Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 March 9
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- MobiFiles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable software. Refs provided are all primary and the software was only initially released last February Night Ranger (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I struggle to believe that a piece of software released last month has had any significant and lasting impact on technology or society. The only two references are primary sources, so I don't think it's notable, and the article seems to be promotional: "MobiFiles is known for it's ease of use, and the backwards compatibility to Windows 2000 with the Microsoft .NET package." ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I PRODed the article after trying to find sources. I still can't find any. SmartSE (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources.-- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no sources I could consider reliable, which actually isn't unexpected, as the initial release of the software happened 35 days ago. Seems to be the case of WP:MILL (or at least WP:TOOSOON). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fiction set in Geneva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete' per the spirit of WP:NOT and WP:N. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Geneva is a major city. Other major cities have these useful lists. Deleting will make searching for information on this subject tedious. Kdammers (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC) [A vague "per the 'spirit' of WP:NOT doesn't say any-thing, since that category is very broad.][reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Lists are navigational devices, and usefulness is a valid criterion, both for research and browsing. Apparently the deletion request is based only on the "spirit" of the rules--which I i understand to mean a personal interpretation, rather than an actual policy-based reason. DGG ( talk ) 06:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh While I agree with DGG on a policy basis, unless there's something done other than simply grouping these together, a category might be a better tool to do so... except for the fact that categories don't track revisions like articles do. Pretty worthless list as-is, but there's no policy-based reason to delete it. Jclemens (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And categories can't annotate with the publication date, author, or other notes. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as useful navigational device, and more useful with the additional info as noted by Postdlf. Matchups 02:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Bmusician 10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- David Kalvitis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Feels like self-promotion. No attempt made to provide evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*delete Promotional. No independent evidence of notability. Any article which refers to the subject by their given name always sets off alarm bells for me. Tigerboy1966 01:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC) striking see below
- keep I know I often change my mind on AfD, but this is ridiculous. Performing the quickest reversal in history after I checked for sources. Non-trivial coverage in New York Times [1] Article needs lots of work, but subject seems notable. Tigerboy1966 01:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. As I showed when I contested the PROD, the guy has a full-length article in the New York Times and a bunch of other hits in reliable newspapers/journals (some are behind paywalls, though). Clearly meets WP:GNG. If the article has a promotional tone, that is a reason to improve the article through editing, not delete the entire thing. Jenks24 (talk) 08:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The articles provided seem to establish notability. The promotional tone means the article needs fixing, not deleting. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the most obviously promotional sentence, though the whole tone of the article could still be improved. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - First I do apologize for not being a great writer. I am a pencil puzzle fan. I saw that Terry Stickels had a Wiki and thought that Mr. Kalvitis should too. I tried to follow the same format as what was written about Terry Stickels since his Wiki was accepted. David Kalivits has created 16 dot-to-dot books and working on the 17th. He is self published which I am sure is why his notability is being questioned. It is almost impossible for a self published author to get on the NY Times best seller list. His website lists 15 awards that his books have won. They all seem to have links to the actual award pages. I used the website for the books, the news page link, to find the news articles written by journalists, not his company. I did see that most were old enough to not be available without paying to read them, but the article was still available for purchase on the newspapers website. Amazon.com lists all his books as well as Barnes and Noble. His website also says he has sold over half a million books, which unless you are with a big time publisher may be hard to verify, but I am not questioning it. I have a book that is on it's 6th print run. He is also an inventor of different ways to do dot-to-dots. All of his inventions, for lack of a better term, are shown on his website. My favorite is the compass puzzle. I did not include all this because all the information is on his website, and as stated, did not want it to look like an advertisement. Any help would be greatly appreciated. A number of other companies have seemed to "use" his ideas to come up with their own dot-to-dots and it would be great to have Mr. Kalvitis established as the first to start making more for adults. Please tell me what is required, other than paying for newspaper access and I will get it to you. As I stated, I am a pencil puzzle fan, not a writer. Thank youTerriLeaMA (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. AfD has been open for 3 weeks with no arguments presented for keeping. Michig (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ashitha (model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No reliable secondary source has substantial coverage to show the notability of the subject. She may be an actor, but that does not prove notability. Fails to meet WP:BIO#Basic_Criteria Wikieditindia (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Removed CSDA7 notice. I don't know why someone would tag this for speedy deletion when its clear the article is trying to assert a case for notability. Give editors a chance to review before content is destroyed, please. Thanks.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I see a passing mention here, but nothing else and significant to establish notability.Curb Chain (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete - Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn (Made in error). (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Talk:Social issues (edit | [[Talk:Talk:Social issues|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a list of categories and articles that have now been created as a Category:Social problems Meclee (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Afd'd in error
This article was nominated for deletion in error. Meclee (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, criterion G12, copyright infringement. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Skype version history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable topic by itself, and not in any condition to merge into Skype. Poorly worded, barely passes as an article at all. Speedy already declined. BarkingFish 21:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I declined the speedy because there was sufficient context in the article to identify the subject, so criterion A1, lack of context, did not apply. That said, the article may wind up being speedy deleted under criterion G12: I haven't found clear evidence yet, but it feels like the text was copied from the Skype website. —C.Fred (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. --Pontificalibus (talk) 08:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oil Industry Safety Directorate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Previously PRODed article with deletion rationale: This article has been calling for help for over a year, it is merely a list of 110 guideline headings for oil companies that have to work in India. There is no mention of what these guidelines say, all we have is a list of 110 headings. It was endorsed by another user by saying: Delete, or stubify, or smerge into India energy law. However, it was DEPRODed by anon editor with an edit summary: lame del rationale, it's a Directorate, pass N. However, the article in its current stage does not establish notability. Also, by my understanding it also violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The issue is also discussed at the article's talk page. Beagel (talk) 20:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as clearly notable. See for example [2], [3], [4] and some 900 other hits on Google Books. "AFD is not cleanup". Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just mentioning, yes, but this is not enough for WP:CORP. The question is if the Oil Industry Safety Directorate "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? These sources does not qualify it as "subject of significant coverage". Beagel (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That is indeed the question. It was not the question raised in the nomination, though. Is it clear than none of the over 900 references in published books is significant. Has anyone checked? Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just mentioning, yes, but this is not enough for WP:CORP. The question is if the Oil Industry Safety Directorate "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources"? These sources does not qualify it as "subject of significant coverage". Beagel (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sources provided by Cusop Dingle do signify notability, as the sections in the books are specifically about the OISD. I have boldly removed the list of standards which did not add any encyclopedic value to the article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Cusop Dingle provided three sources–non of them could be called as 'sections'. The first one included one sentence paragraph in the listing of the bodies dealing with oil industry. One sentence for 270 pages is not significant coverage. Second source mentions OIDS once saying that it assists Safety Council and lists its four key activities. One mentioning for 504 pages is again probably not a significant coverage. The third source also mentions it once in one sentence, which is not significant coverage. Beagel (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Looks notable and has references .Why delete it.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Currently the article does not have any references, except the open page of the OISD website which is really not a reference. Beagel (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Added this reference to the article:
- P Saikia, Siddhartha (November 24, 2010). "Oil, gas installations to come under safety directorate". Financial Chronicle. Retrieved March 11, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- P Saikia, Siddhartha (November 24, 2010). "Oil, gas installations to come under safety directorate". Financial Chronicle. Retrieved March 11, 2012.
- Keep per WP:HEY. I amended the Prod because I thought it could be merged or improved to standard. It's a government agency in one of the two largest nations on earth. I think, with the work done by User:Northamerica1000, that it's been rescued. Good job. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn my nomination. I would like to thank User:Northamerica1000 for his/her work for bringing this article in line with Wikipedia's standards. Beagel (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G5 SmartSE (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Britt Assombalonga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Renewable Energy Automobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a group of 13-year-olds' entry into their middle school's science competition. No references or souces of any kind. Fails WP:GNG. Zad68 (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note sorry kids, the competition sounds great and I admire your chutzpah in trying to create a Wikipedia article about it, but this isn't the kind of thing Wikipedia has articles for. Zad68 (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note (2) attempted PROD but tag was removed right away, so here we are at AfD. Zad68 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note (3) I discussed with the author how Wikipedia isn't for this sort of thing and hopefully he's going to copy his stuff over to Facebook and blank the page, obviating the need for this AfD. Zad68 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sounds like a fun project, but Wikipedia is not for things made up one day at school. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As great as the project sounds, it's not encyclopedic or notable. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 12:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails GNG. Beagel (talk) 21:37, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard_Machowicz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page is written terribly. Almost the entire page has been copied from NDCQ.com, there are no proper references, and there doesn't seem to be anyone working to improve the quality of this page. Therefore this page should be deleted, or at the very least reduced to a stub. Rudiculous (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Poor writing is not good rationale for deletion, but lack of notability is. As far as I can tell, his only clami to notability is being somehow involved in the publicity of a new game, [5] [6] but the only sources I can find are about the game, rather than him. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think that this article should be reduced to a stub, since it's clear it's not properly written. The subject of the article, though, is quite notable. He used to host a TV show on the Discovery channel.188.25.42.222 (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for clarification; Machowicz hosted two shows. Future Weapons (now cancelled) and Deadliest Warrior (co-hosted third season; now cancelled). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudiculous (talk • contribs) 23:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; subject passed WP:NACTOR & WP:ANYBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete simply not sufficiently notable. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep agree with nominator about the poor writing, but anyway the subject seems to pass WP:ENT. Cavarrone (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems the nominator brought this one here because it was poorly written, had poor references, had not been as actively edited as he might prefer,[7] and should perhaps then be reduced to a stub. I agree it's in a poor state, but we do not delete what can be fixed. In looking at the numerous available sources, many in depth, we see that this fellow has been written of many times over a many years period.[8][9] That leads me to see that WP:GNG is met. While appreciating the nominator's concerns, we do not delete notable topics simply because the article needs work. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 13:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'll be glad to userfy this if anybody wants to work on it Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ranae Shrider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable autobiographical article in which the only apparent "citations" are not from independent secondary reliable sources, but appear to be from promotional web-sites. JOJ Hutton 18:10, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As an actress and comedian, I can find little in the way of non-promotional sources to suggest that she is notable (this seems to suggest that she is not incredibly active). There does seem to be significant coverage of a legal case involving her and Verne Troyer [10] [11] [12] but this all happens over about a month; certainly not sustained coverage. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Of the list of 5 "references" for this BLP, 1 is a broken link, 2 of them simply end up at her headshot and name but no text, 1 is an appearance on a podcast (not really a news source, other than to indicate she was alive at that time), and one is a few sentences about an appearance she had on Howard Stern in 2008, certainly nothing newsworthy or that would satisfy WP:GNG. Other links are self-promotional, and as ItsZippy points out, her only other appearance in the media might only barely satisfy WP:BLP1E.
- Delete, sub-notable autobiography. Hairhorn (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Certainly the current state suffers from poor souring and poorer tone, but these are quite often addressable issues that do not require deletion. In looking at the many, available reliable sources speaking toward this comedian,[13] it seems that most deal with her relationship and problems with Verne Troyer, but still... within them are facts that can be used to support much of this article. Who's up for a little work? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 11:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kim Bell Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sign of notability, no reliable, independent sourcing. Promotional article created by SPA whose only contributions promote the subject and his webzine. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete – fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage or indication of any impact in any field. If his webzine ever becomes notable in the future, his coverage in an article on it will most likely suffice. JFHJr (㊟) 00:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow Talk 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Seems to fail the notability guidelines as outlined above. Appears to me that this is a "local name" who is known by a few people but not wide enough to be included here. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- O meu marido esta a negar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources. Meets WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, lack of WP:BEFORE. Cavarrone (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article has many references and seems notable enough. TheGeneralUser (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Quite a few good sources now. Certainly passes WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets GNG, easily. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Bmusician 10:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One Goal (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The JPStalk to me 19:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Several sources mention the many awards. Without question the film is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources. Meets WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty enough references, with room for expansion. First Light (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Marrabenta Stories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources. also screened at the Durban International Film Festival which is notable..♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Of those, the only RS or notability granting source I consider is the lonely planet book. However, that source does not refer to the movie at all, but merely the style of music. I appreciate the hard work blofeld is putting in trying to improve the articles and find sources, but I think mere listing in multiple African movie databases is not going to cut it. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If the following criteria can be met, I would acquiesce, "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." Do you have any sourcing and dates for the festival? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, I'll just check my pockets, might have a handful of dates and sources at the bottom.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Without conceding that this should be the applicable standard, here's evidence that this film (whose Portuguese name is Marrabentando) was screened at "Giornate Mozambicane a Venezia" in Venice in 2009 (5 years after its first release).Italian[14] Google translate[15] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "other criteria" section of WP:NFILM places no conditions on what kind of festival it needs to be, 5 years after the fact. But the lack of any reliable sources, despite my best efforts to find some, causes me to believe that a merge of relevant content to the stub parent article Marrabenta is the best course, for both articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep per nominator's concession that a festival screening 5 years after original being an indicator of notability per WP:NF. User:Arxiloxos provided just that... just as does it screening again six years after original screening... at the AFRICAesCINE in 2010. This shows us we would be wise to look further for non-English sources for this Portugese-language non-Western film screened in Mozambique and Portugal. In expanding my own search, I found coverage about its 2010 screening in EuropaSur We do have ongoing difficulties in Wikipedia's coverage of non-English, and more specifically African cinema, and when we have verifiability of subsequent screenings, we might reasonably not expect the same coverage for a small budget, independent documentary as we might for some big budget studio film produced domestically. Just sayin. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and allow time for more non-English sources to add to what already is leaning strongly toward notability. First Light (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Mariem Hassan, la voz del Sáhara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources.[16][17] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of sources. Not the sort of movie that makes a lot of money, but the sort that is shown at many festivals, on public TV etc. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough - room to expand. Let's not be stymied by systemic bias against non-english language films. First Light (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Memoria negra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources and very interesting subject matter.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple, easily found sources.[18] Meets WP:NF. Rather than nominate all these film stubs on African cinema in order to punish their author, the project would be far better served by allowing them to be improved through regular editing. We do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well-sourced enough, and multiple festivals says it's notable. First Light (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All notable mutliple sources are covered in the Wikipedia guidelines. --GoShow (...............) 18:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- L'Afrique en morceaux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep within minutes, I was able add two WP:RS: an interview with the director about the project by ARTE France, and a feature story by the Afrik.com news site. The nominator has complained that the mass creation of these articles is disruptive; I would argue that a mass deletion with little effort to find reliable sources would be more of a problem. (If this string of nominations continues, and if it can be shown that the nominator is failing to make a good faith effort to find reliable sources in a number of these cases, then I'd say the nominator is in violation of WP:POINT. But those are IFs, I'm not saying that's the case now). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per being covered in multiple, easily found sources [19] showing this topic as notaility. I echo Shawn's concern toward the nominator's multiple and boilerplated AFDs. We do not disrupt Wikiedia to make a point. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough references and notability to meet WP:GNG. First Light (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- La Caravana del manuscrito andalusí (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the good doctor. Once again, I was able to find and add an additional third-party foreign language source within minutes, with Google Search and Google Translate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per being covered in multiple, easily found sources [20] showing this topic as notaility. I echo Shawn's concern toward the nominator's multiple and boilerplated AFDs. We do not disrupt Wikiedia to make a point. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Enough references, meets notability requirements. First Light (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- La Gran final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)doubtless improve the single source article. Edison (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyright violation. Found cut and paste of 143 word section from one of the references: http://www.fcat.es/FCAT/index.php?option=com_zoo&task=item&item_id=329&Itemid=37 . No indication that the source is public domain or that the contributor is the copyright owner. Edison (talk) 21:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- The content is actually CC licenced. You can see the CC logo in the rightmost column towards the bottom of the linked page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops. CC license noted. Edison (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The content is actually CC licenced. You can see the CC logo in the rightmost column towards the bottom of the linked page. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added several refs including feature stories in the Taipei Times and Spain's largest cirulation newspaper. I don't believe notability is in question, at this point. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple, easily found sources.[21] Meets WP:NF. Rather than nominate all these film stubs in order to punish their author, the project would be far better served by allowing them to be improved over time and through regular editing. We do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A good number of the noms I've reviewed are not so easily referenced, if at all. However, I've raised a similar point at the ANI initiated against the creator by the nominator, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a minimal WP:BEFOFE shows notability. A withdrawn (for this and all the mass-nominated notable titles) is suggested. Cavarrone (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Clearly meets notability now. First Light (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn, non-admin closure. ukexpat (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- La Robe du temps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Easily passes requirements thanks to the efforts of Aymatth2.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- withdrawn this particular article, out of the hundreds created, clear notability, agreed thanks to aymatth2. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Beurre et l'argent du beurre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage in multiple, easily found sources [22] to show meeting WP:NF. We do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some refs: most are rather primary in nature but there is at least one bona fide third-party RS (the short International News item). Not surprisingly, the film's critique of fair trade seems to have garnered a significant deal of attention worldwide, in certain circles. Even if deleted, I believe the film could be cited as a reliable source in Fair trade#What happens to the money. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the film to the See also section of the main article, with a brief summary. I believe it could be better integrated into the main text, but at least it's there, for now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References aplenty. First Light (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Dammit Angrysockhop. You just broke my "no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator" streak :( Still the consensus here is that the depth of coverage is sufficient. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Les larmes de l’émigration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has coverage in sources like FIFF.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has plot synopsis in sources like FIFF. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 19:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, how exactly then do you mean delete??♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The synopsis from the two sites is identical. Either they are user submitted, or they are copying from each other. In either case, it is not really "coverage". This critique applies to pretty much all of the articles using the same database sources Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like La Robe du temps you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- agreed that la robe is notable. A single counter example clearly passing notability is even more to the point showing that there is such a thing as a notable aftican movie, and the other articles, mass created do not meet those criteria. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Just like La Robe du temps you mean?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The synopsis from the two sites is identical. Either they are user submitted, or they are copying from each other. In either case, it is not really "coverage". This critique applies to pretty much all of the articles using the same database sources Gaijin42 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A single counter example you say?. Really? Are you certain?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC) Keep Well covered! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple, easily found sources.[23] We do not punish an author by mass nominations of arguably notable film topics. We instead involve in discussions that seek improvements of such over time and through regular editing so as to improve Wikipedia's coverage of these non-English films. What is this... the 12th such nomination? We do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, specially when we have so many other ways to improve the project.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 12 might seem like a lot...Until compared the the several hundred articles that were created. Consider this a sample, to determine if the films in general are notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As they get researched and expanded it turns out that most of the films in this AfD set are clearly notable. Presumably the FCAT organizers are somewhat selective in the films they choose to screen. A few may not be notable. I have doubts about On-Yaramá, which perhaps could be redirected to Grupo Yaramá. If anyone wants to review the much larger set of film stubs of which this is a sample, this exercise has confirmed that the correct approach would be to research each one, add sourced material where found, nominate for AfD only when not enough can be found to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 12 might seem like a lot...Until compared the the several hundred articles that were created. Consider this a sample, to determine if the films in general are notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've expanded the article a little with a news ref. The film seems to have been screened rather widely in Europe, at festivals and by such bodies as the Cité nationale de l'histoire de l'immigration in Paris. I think this one does pass WP:NFILM. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is well sourced and can be improved further. Also User:M.casanova has created around 100 articles till now have all been mostly good. TheGeneralUser (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep same as the rest. First Light (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My issue with the article was based on depth of coverage- I found many sources that seemed to give trivial acknowledgement to the film, but none offering more substantial coverage. That said, I have only the most rudimentary understanding of french, so some of the suggested sources I can't accurately assess. If someone more competent in french can confirm that there are, in fact, reliable french language sources that give a more substantial depth of coverage than the sources provided, add them, and consider my !vote keep. Angrysockhop (talk to me) 21:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Note that this close does not preclude a redirect as an editorial decision. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Le Mythe de la 5ème île (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Covered in multiple sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dr. Blofeld. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While this one isn't (yet) as well sourced as the others, I trust it will turn out the same. We shouldn't be so quick to kill articles about non-English, non-Western films which are notable enough in their own countries to appear at festivals. First Light (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to filmmaker's article, maintaining the categories on the redirect page. I've done quite a bit of referencing of these films and this one just seems to lack any independent coverage, over and above mere WP:ITEXISTS-type listings, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Les Accords de Bella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable film, failing WP:NFILM prod removed by creator, one of several films all from the same festival created by this same editor. Most nominated (excepting those winning several awards given then benefit of the doubt) Gaijin42 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's another one that was pretty easy to find, from the French news weekly L'Express. Keep per WP:PRESERVE. I'm not sure why so many have all been taken to AfD, en masse.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This meets requirements. Kudos to User:Shawn in Montreal for showing he knows what WP:BEFORE and WP:DEL#REASON is all about. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable enough, like most of the rest of these. First Light (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Luis Andres Colmenares Case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
How is this death not an example of 1E? Coverage notwithstanding, I do not see the encyclopedic relevance of what appears to be a single, tragic event. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- On 26 February, 2012, more than a year after the tragic event happened, people organized protests in 11 Colombian cities and towns, demanding proper investigation of the case.[24] It doesn't look like an "ordinary" suicide/murder. Unfortunately I can't read Spanish ... but I think the article deserves proper discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep without prejudice. I'd like to give the article a chance to develop, for writers to get the sources translated and all. If after some time—and a day is not enough time—notability isn't established, then I support renomination for deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article shouldn't be removed, this case has received HUGE exposure in Colombian media, high ranking government officials are being investigated for corruption, for being involved on modifying evidence, trying to close the case earlier and trying to change the prosecutor[1]. Also there has been a huge response and rejection from the Colombian People around the world[2], several manifestations took place around the country, people claimed for justice and the true to be revealed for Luis Andres murder[3] --Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Because most of the sources are in Spanish the update of this article is taking longer than usual. We are trying to gather and translate this information as fast and accurate as possible, please reconsider deletion of this article --Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sources on the article do demonstrate sustained coverage. Though it is one event, so to speak, it is still received significant coverage decades later. This clearly demonstrates the significant, reliable and sustained coverage needed for the subject to meet the GNG. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- <<<please do not delete this page. Is the only way to inform other people around the world about a case that is very famous in Colombia. Very rich and corrupt families, politicians and influent people trying to cover an assasination, but the majority of Colombians are sure after evidence has been found and revealed by the local press, that it was a murder and people claim that the guilty should payfor what they did. They should not be allowed to "win" the case by using influence and paying money. More than a murder it is what is behind, the lack of moral and values and a society claiming for justice! Several blogs and a group in facebook with around 30.000 participants are doing a huge effort to support the family of the the murdered, Luis Andres Colmenares. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.15.161 (talk) 22:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not the only way. As you said, people can inform about the case using blogs and Facebook. Whether the case will be included on Wikipedia is based on whether the event meets Wikipedia's guidelines for notability. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to agree with C.Fred. Wikipedia is not on a mission for justice or truth, it is not a "prolonged hand" of any efforts of social movements. Aside from the above mentioned guidelines for notability, I would like to point out that we should reflect reality in a neutral way.
- And yes, Wikipedia is not intended to be that channel (there are other places to do that), the reason of opening a Wikipedia page for this particular case is merely informative and unbiased. Colombia is a country where cases like this happen everyday (that is true), but the because of the nature of the elements, and the way the evidences were exposed, Colombian people are standing and raising their voice of in conformity and protest in a massive way. Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The story, as it stands now, is incomplete. The Spanish version of this article and the sources available mention that the mother and lawyer of one of the suspects attempted to manipulate facts and influence a 'high ranking government official' (National Director of Public Prosecutions) in order to close the case prematurely. The information leaked, which provoked an outrage of Colombian public and media and led to the re-opening of the case. People, organized mainly by social-networking media, began organizing protests against the corruption in the Colombian justice apparatus. The unfinished story continues. This is (at least in my opinion) what excludes the event from our WP:BLP1E frame. The continuing consequences of the case may be valuable for this project, as they show:
- b) the situation in the Colombian justice in the 21st century on a specific and notable case
- a) the power of today's social-networking media and their ability to press on a state administration in a Latin American country
- I don't think we should delete this kind of information. Instead of it we should focus on developing it in a neutral way. The article has potential, the information is notable, verifiable and expandable. Just my opinion. Please, let me know if I missed something important or misinterpreted the situation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few Wikipedia principles that should be considered in the decision to delete or not this article: Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes. If information on this topic needs to be published, there are many media outlets. Another issue with this article is WP:recentism; in-depth information on current events is more appropriately under the sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia do not promote any agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including WP:Verifiability and the WP:neutral point of view. I suggest to neutrally summarize notable topics on this article using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to particular views. Even though this event may be notable due to the media coverage that has reached, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of any of the individual involved goes beyond the context of this single event, the coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Atizinha (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Atizinha. It is quite clear that this page was created as a continuation of an online campaign, take a look at the above comments by User:Vivaemptiness ("We are trying to gather and translate this information..." - who is "We"??) or the POV claims of IP 178.83.15.161. Recently, I removed another POV edit from the unfinished article. I don't think that "recentism" applies here, this case has changed significantly from 2010 and has several important facets, which was noted by many media outlets. I agree completely with your claim that we need a neutral summary of the topic, but I don't see any problems with the overemphasis of the individuals involved in the case. As far as I know, there's only one article about the event, and it is open to editing and further improvements. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be some bias here, Vejvančický. I understand there is a very active group on Facebook that is claiming for justice in this particular case. I would argue that a reason to publish this article should be because of the "HUGE exposure in Colombian media" . Very concerned about justification provided by user 178.83.15.161. Somehow, I agree with Fred: more time should be given to decide upon deletion; however, because it is an ongoing judicial case, there are still some facts that should be proved in court, despite the evidence has been published in the media and therefore, proper edit should be considered. Atiz (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia covers also some ongoing cases, we have a special template notifying readers about it, see {{live}}. Perhaps it should be added to the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "We are trying to gather and translating this information"...That means me and other people that saw lack of information about this case in English. I also said that I'm trying to translate as accurate as possible. As I stated above the reason of opening this page was merely informative. And more information will be added as we get it. This case is in progress and the first hearing will take place on Monday [1] . More information will be posted when both parties (defense and prosecution) lay down their thesis. Vivaemptiness (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia covers also some ongoing cases, we have a special template notifying readers about it, see {{live}}. Perhaps it should be added to the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be some bias here, Vejvančický. I understand there is a very active group on Facebook that is claiming for justice in this particular case. I would argue that a reason to publish this article should be because of the "HUGE exposure in Colombian media" . Very concerned about justification provided by user 178.83.15.161. Somehow, I agree with Fred: more time should be given to decide upon deletion; however, because it is an ongoing judicial case, there are still some facts that should be proved in court, despite the evidence has been published in the media and therefore, proper edit should be considered. Atiz (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, Atizinha. It is quite clear that this page was created as a continuation of an online campaign, take a look at the above comments by User:Vivaemptiness ("We are trying to gather and translate this information..." - who is "We"??) or the POV claims of IP 178.83.15.161. Recently, I removed another POV edit from the unfinished article. I don't think that "recentism" applies here, this case has changed significantly from 2010 and has several important facets, which was noted by many media outlets. I agree completely with your claim that we need a neutral summary of the topic, but I don't see any problems with the overemphasis of the individuals involved in the case. As far as I know, there's only one article about the event, and it is open to editing and further improvements. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There are a few Wikipedia principles that should be considered in the decision to delete or not this article: Wikipedia is not a venue for raising the visibility of an issue or agenda. Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations campaigns, even for worthy causes. If information on this topic needs to be published, there are many media outlets. Another issue with this article is WP:recentism; in-depth information on current events is more appropriately under the sister project Wikinews. Wikipedia do not promote any agendas at the expense of Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including WP:Verifiability and the WP:neutral point of view. I suggest to neutrally summarize notable topics on this article using reliable sources without advocating any particular position or giving undue weight to particular views. Even though this event may be notable due to the media coverage that has reached, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of any of the individual involved goes beyond the context of this single event, the coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. Atizinha (talk) 11:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - for now.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep sufficient public interest. Perhaps not public interest in the US< but Wikipediacovers the world on equal terms. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Aimee Osbourne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm initiating this discussion based on a request via OTRS (confirmation:VRTS ticket # 2012022710013651). Concerns have been raised regarding privacy issues and limited notability. Though she is related to people who are famous, she personally lives a very private life. The article primarily talks about her famous family members and the projects that her family members have been involved with. The items written about the things she has done are not significant enough to warrant a public biography. A redirect to the "Marriages and family" section of the Ozzy Osbourne article would be sufficient coverage as notability is not inherited. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject has been quite clear in the past that she does not want publicity, forgoing any attention on the family's various reality efforts. A simple request that should be respected with a locked redirect as suggested above. Nate • (chatter) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Must as I respect her desire for privacy, the fact that Aimee Osbourne has voluntarily appeared in a television show (other than about the Osbournes) and writes for a published magazine makes her a public figure. Deletion should be based on the merits of her notability, rather than her desire for privacy. Most of the information in the article appears to be cited. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Notability is not inherited, but Amiee Osbourne does have significant coverage in her own right; there are at least three reliable sources in the article which establish this [25], [26], [27]. Of course, we must respect privacy; this does not prohibit the article's existence. Our BLP policy has extensive guidance on this issue - if this is followed, we shouldn't have a problem. She is notable and we can make sure that we adhere to BLP. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not notable. Notability requires significant coverage. Appearing on television is not notability. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The existence of articles about the fact that she does not like people writing about her does not constitute significant coverage. It merely demonstrates that she is of interest because she is related to notable people, and there is nothing in the article to demonstrate notability otherwise. WP does not have articles about everyone who occasionally appears on television or writes for magazines - the threshold of notability is very high for these. --AJHingston (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is sourced. Portillo (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:NOTINHERITED which states: "Family members of celebrities (...) only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have a famous relative. Note that this also includes newborn babies of celebrities: although such births typically receive a flurry of press coverage, this testifies to the notability of the parent, not the child.". I can't find any source about her doing "something significant and notable in (her) own right".
- For the three sources ItsZippy posted above, all are related to the show The Osbournes and mostly Sharon Osbourne's comments. The same way, Camille Cosby has given a lot of interviews, including to Oprah, but this doesn't mean she is immediately notable because all of her interviews are directly about Bill Cosby. So, I think the relevant content can be added to the article The Osbournes. Nimuaq (talk) 03:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Nimuaq. Ironically, most of the cited references are about her desire not to be notable! She refused to be part of the family show and has "broken her silence... a handful of times" - to talk about her family! Let this woman have her privacy, there is nothing on the record that compels us to have an article about her. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Christmas Choir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable made-for-TV movie. Orange Mike | Talk 16:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer keep, although, it may need edits from time to time, information from Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines, it is still a valuable contribution from the few sources, and as usual, a notable source for Hallmark Channel. Users of ideas to improve the article in paragraph may be accessible. --GoShow (...............) 16:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Per IMDb it was nominated for a couple of Gemini Awards; also won multiple "Epiphany Prizes" from MovieGuide[28], but I'm not sure how much notability those convey. "Christmas Choir" is not easiest title to Google, but if someone could come up with some reviews of this telepic in reliable sources it would certainly help its cause here. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Adding the word "Hallmark" to the search parameter does just that. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, since it aired on a national network. Above !votes are also compelling. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per awards. We have easy sourcability,[29] and the Gemini Awards and Movieguide Awards are not lightly given. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Pillows. As per the common practice. (non-admin closure) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tabasco Disco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of a raft of insubstantial "articles" on non-notable recordings, videos, etc. by minor band; don't have time to tally them all up, but about 20 in all. Orange Mike | Talk 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Band is notable, but notability is not inherited by songs. I PROD'ed another of these, Movement (The Pillows song) - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Pillows, as is common practice when the single is not notable and the artist is. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Pillows per ItsZippy above. The subject doesn't appear to have recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources. However, the redirect proposal is a viable option. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep the article on the murders. Since the articles on the individuals involved were not actually nominated there should probably be either a merge discussion on the talk page or a proper bundled afd nomination. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Murders at Malexander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Minor crime with no encyclopedic relevancy. Also suggest we delete the separate articles on each of the robbers. Orange Mike | Talk 16:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - One of swedens most noted criminal cases. If not the most covered criminal case in Swedish history. Passes WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the suggestion that we should delete the separate articles on the robbers seems drastic these people are "noted criminals" in Sweden with a long criminal background which covers WP:CRIME.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I created this muder-article, because those murders are very well-known in Sweden. I am a user from Sweden, even if I'm blocked from svwp, I want to develop enwp with new articles about well-known murders, actors, etc in/from Sweden. And I really wonder, why this Malexander-article must be deleted????? BjörnBergman 17:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems you dont get this process yet. Its not at all clear that this article will be deleted. But a user on the Wikipedia is of that opinion and has raised it up at this AfD for discussion. I take it you want it Kept so then make that opinion heard instead of arguing about why it was put up for AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, but I deleted the delete-requestion because I thought that it was wrong, hope you understand now. Sorry... But I hope that enwp will keep this Malexander-article. Best regards BjörnBergman 19:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you make your opinion more decisive please.. just follow how I stated my Keep decision.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I want enwp to KEEP the "Malexander murders" article. BjörnBergman 16:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - even just from the sources in the article, it's clear that this was a notable crime which received significant coverage over a long period of time. I do agree with the nominator that separate articles on the perpetrators aren't really needed, and they should probably be merged into the main article per WP:PERP and WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: As per nom. Nothing in the article, as it is currently written, conveys the idea of notability. But, if somebody improved on it, I'd be willing to re-consider my position.Boneyard90 (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Because it's an article which really is sourced, AND it's well-known Swedish murders. I wrote it because I wanted to develop enwp with Swedish well-known murders etc. I know it because I'm from Sweden (but I'm blocked from svwp, due to a conflict, BUT I want to develop WP). So please DON'T Delete the article...! Best regards BjörnBergman 16:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I'm Swedish, and I agree that this is one of the most notable crimes in modern Swedish history, perhaps second only to the Palme murder. Its notable not only for being unusually violent, but also for the neo-nazi terrorist connections of the perpetrators. Thomas Padron-McCarthy, Örebro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.170.79 (talk) 07:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please note that since its nomination, this article has been moved from Murders at Malexander to Malexander murders. --MelanieN (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article about what appears to have been quite a notorious robbery/murder. With regard to the separate articles about the perpertrators, I would keep the article about Jackie Arklöv since he was notable for other crimes in addition to this one. The other two, Tony Olsson and Andreas Axelsson, should probably be redirected/merged to this article since they are not notable for anything else. --MelanieN (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Untouchable music group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Entirely non notable group of music "producers". Appears to be a self formed "label". Prod declined by article creator without explanation. Safiel (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NMUSIC. Truthsort (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. This a no-brainer. Entirely unsourced. Can't find any mention of them. Two of the websites listed for this group don't exist. Label doesn't exist. Apparently none of them have released anything. So all we're left with is someone's facebook , twitter, tumblr and soundcloud account and a lot of fiction. This practically qualifies as a hoax. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I asked the editor to supply the article with "more reliable sources", but I'm afraid this may be a mite difficult and that I have to agree with Escape Orbit and request deletion. dci | TALK 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn after article improvements. (non-admin closure) —SW— chat 15:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Larry N. Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Puff piece whose author admits to being a friend of the subject; full of unsourced claims that famous people have praised the subject, but all the "sources" are self-published. Orange Mike | Talk 15:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing nomination, due to excellent detective work by my colleague Carrite. The article is still in need of some serious work, but the Editor & Publisher piece in particular puts it in the "weak keep" column, at worst. The alleged quotes from people like the Clintons will have to go, though, unless they can be sourced; as will all the other unsourced claims (and by "sourced" we do not mean "this is what he claims on his masthead"). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll see if that can be sourced out. I've actually see a H.C. letter on White House stationary with that quote, the words are right and it's not a fabrication. Whether it's an accessible primary source or an inaccessible primary source is unclear to me this evening. As for the B.C. quote, that I know nothing about yet and seems less likely to pass muster. Carrite (talk) 04:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing nomination, due to excellent detective work by my colleague Carrite. The article is still in need of some serious work, but the Editor & Publisher piece in particular puts it in the "weak keep" column, at worst. The alleged quotes from people like the Clintons will have to go, though, unless they can be sourced; as will all the other unsourced claims (and by "sourced" we do not mean "this is what he claims on his masthead"). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as unsourced BLP.Comment - I will remark that independent published sources ABOUT journalists are notoriously hard to gather and that we need some sort of special inclusion guidelines for these people. I have taken the liberty of removing two of the five flags strewn on top of it — don't bite the newcomers, even if their articles don't pass muster for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO.Changing to keep after excellent rescue work.ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)--ukexpat (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw your unkind comments about my entry on Larry N. Jordan and it being a "puff piece" but I fail to see the distinction between my entry and most of what I read about people on Wikipedia, which cites their accomplishments, etc. As for your statement I "admit" to being close to the source, let's get one thing clear: I'm not romantically involved, I'm not related to him, I don't have a crush on him. What are you implying exactly? He is a professional colleague, THAT'S ALL, and I think he is deserving of being on Wikipedia. Since I first posted last night I have dug a little deeper and looked up articles at newspaperarchive.com to find out more. Would you prefer that Wikipedia posters have NO knowledge of a subject. What's wrong with knowing the person you're writing about. I have added more specifics to the description but even the links I initially provided -- if you took the time to follow them -- would confirm what I was stating. The link to the magazine website, for example, lists his name as publisher of Midwest Today. His name is on the cover of the book I linked to. What more do you want? Lisa Brown---- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBrown2012 (talk • contribs) 17:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In fairness text such as "7 million Amazon items sell less copies" does seem more puff than substance. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- In fairness text such as "7 million Amazon items sell less copies" does seem more puff than substance. Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Ms. Brown also accidentally posted to my user page (rather than talk), which I will take the liberty of extracting here: "Thank you for responding to the post I am trying to create on Larry N. Jordan. I am really bothered by the comments posted by somebody named OrangeMike about it being a "puff piece." I fail to see the distinction between my entry and most of what I read about people on Wikipedia, which cites their accomplishments, etc. As for his statement I "admit" to being close to the source, what is he implying exactly? Mr. Jordan is a professional colleague, THAT'S ALL, and I think he is deserving of being on Wikipedia. Some of the references I cited as for his work being praised came from the bio his publisher Page Turner Books posted on Amazon. Is a book publisher not credible? Since I first posted last night I have dug a little deeper and looked up articles at newspaperarchive.com to find out more. Would Orangemike prefer that Wikipedia posters have NO knowledge of a subject? What's wrong with knowing the person you're writing about. I have added more specifics to the description but even the links I initially provided -- if anybody took the time to follow them -- would confirm what I was stating. The link to the magazine website, for example, lists his name as publisher of Midwest Today. His name is on the cover of the book I linked to. I am really exasperated with how complicated and time consuming this all is. If you could do anything to help me, I surely would appreciate it. Trying to coach me on how to navigate Wikipedia's super-complicated system is probably futile. I guess I'm just not as smart as all of you. I just thought this guy deserved a Wikipedia listing and so I tried to create one. It may be more trouble than it's worth. Lisa Brown." I'm striking my Delete recommendation and will be getting in touch with her to see if we can get this up to snuff. - Carrite (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm working hard on this with the (new) content contributor please don't rush to judgment here, I believe this is a keeper. Here's a source to tide y'all over until this piece is into more refined form. BILLBOARD MAGAZINE INTERVIEW. Carrite (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Fails WP:AUTHOR (no evidence of being regarded as important by colleagues, no evidence for originating new concept, no well known works) and WP:BIO. One book published by a very minor publisher (vanity press? The interview suggests that he needed "the means to get the book in print" ) does not establish notability - not even if it gets you interviewed in the local newspaper. His work should be included in Jim Reeves biography. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you regard his book as seminal or not, this subject is gonna pass GNG, the Editor and Publisher article on Jordan is a two pager with photo and the Billboard magazine piece interviews Jordan as an expert on the topic of Reeves. And the digging continues... Carrite (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I remain unconvinced that it passes GNG - its coverage, but its not significant. With such a definition every academic whose ever given an interview about their field to expertise (most) would be automatically notable - which they aren't. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether you regard his book as seminal or not, this subject is gonna pass GNG, the Editor and Publisher article on Jordan is a two pager with photo and the Billboard magazine piece interviews Jordan as an expert on the topic of Reeves. And the digging continues... Carrite (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a GNG situation — multiple unrelated but documentable areas of significance. This is not a Special "Author" notability situation, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This really is a rush to judgment. The book by Mr. Jordan has been nominated for the prestigious Belmont Award for the Best Book on Country Music in 2011. Google that and see what it tells you about the significance of that achievement. It's by a small press but so were James Joyce, John Grishom, James Redfield, Deepak Chopra, Gertrude Stein, Ezra Pound, et al. Also, Mr. Jordan has made a major contribution to the legacy of country music icon Jim Reeves who sold 180 million records, toured abroad. The Academy of Country Music still bestows a Jim Reeves International Award (current winner Taylor Swift) and since 2003, Mr. Jordan has produced a series of CDs featuring previously unreleased material on Reeves that placed Jim at #1 on radio playlists in the UK in 2008 for seven weeks. I'd say that's a pretty big achievement on an artist dead since 1964. Mr. Jordan is merely a professional acquaintance but ever since I discovered how hard it is to get a listing on Wikipedia without people assailing you and being dismissive before they know all the facts, this has become a real challenge and I have dug deeper and looked further into this man. Furthermore, being the publisher for 20 years of a magazine that according to its website has a 300,000 circulation certainly confers on Mr. Jordan the ability to wield influence. -- Lisa Brown----
- Nobody doubts that Jim Reeves is notable, but notability is not inherited. Awards only give notability if actually won. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In addition to the Billboard interview with Jordan as an expert above, please make note of this source: Winston Mill, "At 19 Already a Publisher Four Years," Editor and Publisher, December 2, 1972, pp. 30-31. Carrite (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously? I have had more newpaper articles written about me than that, and it most certainly has not made me notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on, if you're the subject of coverage in multiple, substantial, independent, reliable sources, you know as well as I do that you pass GNG. Editor and Publisher is a trade magazine, for chrissakes... Don't give me the OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument using yourself as the example... Carrite (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not, I am saying that that kind of coverage is not in fact substantial and that using these criteria basically would negate our entire notability criteria. Everyone would be notable.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, come on, if you're the subject of coverage in multiple, substantial, independent, reliable sources, you know as well as I do that you pass GNG. Editor and Publisher is a trade magazine, for chrissakes... Don't give me the OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument using yourself as the example... Carrite (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A two page feature story ON a publisher, with a photo, in a trade magazine, is "not in fact substantial"?!?!?!? My friend, you and I are simply not speaking the same language. Fortunately, I believe my interpretation of "substantial" is the one shared by the vast majority of Wikipedians — substantial as in the main subject of a piece, as opposed to "incidental" or "passing" or "fleeting"... Carrite (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the publisher for 20 years of a regional magazine that has a circulation of 300,000 and also producing a radio show carried by 52 stations certainly makes somebody NOTABLE by any definition of the word. -- Lisa Brown--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by LisaBrown2012 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notability" at Wikipedia has a very narrow meaning. What you are saying is that the subject has a "valid claim to importance" — which is true. Whether he is "notable" in Wikipedia terms is different, that's what this discussion is about. The best thing you can do to prove this is to find other examples of published, substantial, independent pieces on Jordan in reliable sources. There are two very good ones showing already... Carrite (talk) 20:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It still needs major work to clean up, but the sources found by Carrite are sufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. As a word of advice to you, Carrite and Lisa, I'd suggest you trim it down a lot before you start trying to expand it again with RS. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 20:15, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's probably wise advice. It's a new editor and "finding the range" can be a little tricky in terms of content — not enough vs. too much. There's still work being done, I think it will be a creditable article when we're finished. Carrite (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going for a keep on this one. Jordan may not make the notability criteria for individual areas of activity, but collectively he does, even if it's only by a whisker. And for those active in several fields (to the significance level) a way of tying together that these are the same person is important. Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Wow wow wow. What ever happened to Don't bite the newbies!! I've been talking with the creater of the article and they have told me that they have worked with Mr Jordan. They "know" him yes, but I don't believe closely enough that they have made up lies about him. I should point out that the first version of the article was made by copy + paste. This looks like it has been fixed now. I couldn't find any major sources but that also seems to have been fixed now! Just because the page has a few {{Citation needed}} doesn't mean we have to go and delete the thing. And yes I'm angry, Orangemike! I think that you see things that aren't there. Keep the article and work on it. And if something can't be referenced: remove it. Leave the page as a one line stub! But don't delete it! Talk about using a mallet to squash a pea... >:( Starfleet Academy Hail my ship 07:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Senica aka Da Misfit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears premature for a Wiki article as I am unable to locate reliable sources to help pass WP:MUSIC. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are some hints of notability here, but only hints. This artist has been noticed enough to be covered in the blogosphere, but that appears to be mostly local coverage. Certainly no reliable sources yet. And the author has recently removed one fact that might have indicated notability (appearance on MTV2's Direct Effect), possibly because the fact could not be verified. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow Talk 14:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject of the article lacks significant coverage in reliable third party sources and fails the notability guidelines for music related topics. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 04:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. - Frankie1969 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Listed for almost a month with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Environmental Robots Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Gongshow Talk 14:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not much online but I found a story in Popular Science (Dan Ferber, "Will artificial muscle make you stronger?" Popular Science, September 2005. pp 82-90.) on Google Books that discusses the company a bit, and a few other references on Google Books, e.g. in Biomimetics: biologically inspired technologies by Yoseph Bar-Cohen. There's also some stuff about a lawsuit with the University of New Mexico[30]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I tentatively agree with Colapeninsula. There doesn't appear to be much online coverage, but the coverage Inc.%22 on Google Books appears to be fairly significant. I believe it may be enough for the subject to meet the notability guidelines. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Berydw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No notability, and appears to have been written by the subject. DoctorKubla (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is about an Indonesian singer. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only sources provided here, and the only ones I can find elsewhere, are from personal sites (ie, facebook, youtube channel, ect.). Not enough to establish notability. Rorshacma (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As above. Found nothing. IMDB link is bogus, linking to Snoop Dogg.Curb Chain (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep article was vandalized when nominated for deletion. (former-admin close) Secret account 06:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neeraj Prabhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unverifiable sources, lack of notability, Original research, 2/\/\flaviu5 (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My name is Declan Henry and I can fully verify what I have read on this page being a former student of Mr. Prabhu who taught me maths in Washington D.C. before I moved to Liverpool upon his suggestion that it is a great city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.54.82 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This article was originally a legit one, before IP editors started adding unsourced original "research" to it. I have expanded the article, adding some detail of his cricket career. Anything else, like if this guy was a teacher, some controversy in America ect, will require reliable sources to back it up. I've added the article to my watchlist and will revert anything which isn't sourced. Declan Henry, whether you can verify that the moon is made of cheese is irrelevant: read Wikipedia:Verifiability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Easynode.js (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
My original concern was, "Appears to be a non-notable JavaScript framework. Also failed to find enough reliable sources". However, author removed the PROD with the edit summary "I disagree with the deletion because the term "notable" is being applied to a new technology. If Wikipedia aims to provide useful information then it needs to accept that new technologies are of interest to those looking for the "right fit" tool." And no, I disagree with his point that new technologies are automatically notable. The more they need reliable sources to prove their notability if they are new technologies. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point has been slightly misunderstood, although there is very little space to type in the "Edit Summary" box, so it was probably not well made. I never suggested that new technologies should be considered "automatically noteable" - In fact, I agree that would be wrong. I am asking why a new technology needs to be considered noteable in the first place. If a technology is complete, documented, starting to be talked about in the developer community, and can be shown to be in good working order (such as samples offered) then does that not make it something worth being mentioned on Wikipedia? Otherwise, Wikipedia will always be playing catch-up, never providing information on the newest technologies and only informing people about "notable" established technologies. By all means check out the technolgoy and, if found to be unworthy of inclusion, then delete it. However, deleting it from Wikipedia just because it is new and not yet proven notable seems to be a little harsh. There will be developers looking for Node.js frameworks, and without these frameworks appearing in Wikipedia they will have to visit forums to find out about them. However, Wikipedia does not consider forum discussions regarding a product to make it "notable".mr_brian_osborne —Preceding undated comment added 14:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- I sort of understand your point, but as you can see, not every "new technology" can be included in Wikipedia. They must have some good reason why they should have an article. Such reasons can be seen on this page. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to share about new technologies, unless other reliable third-party sources have done so. Please see WP:V for more information. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Yes, Wikipedia absolutely should "always be playing catch-up". It is a long-term history of things that have already demonstrated their importance. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept your judgement on this. I think it would be a shame if it does not get listed in Wikipedia since node.js is a very hot topic currently and there is demand for information on frameworks for it. Even so, you are quite right, very few people would use Wikipedia to source new technologies, so if you decide to go ahead with the deletion then I doubt any developer would lose sleep over it not being included. Personally, I think I'd prefer Wikipedia to judge content by its usefulness rather than by how well established it seems. I'd certainly like to think that anything of interest (as long as factual and relevent) could be found on Wikipedia rather than relying on something like the Google search engine as a source of useful and up-to-date information. mr_brian_osborne —Preceding undated comment added 14:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a random collection of facts. Our readers who spend time reading our articles want to know that the subjects covered are worthy of note.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Node.js. Deletion is not a preferred alternative to redirection. — C M B J 20:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- We still need to demonstrate notability. We wouldn't redirect Papa Joe's Cafe, High Street, London to Café unless it's notable, and suitable for mention in Cafe.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find sufficient sources to demonstrate notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no coverage in reliable sources. Just another JS framework no one apart from JS developers would ever want to know about. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S.: after article deletion the redirect should be set up to point at node.js, as noted by Pontificalibus. Merging content about one software to the article about another software should be avoided though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I said the opposite. No redirect unless it's mentioned in the target article. I don't see any reason to mention this in node.js.--Pontificalibus (talk) 07:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Fermo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I nominated this for deletion two years ago, but no consensus was reached. After all these years, there has still been no demonstration of notability. None of his roles seem to be that remarkable, and I couldn't even find any reliable sources to confirm his notability. It's hard to nominate this article since I was a big fan of him before, but sadly, he is not notable enough (just yet) for a Wikipedia article. Perhaps when grows older, then this article can be recreated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; subject doesn't appear to pass WP:ANYBIO or WP:ACTOR. Perhaps the subject falls under WP:TOOSOON as depending on the subject's future career they may become sufficiently notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Despite some claim to notability via the award nomination and some roles in the past, there really just aren't the reliable third party sources needed to make the article viable. Aside from IMDB, the only other sources out there seem to be personal sites. Rorshacma (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Basant Rai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be an unremarkable fashion designer. Search returns nothing on him, but it seems there are many people with the name "Basant Rai". Still, I don't think he is notable at all because of the lack of reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing can be said about this guy until we have sources which can help us write an article Shii (tock) 07:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Shii. Since the only sources anyone is having any luck at finding don't count as reliable third party sources, notability can not be established. Rorshacma (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jed Carpenter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any meaningful press coverage about him, and the article doesn't have any links except to IMDb. He does not seem notable in the slightest. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable actor, page created and edited by single user. smooth0707 (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 23:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not significant roles, no reliable coverage. Cavarrone (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete without redirecting, as that would clearly violate WP:V Beeblebrox (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- London Ishq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article has no sources other than Facebook and Youtube. There already exists a well sourced article on the film: Yash Chopra's Untitled Project. Also, much of the text of that one is copied to this one. BollyJeff || talk 12:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Yash Chopra's Untitled Project. I'm not sure which title it should come under, but one article is superfluous. London Ishq is the less developed article, but is that the actual film title? --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's the problem. There is no reliable source for the title. On the film's official site from the filmmaker it is listed as untitled, and it is likely to remain so for some time. Enthusiastic editors keep coming in and naming it without sources; first Jai, and Now London Ishq. When they get reverted, they create a new article with the title of their choice. BollyJeff || talk 14:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you could merge with Yash Chopra then. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge, he is copying text from one article to another. The proper thing to do is stick with Yash Chopra's Untitled Project until an official title is given, and then move it to a new name. Almost everything this editor has done in the past has been deleted. Take a look at User talk:Iamnabi. Can't they be stopped for disruptive editing? BollyJeff || talk 17:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you could merge with Yash Chopra then. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, that's the problem. There is no reliable source for the title. On the film's official site from the filmmaker it is listed as untitled, and it is likely to remain so for some time. Enthusiastic editors keep coming in and naming it without sources; first Jai, and Now London Ishq. When they get reverted, they create a new article with the title of their choice. BollyJeff || talk 14:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and create redirect to Yash Chopra's Untitled Project (if there is anything to merge, do so, the rest can go). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect the other page to this Makes sense to redirect Yash Chopra's Untitled Project to here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.135.81 (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't. london-ishq-is-not-the-title-of-the-film BollyJeff || talk 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect London Ishq to Yash Chopra's Untitled Project - London Ishq is not the name of the film, officially. Secondly, the article is a total mess and reads like a magazine run by some fans. Seriously? "Its great to have you back in the director's chair Yashji" has no place on Wikipedia. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 06:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:A10. This duplicates an existing article. And with respects to those above, and in agreement with the nominator, I do not see a redirect from a verifiable as incorrect title as worth consideration. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense conservative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced original research since 2003. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolute nonsense; note that in 2004 one editor wrote "I should note, actually, that I'm not convinced this page needs to exist" and I agree. The only ref is to a university webpage on Privatization and Deregulation in Singapore which manages not to mention common sense conservative (or "common" or "sense" or "conservative") or any part of the quote attributed to it. The originator of the article had one glorious day of editing in 2003 and has not been back since. Their contributions will be sorely missed, or not. Emeraude (talk) 13:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's quite a common term, but not much evidence that it's a distinctive phenomenom identified as such in notable sources. Among many hits, I found an LA Times article talking about a candidate trying to portray himself as a "'common-sense' conservative"[31] and David Cameron using the phrase[32] But most people talking about "common sense conservatism" don't refer to a specific intellectual movement.[33][34][35] Conservatives (and other politicians) frequently use the term "common sense"[36], and it relates to topics like populism, but I'm struggling to find evidence that it is more worthy of an article than other possible subsets of conservatism. With references the article should stand - it's far from "nonsense" - but it may not meet notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an original essay about a non-notable neologism. Take your pick. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 23:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, commonly used neologism, but no sign of a single accepted meaning. Hairhorn (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:NEO & WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 05:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning delete - Here's some additional sources that use the term, but don't discuss it in significant detail. [37], [38]. However, while being a neologism, it may be (or become) notable due to its continuous use in reliable sources. Could potentially qualify for transference to Wiktionary. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadahiro Takahashi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD, no reason given. Concern was No indication that this individual meets WP:GNG or applicable football-based criteria. Cloudz679 10:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Cloudz679 10:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - appears to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 13:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. Clear consensus that the company's notability is established via the existing coverage. (non-admin closure) Gongshow Talk 17:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Abercrombie & Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unnotable corporation, lacks reliable references. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is a rather well-known travel company. Researching for proof of notabilty, in the Wikipedia sense, is time-consuming because any search for "Abercrombie & Kent" is going to turn up mountains of advertisements and press releases, with the legitimate coverage buried in there somewhere. Here's one very recent story, though: "Travel Tastemaker: Geoffrey Kent Celebrates Abercrombie & Kent's 50 Years", Forbes, February 17, 2012. And here's a brief mention in a Fenbruary 12, 2012 newspaper travel column, which doesn't say much about them but does describe them as "the gold standard".[39] Probably there is more, but it may take a lot of sifting to find.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This topic easily passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Did the nominator bother to check for sources, per WP:BEFORE? Here are some of them, which have been added to the article:
- Sloan, Gene (January 4, 2011). "Ship problems prompt Abercrombie & Kent to cancel Antarctica cruise". USA Today. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - Engle, Jane (July 19, 2011). "Abercrombie & Kent does Cuba, with mojitos and luxury hotels". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in:|publisher=
|publisher=
(help) - Fitzsimmons, Annie (February 17, 2012). "Travel Tastemaker: Geoffrey Kent Celebrates Abercrombie & Kent's 50 Years". Forbes Magazine. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
{{cite web}}
: External link in
(help)|publisher=
- Sloan, Gene (January 4, 2011). "Ship problems prompt Abercrombie & Kent to cancel Antarctica cruise". USA Today. Retrieved March 2, 2012.
- Keep per User:Northamerica1000.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - very well known tour operator/travel company, more notable than most. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 10:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No question about it. The company may have passed the nominator by, but it's a leader in its field and well-referenced. (I can't afford them though!) Emeraude (talk) 13:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Not sure why it was relisted, but the evidence for notability is above. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Prosapio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to have any significant notability. Bazonka (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You might want to look into adding Dream War to this, as it's another article added by the same editor and seems to only have a handful of coverage from local papers.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Delete. While he has had a handful of articles written about him during the contest, there weren't any articles written about him in reliable secondary sources that shows that the contest was anything other than WP:ONEEVENT. I had to re-write the article because the text was misleading: it stated that he won a "top five finalist award" when in reality it was that he got to the final round and didn't win the contest, making him a finalist. If the book gets added, I'd suggest deleting it under the same premise, especially since the links in the book article are more about Prosapio and the contest than the actual book, if that makes any sense.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Comment Dream War has now been nominated for deletion. Bazonka (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Three independent, non-trivial, RS'es means he meets GNG. I note that these are the same three as the novel, which suggests that a single article could adequately cover both. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 09:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The only problem is that the articles were done in a very brief point of time (between May and October 2007) and there haven't been any other articles to show that the author has any lasting notability. Three articles written during the span of a competition isn't exactly a lot of coverage to show notability, especially since nobody has written another news article about him since 2007. I don't see where there's really any depth of coverage.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:ANYBIO. Likely autobiography. A sources are local coverage of a single, non-notable novel. User:Tokyogirl79 points out correctly no depth of coverage and no enduring interest. Self-promotion, and we're not here to advertise. BusterD (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard J. Sebastian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any reliable sources for this actor. Cerebellum (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. His film career as identified by IMDB does not represent a significant body of work. The LACasting credit list would seem to indicate that this person is a professional actor, but not one with a bio that would indicate that he meets the inclusion criteria for actors. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 09:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failure of WP:ACTOR and WP:GNG. There were two projects listed on IMDB for this actor, but only in minor roles. Congrats on having his own YouTube channel, but that is no mark of notability, unless there is some assertion beig made that he is a notable YouTube personality... and I do not see that. His LA Casting credit list is also full of minor roles. I wish to note that his info at LA CAsting is editable only by the actor himself and/or his agency... definitely not RS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As all of the above and also because of no significant mentions.Curb Chain (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Polyvore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am only able to locate a single reference in a reliable source to the website - in Time magazine in 2011 as referenced in the article. This does not amount to substantial reliable source coverage to pass WP:N. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This website is one of the top 580 websites in the United States. If Time magazine isn't enough for you, then check elsewhere. Marcus Qwertyus 21:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. GNews lists many quality sources, [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47] for starters. Subject easily meets WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Gongshow Talk 08:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bmusician 09:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Above references establish notability: articles primarily about the company in well-known publications. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn - Thank you for turning up references, Gongshow. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- John Junkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-promotional page created and maintained by the subject. No incoming links. Not encyclopedic. Subject deleted COI and other banners at the top of the page. I suspect this article qualifies for speedy deletion per WP:G11, but I'm not positive. walkie (talk) 07:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteno RS. All sources are related to Junkins. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep the sources may be related to him, but you have to assume that the university pages are somewhat accurate and reliable. Nothing links here is not a reason to delete a relatively new page. If it isn't encyclopedic then the article needs to be wikified, cleaned-up or needs to be copy edited. "Subject deleted COI and other banners at the top of the page." Walkie is not a reason to delete the page. Instead the COI should be replaced and the "subject" warned (see here and here for more information on user warnings).Callanecc (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The key concern is simply the subject's lack of Notability, which certainly is a reason for deletion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe university sources almost certainly are accurate and reliable; they are also not independent of the subject and thus useless for notability purposes. Nothing in the article suggests a pass of the professor test, and the sources are not sufficient for a pass of WP:BASIC or WP:GNG. Yunshui 雲水 10:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Vote struck, per demonstrated pass of WP:PROF below. Yunshui 雲水 18:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Search of Google Scholar suggests notability by WP:SCHOLAR - Optimal estimation of dynamic systems by Crassidis and Junkins has 339 cites; Introduction to dynamics and control of flexible structures has 332 cites; Analytical mechanics of space systems by Schaub and Junkins has 312, Optimal spacecraft rotational maneuvers has 222. Many other papers have 50+ citations. I'm not exactly sure how this compares to other people in his field. Can someone check his score on Web of Knowledge or Scopus? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is an individual who is going to fall on one side or the other of the WP:SCHOLAR special guideline. I have no opinion as to which side that would be, but that should be the angle from which this question is approached. ARTICLE RESCUE SQUAD might be of help putting this into sourced, encyclopedic form should it become clear that this is a significant scholar (as I suspect it is). Carrite (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: seems a clear pass of WP:prof - both by #1 and #5. Article clearly needs work. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Strong keep. He passes three of the WP:PROF criteria: #1 (e.g. nine papers with over 100 citations each in Google scholar), #3 (National Academy of Engineering), and #5 (the distinguished professorship/named chair). Only one of these would be sufficient. The article needs cleanup to improve its sourcing and make it look more like an encyclopedia article and less like a cv, but cleanup isn't a good enough reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with an h-index of 27 on GS, a clear pass of WP:Prof#1 at least. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - For whatever it's worth, I am convinced of the subject's notability based on the comments here. I read WP:Prof before proposing this article, but this alone does not prescribe a course of action. One must also be familiar with what the community considers a "major institution", a "prestigious scholarly society", "significant impact", and so on; I was clearly not. The previous commenter cites h-index, but WP:Prof does not give an acceptable value for this and even recommends against its use. The article was clearly self-promotion and so I thought qualified for speedy deletion. Since my initial attempt to raise attention to this was swept under the rug, this seemed a reasonable course of action. I do not intend to propose many articles in the future and so do not intend to become fully knowledgable on this subject. Is there a place I can raise these concerns, besides the article itself, without officially proposing the article's deletion? If so, I will gladly prefer that route in the future. walkie (talk) 06:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Advice often given to newbies to a subject area (and we are all newbies to some parts of Wikipedia) is to lurk around for a while to learn the standards and conventions that prevail there before editing. If you are not sure, then the article talk page is the place to comment. Thanks. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep An h-index of 27 is quite substantial in this field and way above what we usually find acceptable here. In addition, member of a National Academy. The article should be checked for copyvio, though, it reads like it was copied verbatim from some website describing this person. Even without copyvio, this will need a lot of heavy editing to become even halfway acceptable. As it stands, a speedy delete as promotional would have been defendable... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok then keep, and EDIT. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Creator of the article is advised to read WP:Yourself. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Note an editor claiming to be the subject of the article blanked it with this edit. I've reverted, since multiple editors have contributed to this article (so I WP:CSD:G7 doesn't apply) and this AfD is ongoing. Sparthorse (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Per WP:PROF which states "The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences)". John Junkins is a member of National Academy of Engineering which is one of the four organizations of United States National Academies, the given example of National Academy of Sciences being one of them (source: Dr. John L. Junkins - Distinguished Professor of Aerospace Engineering, Royce E. Wisenbaker '39 Chair in Engineering).
- Also, WP:PROF which states "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. He is the 1999 recipient of the Frank J. Malina Astronautics Medal of the International Astronautical Federation (source: [48]) and 2011 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Honorary Fellow (source: [49]). His views on the space debris was recently on New York Times article For Space Mess, Scientists Seek Celestial Broom.
- Nominations can not be based on WP:UGLY or WP:UNENCYC, nominator should have done a WP:GOODFAITH research before nominating. Nimuaq (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I can see the nominators' concern on WP:COI. However, in its current form, I think this should no longer be an issue. Nimuaq (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione Message 06:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I Survived BTK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced article about a non-notable movie. The article contains a lot of trivia about its making, but it sounds as if the film itself was shown at a handful of festivals and then released to television. If the film meets WP:MOVIE, the article certainly doesn't help to make the case. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 07:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm going to try cleaning the article first to get all of the puffery out of it. There are some reviews for it, but this article is just a knock down, dragged out mess. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional: It looks like it was originally released under the name "Feast of Assumption", so I'm finding more hits under that than under the newer name.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Keep. It was shown on the Documentary Channel and has been reviewed by several reliable sources, although most of the reviews are from its film festival days. I trimmed a lot of stuff from the page. The review section was especially dubious considering that I wasn't able to find many of the reviews and the ones that I did find weren't nearly as positive as the quotes made it out to seem. There was some definite cherry picking going on there. Some of what I've taken out was done because it was either trivia or it had no reliable and independent sources to back it up. It's still a rough article but it's definitely in better shape than it was.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]
- Comment. I've reason to believe that the original editor was someone who was involved in the film, mostly from them having written the IMDb page for the film. I would highly encourage them to see assistance through Wikipedia:WikiProject Film when it comes to making any new additions to the article rather than directly editing it themselves. You can edit even if you have a conflict of interest, but it's highly discouraged because it's so difficult to be neutral because you want to promote your film in the best light possible. Please be careful because it's these instincts that lead the article to be nominated for deletion in the first place, as the article's original state wasn't organized or well-sourced.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now - by reliable sourcing.--BabbaQ (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The "unreferenced" criticism no longer applies. "Non-notable movie" was never a legitimate criticism; this film was aired on a national network in the United States; it's not an amateur movie that someone is trying to advertise on Wikipedia. Although I agree with Tokyogirl79 about possible COI, recent improvements have dealt with that problem as long as the creator of the article doesn't continue trying to promote the film. 174.99.123.164 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per article improvements readily showing the topic as being notable per the applicable guideline. With the greatest of respects to the nominator, the article's original state was more a reason to seek sources which spoke toward the film than it was to delete because it had not yet been done. Though always helpful, an article need not show available sources, just so long as they exist. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Come back later. Of course, if the article is still stand-alone and failing WP:N after a reasonable time, then a further AfD would be reasonable. At present, though, this appears to be more of an editorial issue. And yes, G4 doesn't apply because it's never been deleted. It might actually be worth making that clearer at WP:CSD, since many editors seem to conflate deletion and redirection. Black Kite (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Shrike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fictional character appearing in a cycle of novels. The previous deletion discussion was closed as redirect, and this redirect has now been undone. The article is almost entirely plot summary (WP:PLOT), and the character as such does not appear notable (WP:V#Notability) because it has not as such received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The one NYT review cited only briefly touches upon this character. Additional possible sources are mentioned on the article talk page, but as these are offline, I have no way of ascertaining to which depth, if any, they address the character. If we want to have articles about fictional characters, we need to be able to say substantially more about them than merely regurgitating the plot as concerns them. Sandstein 06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hastily. Would WP:G4 not apply in this case? —JmaJeremy talk contribs 06:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)(!vote withdrawn)[reply]- No, because it was never deleted before. Merge is a form of keep. Jehochman Talk 16:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge with redirect per previous consensus. Personally I think the Shrike is a great literary creation, but it simply doesn't have the necessary coverage to warrant a separate article. Yunshui 雲水 10:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- That may be, in which case, please take it upon yourself to merge the content into the Hyperion Cantos article. Last time we went through this the result was to merge, but nobody ever bothered to do the work, and this content was lost. I have been trying to clean up the content in preparation for merging (no point in merging crap), or perhaps keeping a separate article if there is enough referenced material. This haste to delete is seriously misguided. If half the effort of the deletionists were put into improving the content and finding the right place for it, the matter would have been resolved by now. Jehochman Talk 16:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sombody else's problem, eh? Fair enough, I'll make a userspace copy of the current page and if this get's closed as D&R, I'll merge the content. Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, cut/paste copying is not correct. Please see WP:CUTPASTE and WP:MAD which explain this. Warden (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahh, good point, thanks for the reminder. In which case, changing !vote to Merge and redirect, above. I'm still happy to merge the content if no-one else can be bothered. Yunshui 雲水 08:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sombody else's problem, eh? Fair enough, I'll make a userspace copy of the current page and if this get's closed as D&R, I'll merge the content. Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and the previous consensus was what, two editors. That's not exactly a consensus. Jehochman Talk 17:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge. The content here is harmless, and there are sources, though it may take some time to track them down. The fiction was written circa 1990, pre-WWW, so the sources are mostly offline. The content is reasonably accurate and could be a part of Hyperion Cantos if not a separate article. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harmless" is not the relevant inclusion criterion; "notable" is. Coverage of fictional topics should be appropriately balanced, see WP:WAF, and this is just overly detailed plot summary. As such, it is not useful in the main article at this level of detail, and it is also not useful as part of a separate article unless the topic is notable enough to warrant such an article, which nobody here seems to argue it is. Sandstein 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actively trying to fix it, but you seem to be utterly deaf. You're trying to delete the page while I'm working on it. You couldn't just wait a bit for me to finish, eh. It's that important to delete this page immediately? Jehochman Talk 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as soon as you go live with a page in mainspace, it does have to meet our inclusion requirements. But you'll have all the time in the world to finish it if this discussion concludes that the topic is notable enough for inclusion. And you have the seven days in which this AfD runs to prove that it is (now) notable, which shouldn't be difficult if you do have adequate sources to draw on as a basis of your improvement work. Sandstein 21:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am actively trying to fix it, but you seem to be utterly deaf. You're trying to delete the page while I'm working on it. You couldn't just wait a bit for me to finish, eh. It's that important to delete this page immediately? Jehochman Talk 20:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Harmless" is not the relevant inclusion criterion; "notable" is. Coverage of fictional topics should be appropriately balanced, see WP:WAF, and this is just overly detailed plot summary. As such, it is not useful in the main article at this level of detail, and it is also not useful as part of a separate article unless the topic is notable enough to warrant such an article, which nobody here seems to argue it is. Sandstein 20:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge: If this is notable then you have had time to establish this with sources in the article and not just on the talk page, and your predecessors in the original AfD debate had time to do so as well. Wikipedia:The content here is harmless is not a policy I am aware of. The article having been deleted and redirected once before, the onus is on its supporters to improve it in userspace before unleashing it on Wikipedia again, it is not permitted to just undo the redirect and carry on as if nothing happened. Richard75 (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Delete what somebody else is working on before they have a chance to get to the references isn't policy either. If somebody says they are working to improve an article, will considering merging if appropriate, and you nevertheless badger them incessantly in a quest to delete the thing they are working on, you are very uncivil. This goes for Sandstein too, who should have enough clue not to have done what he did. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once an article has entered mainspace, it must meet all the normal requirements for an article, including inline citations and reliable sources that establish its notability. If you want to work on it for a wihle first, you should move the article to your userspace and put back the redirect that was decided upon at the previous AfD discussion. On the other hand, things seem to be getting a little argumentative here...we shouldn't always quibble over policies. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and, most importantly WP:Ignore all rules. —JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main detriment I see in putting this in my userspace (I do have a copy there by the way) is that people won't find it. A fair number of people go online and search for The Shrike, as I did, and look for the Wikipedia page to learn more about this character. My hope is that people would find the page and want to get involved improving it. Moving to my userspace prevents that from happening. As I said above, this article is about a fictional character, not a BLP, so there is practically no harm whatsoever if any of the info is unverified. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think that strong policies for sourcing and notability just don't apply to your article? "Mostly harmless" is a Douglas Adams quote, not a WP policy. Other articles on fiction are being deleted wholesale (and deleted, making them impossible to work upon further, not just redirected) because they didn't have adequate sourcing from outside the novel itself. You had a month from the first AfD to add sources, yet it's still lacking them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am here as a Wikipedia reader. I was reading Hyperion and wanted to know a bit more about this character, went to Google and expected to find a detailed Wikipedia page. It wasn't there. The Hyperion Cantos article had no content about the main character of the series, which seemed very odd, so I sought to resurrect this article. I wasn't involved in the prior AfD, so I haven't had a month. Didn't even know about it at the time. Jehochman Talk 13:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you think that strong policies for sourcing and notability just don't apply to your article? "Mostly harmless" is a Douglas Adams quote, not a WP policy. Other articles on fiction are being deleted wholesale (and deleted, making them impossible to work upon further, not just redirected) because they didn't have adequate sourcing from outside the novel itself. You had a month from the first AfD to add sources, yet it's still lacking them. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The main detriment I see in putting this in my userspace (I do have a copy there by the way) is that people won't find it. A fair number of people go online and search for The Shrike, as I did, and look for the Wikipedia page to learn more about this character. My hope is that people would find the page and want to get involved improving it. Moving to my userspace prevents that from happening. As I said above, this article is about a fictional character, not a BLP, so there is practically no harm whatsoever if any of the info is unverified. Jehochman Talk 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Once an article has entered mainspace, it must meet all the normal requirements for an article, including inline citations and reliable sources that establish its notability. If you want to work on it for a wihle first, you should move the article to your userspace and put back the redirect that was decided upon at the previous AfD discussion. On the other hand, things seem to be getting a little argumentative here...we shouldn't always quibble over policies. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and, most importantly WP:Ignore all rules. —JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Delete what somebody else is working on before they have a chance to get to the references isn't policy either. If somebody says they are working to improve an article, will considering merging if appropriate, and you nevertheless badger them incessantly in a quest to delete the thing they are working on, you are very uncivil. This goes for Sandstein too, who should have enough clue not to have done what he did. Jehochman Talk 17:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "I was reading Hyperion and wanted to know a bit more about this character,"
- Then unfortunately Wikipedia has failed you - because there's nothing in this article that isn't lifted straight from the books, which you'd just read for yourself.
- I'm happy that the Shrike is a significant character (I won't say "notable", as that's politically loaded) and that WP should wish to have an article upon it. The problem is one of our quality standards: we (for the best of reasons) don't permit WP:OR and it's currently questionable as to whether an article on a topic in fiction is permitted to be based solely on the original text, as this one is.
- Current WP practice is that articles on fiction are allowed to exist with no other sources if it's a US title (the stated policy is ignored), but if it's a UK title, then large swathes of articles are being deleted (the same policy is being enforced). WP is clearly being inconsistent on this issue, and I see that as being driven solely by their populism and the greater number of US editors at AfDs etc. Whether we decide to keep this policy or change it, we clearly shouldn't enforce it arbitrarily and inconsistently. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In a five minute search I came up with these sources:
- Isaac Asimov's science fiction magazine: Volume 14, Issues 4-6
- Mind Flight: A Journey Into the Future, Tom Lombardo, Jeanne Belisle Lombardo
- The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy
- NY Times book review: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/25/books/science-fiction.html?ref=bookreviews
Most of these are dead trees, so it will take time to track them down and see what they say. If anybody here has access and can shed light on this question, that would be superb. Jehochman Talk 21:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Good, but as I said initially, do any of these cover the Shrike at a level of detail that would enable us to write an article about it? The NYT does not. Sandstein 21:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there is enough to create more than a stub, because I haven't gotten my hands on the dead trees yet, but I think deletion is not the right decision. The content could be merged. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the above-mentioned sources: Isaac Asimov magazine certainly mentions the Shrike in an article about the books, but doesn't give it any more significant coverage than any other review; Mind Flight is self-published through Xlibris and so fails WP:RS; The Greenwood Encyclopedia covers the Shrike in passing in a plot synopsis (no depth of coverage), and the NY Times article has already been discussed. The Greenwood Encyclopedia does mention an article by Janeen Webb called The Hunting of the Shrike, which I haven't been able to find; it appeared in Foundation in 1991. Yunshui 雲水 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if there is enough to create more than a stub, because I haven't gotten my hands on the dead trees yet, but I think deletion is not the right decision. The content could be merged. Jehochman Talk 02:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a plausible search term and therefore must not be deleted. If a consensus forms that this material should not be a separate article, then we may wish to consider remerging or replacing with a redirect to Shrike (disambiguation), but turning it into a redlink is simply inappropriate.—S Marshall T/C 23:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur that it is a likely search term and should redirect to the related article. Richard75 (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a section of Hyperion Cantos.I'll soon be working on revising this article, which could adapt most of the article's content, fitting it into a rather bulky but useful section. dci | TALK 01:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close Any editor is allowed to undo a redirect--even an AfD enacted one--with a good faith belief that the problems can be fixed AND is making steps in that direction. This is not a BLP issue, it's one of fictional content, and there's at least four references on the talk page and the un-redirector has been making progress in that direction. Really, this is premature. The end result may indeed be a merge, and I don't think it would be an inappropriate outcome even if there are sufficient independent, non-trivial RS'es to support a separate article. This should really be handled via discussion, and this is still entitiled "articles for deletion"--and no policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced, not even by the delete !voters. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, let's move this to the talk page. dci | TALK 05:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "no policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced" - both WP:N and WP:G4 are Wikipedia policies. Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These are both frivolous arguments. The only issue to discuss is whether the content should be a stand alone article, or a section of Hyperion Cantos. I completely don't care which of those is the outcome. Jehochman Talk 13:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "no policy-based reason for deletion has been advanced" - both WP:N and WP:G4 are Wikipedia policies. Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The consensus of the previous discussion was merger but nobody did anything about it. Now that an editor is engaged in actively editing the topic, this nomination seems to be disruptive and, as it does not propose actual deletion, is inappropriate. Warden (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, substantially per Jclemens. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This discussion is not elegible for speedy closure: the nomination has not been withdrawn, and other editors have recommended deletion. See WP:Speedy keep.
I suggest the above editors adjust their !votes to "Keep".Yunshui 雲水 08:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, thanks for that. JClemens and Newyorkbrad are both arbitrators. I do assure you that it's not necessary to give them "suggestions" about Wikipedia procedure. Their "speedy keeps" in this case should be understood as "snow keeps", and they're clearly right. Jehochman has explained to you why G4 does not apply, and WP:N is not a reason to delete when redirection is an option (see WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE). What JClemens and Newyorkbrad are saying is that this nomination has no prospect whatsoever of leading to a "delete" outcome.—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to argue that the article should be deleted under G4 (or even that it's a good argument), merely that it has been advanced as a policy-based reason for deletion, in direct contradiction to the claim that "no policy-based reasons have been advanced." I'm afraid I'm not psychic, so I tend to regard a "Speedy Keep" !vote as, well, a speedy keep !vote, not a snow keep one. You're right to point out that they don't need my suggestions, though, so I've striken that. However, this article also fails the snowball test (since it wasn't closed as Keep last time), so snow keep isn't really appropriate either. Yunshui 雲水 09:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This discussion is not elegible for speedy closure: the nomination has not been withdrawn, and other editors have recommended deletion. See WP:Speedy keep.
- Keep G4 when it doesn't apply is not a policy based reason. I could equally well say this article should be deleted because there's no context, or any other irrelevant reason. Probably the content should be merged, but that's another question. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Hyperion Cantos. - Frankie1969 (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione Message 06:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tomislav's razor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article creator removed prod, and I've been unable to find any references to this term. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 06:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete May not be a hoax - after all Occam's Razor had to start sometime - but definitely a non-notable (so far) neologism. May take off in synthetic organic chemistry, but unlikely to spread much further, if it even spreads there. Peridon (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it has been tagged with db-hoax by TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). T83388 (talk) 09:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as something made up one day or, at best a non-notable neologism. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to admins If this article is deleted, please make note that the article has been moved to Tomislav's Razor since nomination. Both titles should be deleted if that is the outcome. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Tomislav Rovis is real [50] but until this term has been used in WP:RS it should not be in the encyclopedia. PamD 13:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WikiDan61. No Google, GB, GN, or GS hits whatsoever. -- 202.124.74.86 (talk) 03:19, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione Message 06:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Gigapor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not absolutely sure what to do with this situation, but an editor has been persistently blanking parts of this article over a period of several months; his most recent edit appears to suggest that the team may in fact be a complete hoax (or just some imaginary team in a fantasy league or something.) As I'm unfamiliar with Malaysian football, I'm not qualified to assess whether that's true or false, so I thought it best to bring it here for some assistance in figuring out whether the appropriate response is to delete the article as a hoax, or to block the editor as a lying vandal who lies. Procedural nomination, no !vote. Bearcat (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It seems to me that the lack of any references and outrageous sentences like "Gigapor is one of the wealthiest and most widely supported football teams in the world...the world's most valuable football club." make this a definite candidate for deletion, alone. I may not know a lot about Malaysian football, but I'm pretty sure I would have heard of a team for which that statement is justified.
Some of the content that I found on YouTube seems to indicate that while Gigapor is something significant, it isn't a real football team...some sort of locally viral "meme" perhaps? I can't be sure all these are related to the same thing, but they all make reference to "GIGAPOR FC": - Delete. Even if this is a real football club, the article appears to be a parody of the intro to the article Manchester United F.C. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy G3 as a blatant hoax - the list of titles claimed is laughable and the name barely Googles at all. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable team. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - definitely non-notable, also probable hoax. GiantSnowman 14:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione Message 06:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- DePaul Detour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. References are self and a local radio interview. ghits are fb and the like. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is WP:LOCAL and WP:MILL. —JmaJeremy talk contribs 06:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 23:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione Message 06:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- George Goodwin (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A journalist - of no obvious notability in regard to wikipedia's guidelines. Youreallycan
- Keep. The cited source describes Goodwin's very lengthy career in some detail. Among other things it notes that this reporter won the 1948 Pulitzer Prize (See [51].) and served other important functions in the development of modern Atlanta. He was also noted for his coverage of a famous murder case[52] that ended up with him being featured on an episode of an early TV series called The Big Story[53][54] --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trivial coverage - feel free to add your suggestions to the article. - Youreallycan 05:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that the article is currently really weak, but a search reveals that the subject has written some very important work, which led to him becoming Pulitzer Prize Winner for Local Reporting in 1948.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- -- After having worked all morning on this article I am now supportive of a Strong Keep. His Pulitzer and other contributions to journalism (and various other fields), although localised in Georgia, are notable.GorgeCustersSabre (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A Pulitzer win constitutes "significant critical attention", thus passing WP:CREATIVE#4. Yunshui 雲水 10:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. The Pulitzer prize constitutes, in my mind, enough notability for inclusion. —Ed!(talk) 23:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GorgeCustersSabre's good work. Gongshow Talk 03:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by User:Fastily under criterion G6. (non admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Filipino unknown supercentenarian claimers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List consisting of one (at most) valid entries. ThaddeusB (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with haste. Two items, one a redlink, is not a list. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And even if this were considered a valid list, there are problems with the title, so if it doesn't get deleted, it needs to be renamed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. —Ed!(talk) 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wifione Message 06:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Roz Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable politician. Not even yet nominated as her party's candidate. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—She has received a few mentions in the local press, but I don't think there's anything that could qualify as "significant coverage". Of course this can be restored if she wins a house seat. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete agreed. —Ed!(talk) 23:39, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable per WP:POLITICIAN & WP:BIO.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by User:Malik Shabazz under criterion G8. (non-admin closure) "Pepper" @ 00:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Poland Digital Songs number-one hits of 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Also nominating List of Poland Digital Songs number-one hits of 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Since Poland Digital Songs was deleted per this AFD, I don't see much need for the lists of number ones. The chart is not well sourced anywhere, there's already lists for number-one songs in Poland such as List of number-one singles of 2011 (Poland) (which are probably official charts from that country), Billboard doesn't make mention of Poland charts on its .biz site of international charts (as shown here), and when you can finally navigate to it, it provides a lengthy list of 1. Not all Billboard charts are notable or significant (especially one as deeply buried as this one), and there's no need for a list of #1's for every chart. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, qualifies as a subpage without parent page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Harbaugh Bowl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing particularly notable about this game, there are many games with the same kind of storyline (brothers playing against each other). Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Was not a typical game. Was a first of its kind more many reasons. Prior to this game, there had never been a game played between two head coaches who were brothers. That's what makes it so unusual. Even if there are more matchups between the two brothers, which is possible, this will always stand out as the first. WP:SPORTSEVENT states Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats, and this article meets that requirement. Hellno2 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The question here is whether the game is notable. The fact that it may have "well-sourced prose" doesn't make it notable. It just means that the article isn't total garbage worthy of speedy deletion. Terence7 (talk) 00:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The "notable games" in the guideline you cited refers to the ones listed immediately above. This game is not notable per that guideline. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Interesting, but still only trivia. There's nothing special about this game except for the fact the head coaches are brothers. What about the several games between Eli and Peyton Manning? Virtually every week there's an interesting "first" in the NFL. That doesn't make it encyclopedic. —Wrathchild (talk) 15:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. If there were some greater significance in this game as a result of the coaches, it would be one thing. As-is, the article is just a recap of an everyday game, and the distinction of the coaches is just trivia. —Ed!(talk) 23:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes general notability guideline and is well sourced with independent reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just because there was coverage in reliable sources doesn't guarantee that it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, as the general notability guideline acknowledges. The problem here is that this game doesn't meet the standards of notability for events. Lasting effects? Hardly. Duration of coverage? Nope. Also, per WP:ROUTINE, "routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. ... Routine events such as sports matches, film premieres, press conferences etc. may be better covered as part of another article, if at all." That's certainly the case here: a mention of the so-called "Harbaugh Bowl" on each brother's biographical article would be more than sufficient. Terence7 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wrathchild. cmadler (talk) 12:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There was heavy reliable sources that you can find, and the fact that this game is rare in that brothers have faced off against each other as coaches is definitely notable. This has never happened before. As Hellno2 said, WP:SPORTSEVENT states that Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats, and this game doesn't have just stats, as there was notability, and reliable sources, especially since this game was heavily covered. ZappaOMati (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Zappa[reply]
- (1) Rarity does not equate to notability. (2) I reiterate: the fact that the article (arguably) has "well-sourced prose" does NOT mean it is notable. In other words, "well-sourced prose" does not make the subject notable. The question of notability is separate. "Well-sourced prose" is a requirement for articles that are inherently notable, independent of the quality of the writing. Terence7 (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets all notability requirements. Unlike Eagles247 says, WP:SPORTSEVENT is a notability guideline, and this article meets that. There are numerous media sources that refer to this game as the "Harbaugh Bowl" too. Stedrick (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which bullet from WP:SPORTSEVENT does it meet? Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:ROUTINE game coverage per WP:NOTNEWS. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a WP:routine game that fails SPORTEVENT. Some of the info might be placed in article on the two brothers (I'm talking like one sentence here), but that's about it. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 21:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This AfD presents the question: what quantum of notability is necessary for an article about a single regular-season NFL game? In some sense, every NFL game could be said to pass WP:GNG, since there's always plenty of contemporaneous coverage and then almost always further coverage later in the season and afterward. But we clearly don't want a separate article on every game, so we have to have some understanding of what sorts of games are unusual enough to qualify for their own article. Category:National Football League games has only 14 entries, at least two of which are currently being reviewed at AfD. The other games on the list tend to have truly famous plays (e.g., River City Relay, Miracle at the Meadowlands). There are others in other categories, such as the Heidi Game which is categorized under Category:National Football League controversies. Somewhat subjectively, I don't think the Harbaugh game comes up to this level: nothing all that memorable really happened, and there are plenty of other games between brothers. If, a year or five from now, it turns out that people really are still writing about the game, we could reconsider, but for now it seems enough to talk about the game in the Harbaughs' biographies and in the season articles for the teams, where it will be discussed anyway. I will say this, however: if Manning Bowl (also currently at AfD) is kept, there'd be a better argument that this one should be too. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to the WP:ROUTINE argument -- the sources cited and many others are more than just listing of sports scores and statistics, as pointed out in the "routine" argument. The guideline also points out that WP:INDEPTH coverage can be enough to sustain notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INDEPTH says that in-depth coverage is necessary to sustain notability, not that it is sufficient to sustain notability. Terence7 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is why I stated "can be enough" instead of "is enough" but thanks for clarifying.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:INDEPTH says that in-depth coverage is necessary to sustain notability, not that it is sufficient to sustain notability. Terence7 (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment I would not be opposed to changing the title of the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS, specifically, WP:SPORTSEVENT. WP:CFB and WP:NFL editors need to stop inventing cutesy articles for topics such as this. This deserves one or two sentences, if anything, in the respective bio articles of the Harbaugh brothers, nothing more . . . and certainly not a stand-alone article of 2,500+ words and five photos recycled from other articles (none of which were actually taken during the subject games). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep and retitle The rivalry between the two brothers is notable. The word "bowl" implies a single game, and they have played multiple games, plus been compared in other ways (e.g. Super Bowl wins). Hellno2 (talk) 21:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
[reply]
Not good form to !vote twice. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 22:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Hellno2, was this comment possibly meant for the Manning Bowl (American football) AfD instead of this one? As far as I can remember, neither of the Harbaughs has been to the Super Bowl, and (so far) they've only faced each other as coaches this one time. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear....my sincerest apologies for my snide comment if that is the case...and I think it is. Gonna strike my first comment regardless. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete " two teams whose head coaches were brothers." is the furthest essence of trivia, and writing an article about one such coincidence is the negation of encyclopedicity. It might be worth a mention in the season article, of course, trivial though it is, there';s a place for such trivia. But not an entire article about it. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn, with thanks to the participants, esp. those with sharper eyes than me. Drmies (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael S. Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A7 tag removed by SPA. Article makes no claim to notability; there is no inherent notability for reporters, not even if they work for the NYT. No references are included that warrant inclusion as a professional or via the GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Down at the bottom of the article, listed under External links instead of References, are two articles about this reporter from the New York Observer. The first one is entitled "Meet Michael Schmidt, the Young Times Writer Who Exposes Baseball’s Worst", and it's a very thorough profile of the subject, commenting that he was "eating the lunch of all his competitors in the off-the-field, performance-enhancing-drugs beat—probably the most important in sports today." . The second article came a year later, entitled "Who Broke the Times’ Roger Clemens Story? Ah, Yes! Michael Schmidt Again", and it describes Schmidt as "one of the most notable reporters at the paper." Add in the several other mentions of his work in other sources footnoted in the article, and his notability seems established to me. But we could also mention, if necessary, that he shows up as a guest on other folks' news shows as an expert, for example on NPR[55] and ESPN[56]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Nice catch, Arxiloxos. Reference "2" also appears to be a reliable source. Seems notable, although definitely in need of some work. —JmaJeremy talk contribs 07:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep ah, the notable journalist problem again. Yes, the 2 refs talking about Schmidt here would seem to be enough to show notability. The real trouble is that the guideline on Journalists is wildly out of line with reality - journalists get famous by writing well in major publications, what would you expect them to do, and yet we are barely allowed to mention the fact. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.