial adviser, and what such newspapers choose to write about is our basic standard on notability. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article's subject does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Nearly all refs are to industry sources; WSJ article provides insufficient coverage, and there is no mention of subject in remaining NYT source. Miniapolis 20:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 01:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wade Fulp[edit]
- Wade Fulp (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 Newgrounds staff member - fails to meet Swagmonitor proximity suscalsius ahanacho. Beerest355 (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even an assertion of notability. W Nowicki (talk) 15:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Freikorp (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 France–New Zealand relations. J04n(talk page) 01:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Zealand–France Marine Delimitation Agreement[edit]
- New Zealand–France Marine Delimitation Agreement (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)
Unreferenced article with lack of content. Also, marine delimitation agreements are common; the article does not state why this specific agreement is notable. smileguy91talk 23:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep any border treaty between national states inherently has some types of repurcussions both in international relations and on mineral and fishing rights thus will have coverage in some way, shape or form that . At the very least this content should exist as part of France–New Zealand relations, with a reference or two. Sadads (talk) 12:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to France–New Zealand relations. nothing in gnews or gbooks. this just deserves a one or 2 line mention in the bilateral article. LibStar (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to France–New Zealand relations. This is a short stub, and doesn't justify an article at present. Given the tense relationship between NZ and France at the time this agreement was negotiated and signed (due to NZ's concerns over France's nuclear testing program in the Pacific and the lingering effects of the Rainbow Warrior bombing), this may be notable but it should only be spun out into its own article when more detail and references are added. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as above. --99of9 (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beheading in the name of Islam[edit]
- Beheading in the name of Islam (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 essay, not an encyclopaedic article. It seems to be making a political point, not to be an article. It does not have WP:RS to back up its main theme, and seems to be WP:OR Martin451 (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If you re-read the title as Violent act in the cause of X it becomes apparent how pointless this article is. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and improve Seriously, on the day of the 2013 Woolwich attack Wikipedia deletes an article about Beheading in the name of Islam? Seriously?Rembrandt Peale (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SERIOUSLY, we will have to wait a week for the AfD to conclude, but this article was written on the same day of the 2013 Woolwich attack and the same day it was sent to AfD. Please supply a good reason for this article to be kept under wikipedia policy.Martin451 (talk) 22:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 'Seriously' is not an argument for retention. As it stands, the article reads like an essay, and lacks the necessary sources to establish that it is indeed an encyclopaedic subject. Do we have an article on Killing with car bombs in the name of Irish Nationalism, or Killing with laser-guided munitions in the name of Democracy for example? No, clearly not... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this article needs improvement. But inadequacy is an argument for improving an article, not for deleting it. Note that before I was so rudely interrupted, I was in the process of adding academic sources to the article. But while there is a serious academic discussion of the peculiar reasons why beheading resonates with Islamists, the reasons why Wikipedia should have an article on this topic are, the Thalit massacre, the Murder of Ariel Sellouk, Daniel Pearl, Theo van Gogh (film director), Nick Berg, the Martyrs of Otranto...Rembrandt Peale (talk) 23:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Theo van Gogh was not beheaded. Nor was Ariel Sellouk. Neither were the victims of the Thalit massacre. Nor apparently were the Martyrs of Otranto, though given that this event took place in 1480, it might be hard to know for sure. And as of this moment, it is entirely unclear whether the Woolwich victim was beheaded either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't have Burning in the name of Christianity, either. --Conti|✉ 23:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As above. Reeks of bias to me. -- Teh Cheezor Speak 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and document further - Beheading is a common practice among radical Islamics and historically among the various Islamic groups, both quasi-state and state. If the American government has a pattern of waterboarding, then it should be documented. If Christians have a habit of burning witches, it should be reported. Let us not dumb down readers who are entitled to learn about Islam, good or bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.110.173 (talk) 01:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, have any of the contributors to this page done a good-faith search of this topic in journals or books? Just askin'Rembrandt Peale (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No - I'd rather use what spare time I have contributing to an encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- RP, could you confirm whether you are Historicist editing under a new account ? If so, please could you provide a link on your user page or talk page to the discussions with an admin that resulted in you being allowed to return under WP:STANDARDOFFER. It would obviously be inappropriate and inconsistent with policy for an editor blocked for recurrent sockpuppetry and topic-ban evasion to return and create an article. The article would need to be deleted which would make this AfD unnecessary. Thanks. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge into the Beheading article. Adequately sourced and worth noting but perhaps only as part of the general topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "in the name of X" articles are not something that will end well.Geni (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to beheading in Islam. Improve article and expand scope. Only the title was controversial. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Gareth and Conti above. Horrible and reactive page of questionable motivation. Nick Cooper (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "in the name of Islam" suggests a desire to create a WP:COATRACK.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if the name is the problem, change the name (as has already been done). The subject itself is notable. An article should not be deleted merely because of the title. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On any day other than today, I might agree. The problem is that nobody seems to be in a hurry to create Hanging and burning in Christianity (this was quite popular in Europe at one stage).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since that isn't practised anymore, I don't see how that analogy works. This subject is notable because it is official policy in several countries, as well as widespread in warfare (Syria, Iraq, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting an article because we feel subjectively uncomfortable with the name (or implication) of the title, is just as political as naming the title with the intention to incite untoward emotion in the reader in the first place. My colleague has it right, re-naming the title, is appropriate given both the temporal significance of the material and its range across nations.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not about the name, it is about the content of the article. This takes a global view, of all muslims, and links a particular form of killing to them. As such, it is SYN. Per the slate article, "Is there any significance to beheading in Islam? Yes, but it's important in other cultures, too." In addition, this article mixes together capital punishment by a state with acts of terror undertaken by individuals. If we had Capital punishment in Islamic nations, this could be an interesting survey article, and then if we had Means of death employed by terrorist groups, that could be another article, but this one as is is pure WP:SYN. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleting an article because we feel subjectively uncomfortable with the name (or implication) of the title, is just as political as naming the title with the intention to incite untoward emotion in the reader in the first place. My colleague has it right, re-naming the title, is appropriate given both the temporal significance of the material and its range across nations.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 02:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since that isn't practised anymore, I don't see how that analogy works. This subject is notable because it is official policy in several countries, as well as widespread in warfare (Syria, Iraq, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On any day other than today, I might agree. The problem is that nobody seems to be in a hurry to create Hanging and burning in Christianity (this was quite popular in Europe at one stage).--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, if the name is the problem, change the name (as has already been done). The subject itself is notable. An article should not be deleted merely because of the title. FunkMonk (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems the four of the above objections are based solely on the name. The name has been changed. Perhaps we can address the reliability of the sources and other matters for a stand-alone article. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The title could be further changed to "beheading in Islamic countries" or some such, if people are still offended. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whichever way you slice it (pun intended) this article has WP:NPOV issues. There are plenty of articles looking at Islamic radicalism, Sharia etc without this recently created article which attempts to draw a sensationalist link between Islam and beheading.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But it is not a controversial issue in itself. It is official policy in several Islamic countries. No one is trying to hide it, so why should we? It is a notable issue in itself, and there are plenty of reliable sources devoted to it, just not in this article. The article should be improved, rather than deleted. It is like Capital punishment in the United States, just with a religious twist. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is opposed to articles on Capital punishment in Iran, Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia etc. But this article implies that Muslim countries are more similar to each other than to non-Muslim countries. That is completely inaccurate. For example, Saudi Arabia punishes murder by beheading, but Pakistan punishes murder by hanging as the latter has inherited laws from the British Raj. In this respect, Pakistani capital punishment laws are more similar to India than Saudi Arabia.
- No one is opposed to articles on Capital punishment in Iran, Capital punishment in Saudi Arabia etc. But this article implies that Muslim countries are more similar to each other than to non-Muslim countries. That is completely inaccurate. For example, Saudi Arabia punishes murder by beheading, but Pakistan punishes murder by hanging as the latter has inherited laws from the British Raj. In this respect, Pakistani capital punishment laws are more similar to India than Saudi Arabia.
- But it is not a controversial issue in itself. It is official policy in several Islamic countries. No one is trying to hide it, so why should we? It is a notable issue in itself, and there are plenty of reliable sources devoted to it, just not in this article. The article should be improved, rather than deleted. It is like Capital punishment in the United States, just with a religious twist. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whichever way you slice it (pun intended) this article has WP:NPOV issues. There are plenty of articles looking at Islamic radicalism, Sharia etc without this recently created article which attempts to draw a sensationalist link between Islam and beheading.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The title could be further changed to "beheading in Islamic countries" or some such, if people are still offended. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. We have an article on Decapitation, so why not just merge the information there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect this article to Beheading/Decapitation and merge relevant content there. The phenomenon of beheading in Muslim countries is already covered (and can be covered further) at Decapitation#Middle_East and Decapitation#Asia. Notable individuals beheaded by Muslims (e.g. Daniel Pearl) are already covered at List of people who were beheaded.
- I suspect that one reason this article was created was as criticism of Islam. One of the sources used in the article says "[Islam is] a religion of the sword with the blade forever at the throat of the unbeliever".[3] If that was the intention, then this is forking from Criticism of Islam and should be moved there.Bless sins (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MERGE per Paul MacDermott. Some content here can be useful on that page in a sectionbLihaas (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to existing article, as above. This article is not neutral, created by an editor who has a clear anti-Islam agenda. GiantSnowman 14:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a needless WP:POVFORK of decapitation -- Y not? 14:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I find the idea of needing to give a rationale for something so obvious demeaning to Wikipedia, so I won't. Formerip (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per SYN, POV/Fork and FormerIP People who commit crimes in "the name of," should start with themselves. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Y Ripberger (talk) 08:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete SYN and POV and a FORK of existing content. Also, agree with other points above - we don't want to encourage this kind of article, as Killing with laser-guided munitions in the name of Democracy is next, and could be easily sourced.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Obi-Wan Kenobi, cultural and religious attitudes to violence are a legitimate subject for an article, however I'm struggling to see how this article can result in anything but a one-sided analysis of the topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTESSAY. The lead makes it very clear that the article's creator is writing their own take on a topic of discussion, and merely collecting sources to give the impression of a "well-sourced" article. Which technically is also a violation of WP:ORIGINALSYN. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless or until we have an article "Killing of children by drone strikes in the name of the War on Terror". Which, incidentally, I am not proposing. Brocach (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have something close: Drone attacks in Pakistan from which I extracted and created List of drone strikes in Pakistan. The author has long changed the name but oddly most are commenting on the original name. Very few comment on the quality of the sources. Interesting. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but my point is that neither of the Pakistan titles link drone attacks to the religion of the attackers, nor to the nature of the injuries inflicted. We don't have other article titles constructed on "[gross violation of human rights]" + "[supposed motivation]", e.g. "torture in the name of securing intelligence" or "kidnapping and locking people up without charge or trial for many years in the name of just because we can". It seems very likely that this article has been created to draw attention to decapitation as a supposedly "Islamic" phenomenon, as though no US drone attack ever decapitated anyone. It is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to use different terminology for terrorist attacks or other human rights violations depending on whether they are inflicted by, or against, particular interests. Brocach (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We do have "Capital punishment in the United States" and "Racism in the United States" without specifically implying that it is unique to the United States. The new name "Beheading in Islam" focuses on the practice within the 1400 year practice of this religion. I lean towards merge into Decapitation as I generally favor passing the material through the current editors on the topic and if it get too large for a section, only then extract it into a new article (like I extracted the list from the Drone article). I think that's a more organic way of development but I'm not a bold editor. But the main question: is it the name that's the problem? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because it is both a coat-rack and SYN. By focusing "on the practice within the 1400 year practice of this religion", you are suggesting that there is some encyclopedic connection that can be drawn between the killings of Daniel Perl and the slaughter of Crusaders by a Muslim leader over 1,000 years ago, and that the connection is somehow religion?? You realize that the cartels in Mexico also have a nasty habit of chopping people's heads off, and those acts are probably more inspired/related to what terrorists are doing today than what happened 1400 years ago? (and I don't think those cartels are ISLAMIC). Same thing with suicide bombs - our friends the Tamil tigers were innovators in this domain, and they aren't muslim - innovation in nasty ways to kill people knows no religious boundaries...
- We do have "Capital punishment in the United States" and "Racism in the United States" without specifically implying that it is unique to the United States. The new name "Beheading in Islam" focuses on the practice within the 1400 year practice of this religion. I lean towards merge into Decapitation as I generally favor passing the material through the current editors on the topic and if it get too large for a section, only then extract it into a new article (like I extracted the list from the Drone article). I think that's a more organic way of development but I'm not a bold editor. But the main question: is it the name that's the problem? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I know, but my point is that neither of the Pakistan titles link drone attacks to the religion of the attackers, nor to the nature of the injuries inflicted. We don't have other article titles constructed on "[gross violation of human rights]" + "[supposed motivation]", e.g. "torture in the name of securing intelligence" or "kidnapping and locking people up without charge or trial for many years in the name of just because we can". It seems very likely that this article has been created to draw attention to decapitation as a supposedly "Islamic" phenomenon, as though no US drone attack ever decapitated anyone. It is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia to use different terminology for terrorist attacks or other human rights violations depending on whether they are inflicted by, or against, particular interests. Brocach (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We have something close: Drone attacks in Pakistan from which I extracted and created List of drone strikes in Pakistan. The author has long changed the name but oddly most are commenting on the original name. Very few comment on the quality of the sources. Interesting. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, beheading has been done by people of the Islamic faith for at least 1400 years. Guess what? Beheading has been done by people of the Christian faith, as well, in fact the best beheading machine ever made was probably invented by a French Catholic. If you check out the media on beheading in commons, you will see African kings, Indian princes, Japanese soldiers, Chinese emperors, and basically all *other* manner of people chopping others heads off. The neutral way to treat this subject is within the Decapitation article, and then splitting it out by time period or geographic area as necessary if that article grows.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect WP:POVFORK of decapitation by non-neutral creator from anti-islamic POV Widefox; talk 18:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: while this discussion was ongoing, with a clearly emerging consensus in favour of deletion, it was renamed in an attempt to reduce its offensiveness. That is improper and I have moved it back. The article should remain at its original title unless or until this discussion ends with consensus to keep, delete, rename or merge. Brocach (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually WP:EDITATAFD allows the article to be moved but stipulates that notice should be given on this page at the top and bottom. As it is there has been a great deal of confusion as many who voted for deletion appeared to do so based on the name only (as they hadn't read the article and noticed that the name was changed.) I tried to point this out several times above (but some don't show signs of reading the other entries.) Jason from nyc (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see little evidence that delete !votes have been based on the name alone - instead it is the partisan/essay-like subject that is the problem. No matter how you name it, the article is trying to make out a case that there is something noteworthy concerning the intersection of 'beheading' and 'Islam', by resorting to a dubious synthesis between historical state practices and contemporary terrorist acts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate that you and several other have important and serious reservations. But some just seem not to have gotten past the original name. I know when I prompted “Brocach ” to move beyond the name he gave substantial reasons. This is how a serious discussion reaches a consensus as we both have some agreement with a preference for starting this topic as part of the Decapitation page. Seeing that Wikipedia isn’t “a democracy” but works best when we’re engaged in trying to get as best a consensus as possible, it’s unfortunate that we have several “hit and runs” that just comment on the name. Perhaps we can separate the name-objectors to the content-objectors. What do you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 21:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see little evidence that delete !votes have been based on the name alone - instead it is the partisan/essay-like subject that is the problem. No matter how you name it, the article is trying to make out a case that there is something noteworthy concerning the intersection of 'beheading' and 'Islam', by resorting to a dubious synthesis between historical state practices and contemporary terrorist acts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Actually WP:EDITATAFD allows the article to be moved but stipulates that notice should be given on this page at the top and bottom. As it is there has been a great deal of confusion as many who voted for deletion appeared to do so based on the name only (as they hadn't read the article and noticed that the name was changed.) I tried to point this out several times above (but some don't show signs of reading the other entries.) Jason from nyc (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An obvious PoV fork, as was said above. No such topic, AFAIK. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - POV fork leading to Burning in the name of Christianity, Crucifixions in the name of Paganism, Hellfire missiling in the name of American imperialism, etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no question that the subject is encyclopaedic, given the focus on it in media and the religious text references, as well as in books such as this one. But no harm will come from mentioning it instead in the beheading article -- it belongs in one or the other, but either works. And the articles that it should be improved are not relevant -- we focus on the topic and whether it can be written about appropriately, not whether it can be improved or in the eyes of some should be improved ... as long as it can be improved if need be to the proper level, which is an issue of RSs and notability of the topic. Epeefleche (talk) 01:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- read on in that book, and you'll find the following: "Let us acknowledge that beheading criminals with a sword or axe was a common pratice by all ancient civilizations for thousands of years. in fact, beheading was widely used in Europe, Asia and Africa (by Muslims and non-Muslims alike) until the very early twentieth century, and only recently has the entire civilized world abandoned this ancient cruel practice of capital punishment. Today, however, this barbaric ancient practice sitll exists only in the Muslim world." So, further evidence that this is POV fork of Decapitation. I note that the so-called "civilized" french only abandoned the guillotine in 1977. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a specific reference or two to it in the Koran, and of course it relates to hudud within sharia law, so there are encyclopaedic elements that are appropriate to cover in some fashion. And are even just with regard to hudud, there are many scholarly publications (see also these scholarly articles) dealing variously with punishment and with sharia law that discuss beheading in Islam. But that is not to say by any means that it is the only religion or society or movement that has engaged in the practice or that have texts which, if taken literally, support the practice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, an article on Crime and Punishment in Sharia as split off from Sharia would be acceptable, discussing different forms of execution and punishment permitted under sharia law. This one, not so much - it's sensationalistic. I just looked at the list of "last" executions - France, Germany, Switzerland, their last execution, EVER, was a beheading - for all three of those countries! They still aren't chopping heads off because they abolished capital punishment - but if they restored capital punishment, who's to say they wouldn't start again? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many ways that this can be covered. That's one. And -- even if it is historical rather than current -- it is also encyclopaedic to cover what you point to. The suggestion by some above that the subject matter is not encyclopadic is belied by the scholarly and RS coverage. As to whether it is covered in a stand-alone or in one other article or a number of them, is a less significant matter I think. But the point I want to make is the above, and I think any delete !votes based on that bald assertion are misplaced. the same goes for delete !votes comparing it to other killings that are not based on something analagous to the Koran ... here we have a literal translation by some people and application by them of the Koran ... it is obviously not at all analagous to some of the poor counter-examples given above (e.g., two editors !voted on the basis that it was the same as " Killing with laser-guided munitions in the name of Democracy" -- it's clearly not, for the aforesaid reason, and thus that's not an appropriate basis for deletion ... far from it ... and one of those editors admitted not doing a search to see the extensive coverage of the topic, so would have missed the fact that it is covered thusly in scholarly literature and RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a better start, already done for Judaism Capital_punishment_in_Judaism. They have a nice diversity - one can choose between stoning, strangulation, beheading, or burning. Which one of those is the most barbarous? You could for example, create Beheading and religion, that did a survey of how different religious texts viewed beheading. But just having one article, just about Islam, is going too far...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could address this in many ways appropriately. It is all encyclopaedic content -- though of course some people will be more interested in actions taken in 2013 than in historical actions. I've pointed out where I think delete !votes were grounded on baseless assertions. But one could have: a) (if there is enough material) stand-alones, and one could have discussion of such things in articles in b) the religion in question, or the religious law in question, or the action in question, or the crime in question, for example. Or all of those. As to your comment that "having one article, just about Islam, is going too far" ... that's not how we work. You can write articles about practices in other religions or groups or civilizations -- but we don't delete an article just because only one has been written ... one must always start with one, somewhere. Just as we have many "Abortion in ..." articles ... the thought that we would delete the very first one written, because the second and third and fourth and fifth had yet to be written, would be a hollow argument. Even if abortion is an emotional subject -- it is an encyclopaedic one, and with a number of such articles, one always starts somewhere, with the first. So it is here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but in this case, encyclopedic and neutral coverage of the topic would deem that you look at the question of how religion intersects with capital punishment, and we already have an article on that: Religion and capital punishment. One could also write an article on the question of Sharia and capital punishment, similar to what has been done with Judaism. That's fine too. But focusing on beheading is WP:UNDUE and violates NPOV, and is SYN/Coatrack/etc etc. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No -- that's flatly wrong. Just as it was not the case with the first "Abortion in ... " article. Not undue -- especially given that it is 1) a current practice, and 2) in accord with a strict reading of the main text of the religion. Not NPOV -- any more than any "abortion in" article -- though I imagine we would have POV editors attracted to discussions of deletions of those articles as well. And not coatrack -- there are scholarly texts and writings devoted to the subject. We don't just toss out innapplicable guidelines, and say they apply -- they have to apply in fact. Which they don't, here. Just as the "abortion in" articles are encyclopedic, so is this -- how it is reflected is a secondary issue, but !votes suggesting that it is not encyclopedic, including by editors who have not researched the issue of RS coverage, are deeply flawed. As are those comparing it to "missles used to kill for democracy," where there is no underlying seminal document that sanctions it, as is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No underlying seminal document? How about this one: [4]? Also, what exactly do you mean by "current practice"? By my count there are a few majority-muslim nations that use beheading as their form of execution. There are others which use different forms of execution. There are also lots of jihadists whose preferred method of death is bullets or bombs. There are a *few*, sensationalized cases, where people are beheaded instead - but these are much more rare, if you look at body counts, than regular old bombs and bullets. That's what makes this POV and UNDUE, as it's making a big deal out of something which is not that common. Again, Capital punishment in Islamic countries or Sharia law and capital punishment would be useful, encyclopedic and neutral articles. Not this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No -- that's flatly wrong. Just as it was not the case with the first "Abortion in ... " article. Not undue -- especially given that it is 1) a current practice, and 2) in accord with a strict reading of the main text of the religion. Not NPOV -- any more than any "abortion in" article -- though I imagine we would have POV editors attracted to discussions of deletions of those articles as well. And not coatrack -- there are scholarly texts and writings devoted to the subject. We don't just toss out innapplicable guidelines, and say they apply -- they have to apply in fact. Which they don't, here. Just as the "abortion in" articles are encyclopedic, so is this -- how it is reflected is a secondary issue, but !votes suggesting that it is not encyclopedic, including by editors who have not researched the issue of RS coverage, are deeply flawed. As are those comparing it to "missles used to kill for democracy," where there is no underlying seminal document that sanctions it, as is the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but in this case, encyclopedic and neutral coverage of the topic would deem that you look at the question of how religion intersects with capital punishment, and we already have an article on that: Religion and capital punishment. One could also write an article on the question of Sharia and capital punishment, similar to what has been done with Judaism. That's fine too. But focusing on beheading is WP:UNDUE and violates NPOV, and is SYN/Coatrack/etc etc. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You could address this in many ways appropriately. It is all encyclopaedic content -- though of course some people will be more interested in actions taken in 2013 than in historical actions. I've pointed out where I think delete !votes were grounded on baseless assertions. But one could have: a) (if there is enough material) stand-alones, and one could have discussion of such things in articles in b) the religion in question, or the religious law in question, or the action in question, or the crime in question, for example. Or all of those. As to your comment that "having one article, just about Islam, is going too far" ... that's not how we work. You can write articles about practices in other religions or groups or civilizations -- but we don't delete an article just because only one has been written ... one must always start with one, somewhere. Just as we have many "Abortion in ..." articles ... the thought that we would delete the very first one written, because the second and third and fourth and fifth had yet to be written, would be a hollow argument. Even if abortion is an emotional subject -- it is an encyclopaedic one, and with a number of such articles, one always starts somewhere, with the first. So it is here.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a better start, already done for Judaism Capital_punishment_in_Judaism. They have a nice diversity - one can choose between stoning, strangulation, beheading, or burning. Which one of those is the most barbarous? You could for example, create Beheading and religion, that did a survey of how different religious texts viewed beheading. But just having one article, just about Islam, is going too far...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There are many ways that this can be covered. That's one. And -- even if it is historical rather than current -- it is also encyclopaedic to cover what you point to. The suggestion by some above that the subject matter is not encyclopadic is belied by the scholarly and RS coverage. As to whether it is covered in a stand-alone or in one other article or a number of them, is a less significant matter I think. But the point I want to make is the above, and I think any delete !votes based on that bald assertion are misplaced. the same goes for delete !votes comparing it to other killings that are not based on something analagous to the Koran ... here we have a literal translation by some people and application by them of the Koran ... it is obviously not at all analagous to some of the poor counter-examples given above (e.g., two editors !voted on the basis that it was the same as " Killing with laser-guided munitions in the name of Democracy" -- it's clearly not, for the aforesaid reason, and thus that's not an appropriate basis for deletion ... far from it ... and one of those editors admitted not doing a search to see the extensive coverage of the topic, so would have missed the fact that it is covered thusly in scholarly literature and RSs).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, an article on Crime and Punishment in Sharia as split off from Sharia would be acceptable, discussing different forms of execution and punishment permitted under sharia law. This one, not so much - it's sensationalistic. I just looked at the list of "last" executions - France, Germany, Switzerland, their last execution, EVER, was a beheading - for all three of those countries! They still aren't chopping heads off because they abolished capital punishment - but if they restored capital punishment, who's to say they wouldn't start again? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a specific reference or two to it in the Koran, and of course it relates to hudud within sharia law, so there are encyclopaedic elements that are appropriate to cover in some fashion. And are even just with regard to hudud, there are many scholarly publications (see also these scholarly articles) dealing variously with punishment and with sharia law that discuss beheading in Islam. But that is not to say by any means that it is the only religion or society or movement that has engaged in the practice or that have texts which, if taken literally, support the practice.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - many of the comments on this page make assertions that seem to reveal that they have not read the page as it now stands, and are not familiar with discussions of decapitation in Islam.Rembrandt Peale (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I did look at the beheading article before I started this page, and now again after reading this discussion. Moving this material to beheading seems incorrect to me on two gorunds. One is that beheading is already enormous to the point of unwieldiness. More importantly, however, the great difference is that the material on that page are of merely historical interest. In Islam, by contrast, beheading is actively practices. Moreover, it is actively practiced and advocated by individuals and groups with a well-articulated argument that the ideology of Islam specifically mandates decapitation as a preferred means of execution. It is this ideology of beheading in contemporary Islam thatRembrandt Peale (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Obiwankenobi is right. Going with Capital punishment in Islamic countries or Sharia law and capital punishment would be far more useful to the reader, encyclopedic and neutral. Not this one. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So far, most arguments in favour of deletion amount to "I don't like it", "I don't like the name", or "I don't like the context". These are all irrelevant arguments, and should be dismissed. If the title is offensive, change it, if the article is badly written, rewrite it, and if you simply don't like it, don't comment here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately this Project Page is now resembling a vitriolic message board, where the politically correct "check-in" to scold others about POV, "neutrality", encyclopedic content, etc. The decision by Brocach to undo the switch to the clearly less controversial title "Beheading in Islam", and back to its original title has precipitated further grumbling disguised as debate. To all editors, choose your instrument, and improve the article consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into either Beheading or Religion and Capital Punishment. Every part of the current article is disturbingly NPOV, even the name. It is not clear why beheading in Islam deserves an article separate from capital punishment in Islam; the easiest way to solve both NPOV and notability problems is to merge it. Marechal Ney (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - Rembrandt Peale (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of Historicist (talk · contribs). nableezy - 05:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per WP:NOTESSAY & WP:ORIGINALSYN. --JetBlast (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Obviously the sock's !vote should be ignored in the close of this discussion. As to Nab crossing out each comment -- when I did the same in the past, I was told that that was not appropriate. And that what I should do instead is leave a note after each such comment. And I have conformed my behavior in similar instances in the years since. I don't care either way overly -- as I said, I initially did what Nab has done. But would appreciate comment as to whether the cross-outs of the comments here is an acceptable approach ... if so, I will happily revert to the practice. If not, perhaps we should have the cross-outs changed above to notes below each such comment. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. A7: no assertion of notability, A3, no substantial content Acroterion (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alec Oxenford[edit]
- Alec Oxenford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not explicitly, clearly, and credibly state why Alec Oxenford is notable. smileguy91talk 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 01:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agecroft Rowing Club[edit]
- Agecroft Rowing Club (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 sports club. No references at all although the article has been around since 2008. Fails WP:NSPORT. Velella Velella Talk 11:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Faizan -Let's talk! 12:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. czar · · 18:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The relevant notability guideline for this article about a sports club is WP:ORG, not WP:NSPORT, a guideline that should not "apply to sports clubs and teams; for these the specific notability guideline is WP:ORG." Thanks for putting this article on my radar. There are several sources out there about this club, especially since it has been around since 1823. I'll see if I can improve it and add sources to support the statements that are already there. Although this is not a valid keep argument, please notice that many articles in Category:Rowing clubs in England and Category:Rowing clubs in the United States are old, stubs, and/or not well-sourced, including Los Gatos Rowing Club for example. - tucoxn\talk 03:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've also posted a comment on the talk page of WP:WikiProject Rowing... perhaps they'll be interested in improving the article. - tucoxn\talk 04:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 03:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not meet WP:ORG; all three refs available online are only passing mentions. Miniapolis 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ymblanter (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete fails WP:ORG. Coverage refers mainly to people involved with club rather than actual coverage of the club. LibStar (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 01:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kelton Research[edit]
- Kelton 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)
WP:N not established. The article has been used as an advertisement ever since 2009, with a few industry award websites as the only secondary sources. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP- This article is not an advertisement, but is an accurate description of the company Kelton, and contains multiple secondary sources, including industry awards websites and an article from the financial times. There is no reason to delete this article, any changes that you think should be made should be specifically noted so that they can be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgalinsky (talk • contribs) 20:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 'keep' implied from text, added to help a new user and give formatting tedder (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also noting the number of single purpose accounts that have edited this page, usually about this same time of year:
- Pgalinsky (talk · contribs)
- Jeffsilber (talk · contribs)
- KeltonResearch2 (talk · contribs)
- tedder (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable. Though the company has facilitated multiple research surveys, they unfortunately do not have coverage specific to the company itself. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 22:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Kelton is a strategy consultancy that creates consumer-oriented business solutions. They create brand relevance and resonance for their clients, by interpreting insights, developing strategies, and creating solutions designed to deliver on consumer desires. Excuse me while I barf. The article is big on buzzwords but totally lacking in substantial coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:CORP. --MelanieN (talk) 23:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- weak delete One can always find a promotional sentence and use it as characteristic of the entire article--I do not think that a fair argument. . The article actually consists of a list of awards (mostly minor) , a list of services ( that ought to be removed), and description of the work for a very few major clients ( which might be encyclopedic content) . As for awards, . Personally, I think we should stop recognizing awards as "top 100 in city", "100 fastest growing", and especially, "100 fastest growing in city" -- they are intrinsically either local, not yet notable, or both. This particular firm is 51st among the top 100 in its field. I don;t know how far down we should go, but it's borderline., and for borderline we should e insist on better sources. 'DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete as an article created by a blocked/banned user. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nickaang. --B (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Julie Fredrickson[edit]
- Julie Fredrickson (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)
Already removed on source that was inaccurately attributed to a fact, but looking at these sources, they seem user driven or unreliable. Appears to be a vanity article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 19:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just referenced the fact from a book and also from WWD and The New York Times. She is a well known figure in fashion space. Kindly, check.--TankThank (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've put the source back using proper citation and i think the topic passes WP:GNG.--TankThank (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG. INeverCry 20:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I also think the coverage in reliable sources is lacking. The one source that I think is truly reliable that was cited is by Huffington Post but I feel the content of that article in the Huffington Post does not help to establish the notability of this article. —Σosthenes12 Talk 20:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cited from sources like Pando Daily, Today (U.S. TV program), New York (magazine), The New York Observer, The New York Times, The Huffington Post, The Sydney Morning Herald, WWD, Gawker hoping that it meets WP:BASIC. Also, there are books where she has been mentioned including Milwaukee Magazine.--TankThank (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've looked at the sources in the article. Whilst a couple are subject-written, and many of them are not in-depth coverage, I think the subject certainly passes general notability as she and her work are discussed by third parties, her role in fashion blogging is certainly acknowledged, and she does have a certain notoriety and has been a known name since the mid-2000s. Certainly well known enough in 2006 to be named as the highest profile victim of Glamour (magazine)'s Glamour Don'ts launch [5]. Certainly I've seen enough that I have no objection to there being an article on her, although no very strong feelings either way. Mabalu (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, significant amount of referencing, and coverage among secondary sources. — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. J04n(talk page) 01:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Peter Lee (martial artist)[edit]
- Peter Lee (martial artist) (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)
Notability not demonstrated despite tagging since 2010. WP:PROD was removed by the subject himself. He is probably a great martial artist and a fun guy, but he doesn't meet the notability requirement in WP:BIO. The best independent source seems to be an article in the Lithgow Mercury which doesn't even get the name of his style right. For the Jedi connection there is a link to an ABC video which cannot be viewed outside Australia. – Fayenatic London 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see significant independent coverage or that he meets WP:MANOTE.Mdtemp (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree - a collection of non-notable associations (several show up only in this article) or passing contact (a visit to Russia). The subject clearly wants to be notable but well - isn't.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. There's enough to disambiguate, and the station article is surely coming. Frankly, the nominator did not express a cogent rationale for deletion. Seem like a pretty unnecessary AfD. -- Y not? 14:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kotelniki (disambiguation)[edit]
- Kotelniki (disambiguation) (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 which points to 4 articles only one of which is an actual article. Seems unnecessary. Samwalton9 (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per G6 as unnecessary disambiguation page. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree: Special:WhatLinksHere/Kotelniki_(Moscow_Metro). --TarzanASG (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case a hatnote can be placed on top of the Kotelniki article if/when an article on the Moscow Metro station is created. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. WP:DABRL in its current form is one of the most brain-dead guidelines Wikipedia has, and there seems to be no sane way around it apart from creating an article. With that in mind, I've created a substub on the village in Perm Krai so the technical requirements are now met; it sure beats placing hatnotes now only to remove them later when the village entry qualifies anyway. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 22, 2013; 18:15 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse Lipscombe[edit]
- Jesse Lipscombe (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 person and entirely self-promotional. As an actor, he has had a string of questionably significant roles, and his athletic and business careers are even less notable. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SPEEDY DELETE A7 - NN. Not enough sources to assert notability. Fluff piece written by paid editors at his promo company. -- Alexf(talk) 17:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Adam Blade#Sea Quest. LFaraone 03:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sea Quest (book)[edit]
- Sea Quest (book) (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 de-prodded by author. The article is about a book which appears to not have been the subject of enough significant, reliable coverage. A search reveals mainly sites selling the book, excerpts of the book, or promotional stuff. No reviews, no etc. Author's username indicates a possible conflict of interest. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Should the COI creator be blocked as spamusername? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). --Drm310 (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Adam Blade#Sea Quest. It is the work of a notable author, but this particular book/series has insufficient notability to stand on its own, so a redirect is warranted. Safiel (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I agree with Safiel. The book definitely does not have the notability to stand by itself and its page is basically a poor summary. However, it is the work of a notable author. Although I think deleting the page is a very viable option, turning it into a redirect may be better. —Σosthenes12 Talk 20:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Redirect per the above two. Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. I don't think that this is a promotional account, I really don't- at least not in the sense that it's someone who was paid to come on here and edit. I think that this is the case of a younger reader (probably a child) coming on to add his or her favorite series to Wikipedia. I hope he or she doesn't take this the wrong way, but usually the people who are paid to create articles usually have more finesse in their writing and are more inclined to include puffery. This reads like it's someone who is about 6-10 years old (ie, the target age group of these books), and as such is someone who is pretty unfamiliar with the basics in general here on Wikipedia. I don't know that banning is a good thing just yet- let's try giving them a little help in learning the ropes first. In any case, this series just started publishing and it hasn't received much coverage at all just yet, so I think it's a little premature to have an article for SQ right now. Maybe in the future, but for now this is suitable to redirect to the main article for the Beast Quest series (which is what the author redirects to). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This post on JimofBleak's page seems to confirm that it was added by a younger person. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was unaware that we already had an article for Blade, so a redirect probably wouldn't hurt either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: I believe it's all already been said. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - (Chocolate Cakes) 10:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ExposedVocals[edit]
- ExposedVocals (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)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
Non-notable company. Coverage of the company amounts to local publicity-based coverage (the lede of the article (as of this version goes so far as to assert that local media coverage was the result of publicity efforts on the part of the CEO). No broader coverage outside of some blogs to be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to add more notable sources and removed CEO publicity actions. This is a well established company that has not focused on press efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Editing the article so that it no longer claims that the press coverage was the result of a dedicated publicity blitz does not alter that fact. The inclusion of that fact in the article is not the problem; the fact itself is the problem. The Shorty Awards nomination is just that, a nomination. Even a win of this award would be of questionable value in terms of meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The FedEx grant nomination appears to be a self-nomination. ExposedVocals wants this money, and may get it if enough people vote for them, but there is no indication they have yet been awarded the grant, and again, even if they are, that is not really a source of notability per Wikipedia standards. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will continue to add more notable sources including their Twitter account with over 30,000 followers. What is considered notable according to Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 19:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The twitter account is irrelevant. As to what does constitute notability at Wikipedia, please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:General notability guidelines. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why is this being deleted? Exposed Vocals has been around for sometime now and are pretty well known. YungOne123 (talk) 10:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)— YungOne123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment I think the problem is; Wikipedia is not finding enough notable publication of whom recognized Exposed Vocals an an authoritative source. Regardless of how popular the website is to the Indie Community all over the world. We will be editing the article throughout the day by adding more notable news sources. Thanks for your feedback! Dowinket (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have looked, and can't find any reliable sources. Mdann52 (talk) 12:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a delete vote by Mdann52 (talk · contribs) that shows up when editing this page, but not after the page is published. Not sure what kind if WikiBug that is. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't understand the problem with Exposed vocals.It is a true account,true service.What Exposed vocals does is a much needed service and a good one.With exposed vocals Gold members get exposure to a wide variety of other services such as record labels,talent agencies,interviews designed to provide opportunities for him or her to move forward within their carreer as an artist.It would be sad not to Keep Exposed vocals.If you are considering removing Exposed vocals please evaluate the pros and cons of your decision.Exposed vocals,understands the struggle that most Unsigned Artists and Bands go through. Exposed vocals strives to level the playing field increasing the probability of business success for their members and the monthly fee of 2.99 is well worth the service. .
ShirleyMae Smith (sherockit62) member — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.37.162.171 (talk • contribs)
Neuroleptic : Keep the page. I think it's a true service which is expanding and it deserves a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.51.98.26 (talk • contribs)
Catalyst: Keep, exposed vocals is a very great site for unsigned artist getting exposure and a very great way to get them signed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.198.77.178 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the following has appeared on the companies Facebook page;
Who wants to help Exposed Vocals fight this battle? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExposedVocals Let them know we belong!
Therefore, can we get semi-protection on here? Mdann52 (talk) 16:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm confused.. Is there something wrong with raising awareness about an article that is in the process of being deleted? The comment on the Exposed Vocals page is simply asking for help arguing the case. Please show me where this is meant to be kept secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:Canvassing points out the guidelines on this practice. In this case it's pointless because, as pointed out at the top of this page, this discussion is not a vote, it's a discussion that should be based on Wikipedia policies. None of the people coming to this discussion based on the Facebook post have addressed policies at all. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's assuming they came here based on the Facebook post. Since Wikipedia emphasizes so much on facts, let's keep assumptions out of this and focus on the discussion. There may be people closer associated with Exposed Vocals that could help argue this case and I don't think there is anything wrong bringing to the attention of the masses. Dowinket (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, that is an assumption I made. But whether it's valid or not, there have been a number of users contributing to this discussion who have never edited Wikipedia before, and who have made no useful contribution to this discussion. Remember, "I like it" is a weak argument to make at AFD. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Based on the nature of the IPs and accounts here, I've filed an SPI. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good job Luke. I hope you catch some bad guys. The bottom line is, these are real people with legit concerns. Not fake accounts or people pretending to defend this article. I'm sorry these aren't the seasoned wiki elite that you are used to but they deserve to share their opinions just the same. Dowinket (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... you do realize you're included in that SPI? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure I understand the significance of that. What does that mean? What do you hope to accomplish generating these reports?Dowinket (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand. I also understand now the significance of having such a system. It is important that this is a fair and balanced discussion. What happens when this report is determined that these are very real people with legit concerns? What do you do then? Do you apologize for the accusation or do you move on to more aggressive smear campaigns?Dowinket (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... you do realize you're included in that SPI? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: A search on Google yields nothing but their own website and a number of selfpublished sources such as Twitter and Youtube. In other words nothing that makes them notable. Thomas.W (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: That is a false claim. There are a number of articles written on the subject. Killerstartups.com (A prominent tech blog for startups published a review), The Patch News published reviews, Offline print such as the Record-review and new york monthly have also done reviews. All can be found on a simple Google search within the first few pages. Dowinket (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not used to being accused of making false claims, but since the accusation was made by a user with 34 edits, all of them on pages directly connected to ExposedVocals, I don't really take it seriously. Thomas.W (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm Sorry, I do not mean to offend you. However, you are stating "A search on Google yields nothing but their own website and a number of selfpublished sources such as Twitter and Youtube." That is not true and anyone reading this could search "Exposed Vocals" in Google and read all of the reviews. Please explain how the Front page of Google lists 7 sources and you've only named 3? Dowinket (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- um.... Of the first 10 results on Google, 1 is the official website, 6 are the Companies Social media sites, 2 are unreliable identical interviews, and 1 is a borderline-reliable source. No Significant coverage by the looks. Please stop putting comment continuously too.... Mdann52 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm Sorry, I do not mean to offend you. However, you are stating "A search on Google yields nothing but their own website and a number of selfpublished sources such as Twitter and Youtube." That is not true and anyone reading this could search "Exposed Vocals" in Google and read all of the reviews. Please explain how the Front page of Google lists 7 sources and you've only named 3? Dowinket (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not used to being accused of making false claims, but since the accusation was made by a user with 34 edits, all of them on pages directly connected to ExposedVocals, I don't really take it seriously. Thomas.W (talk) 19:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails GNG, ORG, and its existence here is being prolonged by a whole bunch of SPAs (some of whom attempt to be constructive, others whom don't) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 00:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Judging the article on its merits, I have checked the fist 100 results in Google, and found nothing usable. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep The unsigned artists community is constantly searching for resources to help expose their music. Since when is an encyclopedia based strictly on press coverage? Shouldn't Exposed Vocals get a page because it is another source of reliable information? Basically, Google dictates what Wikipedia publishes. The media dictates what Wikipedia publishes. This really has nothing to do with searchable resources? I find that hard to believe... Dowinket (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dowinket (talk • contribs) 21:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Please note that User:Dowinket has voted twice, once signing his post and once without signing it. Thomas.W (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Acting like that, when you've clearly broken the rules, is inappropriate. I've struck the duplicate vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Luke, stating repetitively delete, with out adding anything constructive is inappropriate. Accusing Myself and others who support this article of being sockpockets was inappropriate and it turned out you were wrong. I will continue to add New constructive things to add to this argument. Will you continue to be repetitive and just repeat what others say or with you eventually add something new? Dowinket (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize if I am coming off rude. I seriously mean that. I find I am constantly being accused and attacked from every angle. I am simply defending myself and this article. I am working really hard to continue to add notable sources to the article and add constructive arguments. If forget to sign a post; I am accused of duplicating a keep vote. That wasn't my intent. I was told not to use comment so often. Instead I choose to use keep. I didn't look at it like a vote because we did not come here to vote. I seriously want to have a constructive discussion with you guys but you keep filing every report to smear users who would like the article to stay and making numerous blocking attempts to get this discussion over. This page is now semi-protected so that more people cannot contribute. This is unfair and the fact that this article is not being included Wikipedia is simply unhelpful. Dowinket (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have not repeatedly stated delete. My striking of your second vote is well within policy. My SPI wasn't inappropriate, quite the reverse. The page was protected due to canvassed IPs and/or accounts that were being disruptive. It is common practice within AfD debates when canvassing has occurred, to stop COI people from getting involved. No one has "smeared" anyone. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ok, can we just move forward with this discussion then? I would really like to hear more than just people pointing out policy or guidelines. Dowinket (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You still don't seem to get it. AfD is all about policy, rules and guidelines since that is what determines if an article that has been proposed for deletion will be deleted or not. That's why posts like "I like ExposedVocals so the article should stay" have no influence on the outcome, no matter how many of those "votes" there are. Thomas.W (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Killerstartups.com is one of the worlds most prominent sites that do reviews on todays best online platforms. Does the fact they recognized Exposed Vocals and ran a front page feature story show notability? Dowinket (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Artificial gills (human)[edit]
- Artificial gills (human) (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 describes a theoretical technology that has not even been attempted yet, may not be possible at all, and is at best in the realm of science fiction. It fails WP:Not_a_crystal_ball and has absolutely no notability to speak of whatsoever. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn by nominator due to new information and the recommendation for improved article sourcing and information.— Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 20:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though I agree with Falerin that this technology is under development and not yet possible, I disagree that this technology is in the realm of science fiction. As seen in the papers and abstracts that are cited, this very well could be practical in the foreseeable future. However, having said that, it is in large part the market that drives science and it does not seem from what has been cited that this is a huge priority to the public. If it were, any progress in this technology would have more coverage and more papers would be available showing its feasibility and eventual practical manifestations. For this reason, despite the possibility and development of artificial gills, I think it does not bear enough notability and should be deleted for now until it becomes more notable. —Σosthenes12 Talk 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I found many independent 1st class sources on the topic in seconds. These include the BBC, New York Times, New Scientist, LiveScience, various less notable magazines, lots of academic references and page upon page of on-topic hits on Google Books going back decades. Am I missing something here or is this a painfully obvious keep? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Maury Markowitz is on point. Great amount of material. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 23:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Pusillanimous - Maury Markowitz is correct. Jtowler (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The issue I see with that is that almost all of those articles concern Liquid Breathing systems which are at best inaccurately described as artificial gills (our own disambiguation page in fact states "An inaccurate term for liquid breathing breathing sets." or standalone systems that extract oxygen from seawater. While both might colloquially be termed "artificial gills" neither is actually artificial gills. While inventors may well have colloquially described liquid ventilation systems and oxygen extraction systems as artificial gills. None of them are actually mechanical and artificial replications of gills that can be installed in a human being and allow him to breathe water freely. They are in fact liquid breathing or extraction systems which belong in the appropriate spaces. To term them artificial gills is to encourage a misnomer and it is questionable that misnomer warrants an article beyond the correctly named articles for those topics which already exist. From what I can tell from the scientific literature which I have perused at length the prospect of true artificial gills is well off and would involve major changes to the human circulatory system. To be gills they need to be implantable similar to the artificial heart or artificial lungs not a segregate device. If there was a brand name product called "Artificial Gills" or if scientists were to uniformly accept that term for these devices I might see an argument for inclusion but neither of those things is true. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 17:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read the sources that Maury found and I was shocked that I did not see them before. My understanding of a liquid breathing system corresponds to oxygen-rich liquids, such as perfluorocarbons, filling a lung which then extracts oxygen from the fluid. My understanding of an artificial gill is a device that can extract oxygen from surrounding water whether or not the device is actually implanted into the human body. The New York Times article seems to describe the latter where components of hemoglobin and other oxygen-binding proteins are bound to a substrate and are functionally capable of removing oxygen from the surrounding water and releasing oxygen for use by the diver. If the Wikipedia article is improved with content and sources like that presented by Maury then I would change my mind and keep the article.—Σosthenes12 Talk 18:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Comment I would tend to concur. If the article can be adequately improved and appropriately sourced I would have far less issue than I have now. I suppose I withdraw my own nomination in light of expanding information. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in light of sources found above. --Cyclopiatalk 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Admin note: Can one of the closing admins close with Speedy #1? Nom has been withdrawn. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I would self close but hesitate because there was a prior other delete vote other than my own by Sosethenes even if it was subsequently modified so technically according to AfD procedure I should not. I have however followed procedure and updated immediately beneath the nomination with my withdrawal — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 20:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SN Systems[edit]
- SN Systems (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)
Corporate puffery. It's a business, of which there are very many. Why is this one important, distinctive or notable by 3rd party sourcing? See also ProDG (software). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - While I find plenty of mentions of the company being bought by Sony, there is virtually no mention of them prior to that time. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 14:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - SN Systems were winning awards for their software back in 1999, before being bought by SCE: 1999 FRONT LINE AWARDS FINALISTS & WINNERS SnClee (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep They are a major player in video game development and have been for decades. Hard to find general references for because they're a fact of life if you're a game developer. Working on it. - Richfife (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a reliable source per Wikipedia standards, but it makes the point: testimonials. - Richfife (talk) 20:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Significant amount of RS coverage thus it meets the GNG. Considering the length of the "ProDG (software)" article, I see no problem with merging that one into "SN Systems" for the time being, but there seems to be enough RS coverage of even "ProDG (software)" to merit a standalone article down the road. Outright deletion of either article per the noms would be unhelpful. -Thibbs (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arnaud Chevalier[edit]
- Arnaud Chevalier (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)
Tagged last November as an ad, lacking citations and lacking notability. Since October 2012 a single user has persistently added marketing BS, exclusively citing promotional statements made by the subject. There are no claims or citations supporting notability, and no editorial coverage. The single "magazine" is a 200 page ad book. My favorite part is the claim that he is "Discreet about his life", and there are other enjoyable whoppers - but I feel the fun must come to an end. This user has not edited any other page on WP. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG in all regards. Nixie9✉ 13:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Nixie9. See also the blogs as references, thus violating WP:BLOGJeff5102 (talk) 19:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Riddled with preening puffery such as "the first to claim through his creations and the media for a historical and cultural understanding of art". Really? The first? The equivalent article on the French Wikipedia was deleted in Oct-Nov 2012 (roughly the same timespan when the English article was created): "Unanimité : notoriété douteuse, non sourcé". Evidence of the subject's notability is no more evident here. AllyD (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Caio César Tavera[edit]
- Caio César Tavera (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)
Challenged PROD, concern was "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league." No indication that the player meets notability standards. C679 13:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 13:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Are the stats in the infobox correct? If he has played for Cruzeiro or Atalanta then he would meet the criteria. Number 57 14:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Stats and articles for Cruzeiro and Atalanta indicate he is or has been a player for these teams. Almost all drafted NFL players have a page whether they talk or not they ever play in a game this should be no different for Association Football. — Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 15:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No idea about the NFL comment; there is no indication this is a NFL player. Stats in the infobox for first two teams were not supported by any reference, I have updated the infobox to reflect this. C679 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 18:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He is not. That was not the point; the point is what is good for the NFL is good for association football. I can see no coherent reason that different standards should be applied unless we are encouraging a US bias. I personally have no vested interest either way as I have little to no interest in athletics at all of any sort but I do have interest in avoiding systemic bias.— Falerin<talk>,<contrib> 17:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's absolutely no reason to suggest that the NFL "policy" on Wikipedia is correct. This (association football) player hasn't made a significant impact in his profession and WP:NFOOTY specifically excludes players whose only "contribution" is sitting on the bench, which appears to be the case here. C679 05:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Hasn't played in anything other than regional/state leagues which contain plenty of amateur clubs. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Klondike Gold Rush. As per Peterkingiron (t c), the content is already present in the main article -- nothing to merge. —Darkwind (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Atlas of the Klondike Gold Rush[edit]
- Atlas of the Klondike Gold Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not really sure what to think of this page. It's currently an unsourced orphan, but both of these can probably be solved by editing. But is this kind of article what we want/need on Wikipedia? We should have articles where these images are used to support and illustrate the text, not articles where the images are basically the only information in the article. It's perhaps slightly more than WP:NOTGALLERY, but is it sufficient? And if we do add text, then isn't it just a fork of Klondike Gold Rush? Fram (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Klondike Gold Rush. I can't see how it needs an article of its own, and any information added to give context and move away from WP:NOTGALLERY is likely to duplicate the other article. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Merge Most of this information already exists at Klondike Gold Rush#Appendix which is where it should have remained. User:Soerfm has been making good image-centric contributions but I welcome him/her to discuss proposed forks on the talk page before going ahead. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Klondike Gold Rush. In fact, it may merely be "redirect" as the maps appear to be appneded to that article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Iñigo Echepare[edit]
- Iñigo Echepare (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)
Believe he fails WP:NFOOTBALL Hasn't yet played in a fully professional league Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. – Michael (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - never played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Bolton[edit]
- Daniel Bolton (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)
My listing this article does not constitute a !vote on my part: I have not reviewed the article at all. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 11:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]This article is nominated as a contested prod. This person is not notable and there has been no attempt to establish notability at all.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 12:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not inherited, and it seems that the only reason this article was created was because the wrestler in question briefly was signed to one of WWE's development territories. — Richard BB 22:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The key word in Richard's comment above is briefly because he wasn't even employed in the developmental territory that long by the looks of it. The subject just seems to all around fail to meet GNG.LM2000 (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think like LM2000 --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Korean Cold War[edit]
- Korean Cold War (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 simply a remix of information already covered in Division of Korea, Northern Limit Line, Korean maritime border incidents, Korean Demilitarized Zone, Korean DMZ Conflict (1966–69), Bombardment of Yeonpyeong and others. Page was previously deleted in 2011 but was unilaterally reinstated by Greyshark09 Mztourist (talk) 10:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have completed this nomination but do not at this time offer an opinion on this article. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly change the title. The article was not "restored in its original form" from 2011, but was actually expanded from the section on military tensions in the Korean peninsula (Division of Korea article).Greyshark09 (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reconsidered, see below.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to Division of Korea as duplicate. It's a cut and paste of the other article (which itself offers a good overview of the conflict). It may be possible to have a separate article called something like Timeline of the conflict in Korea, moving material from the older and longer article - but I don't think it's long enough to need that. It's not reasonable to have the exact same content duplicated in 2 articles with different titles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect I agree with Colapeninsula to redirect it to Division of Korea as it is very similar. Perhaps the non-overlapping information from Korean Cold War can be moved Division of Korea? —Σosthenes12 Talk 21:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The above reasons for redirect are fine, but the whole concept of this article displays incorrect historical periodization. I would guess the original author meant to convey the series of border conflicts between ROK and DPRK; that information is already covered in Korean Demilitarized Zone. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the nominator said this is content forking of Division of Korea Pug6666 20:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - considering my second review of Division of Korea, i withdraw my keep vote, should be a redirect. We should however rename "Division of Korea" to "Korean conflict" or "Korean dispute" to make the title fit content.Greyshark09 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the subject of this article has been mentioned once by a reliable sources but the term is rarely used and in that single mention it is not given significant coverage, therefore although the period of time obviously exists the term may not be its common name and the content (as stated above) already covered in other related articles.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robson Chavez Santana[edit]
- Robson Chavez Santana (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)
Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG Oleola (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - never played in a fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means the article fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of coverage in reliable sources. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, even though I think the "delete" side had a much stronger argument when it came to lack of independent sourcing. There were a lot of assertions of notability on the "keep" side that lack evidence to back them up, also some of the arguments there are irrelevant (arguing that the tournament is notable is not equivalent to arguing that we should have the squad lists in separate articles.)
Still, with a clear majority opposed to deletion it would be a stretch to say that there is consensus here. Also, I cannot see a policy that mandates deletion outright (WP:N is a guideline) since the content here does appear to be verifiable, at least through the tournament's homepage. As such, the option of merging with the individual tournaments remains an alternative even though some have expressed reservations about the idea since they would take up a lot of space. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Toulon Tournament squads[edit]
- 2013 Toulon Tournament squads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An important (but not the most important) youth soccer tournament: no objection to an article for every year of the tournament. But an article for the squads playing at the tournament in any given year seems like serious overkill. At first glance, this seems to be the only youth invitational tournament to get this treatment (Category:Association football tournament squads, some other articles in this cat or subcats probably need deletion as well). No evidence in any of the nominated articles that these squads have received significant attention as a separate subject in reliable, independent sources. Even the tournaments themselves are hardly sourced, but for these sources can be found with some effort. The squad articles though fail WP:N. Fram (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated are
- 2012 Toulon Tournament squads
- 2011 Toulon Tournament squads
- 2010 Toulon Tournament squads
- 2009 Toulon Tournament squads
- 2008 Toulon Tournament squads
- 2007 Toulon Tournament squads
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:34, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (OF COURSE) Are serious? Or are kidding? Because you just can be kidding. EVERY article about an tournament needs an squad article. It's pretty important to know who is playing in that tournament and this is also for posterity. THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I'm telling. The biggest problem in this encyclopedia is unfortunately the excess of bureaucrats. Rules are important, but this guys who want to DELETE ALL wikipedia are really unnecessary. They don't contibute anything with this encyclopedia. If they could, they would delete Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo articles. We have to be here discussing obvious things with these people. Trying to argument that the Earth is round.--SirEdimon (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any argument based in policy? And no, of course we don't want to delete Messi cs, I don't even want to delete the articles on the individual Toulon tournaments. Fram (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EVERY article about an tournament needs an squad article. It's pretty important to know who is playing in that tournament and this is also for posterity. THIS IS FUNDAMENTAL. I never ever seen somebody nominate a squad article for deletion before. Because when you have an tournament article, you have a squad article. They're attached. One is an integral and fundamental part of another one.--SirEdimon (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it has long been an unwritten rule at WP:FOOTBALL (and we are hoping to get them written down sooner rather than later!) that tournament squad lists like these are notable. Articles needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 12:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree with the nominator, not every tournament should have its own article which lists the squads, and certainly not youth friendly tournaments. Mentoz86 (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not only a "youth friendly tournaments" as you said. That's is one of the most important youth tournaments in all the world. This squad-article is inherent to the main article.--SirEdimon (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is one of the most important youth tournaments in the world, I still believe it isn't important enough to warrant an independent squad-article. If you look at 2012 King's Cup, which is similar to the Toulon Tournament, the squads are listed in the parent article, why can't the same be done with these articles? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the same. Not even close. 2012 King's Cup is a four-team tournament with almost unimportant teams (such as Denmark B and Thailand). Toulon is much more important. Seven (from 10) teams in this tournament will be in 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup. At first I did not object to this kind of thing (a parent article), but I think Toulon is important enough to have a squad-article.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is similar becauase it is a friendly invitational tournament, the difference is that the Toulon Tournament fields under-20 teams while the 2012 King's Cup fields two senior national teams, one B-team and one under-23 team. No-one in this discussion argues that the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup should have an squad-article, I just think the Toulon Tournament is below the bar where squad-articles are notable. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the same. Not even close. 2012 King's Cup is a four-team tournament with almost unimportant teams (such as Denmark B and Thailand). Toulon is much more important. Seven (from 10) teams in this tournament will be in 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup. At first I did not object to this kind of thing (a parent article), but I think Toulon is important enough to have a squad-article.--SirEdimon (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it is one of the most important youth tournaments in the world, I still believe it isn't important enough to warrant an independent squad-article. If you look at 2012 King's Cup, which is similar to the Toulon Tournament, the squads are listed in the parent article, why can't the same be done with these articles? Mentoz86 (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The tournament is very notable, alot of players were scouted in Toulon, a squad list help to know who played in the tournament. Not all unofficial tournaments should have a squad list, but if there's one which should have is this. --Threeohsix (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable prestigious tournament, one of the top-level youth competition in summer. NickSt (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If we put the squads in the main article we may risk a WP:UNDUE-problem.Jeff5102 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: many keeps, but none of them offers any policy-based (or guideline-based) arguments. Fram (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge each into that year's tournament page. Presently the squad and tourney pages have very little text and are just tables, I don't see why they couldn't be combined. J04n(talk page) 14:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into each year's tournament page, per J04n. Per WP:NFOOTY, "Youth players are not notable unless...they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG". Miniapolis 23:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No policy-based reason to keep the pages nominated, and I don't believe that there is much that needs to be merged either. What exactly would be merged, as opposed to what straight deletion would accomplish? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Darkwind (talk) 01:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpKey[edit]
- OpKey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely non-notable product and not RSes to currently support it Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Can't find anything on Google aside from a number of forum posts and an MW3 product, none of which would satisfy WP:RS. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 09:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 09:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bee and Flower. (non-admin closure) czar · · 07:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dana Schechter[edit]
- Dana Schechter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
vanity piece, created by the subject; self-published references means WP:BLPPROD cannot apply. there are few or no reliable sources Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 07:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I declined the BLPPROD because the article was created before March 18, 2010 and has references; however, I recommended PRODing if deletion was believed uncontroversial. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 08:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bee and Flower, her band. That article is itself proposed for deletion, but consensus is tending towards keeping it. She's not notable apart from the band. (However if Bee and Flower is deleted, I'd suggest deleting this as well.) --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 10:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bee and Flower per Colapeninsula, assuming the band's page is kept; if not, then delete. Gong show 19:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) czar · · 07:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln Land express[edit]
- Lincoln Land express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources, company does not exist any longer, mainly contains negative information about company written possibly by a competitor. AlmostGrad (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found some references by searching for LEX Express, and I think that notability is now established. The negative tone of the article is justified by the facts. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wow, I had no clue LEX was closed down. They've been around a long time, and had a lot of press. Maybe not as much as Suburban's negative press, but it's enough to pass WP:GNG. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep since sources establish notability. The tone of the article might not be neutral, but that's not a reason for deletion. Edge3 (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering & Management Durgapur. This may be academic as that page is also up for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering & Management Durgapur. Probably best to keep this as only one discussion J04n(talk page) 15:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering and Management[edit]
- Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering and Management (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 private school, only references provided are the school brochure. I personally view this more as a promotion article but as schools are A7 exempt elected to bring it here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Appears to be a copy of Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering & Management Durgapur Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Durgapur, West Bengal#Education. It would seem reasonable that this might be a search term, perhaps, although it does not appear to be notable enough for its own article. Same also goes for the other article that it is a copy of. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 16:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Aryabhatta Institute of Engineering & Management Durgapur, which appears to be its official name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. LFaraone 03:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Craig Naven[edit]
- Craig Naven (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 footballer, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Not subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, hasn't played in a fully professional league Hack (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Evano1van(எவனோ ஓருவன்) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - so is this declaring that all NSL players, as opposed to A-League players are not presumed notable, as it was not fully professional? Do you know if the Glory, as a fairly "late entry" to the NSL was fully pro or not, or is it the league, and not the club, that is the test? WP:FPL isn't clear on the NSL. Completely WP:MUSTBESOURCES, but I would be almost certain that The West Australian would have done a profile piece on the twin brothers. But late 90's articles from that paper aren't online, and I'm not able to go searching the microfilms for that. The-Pope (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wilf Smarties[edit]
- Wilf Smarties (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 subject fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE criteria, as well as WP:BASIC requirements of substantial coverage by reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article does not meet WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 04:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject has some credits with notable artists (including Wet Wet Wet and Kylie Minogue), but I'm unable to find evidence that he satisfies WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Gong show 22:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alba String Quartet[edit]
- Alba String Quartet (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 most certainly fails to meet notability according to Wikipedia. There is precious little substance to be found about this band on Google News archive. I have decided not to go for speedy deletion as its better to gain consensus across the board.Bluidsports (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just spent 15-20 minutes looking for anything about this group. Couldn't find a thing. notability fail.Velvetchops (talk) 08:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Catfish Jim has made some strong points regarding the potential availability of printed sources regarding this band, and the strong suggestion of implied notability from their appearance on a major radio show. I'd emphasise, though, that sources do need to be added, and clearly identified in the case of printed media, so as to comply with the verifiability policy - but this has been to some extent done, so the earlier comments in favour of deletion may no longer be accurate. ~ mazca talk 15:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Fuse (Scottish band)[edit]
- The Fuse (Scottish band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly written and clutching at straws throughout, this article looks like it has been lingering on Wikipedia since 2008; attracting little attention from any editors thereafter. It has no citations and can't reveal anything on Google except that perennial favourite Myspace. Most certainly fails WP:MUS and looks like an advert for this erstwhile band. The biography is high on puffery, examples such as "created a buzz around northern Britain back in 2001": "played outstanding gigs at the infamous CBGB": "2005 saw a string of excellent gigs throughout the UK." Furthermore there is not a single review of their only album North Eastern Town to be located on Google. Au revoir. Bluidsports (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any evidence of notability: no reviews of their album, and while their name is very generic not seeing any results for it either. If someone has a bunch of old music magazines, they may be able to save this, but right now it's looking a very clear case for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable Myspace band. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve It's not written in accepted Wikipedia style and could do with a general reigning in of puffery, but there are hints of notability here. A lot of what's wrong here is that it appears to have been written by an enthusiastic fan rather than someone versed in WP convention. The article is badly in need of references, but as per WP:MUSBIO criterion 12:
- Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or TV network.
- The article states that they were featured in session on BBC Radio Scotland's Vic Galloway show. This is the biggest national music radio show in Scotland and a live session involves a large part of the show being devoted to that band (five or six tunes, if I remember correctly).
- Assuming references can be found, this article should be developed rather than deleted. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Playing 5 songs on the radio sadly isn't enough for notability. There needs to be coverage of the band from at least some Scottish media. I can't find anything about the band;94.197.127.141 (talk) 07:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC) nothing for their album either.[reply]
- Comment One of the problems with finding reliable sources for historical music and band related articles is that published reviews have an online shelf-life and you have to rely on printed format publiations (shock, horror!). It's lack of online presence is simply a measure of how current it is, and as per WP:NTEMP, notability is not temporary. I've identified a review in Is This Music? magazine, a mention in ShortList magazine, a review in The Courier (Scotland's second most widely circulated newspaper, currently trying to locate the review itself), a couple of paragraphs in a book The Great Scots Musicography (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Scots-Musicography-M-C-Strong/dp/1841830410). There will be more, but finding them may take a few days.
- Keep The Vic Galloway section on the BBC website [7] doesn't list a lot of musicians, but it list them. [8] That and other sources found, indicate notability. Dream Focus 18:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn, redirect to 2013 IRS scandal (non-admin close). Stalwart111 05:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lois Lerner[edit]
- Lois Lerner (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)
WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E. The page 2013 IRS scandal has far more content, and her role is as far as I can tell rather minor, so this should be redirected there before too much fork happens and until she does something else notable. Ansh666 01:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, withdrawn because someone was BOLDer than me. Hope I'm not wasting anyone's time! Ansh666 01:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirected - boldly. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- ^ http://www.financial-planning.com/news/movers-shakers-2006-527340-1.html
- ^ http://www.financial-planning.com/fp_issues/2010_2/the-deep-thinker-Michael-Kitces-planning-practice-2665511-1.html
- ^ http://www.advisorone.com/2012/04/24/the-2012-ia-25?t=practice-management&page=6
- ^ http://www.advisorone.com/2013/04/29/crossing-paths-the-2013-ia-25?t=rias&page=8
- ^ http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20111218/REG/312189978
- ^ http://www.fpanet.org/professionals/AboutFPA/AbouttheProfession/HeartofFinancialPlanningAwards/
- ^ http://www.fpanet.org/journal/BetweentheIssues/LastMonth/Articles/HoFPRecipientProfilesKitcesandMueller
- ^ http://www.amazon.com/The-History-Financial-Planning-Transformation/dp/B007PM0F1K
- ^ http://www.standards.org/standards/listing/iso_22222
- ^ http://www.fpsb.org/