Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 July 25
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The British Cup results at the bottom were the clincher that the article has no validity whatsoever; there is no such tournament, so this is a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
England U17 Youth Scheme
- England U17 Youth Scheme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced, consists almost entirely of OR, written by an author with a definite COI, entirely inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia in its current form. elektrikSHOOS 22:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per above. --Whoosit (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - in addition to the above, I can't find any evidence that any of these players even exist, or that an under-17 British Cup has ever taken place. Looks like some sort of fiction/wish-fulfilment thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete; probable hoax based on the fact that neither myself nor Chris could verify it. Even if it is genuine, I would say delete anyway based on being completely unsourced (]
- Speedy delete as obvious hoax. – Jay 11:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. GiantSnowman 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverifiable. Re-creation of England u17 2010/11 which was redirected to the real England under-17 team page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete Obvious hoax. Safiel (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted (
]Kiss & Tell (film)
Like this user's other article, this too looks like a hoax. Mike Allen 21:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as hoax. At the very least should be tagged as a hoax while it's at AfD. Pichpich (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as a semi-hoax. Isla Fisher is rumored for the starring role in Kiss & Tell,[1][2] but there's no Tom Cruise on the horizon, nor does the plot resemble what is in the article. No IMDb entry (despite the fake ext. link), so it definitely isn't at a stage where any notice is warranted. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete The IMDB link comes from the Burke and Hare (film) article, which this article was based on. Comparing the Production sections makes it obvious that this is not a real thing. It's just a hoax article built from the article of a non-hoax. Reach Out to the Truth 04:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, with no objection if reliably sourced material is merged. Jayjg (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Garratt Park
- Garratt Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Team's article was deleted
- Delete' as random park. Pichpich (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per team being deleted, parks aren't notable without some references. Shadowjams (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even clear what Garratt Park is other than something you can play football on. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've rewritten the article with better context and some sources. I don't think that the lack of notability of one football team that happens to play there has any bearing on the notability of the park, which seems to be better known for its ]
- Merge with Tooting. This sounds like a NN local recreation ground. Such things are much better dealt with by including them in the article for the area where they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not notable as a football stadium, but notable enough for hosting the World Final of the cycle speedway championship, I feel. Failing that, merge as per Garratt Park. GiantSnowman 21:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seasons of Tragedy
- Seasons of Tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not meet the notability guideline for music. Album has never charted. Bigvernie (talk) 19:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep If the band is notable enough for an article then their albums should have articles on-wiki. Heavy metal albums rarely chart anyways. Pichpich (talk) 22:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep albums by subjects who are notable are notable. -DJSasso (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep album has received some coverage and is, according to Blabbermouth.net, "critically acclaimed" ([3]). extransit (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant read our article about Blabbermouth.net, sorry that my diction was not clear. But never-mind, it is a small point (you said it was not a reliable source, our article indicates that it is actually an authority on heavy metal) as you are right that blabbermouth's coverage of SoT is just a blurb. extransit (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<--Oh, gotcha. There's been a lot of discussion about Blabbermouth; I think it should be judged on a case-by-case basis. I certainly don't want to say that nothing on Blabbermouth is trustworthy, but 'articles' (not used in irony) there are of very different ilks. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was removed. This article will be speedy G4; didn't see that there was an already-closed AfD for this article. (I wish twinkle would tell me!) — Timneu22 · talk 19:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I Love New York (Madonna song)
No indication why this particular song is important enough to warrant its own article. I don't even see a reason to redirect to Confessions on a Dance Floor because this is an implausible redirect. Further, the disambiguation page for I Love New York already lists this Madonna song, pointing to the album page. — Timneu22 · talk 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Autopsy. ... for now JForget 01:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Macabre Eternal
- Macabre Eternal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Redirect to band per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to band per WP:NALBUMS since the title is indeed confirmed. The album shouldn't have a stand-alone article until the track listing and release date are both also confirmed as well. If someone wants to continue developing this, incubation or userfication could be pursued. Cliff smith talk 03:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Van Halen IV
- Van Halen IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete (possibly redirect if that is the actual title) per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this ]
- Delete - I'm pretty sure there was another attempt at an article for this "forthcoming" album that was deleted through either a PROD or AfD, sometime in late 2009, but I can't find it. But whatever the issues were back then, they're still issues now. This album has not yet progressed beyond the rumor stage and is not eligible for its own article. The prospect can MAYBE be mentioned at the band page. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: One source that is probably non-reliable does not verify the name of the album or that only a single is in the works. This fails ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, but it has been identified that the article needs a lot of work. As it is the first nomination of the article, it seems reasonable to give those asserting the article can be improved a chance to improve it. If the article has not been improved in a few months' time, I would expect to see it back here, and would be a lot less willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Geek humor
- Geek humor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Could not verify notability or recognition in arts literature. Found some websites that use the term, but no material that discusses, analyzes, or documents the term. Since there appears to be no literature on it, the article is unlikely to progress and can be expected to violate
- Keep though the article needs a lot of work. It's a well-known neologism which is widely used (see many many examples on Google, Google news and Google books using the term and its alternate spelling 'Geek humor'). In the worst case, can always be merged to ]
- … except that none of them actually define a category that is named geek humour. The problem with this article, as discussed quite angrily on its talk page, was that it started out badly and got worse from there. It began as a bizarre conflation of Star Trek with computers, and became even more confused as multiple editors tried and failed to fix the bad writing upon what is essentially a non-subject.
If you want the real subjects, then the subjects discussed in sources as actual categories are computer humour (as written about in InfoWorld editorials, by John A. Barry, by
]
- … except that none of them actually define a category that is named geek humour. The problem with this article, as discussed quite angrily on its talk page, was that it started out badly and got worse from there. It began as a bizarre conflation of Star Trek with computers, and became even more confused as multiple editors tried and failed to fix the bad writing upon what is essentially a non-subject.
- Then a redirect to geek culture might be in order. The term is common enough and it's a likely search term. Though we may not have access to some scholarly work on the topic, it's still a relevant notion and one that we wished we could write something smart about. Pichpich (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well notability isn't really a relevant issue here. Pichpich (talk) 01:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd support giving the article a second chance if a user can identify a minimum of 1 notable source that defines or discusses the term, or even documents its use. The neologism's wide-scale use is not sufficient to warrant keeping it; if no notable sources exist that discuss it explicitly (rather than merely use it), then editors will have no option than relying on original research, which is not acceptable on WP. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 07:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - like lots of consensus in the past has been to keep such articles. Rescue. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{confabulate 22:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless multiple reliable sources can be found which discuss the concept of geek humor in a significant way. Otherwise, it fails confabulate 22:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: A neutron walks into the fashionable Miracle of Science bar near MIT, orders a Sam Adams, and open up his wallet to pay. 'For you,' says the bartender, 'no charge!'[4]--Milowent • talkblp-r 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two atoms were walking in NYC when they bumped into each other and one of them fell down. The first atom asked if the other was alright, to which the atom replied "No. I think I lost an electron." The first atom asked if the other was sure, to which the atom replied, "I'm positive". Freakshownerd (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD. [5] Geek humor is a real thing, which the news media comments on. Dream Focus 05:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked examined all of those results. Not a single one discusses what geek humor is; they merely use the term 'geek humor'. Relying on such articles would require original research, as far as I can tell. dmyersturnbull ⇒ talk 05:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt you examined all 230 results. Computer World [6] labels a commercial "geek humor" in the article. Wired Magazine[7] calls "Humans are Dead", "the best geek humor of the year". Its clearly a genre, and used as such. It isn't original research, its common sense. Is there any sincere doubt of what the term means? Dream Focus 12:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You find further sources with the British spelling, also for books and scholar: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Did you know that the exact value of Google's planned share offering was US$2,718,281,828, which coincidentally also corresponds to the mathematical constant e?[8] And that Firefox's preferences pane once explained cookies by the text “Cookies are delicious delicacies” instead of a more appropriate explanation for concerned users without prior knowledge of the concept?[9] --Lambiam 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dream Focus's analysis is weak. has to be indepth coverage.88.194.24.215 (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User 88.194.24.215 has made three edits total, two of which were to respond to me in AFDs. Dream Focus 13:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The very notion that one can accurately define what is, and what isn't, "geek humor" is ipso facto utterly daft. Just because it's a phrase that the news media uses doesn't automatically confer any sort of notability. Would fail either ]
- Comment: does anyone have a copy of the 1992 book "Mondo 2000: A User's Guide to the New Edge"?[10][11][12]. It reportedly has a section devoted to Geek Humor.--Milowent • talkblp-r 12:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment: A pay wall article that may be of interest[13] "Fun-Ware: Geek Humor" in IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 23, issue 6, pp. 70-72 (2006). Also, I noticed that CNN has a regular column called "Geek Out" which is devoted to geek humor.[14]--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Here's a boston globe post titled "Geek Humor"[15]. I find it hard to fathom that we will not be able to find some article somewhere that includes a "definition" of geek humor, if it isn't already obvious.--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not sure how this source will be treated, but I found online archives of "HumourNet" which appears to be a geek humor usenet/email publication dating from 1994-96.[16]--Milowent • talkblp-r 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You make the point for us, over and over. Your CNN weblog nowhere defines a category of "geek humour". In fact, the word "humour" doesn't occur anywhere. The WWW diary of Robin Abrahams doesn't, either. It just happens to use those two words as a title. And the HumourNet collage that you point to defines nothing either, and simply contains an unanalysed list of computer programmer lightbulb jokes that the aforementioned sources actually classify as computer humour, and indeed present as examples thereof. As stated before, you can put two words into Google Web and come up with pages containing those words. You can even find them used as article titles. But you won't find definitions of some category of geek humour, whereas you will find computer humour fairly well documented and analysed. Try it, and see how easy it is to find real sources for the real subject, in comparison to clutching at rather thin straws with lists of lightbulb jokes for a subject that simply isn't real. Uncle G (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Lester Krinklesac
Minor character, fails
- Delete and redirect to List of The Cleveland Show characters#Krinklesac family. Armbrust Talk Contribs 19:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC) (Added the word "delete" to it. Armbrust Talk Contribs 11:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Good call, that was originally done, but chat 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good call, that was originally done, but
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect no consensus to expand this out and no sources to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Paoli/Thorndale Line. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great Valley Flyer
Non-notable commuter train. Just because it's a super-express and has a name doesn't mean it deserves an article. Train2104 (talk) 17:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ]
- Merge to appropriate target noted above. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to R5 (SEPTA); this is basically a different service on the same line, which doesn't merit its own article without significant coverage. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Remember that the line is now called the Paoli/Thorndale Line and any merger should be done to that title when it is expanded (currently a redirect). Train2104 (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paoli/Thorndale Line, per Oakshade and TheCatalyst31, and add it as a chapter of the article. ----DanTD (talk) 21:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Paoli/Thorndale Line. Dough4872 01:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 argument for deletion aside the nom JForget 01:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Camp Kabeyun
- Camp Kabeyun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Non notable camp that lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources required to meet
) 19:09, 25 July 2010- Keep and trim. Clearly a notable and historic summer camp. The site is also the Lake Winnepesauke when it's not being used as a summer camp. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The assertion (needs a reference) that it occupies the largest tract of undeveloped shoreline on Winnipesaukee, the largest lake in New Hampshire, would make it notable, in addition to the historic nature of the camp. Just as a hint to ref searchers, I suspect that the assertion of "largest" applies to properties surrounding the lake, not properties on islands in the lake. --Ken Gallager (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. (Non-admin closure) ----DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Days of Summer
- Days of Summer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Small article (under 2KB) with no significant content - lets merge this with the artist's article. Dawnseeker2000 16:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BEFORE points 2, 4 and 10. AfD is not for cleanup - suggest you go to the main article's talkpage and discuss the merger there. Lugnuts (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Lugnuts is right. An article that is small and unreferenced should be repaired and expanded by volunteer editors, not condemned to deletion. Also, if there were to be a merge, it should be to the album. But this article makes a claim of notability (the song appears to have reached the top ten in two countries) so that should be the starting point of this discussion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Withdrawing the nomination. Dawnseeker2000 23:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of the youngest elected officials in the United States
- List of the youngest elected officials in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete -
- Delete It's almost a complete copy of a list of "youngest mayors", the motivation apparently being that you're fascinated by the man who was elected Mayor of Tonasket, Washington (population 1,000) at the age of --- (drum roll please) thirty! --- then you'll want to know about the youngest ever person to serve on a city council in the United States. Pain-Cow is correct on this one, and points to a need for boundaries on such lists. As it is, if you can get the local newspaper to report that you are the (youngest, oldest, most flatulent) person to ever serve in the position of (mayor, constable, dogcatcher) in the history of your (metropolis, village, council of elders) then you would be able to memorialize your achievement here. Each of us can prove, mathematically, that we had once held the world record for youngest person in history, if only for a split second, but that's not a good idea for a list either. Mandsford 15:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Who are you to deny me my 15 microseconds of fame? But seriously, folks, I agree that as previously structured the list is untenable. A restructure and rename to "List of officials elected before age 25" or some such? Carrite (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any age limitation becomes an arbitrary inclusion standard. Why 25 and not 20? Why 25 and not 26? etc. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, some guy complained that the list was "unbounded" and that "there's nothing particularly remarkable about someone in his late 20s or 30s being elected", and I guess that some of us might have inferred from that something other than opposition under all circumstances. I've never really subscribed to the "all numbers are arbitrary" school of thought, and it tends to take away from strong arguments, such as the one made in the nomination. Mandsford 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I argued arbitrariness in the nomination as well. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, some guy complained that the list was "unbounded" and that "there's nothing particularly remarkable about someone in his late 20s or 30s being elected", and I guess that some of us might have inferred from that something other than opposition under all circumstances. I've never really subscribed to the "all numbers are arbitrary" school of thought, and it tends to take away from strong arguments, such as the one made in the nomination. Mandsford 17:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Any age limitation becomes an arbitrary inclusion standard. Why 25 and not 20? Why 25 and not 26? etc. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Who are you to deny me my 15 microseconds of fame? But seriously, folks, I agree that as previously structured the list is untenable. A restructure and rename to "List of officials elected before age 25" or some such? Carrite (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete impossible to define inclusion criteria. either its a list of the youngest elected official for each office above dog catcher, which is absurdly long and pointless, or as CowPain states, its an arbitrary cut off. The only rational cutoffs i can see are for under 21 (no drinking), or under 18 (age of consent), but then the question would be: why? this would be a confluence of two unrelated ideas, unless we assert the idea that politicians must be able to smoke, drink, and fornicate to get their job done:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or more plausibly, under 21 (used to be the voting age in the U.S.) and under 18 (now the voting age in the U.S.). It does help politicians to be eligible to vote for themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- oops, missed that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or more plausibly, under 21 (used to be the voting age in the U.S.) and under 18 (now the voting age in the U.S.). It does help politicians to be eligible to vote for themselves. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The article claims that Connor Traut (at age 16) is the "Youngest Elected Official in the State of California's History and is Currently the Youngest Elected Official in America". But the article doesn't say what office he holds, the footnote attached to that sentence goes to a page that doesn't even mention his name, and I can't even find any sources to confirm that he is an elected official at all, even though he was supposedly elected just this year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would note that this article does not include certain officeholders who were elected to higher offices at younger ages than some of the oldest people in this article. If the article creator revised the article to do so, the article might be improved. On the other hand, I wonder if there may be some school boards somewhere which allow high schoolers to be elected as student representatives to the board, in which case the article will wind up being dominated by those people. In other words, I'm still not sure this article can be improved sufficiently to warrant keeping. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to Mercurywoodrose's "Why?" is the answer to what Mandsford wrote above, too. Whilst public offices generally don't have rules about how being old or flatulent would disqualify one from offfice, they do have rules about how young one can be. We even have articles on the subjects of age of candidacy legislation in the United States. Unfortunately, they aren't FA quality articles that explain the motivations behind these rules. But they do show that such rules exist, and that the world takes particular notice of how young one is when one is up for holding public office.]
That having been said, I think that we need to put 2 and 2 together here and make 4. Mandsford notices that this is a copy of List of the youngest mayors in the United States. Metropolitan90 notices the existence of one "Connor Traut", aged 16, with fake sourcing. Has anyone else other than me noticed that the username of the article's creator is CJT3 (talk · contribs)? Here's the diff between the other article and the first version of this one. Anyone care to guess what "CJT3" probably stands for? Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or better yet, merge with List of the youngest mayors in the United States, or use a category instead. This list will change too quickly to be useful, but a cat would be useful. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The mayors list is also up for deletion. A category for the youngest politicians elected to various offices would never survive CFD. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. It would need citations which means a list and not a category. So either it stays here or vanishes or is converted to a template. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PALACZBOT
- PALACZBOT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student project. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable, no RS found. Jarkeld (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Oh please! A cigarette smoking machine school project?!?!? This article fails both )
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are plenty of reliable sources such as [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23] and [24], but they are all dated last week, and have the appearence of ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No argument has been provided to indicate that the subject meets our notability criteria. In the case that more reliable sources can be found, the article can be undeleted. NW (Talk) 12:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kumiko Noma
- Kumiko Noma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This singer only seems to be known for singing a song for an anime series. French Wikipedia have a little more on her,[25], but nothing to indicate notability. Fences&Windows 21:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Unless the references on the French Wikipedia article can establish notability I see no reason to keep this article. – allen四names 22:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. This page has a severe case of WP:HOLE, and no easy way of concluding if that's the result of the language barrier between us and good sources or if she's honestly non-notable. Yes, the fact that she did an anime OP is the best known fact about her life, but that's true of many notable Japanese musicians. (hell, Orange Range's article was primarily focused on the fact that they did an OP for Bleach for quite a while, and they're a HUGE j-rock band) Ultimately I'm leaning slightly towards deletion, but only because the Japanese wiki has no article on her. --erachima talk 09:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Neutral I would say push for no consensus and contune this talk on Talk:Kumiko Noma. Does anyone speak french and see anything to come out of this article based on the references? If nothing can come out of the references I would say delete. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of sponsored sports competitions
- List of sponsored sports competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Utter trivia I don't think there are many if any sporting competitions that are not sponsored by someone not indiscriminate as this list is essentially a list of almost every sporting competition Mo ainm~Talk 12:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - basically all sports competitions are sponsored. So, already, the title is misleading as that's not what the article is about. The named after the sponsor is somewhat rarer but rather pointless, as it only means one particular sponsor put enough contribution to be included in the name of the event. Some competitions will change the name with changes in sponsors, such as the WP:NOTDIR point 1: trivial, loosely associated topics.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 14:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Badly referenced and pointless. Bjmullan (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move/Delete - Userfy it. It would be a shame to simply delete a user's work in progress whilst they are unable to comment. gonads3 20:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - other than possibly in North America, pretty much every club-level sports competition in the world is both sponsored and named after the sponsor (there are probably over 100 such competitions in English football/soccer alone, right down to the level of the Halifx and District League, which is sponsored by and named after a local curry restaurant), so this list would be absolutely colossal. I concur that it falls under ]
- Delete per Mo ainm and ChrisTheDude. As most sporting competitions are named after the sponsor, this truly is a pointless article that is woefully incomplete. O Fenian (talk) 11:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jacques Marnier Companie
- Jacques Marnier Companie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod; rationale was "Unreferenced hoax article. Unable to find any reliable sources; all off-wiki mentions trace back to this article". I've been unable to find any reliable sources that mention this person in
]- Note: as the editor who deprodded, I should note that this was procedural. Since the article has existed since 2006 I thought it deserved a discussion to confirm whether it is a hoax or otherwise. Cheers — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails all ]
- Comment. He gets only one google books hit which confirms he existed and died in 1785: [26]. This is going to be a difficult case to prove a hoax. The major contributors to this article all have different IP addresses/accounts. The edit history really doesn't suggest hoax or sock puppetry to me (maybe just a bit of vandalism?). I therefore suspect that Companie is indeed what the article currently claims him to be. The lack of online material available is really more a reflection of his obscurity rather than an indicator of his lack of notability. What we should really be looking for is some sort of publications by or about Fritz Kreisler's findings (which hopefully exists). However, if we can't find any sources in print that establish notability then this article will need to be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The list of contributions by the article's main editors is peculiar: ISBN 9781155923116): try to find that ISBN at WorldCat. Also: look up "Dag Henrik Esrum-Hellerup" and "Guglielmo Baldini". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V. MSGJ, the book that you cited in the article (and that 4meter4 linked to above) is a scrape of Wikipedia articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Unreferenced articles#Books LLC), and after typing this comment, I'll be off to remove it. I can find no reliable sources that establish this person's existence. Deor (talk) 12:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course quick delete either as hoax or non-notable. Why even waste time discussing it?--Smerus (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Smerus and everyone else. I suspect the fact that he was "rediscovered" by Kreisler is the give-away. Kreisler rediscovered a lot of composers so that he could pass his own work off as theirs. --Deskford (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Books LLC is a Wikipedia scrape so that verifies nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Books LLC is no more reliable than any other mirror of Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I agree. I do not like hoaxes. JJ98 (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gareth Hussey
- Gareth Hussey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable community radio DJ. No sources to establish notabiliy or verify the content. No significant google hits. noq (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No 3rd party sources to establish notability. Note that this was created by a single use account, probably either Hussey or someone personally connected to him. I'm really starting to hate Wikipedia. --Griseum (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt (for Gareth's benefit, that means block this from being written a third time). Part of having a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit is that there are going to be articles that we hate, of course. I imagine that this will be the phone-in topic tomorrow on the guy's "breakfast show" that is listened to by some people in Leicestershire in England. This had been deleted once, then recreated in March '09 by someone who hasn't written any other articles except the one about Gareth Hussey. The new article stayed up for more than a year, which is more of an indication that nobody noticed it. Tomorrow at 7:00 am on 103.2 FM, the topic, "Arseholes on Wikipedia who don't like me breakfast show". I'm afraid that's 2 in the morning my time, so I won't be awake to listen. My loss.Mandsford 15:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. As the article is unsourced, there is nothing to merge. Jayjg (talk) 04:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Races in the Elenium
- Races in the Elenium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was previously deleted by PROD for this reason: "Contains only
- Delete per nom and salt to prevent it coming back. Reyk YO! 11:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Articles like this are one of the reasons people snicker at us for being involved with Wikipedia. It is embarassing and reflects poorly on the whole project. --Griseum (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Elenium. I thought people laughed at Wikipedia because of innacuracies and grotesquely biased coverage of some subjects. Descriptions of key aspects of notable works of fiction would seem entirely appropriate. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would include excessive amounts of fan trivia, such as this article, under the heading of "grotesquely biased coverage". Anyway, I do not think a merge would be appropriate because the content is unsourced and therefore not suitable to be dumped anywhere else and because The Elenium already covers this stuff in enough detail. Reyk YO! 02:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim or merge Fictional content in notable series is generally handled by well-maintained lists, and this is already a de facto list article--albeit with way too much in-universe content. Calls for salting this are unsupported--PROD deletions can be challenged by any editor and are automagically returned. If WP:LENGTH is unviolated, merge to the series' article may be appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete adequately covered in the main article considering there are no independent sources to WP:verify notability. Does not meet standards that would entitle it to a detailed stand-alone article. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim or merge per Jclemens. talk) 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A1 New Album
- A1 New Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreleased album per
- Delete per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HAMMER. Wikipedia will still be here when the album becomes a reality. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Unreferenced future album that fails WP:HAMMER. There is zero indication the title of the album will be "A1 New Album." Aspects (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ]
In Love And I Hate It
Per
]- Delete per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already speedy deleted by
]Zoom (2011 film)
- Zoom (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Looks a hoax. Mike Allen 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a link at the bottom that is from IMDB, so if it is listed there then it is likely gonna exist. But then the plot appears to be badly written:"A family moved to New York in a ranch a 10 minutes to New York, and the family installed in a house who has a secret very special, HAD GHOSTS and the son grabs the found footage." The plot sounds kind of confusing again so it could be re-written. trainfan01 6:04, July 25, 2010 (UTC)
- The IMDB link is to a completely different film, although the article claims it is to this film. talk) 10:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The IMDB link is to a completely different film, although the article claims it is to this film.
- Delete - lack of reliable sources that establish the film's existence, let alone notability. IMDB is not a reliable source. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and Are You The Cow Of Pain. No evidence that this is real. Presently, that IMDb link goes to their page for the Untitled Cloverfield Sequel, which is listed as "Announced". Cliff smith talk 16:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a hoax. Apart from the near-impossibility that a Wes Craven/Michael Bay film alleged to be released next year not generating some coverage online, there are a few more obvious problems. The text of the Production and Marketing sections is taken from the Zoom 3D article a couple of months ago (and has used Zoomis as the name for one of his socks in January.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 18:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of Flowerpotman's points, and not only that, nobody's about to use the the title of a chatter) 07:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antoun Sehnaoui
- Antoun Sehnaoui (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This BLP appears to fail the notability requirements for people. Checking the 17 footnotes in this article shows them to be generic or not working apart from one blog site (possibly self published). However even if one can assume that the body of the article could be correctly sourced and re-written to be NPOV, Sehnaoui is only notable for being a wealthy investor. Being a company Chairman or on a board does not, of itself, ensure notability in an encyclopaedic sense. Searching Google News I have been unable to find anything to demonstrate the significant impact needed outside of promotional materials for the companies involved (consequently any information would be better merged to articles about the companies, should they be notable per
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to severe problems with sourcing. The article has numerous footnotes, but every one I checked goes to a link that is either broken or doesn't mention the subject. If there are valid sources out there that actually confirm that this person has done what he is claimed to have done, the supporters of this article need to locate them and replace the current non-useful sources with useful ones. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the man is not only known for his disagreeable public behavior, for being a top figure in the lebanese banking sector but also for his involvement in politics. Sourcing issues can and will be fixed (i'll fix these in the future). As for notability, it surely is there, at least at the regional level, if you run a search for "انطون صحناوي" you'll find that the guy has over 4k entries, many of these are from local newspaper sites (not only forums). I'll fix the citation issues in the future, but improper citation does not justify deletion.+ 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to be clear that I'm not complaining about citation formatting, like putting the author's name in the wrong place or leaving off a date. I'm talking about a bunch of footnotes that link to either broken pages or pages that don't even mention the subject. And the "Controversies" section raises serious WP:BLP issues in that it accuses the subject of engaging in criminal activity, but that section has no footnotes at all to back it up. I may change my mind if the article gets properly sourced, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:12, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination is on the basis of it being unlikely that sources will show notability in the near future, this is a sufficient rationale for deletion against the BLP guidance. When you or anyone else provides reliable sources then this AfD simply becomes moot. Just to clarify, taking the 3 different areas of potential notability you have suggested in turn:
- Being a successful business man is not enough for notability, wider significant impact must be demonstrated by the use of independent reliable sources. In particular corporate press releases or magazine articles largely regurgitating press releases are not enough.
- Being involved in politics is not enough unless he holds a significant political post or his political activities have generated significant impact. Again, independent reliable sources are needed to prove significant impact. Rehashed campaign materials or blogs will not be acceptable.
- His alleged public behaviour is not a rationale for an encyclopaedic article and is likely to stay tangential to any rationale for notability. Fæ (talk) 22:53, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just want to be clear that I'm not complaining about citation formatting, like putting the author's name in the wrong place or leaving off a date. I'm talking about a bunch of footnotes that link to either broken pages or pages that don't even mention the subject. And the "Controversies" section raises serious
- I have no time to review the article, i copied it to a sub-page, will fix the issues and bring it bacj later bcs the guy is notable + 23:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Comment: I don't know if he's notable or not; I'm guessing he is but I do see the problem with the need for accurate, useful sources. I'll try to take a look into that issue in more detail tomorrow. However, I did want to post here that I am about to delete the Controversy section. I know that we normally don't want to blank parts of pages that are under AfD, and my intention is not in any way to influence the AfD. However, my understanding of WP:BLP is that negative unsourced information must be removed immediately, no questions asked. This is extremely negative and seems like a potential problem for the project. If I am misinterpreting policy, however, please let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, someone else did it while I was writing this; in any event, I'm going to note on the talk page that part must remain out of the article until there are reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Daily Star (Lebanon) March 2, 2010
|
---|
Businessman in shootout says Sehnaoui responsible BEIRUT: Businessman Mazen al-Zein responded on Monday to the statement of Societe Generale de Banque au Liban (SGBL) Chairman, Antoun Sehnaoui concerning the gunfire exchange involving the two. The fight broke out at the White House restaurant in Sodeco in Beirut on Friday between Sehnaoui's bodyguards and the companions of Zein BEIRUT: Businessman Mazen al-Zein responded on Monday to the statement of Société Générale de Banque au Liban (SGBL) Chairman, Antoun Sehnaoui concerning the gunfire exchange involving the two. The fight broke out at the White House restaurant in Sodeco in Beirut on Friday between Sehnaoui's bodyguards and the companions of Zein and it led to the injury of two people. Sehnaoui later issued a statement, in which he explained the details of the incident and accused Zein of provoking him. However, Zein considered Sehnaoui's statement to be false and responded to it in an article published Monday in the Arabic newspaper An-Nahar. Zein claimed in the statement that Sehnaoui entered the restaurant with a group of armed men and asked him to leave the place. Upon Zein's refusal and the intervention of restaurant employees, Sehnaoui's bodyguards arbitrarily opened fire to try to disperse the crowd. "Sehnaoui is trying to avoid responsibility," the article said. "Zein was hit and had three severe wounds that could have led to his death or to lifelong disabilities," it added. However, Sehnaoui's media office has said that Zein was the one to call on his armed companions to interfere. Shenaoui had also claimed that Zein worked for a finance company affiliated with SGBL and that he had committed several violations against the company, which led to his dismissal and to taking judicial measures. Zein did not deny working for the company but denied committing any violations. "Zein was found innocent ... this is something Sehnaoui can't deny," the article said. Zein also praised the reaction of Justice Minister Ibrahim Najjar to the incident after he had described it as "very dangerous." - The Daily Star |
- Comment/Delete?:
In a way the subject is notable but his notability seems mainly coming from his alleged violent behavior. I understand that not all violent people quoted whose acts are in the headlines are deemed notable but in this case, the subject is a Bank's Chairman. In Lebanon he is undoubtly notable. I would nevertheless recommend deletion because I dont think anybody in the Wikipedia universe, except related people, has any interest in writing an objective article. Better no article than the one we are seeing now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.53 (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I need to add that while I was reviewing the footnoes and internet links: They all link to websites of companies owned by the subject's family or his blog. The only link to a press article is a link to Executive Magazine, which according to the article itself, was founded by Antou Sehnaoui. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.126.24.53 (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Comment. The good news is that the WP:BLP-violating unsourced contentious content has been removed from the article. The bad news is that that content was the only interesting thing in the article. I would like to reiterate my "delete" recommendation from two weeks ago on the grounds that the article can be re-created at a later date if someone wants to completely redo the article to provide a balanced article about the subject using valid sources, rather than the current version where the text ignores his controversies and most of the supposed sources don't mention the subject. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Local news coverage of this young banker is insufficient. Author has already agreed to userfy the article and work on it there. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After looking over the article, it does appear that we don't have enough non-broken sources to justify a BLP, yet. The most promising qualifications for notability appear to be his founding of the magazine, and the so-called "Oceana Effect." For both of these, though, we need reliable, secondary sources directly attributing these things to the subject, not to the companies he worked with and/or owned. Should the contentious comments become an important issue in Lebanon and be sourceable, then those could also be a source of notability, although they won't be enough as a sole source of notability (per WP:BLP1E). I agree with the above--let the creator take the article back to userspace, find some more sources, and then re-submit once the article is more appropriate. While I'm just a relatively new editor, I'd be glad to help review the author's work later on to determine if/when moving to mainspace is appropriate--Just contact me on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to
]Symbiocity
I could not find significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability of this, um, Swedish trademark. Reads like a press release or something similar, not sure if it merits and article. —]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- N/A0 04:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Although not widely used, it does appear in reliable third party publications using its sustainable growth meaning. A few are here:[27][28][29][30][31][32]Eudemis (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
Delete - As is, I'd go for deleting it, but if you were to make it not promotional and add a few more sources, it'd be perfectly fine. :) ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 06:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives
- Honest Bob and the Factory-to-Dealer Incentives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Local bar band. Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I found these: article from The Tech (already cited in article), Monsters & Critics - confirms second track in Rock Band game, Xconomy.com, Xconomy.com, some coverage in Guitar Hero guides: [33]. Not really convincing regarding notability, but not exactly completely lacking in notability either.--Michig (talk) 06:30, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The sources listed above, including the ones already mentioned in the article, plus this io9.com should be far more than necessary to satisfy notability. DubZog (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, io9.com is a blog. Granted they have a Wikipedia article so they are not just some guy's blog. Monsters & Critics and Xconomy are also online-only entities, I think. Anybody can put some pixels on a screen; WP:MUSIC asks for print media, or at leas the online version of a print entity. And neither io9, Monsters & Critics, or Xconomy are music sites, if that matters, which I think it does. It still looks to me like any hope of notability rests on the video game angle, which is slim in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, io9.com is a blog. Granted they have a Wikipedia article so they are not just some guy's blog. Monsters & Critics and Xconomy are also online-only entities, I think. Anybody can put some pixels on a screen;
- My comment: Well, I'm from Norway, and I discovered the band playing Rock Band. I checked them out on YouTube, listened to the songs on Spotify and then bought all their CDs from the US. If I can discover them and become a fan, why are they too small for a Wiki article? You can't call them a local bar band when a Norwegian guy listens to them, I haven't been to the USA.. I know at least five Norwegians who like Honest Bob, so they are big enough for a Wiki article in my opinion. One of the vids with Honest Bob on YouTube has 69 000 views. Don't you think that some of those people want to read more about the band on Wiki?(User talk:Suppeelsker)18 July 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Maybe. But everyone has some fans. Conversely, I'm from Boston and I've never heard of them. Granted I can't keep track of all the bands in Boston, but if you look at their web site, assuming its up to date their last bar gig was in February, and neither Cantab or Tommy Doyle's are exactly T.T. The Bear's or Johnny D's, so.... Also, at this time, YouTube views are not considered a factor -- this was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan and Liz and also here. Megan and Liz had 1.2 million hits for one of their vids, so 69,000 doesn't seem a lot in comparison. Meghan and Liz did survive, but it was debatable. And 1.2 million versus 0.07 million... If YouTube is considered a factor, I'm not sure that hit quantities much under a million constitute an endorsement of notability... I'm not saying they don't, either; I don't know and I don't know who does. Herostratus (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Calling them a "Local Bar Band" is absurd. They have 5 tracks that have appeared on four of the best-selling videogames in the world over the last few years, including Guitar Hero (2005), Guitar Hero 2 (2006), Rock Band (2007), Rock Band 2 (2008), and Rock Band DLC (2009). They are currently outselling some well-known bands (including Paul McCartney) in the Rock Band downloadable content store (as evidenced by the leaderboard depth). Perusing their online presence, you can observe that on MySpace, they count more than 139K profile views and almost 250k plays. On LastFM.com, they have logged 125,389 listens and have registered 14,146 unique listeners. If we generously assume that LastFM captures 10% of the music listening market (they don't), it would suggest Honest Bob has almost 150k fans worldwide. That is more than "some fans". They appear to have listeners across the U.S., Europe, and Latin America that clamor in online forums for Honest Bob to tour overseas (check out recent fan posts on Facebook from the UK). Does this sound like a local bar band to you? No. Now all that said, perhaps they have been less active recently (so has Led Zeppelin), but they have played gigs in cities up and down the East Coast in the past (including the Lion's Den in New York City and Nectar's in Burlington, VT), and they have played T.T. the Bears Place more times than most of us can count (Herostratus, the nominator, mentioned this venue specifically as a more suitable qualifier of notability). Maybe do just a little research before you start trying to delete useful information about widely known and loved bands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.252.222 (talk) 21:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 05:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- {{AfD-vote|Delete-I}} They may be notable, but if more good references can't be added, I'd have to go with delete. But if you can find some that'd pretty much solve the whole problem. Cheers! ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 06:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After reviewing the sources, I do not find enough coverage to demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. The MIT student newspaper provides significant coverage, but I do not believe that a student newspaper is enough to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Adventures of Paddington Bear
- The Adventures of Paddington Bear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Poorly written text. The template at the side is easily a lot longer than much of the text on the article. I also don't see much
- Keep "Poorly written" is not a proper rationale at all, and I am seeing absolutely no issues with the text (if there is, chatter) 04:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- chatter) 05:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep. The article needs expansion, but it definitely meets WP:GNG. By the way, why doesn't this discussion show up on the main AfD page? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "Poorly written" is not a criterion for deletion. A TV show about Paddington Bear is adequately notable. JIP | Talk 07:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT to me, rather than an assertion that the topic isn't notable under Wikipedia's broad standards. Generally, any television series that was picked up and shown a nationwide network, whether on broadcast or cable, would be considered notable as long as its existence is verifiable. In this case, there would have been the additional requirement of purchasing the rights to make a series based on Paddington Bear. While individual episodes of a TV series are held to a much stricter standard, a series itself is notable, and a stub article is acceptable. Mandsford 15:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This nomination is just a waste of space. Colonel Warden (talk) 04:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, TV shows which have aired nationally are generally kept, and there seems to be no real inclination to change that trend, no matter how much we all agree that this article needs cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep TV shows are usually deemed notable enough for a wikipedia entry, and this one has even got four entries in different-language wikipedias. – sgeureka t•c 06:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nova Cain
- Nova Cain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as I can't find anything that can satisfy ]
- Delete - Does not satisfy any relevant requirements. --Griseum (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ENTERTAINER just to butter both sides of the bread because both apply. Mal Case (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge into Curses (programming library). --Mike Cline (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curses-based software
Not notable fork of Curses (programming library) which seems to exist only to justify category of Curses-using software. The latter property is not notable so there's no need for this article, and it doens't really say anything that the main article on the package does not say. Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - all of this should be part of ]
- Merge - I agree - no references to prove notability on it's own and it really doesn't say anything substantial. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 04:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - I would have suggested something of the sort a while back, but merging categories for implementation versus uses seems to be less useful. A category also seems preferable to the proliferation of list-of and comparison-of topics ]
- From what I can tell, the categories contain applications that happen to use these packages, not implementations of these interfaces. Mangoe (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not exactly - the applications use particular interfaces (the packages to which they're linked is incidental). Some implementations provide more than one interface. I can expand on that if my comment isn't clear ]
- From what I can tell, the categories contain applications that happen to use these packages, not implementations of these interfaces. Mangoe (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - There's no reason the curses article needs a fork out. While this is a major software library, the notion that every program that linked it in needs to be added here is absurd. Adds nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point is obscure: why is this difference from other categories, e.g., the license ones, or applications using particular X libraries? ]
- I don't understand your point, here, or above. This isn't a category. There's nothing stopping you from creating a category for programs that use the curses library. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our comments were in the context of my comment to Mangoe; your phrasing "every program that linked it in needs to be added here" is confusing me ]
- I don't understand your point, here, or above. This isn't a category. There's nothing stopping you from creating a category for programs that use the curses library. Shadowjams (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Use individual software articles and categories for the list. (Of course, deletionists will then say 'non notable software', but then they probably don't know Unix.) prat (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This article might be needed in the future but right now there is not enough content. ~~Andrew Keenan Richardson~~ 21:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Delaware and Hudson Canal/map
- Delaware and Hudson Canal/map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is only a large picture. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 02:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think somebody was trying to make a subpage in the mainspace. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 05:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This page was made intentionally in response to a need: the map that was added to the Delaware and Hudson Canal article, when displayed as a thumbnail, was criticized as not showing clearly the route (in the thumbnail). Also, the full map is designed for viewing at a larger scale than is normally displayed on the media page (which usually scales images down to 550px). Since the map is also an SVG, when a user clicks on the image in the media page, the original SVG is returned, and most browsers appear to hang while processing the SVG. So in order to provide a separately created thumbnail image that shows the route, and also to provide a link destination for the thumbnail which shows the expanded map, the full-scale map was put on a subpage of the article so that users could click on the thumbnail in the original article, and arrive at the full scale map without having their browsers hang or be confused by the options on the standard SVG media page (which contains options only expert users know how use).
- I'll try another workaround to the problem, such as converting the SVG to an PNG, and linking directly to the full PNG. Although SVG seems to the the preferred format for maps, the format has too many problems that prevent its widespread use. —Jim Irwin (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as soon as this file is converted, the AfD should be closed. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Biblical wedding
- Biblical wedding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article consists primarily of
-related articles . Further, I think a more suited title would be "Ancient Jewish wedding/marriage" or "Marriage in the bible".See also :
- Widowhood in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Alimony in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Moral agency in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Age of majority in Judaism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--
]Merge and Delete I would also support a merge with Jewish wedding or Jewish views on marriage, but not deletion. There's a lot of good, (though somewhat incorrectly) cited material that shouldn't be deleted that also has too many issues to keep as is. Cheers!- Delete Seeing that he was under a topic-ban and looking closer at the poor sourcing, we should probably just salvage anything good from the articles and delete them. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All - Don't merge. The author has densely cited material in obvious violation of WP:NOTESSAY. The onus of discerning what might be saved should be no one's burden. The author obviously spent considerable time on this misguided effort, so I recommend moving this article to the author's user space to give them the opportunity to post it somewhere besides Wikipedia.--Griseum (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Still suffering from being predominantly a now topic-banned POV-pusing editor's personal opinions and synthesis. Avi (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the title doesnt really match the intended contents, and its ambivalent whether this is an account of marriage practices as described in the bible, or an attempt to show how marriage was conducted during a historical period. some of the bible refs are really scanty, as we all know the bible is not crystal clear about some things. I dont think we can sort out what is accurately sourced from what is original research, so i think it would have to be userfied. however, wouldnt a topic ban include creating articles related to the topic, making userfication rather pointless? (im neutral on whether the user deserves a topic ban, not having researched it).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All for a number of very good reasons. The most basic being that after he created these articles, User WP:NOTMADEUP such as displayed in these articles that fail in their stated goals. IZAK (talk) 06:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I bundled some additional articles (2 days after nomination) and notified all previous voters. ]
- Delete All as violation of topic ban. Each of the articles has some problems about apparent original research. I get the distinct impression that references have been selected to support certain arguments, rather than the full range of citations available on the subject. Judaism is not just the old texts cited, but also obviously includes modern writings and evolved social customs as well. articles dont give proper weight to all historical periods. There may be some good references, i have no idea which are. My discomfort with the whole Megillah pushes me towards deletion, as they feel like ]
- Delete All per blatant ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
Runaway (Cabot novel)
Substub about the third book in a series with no assertion of notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A quick google search gave me this: http://www.thestorysiren.com/2010/05/runaway-by-meg-cabot.html ; this: http://www.amazon.com/Runaway-Airhead-Meg-Cabot/dp/0545040604 ; this: http://www.greenbeanteenqueen.com/2010/04/runaway-airhead-novel-by-meg-cabot-plus.html ; http://sites.google.com/site/parentalbookreviews/shadow/content-review-runaway-airhead-by-meg-cabot and many other (mostly unofficial) reviews. The book definitely doesn't seem to have gone unnoticed, but admittedly the article does not contain much useful in its current form, so I remain neutral. DubZog (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've removed the plot description. It's copied from the press blurb from the publisher which shows up at book selling sites like Barnes and Noble. -- Whpq (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Meg Cabot#The Airhead trilogy. It looks to be a popular series, but this book is only recently released. When it gets review of out notable publications, then the article can be created. With the copyvio removed, there is nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Whpq, until someone actually feels like writing some non-copyvio, sourced content for it. Jclemens (talk) 19:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Redirect per Whpq; recent book, unsourced article. Ryan Norton 01:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - then Recreate Yes, it most likely will be notable, but it's too new for an article right now. ~ QwerpQwertus · Contact Me · 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brackenbury Village
- Brackenbury Village (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
POV article created about a neighbourhood with no assertion of notability. --Falcon Darkstar Momot (talk) 23:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A search for sources turned up this quote that seems to be an AFD argument in itself:
[…] although people who live there often don't know their names. Most people refer instead to districts which in some cases don't even appear on the map (eg 'Blythe Village' and 'Brackenbury Village' in the borough of
Hammersmith & Fulham), but which are either named after places long since swallowed by the outward sprawl of the capital or derive from contemporary "estate agent speak".)- Uncle G (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge or Redirect. It's clear from Ghits that this is a term for the area in common use. If it's simply an alias for an area better known by another name, it would make sense to redirect this to the other article and add an explanatory note. If it covers two or more areas of London, it might be necessary to keep the article if there's no obvious redirect target. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete - not listed by the Ordnance Survey, London A-Z, and not in Mills (2001) Dictionary of London Place Names, which lists even the most minor or erstwhile locality. You can't write an article about something that does not have wide coverage in published sources. MRSC (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Not being listed by two sources doesn't take anything away from the fact that Brackenbury Village is covered by many others.[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] I happen to know, having lived on Hammersmith Grove nearly thirty years ago, that two of those sources (and our article) are innacurate, as Brackenbury village is in West Hammersmith rather than North Hammersmith (or to be pedantic something like West-North-West) and its eastern boundary is actually a couple of hundred hundred metres west of Hammersmith Grove (I'd put it at Iffley Road), but those are matters for editing and sourcing rather than for deletion. ]
- Delete. I think the title of the third article cited by Phil Bridger above, "Estate Agents Gentrify the Market with Fancy Names", is most revealing. I am far from having a detailed knowledge of London geography, but the same thing goes on in the city where I live—a plethora of often contradictory or overlapping names devised within the real-estate world to give some sort of cachet to particular small areas that they're trying sell buyers or renters on. These basically have no relationship to the official or historical designations of the city's neighborhoods and little usage by people not concerned with property values (a concern that seems to inform every source cited by Phil Bridger save for the last). The lack of a label for this "place" on OS maps, which label most every individual farmstead in the United Kingdom, is also a persuasive argument that this is not notable. Deor (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having had a better look at this, it appears that Brackenbury Village is primarily an alias popular with estate agents. However, the bottom line is that this alias is well-known enough to be written about in numerous reliable sources. Therefore, it seems reasonable to mention this alias in the article about Hammersmith (which the area known as Brackenbury seems to be exclusively covered by) with the name explained in context. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep If the term is in use (even if only by estate agents), we ought to have an entry on it. The problem with the present article is that it is a very poor stub. That is a reason to improve it, not one to delete it. I would like to see an explanation of the name, a map, and all those things that one expects in an article on a locality. Some urban neighbourhoods cannot really get an article because it is not clear where their limits are. This is precisely defined. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable district of London. Just needs work in accordance with our ]
- Keep It has a residents' association which suggests it is a reasonably distinct and well defined area.Cavrdg (talk) 05:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have expanded the article a bit, there does seem to be enough coverage of the area to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Frančiška Trobevšek Drobnak
- Frančiška Trobevšek Drobnak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article's subject appears to fail
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Vice-dean doesn't rise to ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete, per David Eppstein. Not enough to show passing ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jerry Burchfiel
- Jerry Burchfiel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable BLP Sadads (talk) 20:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - generally, we keep presidents of notable companies, but not vice-presidents. I see no references that can vary this rule here. Bearian (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Comment It's a bit rough to call the article a "non-notable BLP" but it does seem to be on the edge, despite the achievements. He's not really notable for being a vice president, but rather his earlier work contracting for arpanet (the pre-internet) apprantly; basically, it seems like there should be more about this person. Here's a forbes mention and a few quotes about the first email, this article and others quoting forbes. There's also several cites of his papers across the web. That said, no opinion either way - personal notability does seem a bit in question. Ryan Norton 01:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Questionable notability. Sources not strong enough to meet ]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google Books search also returns no nontrivial coverage about the subject. The sources provided by Ryan Norton are tangential—not specifically about Jerry Burchfiel. This article fails Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Verifiability, so should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tourneys in A Song of Ice and Fire
Wiki is not an
]- I seem to have overwritten an earlier AFD with my nomination (using Twinkle). Anybody can help me fix that? ]
- seems to be fixed now ]
- Delete- excessive fan trivia. Wikipedia is not an ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedal Pad
- Pedal Pad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references and is written like an advertisement no other sources on Google besides the company itself. Unnotable. Whenaxis (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nomination. Article created by a single-purpose account. Possible ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete - "Pedal Pad's patented designed gives electric guitar players the option to continuously change their effect's set-up. Its two-tier modular design allow guitarists to place pedals on either the upper or lower tiers (stair-step mode), or they may raise the panels on the bottom tier to produce a single plain, where larger pedals can reside. This unique design feature can be implemented on any section of the lower tier. For many years, guitar players have had pedal boards constructed that do not allow for changes to their effects set-up..." BUY NOW!!! AS SEEN ON WIKIPEDIA™®!!! BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!! Carrite (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable product created solely to advertise. Recommend G11. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spirit of '73: Rock for Choice
- Spirit of '73: Rock for Choice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable compilation album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article includes reviews from Entertainment Weekly and Allmusic. It has been noted. It is therefore notable.--Michig (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep. There are reviews by two major publications listed on the article, as well as hoards more news stories and reviews available as references. Appears to achieve notability. A8x (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christopher Tavarez
- Christopher Tavarez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Certainly doesn't meet
- Weak keep. Borderline notable per ]
- The rivals.com link and twitter/facebook links weren't valid. I've removed them. Further, the Disney news link just lists his name as having starred in this thing, it's trivial coverage. There does not seem to be any substantial independent coverage on this person. — Timneu22 · talk 19:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the link I provided? Pburka (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think more is needed than that. Anyone can get in a single local newspaper or "AMNews" for something. This isn't really substantial coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 00:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly substantial. Substantial refers to the depth of coverage. The article I found is not a passing, trivial reference to the subject; it's 500+ words all about Chris Tavarez in The Advocate-Messenger, a notable daily newspaper. The Scout.com article found by Lila Brown also helps establish notability, and it appears to be from a source associated with Fox Sports. Pburka (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think more is needed than that. Anyone can get in a single local newspaper or "AMNews" for something. This isn't really substantial coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 00:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the link I provided? Pburka (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The rivals.com link and twitter/facebook links weren't valid. I've removed them. Further, the Disney news link just lists his name as having starred in this thing, it's trivial coverage. There does not seem to be any substantial independent coverage on this person. — Timneu22 · talk 19:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about this link [43] Lila Brown (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC) For another movie credit [44] Lila Brown (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. The Scout site looks like a blog to me (not admissible), and the Blockbuster site is a video sales/rental site (not RS).-I think BLP is quite clear on the quality of sources.-Kudpung (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy making blogs inadmissible. Scout.com appears to be a commercial blog associated with, or owned by, Fox Sports. Every indication is that the writers are professional sports journalists. I see no reason why the blog format should make it any less reliable. Pburka (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the second reference? (http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?cid=187129) How does this help anything? Really, the article needs to make up its mind: is this an actor or an athlete? The person absolutely fails WP:ATHLETE and as such I don't think this information should exist. — Timneu22 · talk 10:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how this is relevant to my comment. Editors have removed reliable sources from this article on the tenuous assertion that blogs are de facto inadmissible. This directly contradicts the guidance from WP:RS which states that blogs from reliable news sources are themselves reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how this is relevant to my comment. Editors have removed reliable sources from this article on the tenuous assertion that blogs are de facto inadmissible. This directly contradicts the guidance from
- What is the second reference? (http://www.tbs.com/video/index.jsp?cid=187129) How does this help anything? Really, the article needs to make up its mind: is this an actor or an athlete? The person absolutely fails
- As far as I know there is no Wikipedia policy making blogs inadmissible. Scout.com appears to be a commercial blog associated with, or owned by, Fox Sports. Every indication is that the writers are professional sports journalists. I see no reason why the blog format should make it any less reliable. Pburka (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, why can't he be both an actor and an athlete? [45] see Chris Tavarez for an actor credit already listed on Wikipedia. Another wikipedia article [46] Lila Brown (talk) 15:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact that a person's name is mentioned on another Wikipedia is not a reference within the meaning of WP:RS, and cannot be used. One of the bare mentions of the name is a red link.--Kudpung (talk) 17:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletenot necessarily because of notability, but because the article is so poorly written that I believe it harms Wikipedia's credibility. I'm not particularly enthusiastic myself about fixing it... but then once it's fixed to be quality content, then we can look at notability and reliable sources. There's a lot to overcome here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. Poor quality is not a valid reason to delete an article. Pburka (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response it is if it is so poorly written that it reflects bad on Wikipedia, and I believe that is the case with this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please provide a link to a Wikipedia policy which supports deletion of poorly written articles. For a list of commonly accepted reasons to delete articles see ]
- I believe you've made the point; it would be better to focus your energies on fixing this request, however. — Timneu22 · talk 22:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my energy would be better used focusing on an article where I have enthusiam to research. Someone else who has enthusiam to fix this article can go ahead. If and when they do, I'll happily take a second look.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe you've made the point; it would be better to focus your energies on fixing this request, however. — Timneu22 · talk 22:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please provide a link to a Wikipedia policy which supports deletion of poorly written articles. For a list of commonly accepted reasons to delete articles see ]
- Response it is if it is so poorly written that it reflects bad on Wikipedia, and I believe that is the case with this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Poor quality is not a valid reason to delete an article. Pburka (talk) 12:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a link from an interview on a website as a reference. [47] Lila Brown (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Comment WP:RELISTINGISEVIL no changes have been made, it's a clear-cut delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One reference is self-published, the other is about his athlete career. Half the article is devoted to who found his talent per se. The rewrite by pburka was good though, although I'm not sure if it's enough to save the article, the real sources are about his high school football carrier and some are questionable. Ryan Norton 02:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there is just enough coverage here to establish notability (I have added another reference). Davewild (talk) 08:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree. I just added another link as well. Lila Brown (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the citations can be verified (though sources are of questionable reliability), he simply doesn't pas ]
- Keep per the substantial coverage in several reliable sources. See this article in the Atlanta Inquirer, this news coverage in WP:ATHLETE, Wikipedia:Notability (people), and Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Change position Additional sources look good to me. Doesn't look like too interesting of an article to me, but "interesting" and "notability" are two separate subjects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork *YES! 11:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Dispenza
- Joe Dispenza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable chiropractor noted for an interview in a documentary. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Literally NO coverage in any of the usual Reliable Sources. At Google News, all you find is a few calendar items about book signings, overwhelmed by items about other people named Joe Dispenza, at least two of whom have far more hits than he does. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete, being interviewed in a single documentary that is not about you or your work does not confer notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: He has being interviewed in many more than one "not single" documentary, some of them are: What the bleep do we know?, The Moses Code, and in his own Evolve Your Brain - The Science of Changing Your Mind DVD. About the Google Hits:
[...] Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found here: Wikipedia:Search engine test. |
[...] Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. |
- Furthermore, Dr. Dispenza raise an avant-garde subject as the neurosciencie is, and his first publication deals with several unsolved problems in neuroscience.--Sailorsun (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – As indicated above, the Ghits lack substance. In addition, there are zero GNEWS hits. Your arguments and the article support fail to show the subject meets the criteria in ]
- Comment – Arguing "lack of substance" must be done so from an impartial standpoint, and the claim that GNEWS lists zero results is not true:[48] Sailorsun (talk) 09:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Why you would you feel I am not impartial in my review of GHits, please assume good faith.
You are wrong about the GNEWS hits. See [49].Once again, your arguments and the article support fail to show the subject meets the criteria in ]
- Comment – I think you are biased, because I get the impression that you channel your efforts into the deletion of numerous articles from Wikipedia, and, at least in this one, you put forth political assertions and rules in a redundant and static fashion. Furthermore, your statistics are not contrasted, and therefore can, erroneously, negatively affect the permanency of the article. In any case, what I have said previously does not at all mean that I do not take you in good faith; certain fundamentalism, perhaps. In short, my opinion is that petitions for deletion neither should be taken lightly, nor be based on the fact that someone may not know about the topic or person in question, nor be justified with simple transcriptions of internal politics. Sometimes thinking that an article must be deleted does not necessarily mean that it is true. Sailorsun (talk) 11:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For your information I channel my efforts into helping insure the articles in Wikipedia meet the criteria set forth by the consensus of the community. Instead of trying to discredit my actions and setting up a straw man argument, your time would be better spent providing the support to show the subject meets the criteria in ]
- Comment – Why you would you feel I am not impartial in my review of GHits, please assume good faith.
- Comment Further support for my "delete" vote above: he has no presence at Google Scholar except his one book; he is "not found" at PubMed; he is "not found" at ChiroWeb or the major chiropractic journals. It appears he has never published anything in any peer-reviewed forum. So his claim to be some kind of scientist is unsupported. That leaves ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:48, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erin Simpson
- Erin Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not yet established, partly test, needs wikification badly. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails ]
- Delete - Non-notable eponymous TV host. Vapid article. Carrite (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete per ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheng Hsin
- Cheng Hsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed as part of
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete PROD was removed by IP whose comment said the topic "is lacking in references only because it is new." That's the problem--there are no independent references given for this topic and I couldn't find any that show notability. All references are linked to the founder. Astudent0 (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Don't see the notability or any secondary sources. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bun Sothea
- Bun Sothea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Proposed as part of
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Papaursa (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unreferenced BLP about a fighter whose claim to fame is being a Cambodian S1 champion, whatever that is. The link to S1 championships doesn't work and there's no sources or other claims that show notability. Astudent0 (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with above. Tried to search using Bing and got nothing that wasn't tied to the Wikipedia article. 131.118.229.18 (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IPhone Application Development
- IPhone Application Development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is another great example of needing a CSD for
- Comment Be careful when being so quick to nominate a article for deletion, especially an article with a template such as the one present. I agree that it has some flaws but I think that it could be reworked. Perhaps userfication is a good option here? I think it could potentially be useful to have an article about what the iPhone application development process is, as long as that article isn't a "how-to". This would require a substantial bit of reworking, but would certainly be possible. So my short answer is userfy, but with instructions. ~Gosox(55)(55) 14:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree that this nomination was made far too quickly after the creation of the article, but it certainly seems that this article is going to be a comment 14:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: I have argued at CSD that there should be "criteria for speedy userfication." In any case, this article requires a full rewrite to become encyclopedic, so I don't think the nomination was too quick. Advertising pages that require full rewrites are deleted immediately. — Timneu22 · talk 14:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agree with Gosox5555 whilst the article is a how-to currently, the subject itself may well be of note and has potential for a decent article. --neon white talk 15:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Great feedback and I understand the criticism. Let me work on cleaning it up. TechLeadJosh (talk) 12:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have gone in and made revisions to bring the article more in line of my real purpose which is to speak about what the iPhone Application Development is and NOT to tell people actually how to develop an application. Right now I believe I have a good structure in place which I wish to share with my colleagues (and of course the general public) to flush out the meat some more. Thank you again! TechLeadJosh (talk) 12:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but it's not even close. As long as you have a section titled "buy vs. build", and with text like "For step by step instruction please visit Apple's documentation", then you have a how-to article. See ]
- You may want to see ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Strong delete as the article is (as of this edit) is still, in essence, ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cecil Cooney
- Cecil Cooney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't see this meeting the notability criteria. IMDB confirms that he had a long career as a camera operator (including some notable films) but that he was cinematographer for only one film: Beach Red. Google Books contains vast numbers of listings of him against the films he worked on but I didn't see any actual coverage. Verifiability is missing for the early life story but the career is verifiable; it just doesn't quite seem to be notable enough. DanielRigal (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Interesting, I'm sure, but nowhere near accordance with ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redacted vote:
Keep for expansion and discovery of other secondary sources. I would not have presumed to create this biography without the extensive detailed filmography available on IMDb.com and the many Google references that you mentioned above. I have added some citations to the life story, and you do not question the integrety the IMDb information, as you say "the career is verifiable" Your comments seem to denegrate the skill and contribution of the Camera operator in film making. There also seems to be a point of contention among professionals about the definition of the cinematographer, as detailed in the Wikipedia article on the Cinematographer; particularly between the "UK system" and the "US system". I also note Cecil's obvious depth of experience and comments made about his work on Beach Red. Regarding your last contention that it "doesn't quite seem to be notable enough" (notable to who?); many of the notable films that he worked on are now being restored and re-released on DVD, and rediscovered; much of the interest in his work would come from those who would appreciate it, and those working in his field (and would like to know who he was). As I said, I wouldn't have presumed to create this if not for the information already available, I just happen to have the interest and information to form a biography. I also see that this article has been taged as within the scope of WikiProject Australia and supported by the Australian cinema task force, another perspective that you might have overlooked. Further to what I have said, and considering some of the articles earmarked for deletion, I don't see why you would bother with this. I haven't made any interperative claims or analyses. Cheers--Jacky Smythe (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability criteria is WP:N. Note that notability is not the same as skill, professionalism or praiseworthiness. Lots of good people are not notable and lots of bad people are notable. A career camera operator would not normally be considered notable without significant additional coverage, despite having a string of verifiable credits. It would be different if other people had written about him at length but I didn't see any coverage of that type when I looked. If he published a book about his work, got interviewed in newspapers , received a substantial obituary in a major publication or was cited as an influence by other notable film-makers then that is the sort of coverage that could make the difference. If you can find coverage of that sort then please add that.
- Please forgive me if I jump to an incorrect conclusion here, but I assume that Cooney was a relative of yours (based on there being relatives called Smythe mentioned in his sister, conflict of interest problem. It is very hard to be objective about your own relatives. I can understand why you would think that both Cooney and Villiers deserve articles but I am afraid that Cooney doesn't quite seem to make it over the notability line in my view. We will have to wait and see what other people think. Whatever the outcome, please don't take it personally. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I do have a family connection to the two individuals I have edited, and have taken care to follow the neutral point of view policy. I can't see how I have "fallen foul". I have acted to correct the lack of substance in the existing article on Mavis Villiers, and thought it notable enough to create an accurate biography on Cecil Cooney when such a large amount of information appeares when his name is Googled. I stand by my nuanced comments about the skill and artistic contribution of the camera operator in film making, and the different conventions of the role of the cinematographer expressed in the Wikipedia article on that subject. I am happy to bow to the concensus view. Thanks.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability criteria is
- Delete There is no evidence of significant independent coverage, as required by Wikipedia's notability criteria. "Skill and artistic contribution" are irrelevant, and so are "the different conventions of the role of the cinematographer". However skillful he is, and whatever may be the role of this person, no significant coverage in reliable sources = not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Elton Bunny (talk) 10:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redacted vote:
Keep as stub for Expansion. I can see that my response regarding the role of the Camera Operator is irrelevent to this discussion; just a lack of experience, in these forums, on my part. However I will continue to argue for this to be kept for expansion, on the basis that he had a significant role in the making of over sixty feature films in his career. Several of them are considered classics; many of them are well known and critically acclaimed; all of them have already been reliably listed and described under his name on the internet.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article has been Expanded and further referenced. Research is ongoing.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have crossed through your previous "keep"s because each person is only meant to make a single suggestion of keep or delete in bold text. This makes is easier for the administrator deciding the result to see the ballance of opinion. Of course, you can still make as many comments as you like, you just don't need to restate the keep or delete in bold each time. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete. This has been a difficult decision to make due to the wealth of sources on the article, but I have to lean towards WP:BASICto make my mind up. Though the article is well-sourced at first glance as of right now, most of the sources point to one of three general places:
- Ancestry.com, which may verify that an event occurred or a person existed but doesn't necessarily confer notability;
- IMDB, which can be edited by similar to Wikipedia and is never, ever considered a reliable sourcebecause of that; and
- two reviews of the one movie he was cinematographer in, which may establish some notability for the movies but not necessarily the person. Not to mention that both reviews mention Cooney in passing.
- In addition, a Google search for his name turned up many results, but nearly all of them were useless generic "profile" pages generated by IMDB lookalikes. Scholar and Books turned barely anything useful to even satisfy WP:ANYBIO. Though the man has had a storied career in minor behind-the-scenes film roles and one major role as cinematographer I can't see that as enough, given the sources I have found. elektrikSHOOS 07:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to make a point that I tried to make earlier, that seems to have been lost in this discussion. The implication has been made by the initial nominator, and now by you, that, regardless of the notability criteria, a Camera Operator could not be 'notable', but a cinematographer could. I will not reiterate my previous statements about the intrinsic creative role and skill of the camera operator; but if you read the Wikipedia definitions of camera operator and cinematographer you might be further enlightened. To demonstrate my point I invite you to look at the career of the 'celebrated' cinematographer Erwin Hillier mentioned in my biography. He was in fact a camera operator who took on the additional role and responsibility of a cinematographer and had a similar career path as Cecil. I make these points because I think the statements made like "career in minor behind-the-scenes film roles" and "a career camera operator" are prejudicial and just wrong. If you analyze his filmography, you will see that he worked in a free-lance manner; he was not a staff cameraman, as could be inferred from your comment.
- On another matter, I find your comments about IMDb.com to be irrelevant. Are you referring to the list of his credits; they are certainly incomplete, but so is the list on the BFI website. If you are referring to the review I referenced; that particular review is out-sourced by IMDb, his reviews are adopted by many websites. Also, I disagree with your third comment; the comments in the two reviews clearly refer specifically to his work as the cimematographer.
- The fact that Cecil was invited to join the team of a celebrated cinematographer, that was engaged by a celebrated production company, that made celebrated films, praised for their photography, is an indication of his notability. Similarly, he was subsequently engaged as cinematographer by a notable if not celebrated director, to make a ground-breaking film that has been reviewed on more than one ocassion as influentional. (Interestingly, his next major film was A Bridge at Remagen). That he was engaged on other notabele productions; Othello, The Hireling,..is another indication of his regard within the industry. Why he didn't work more as a cinematographer and didn't get much coverage, could be seen as irrelivant; he was probably very well paid and didn't need the stress. These facts and the references and citations provided should be accepted as notability and coverage, in my opinion.
- The initial comment was that this "just doesn't seem to be notable enough". Just on a common sense level, this should get past the line. The story is interesting on all sorts of levels; the history of cinema; the history of an influential production company; the history of WWII war movies; and just 'the life and career of a camera operator'. I have read the notability guidelines, and don't need reminding; I do think that they are open to a common sense interpretation, because they have an 'intent and purpose' behind them, that this article does not contravene, in my view.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am being pressured on this: I had two small paragraphs when the article was first nominated for deletion. I have books on hold at the library, which are autobiographies and memoirs of directors and the films this person worked on. I can't access them until Monday. Will somebody give me a break!!--Jacky Smythe (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the article be deleted before you can access these sources you can request that an admin userfy the content for you to a subpage of your user page. If the sourcing exists for this person you can work on it there and then move it back to article space. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the nominator here, I certainly have no objection to that. The only thing I would say is that I have seen stuff get userfied and, because it remains on my watchlist, I see it being edited on a fairly regular basis getting ever more detailed and elaborate but never getting any closer to becoming a real article again. I feel sorry for anybody flogging such a dead horse and wonder if it would have been kinder to just delete their articles outright rather than allow false hope to be sustained. The problem is that if a subject is really not notable then no amount of verification and good writing can get round that. Of course this isn't always the case. Sometimes userfied stuff does come back as a decent article. I have no objection the author having a try. I just wanted to outline the risk.
- The other possibility the author can consider is publishing the content somewhere else. Just because something might not belong on Wikipedia doesn't mean that there is no place for it anywhere. It might make a nice bio for the IMDB entry, for example. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection! The nominator is making prejudicial remarks here, that could influence the jury; and flogging his own horse.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I am just trying to offer good advice and be helpful. I'll stop if this isn't appreciated. Anyway, it is not prejudicial, there is no jury and I don't own a horse. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. Help!!! by all means. Cheers--Jacky Smythe (talk) 13:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I never said a camera operator couldn't be notable. And again, as I said, it's down to verifiable sources and there isn't enough to merit an article per WP:ANYBIO. This is all I'll say about that. Please don't harass me on my talk page again for the sole sake of being argumentative. elektrikSHOOS 04:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article on WP:OTHERSTUFF. And in any case, that article is also unreferenced and potentially non-notable unless sources can be added to back it up. elektrikSHOOS 04:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the comments made above, I recommend userfying the article. Yes, I can understand the risks of userfying an article but there simply isn't enough there now. elektrikSHOOS 04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say you said the camera operator couldn't be notable; I didn't say the article on Hillier is relevent in that discussion (and his identity and reputation is not hard to verify in the context of the story); I didn't 'harras' you. If you don't have time to read my comments on this page thoroughly and to comprehend them, please don't respond; if you have to rely on the comments of other editors, please don't respond--Jacky Smythe (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, most of your arguments are largely moot points per ]
- Your 'rabid' application of these principals, have also been given without thorough consideration. I note WP:ANYBIO: Basic criteria; Additional criteria/Creative Professionals/point 3. I conceed that depth of coverage is not substantial, but since the guidelines are not policy, then the verifiable facts are open to a common sense analysis. Maybe other editors have time to be thorough.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I refer to the following part of WP:BASIC:
If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.
- As I've said above, the sources listed in the article are trivial and do not establish notability. elektrikSHOOS 01:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I noted that above; the sources you refer to are the reviews of Beach Red, which firstly, I don't think are 'trivial', but "may" be not sufficient coverage. But that's not my main point; I'm asking you to consider what is in the 'Please Discuss' paragraph below, and to look at the fundamental principals behind the guidelines. I'm asking you to look at the verifiable facts that indicate Cecil's notability; these facts cannot be 'challenged' and are thoroughly referenced; I'm not trying to advance a position outside of what the facts clearly indicate. I'm asking you to accept all this as sufficient coverage. This requires you to think outside the box; since the notability guidelines are not 'policy', all it takes is for the editors to see my point and make an executive decision and hopefully reach a consensus. This is what I have been rabidly trying to get across. I think the guidelines are designed to combat 'trivial' claims, but I don't think my claims are trivial. Firstly you have to conceed that Cecil deserves notability, which is supported by the facts and their references, and then accept those references as sufficient coverage; which you can do because the facts are not 'likely to be challenged' ]
- I refer to the following part of
- Your 'rabid' application of these principals, have also been given without thorough consideration. I note
- In any case, most of your arguments are largely moot points per ]
- Given the comments made above, I recommend userfying the article. Yes, I can understand the risks of userfying an article but there simply isn't enough there now. elektrikSHOOS 04:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should the article be deleted before you can access these sources you can request that an admin userfy the content for you to a subpage of your user page. If the sourcing exists for this person you can work on it there and then move it back to article space. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Sufficient career achievement, including work as a cinematographer on a film in 1967 regarded as influential for its cinematography. While the layout can use a kick in the pants, the article is tolerably well sourced and it — and this is important — actually is a biography of the subject of the article. At least 75% of the dreck coming through the gate at WP purporting to be biography is not. This is. There is something to be said for someone willing to put in the time to write an informative article and this is on its way. The subject of this piece may be arcane, of interest only to movie buffs with a thing for 1960s cinema, but that's fine. More power to the content-contributor who wrote the basic piece. No need to nitpick notability on this one, there's plenty of room to do that elsewhere on far less worthy presentations of far less worthy topics. Carrite (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Little of that relates to Wikipedia's notability criteria. "Career achievement" and "actually is a biography of the subject of the article" do not indicate notability, and nor does the fact that someone has "put in the time" to write the article. The comment about "arcane, of interest only to movie buffs with a thing for 1960s cinema" is a straw-man argument, as nobody has suggested that that is a reason for deletion. Comparison with other articles is, of course, irrelevant: see WP:OTHERSTUFF. The one and only part of the above comment that appears to refer to Wikipedia's notability criteria is "the article is tolerably well source". I wonder whether DanielRigal is actually aware of what Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are, because the given references are links to pages which either don't mention Cooney or merely include him in a list of credits. None of them gives significant coverage. Further up the page we also have a lot of arguments that do not relate at all to Wikipedia's notability criteria. For example, "The fact that Cecil was invited to join the team of a celebrated cinematographer, that was engaged by a celebrated production company, that made celebrated films, praised for their photography, is an indication of his notability". No it isn't: notability is not inherited, and we need direct evidence that he himself satisfies the notability criteria. The same applies to "That he was engaged on other notabele productions", and much more that appears above. Elton Bunny (talk) 15:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am trying to understand what your objection is, summarized under ‘’notability is not inherited”. As I understand it, the notability guidelines are there to prevent ‘indiscriminate inclusion’ and to establish that a subject is ‘worthy of notice’; and that the verification criteria are there to support notability, by supporting anything that is “likely to be challenged”. So, what is it that you are challenging? Are you challenging that Cecil was part of an elite cinematography team, or that the team was an elite team, or that he was qualified to be a part of the team. Are you challenging that the team was engaged by a celebrated production company, or that the company was celebrated. Are you challenging that they made acclaimed films that are praised for their photography. There are so many holes in the notability criteria that it is hard to see what the key objection is? The bio criteria seem to say there must be 1. and 2., but don’t have to be. I have not tried to advance a position that is not supported by the facts; that are verifiable. I am saying that the facts, and the references and citations given to support the facts, are sufficient to establish Cecil’s notability, and are sufficient coverage. Further, Cecil is ‘worthy of notice’ because he had a significant (in his field) role in significant events, and his life story is interesting.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 00:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Little of that relates to Wikipedia's notability criteria. "Career achievement" and "actually is a biography of the subject of the article" do not indicate notability, and nor does the fact that someone has "put in the time" to write the article. The comment about "arcane, of interest only to movie buffs with a thing for 1960s cinema" is a straw-man argument, as nobody has suggested that that is a reason for deletion. Comparison with other articles is, of course, irrelevant: see
- Redacted vote:
Keep- I have looked at the autobiography of Michael Powell, who was the co-producer and director of ‘’[The Archers]’’ films that Cecil worked on. I can only find material that supports the notability of the photography in these films. He describes the photography on ‘’I Know Where I’m Going!’’ as “a high water mark of black and white photography in the 1930’s and 40’s”. I have cited this, but it would seem gratuitous to add this to the text, on top of the other references I have made. Interestingly, he refers to Erwin Hillier, the cinematographer, as the “lighting cameraman’’. This supports my discussion about the critical creative role of the camera operator in film making; which is more to do with the choreography and framing of shots. I note that no one else wants to discuss the ‘intent and purpose’ behind the notability criteria. I invite editors to review my defense, and to accept the verifiable facts and references I have given, as sufficient support for notability and coverage.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The basic problem is that unless a cameraman or cinematographer has won an Academy Award or some such, a well-documented biography about a non-living subject returning over 30 credits at Turner Classic Movies counts for nothing on WP... The piece might be better than 3.1 million of the 3.3+ million Wikipedia articles (WP:OTHERCRAP) but that's neither here nor there, because an article by a noob got flagged and notability rules are regarded as unbendable by too many here... (Too bad Cecil Cooney didn't shoot porn movies — then he would have won some cheesy industry award and cleared the notability bar!) Carrite (talk) 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While that view is rather more jaundiced than mine, I do understand the feeling of unfairness. What I would say is that this is not something that stems from Wikipedia itself. It comes from the fact that the world often chooses to recognise those of questionable talent and ignore many people of skill and ability. Wikipedia can only work with the sources the rest of the world chooses to give it. It isn't Wikipedia's job to do original research uncovering the meritorious but overlooked. The important thing is to remember that notability is not a measure of a person's worth as a human being. A doctor may work a lifetime in general practice, saving many lives and relieving much suffering, showing great skill and dedication but never even getting so much as a mention in the local newspaper. That doctor will never have an article on Wikipedia yet many of the worst people in history will. That's how notability works. The same is true of other encyclopaedias. The only thing that makes Wikipedia unique in this respect is that we are discussing it in a public way. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments do not address any of the issues raised for discussion and your personal sentiments are not welcome, from my point of view. It is absurd to say that this is not something that stems from Wikipedia.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there is an article about Cooney in any other encyclopaedias then please let us know as that would certainly help the case for keeping the article very significantly! If not, then that sort of proves my point that this isn't really about Wikipedia at all. It is about how encyclopaedias work in general.
- I was trying to explain that none of this is personal or intended as a judgement of the overall worth of Cooney. I don't like people to leave an AfD feeling that they have been treated unfairly or unsympathetically but it seems that every time I say something that is meant to make you feel better it backfires, so I will stop. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes... Stop.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your comments do not address any of the issues raised for discussion and your personal sentiments are not welcome, from my point of view. It is absurd to say that this is not something that stems from Wikipedia.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While that view is rather more jaundiced than mine, I do understand the feeling of unfairness. What I would say is that this is not something that stems from Wikipedia itself. It comes from the fact that the world often chooses to recognise those of questionable talent and ignore many people of skill and ability. Wikipedia can only work with the sources the rest of the world chooses to give it. It isn't Wikipedia's job to do original research uncovering the meritorious but overlooked. The important thing is to remember that notability is not a measure of a person's worth as a human being. A doctor may work a lifetime in general practice, saving many lives and relieving much suffering, showing great skill and dedication but never even getting so much as a mention in the local newspaper. That doctor will never have an article on Wikipedia yet many of the worst people in history will. That's how notability works. The same is true of other encyclopaedias. The only thing that makes Wikipedia unique in this respect is that we are discussing it in a public way. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Jacky Smythe, your conduct on this deletion discussion is unacceptable. You have put in votes for keep at least 4 times, nearly all of which have been crossed out. Please only put one vote and restrict all other comments to, well, comments. Your responses to comments on the deletion discussion are based on "he's done a lot of work" and not on hard facts and Wikipedia policy. And finally, you have pursued at least one user (me) to my talk page and harassed me to give a response to what is a series of argumentative and unsubstantiated statements. Please stop. I can understand if you don't want your article to be deleted, but dogging every editor who puts a comment on this page is not the way to ensure the article stays. I would encourage you to read WP:CIVIL and refrain from such nonconstructive behavior in the future. elektrikSHOOS 05:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My multiple keeps were an uninformed mistake and wern't intended to deceive or anything else you might be suggesting. My discussion is not based on "he's done a lot of work" you haven't bothered to read it thoroughly. I haven't 'harrased' you; I tried to talk to you, isn't that what the talk page is for. You still haven't answered my original question. I this supposed to be a discussion?, or will just dictate to me. Is trying to discuss, argumentitive? As I said, your words are worthless; if you don't have time to be thorough then why bother. If you want to respond, please read my comments thoroughly first, so you don't waste my time.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Discuss: As I understand it, the notability guidelines are there to prevent ‘indiscriminate inclusion’ and to establish that a subject is ‘worthy of notice’; and that the verification criteria are there to support notability, by supporting anything that is “likely to be challenged”. So, what is it that you are challenging? Are you challenging that Cecil was part of an elite cinematography team, or that the team was an elite team, or that he was qualified to be a part of the team. Are you challenging that the team was engaged by a celebrated production company, or that the company was celebrated. Are you challenging that they made acclaimed films that are praised for their photography. There are so many holes in the notability criteria that it is hard to see what the key objection is? The bio criteria seem to say there must be 1. and 2., but don’t have to be. I have not tried to advance a position that is not supported by the facts; that are verifiable. I am saying that the facts, and the references and citations given to support the facts, are sufficient to establish Cecil’s notability, and are sufficient coverage. Further, Cecil is ‘worthy of notice’ because he had a significant (in his field) role in significant events, and his life story is interesting.——The fact that Cecil was invited to join the team of a celebrated cinematographer, that was engaged by a celebrated production company, that made celebrated films, praised for their photography, is an indication of his notability. Similarly, he was subsequently engaged as cinematographer by a notable if not celebrated director, to make a ground-breaking film that has been reviewed on more than one ocassion as influentional. (Interestingly, his next major film was A Bridge at Remagen). That he was engaged on other notabele productions; Othello, The Hireling,..is another indication of his regard within the industry. Why he didn't work more as a cinematographer and didn't get much coverage, could be seen as irrelivant; he was probably very well paid and didn't need the stress. These facts and the references and citations provided should be accepted as notability and coverage, in my opinion.——Yes I noted that above; the sources you refer to are the reviews of Beach Red, which firstly, I don't think are 'trivial', but "may" be not sufficient coverage. But that's not my main point; I'm asking you to consider what is in the 'Please Discuss' paragraph below, and to look at the fundamental principals behind the guidelines. I'm asking you to look at the verifiable facts that indicate Cecil's notability; these facts cannot be 'challenged' and are thoroughly referenced; I'm not trying to advance a position outside of what the facts clearly indicate. I'm asking you to accept all this as sufficient coverage. This requires you to think outside the box; since the notability guidelines are not 'policy', all it takes is for the editors to see my point and make an executive decision and hopefully reach a consensus. This is what I have been rabidly trying to get across. I think the guidelines are designed to combat 'trivial' claims, but I don't think my claims are trivial. Firstly you have to conceed that Cecil deserves notability, which is supported by the facts and their references, and then accept those references as sufficient coverage; which you can do because the facts are not 'likely to be challenged' ]
- We have discussed. For some time, actually. Whether or not you want to accept the reasons we have given is your own business. elektrikSHOOS 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After I 'finished up argueing' with this editor on his talk page, he 'went off' putting tags all over the place; including a notability tag on the biography of Erwin Hillier, which is supported by all sorts of things, including extensive obituries. He obviously did not give proper consideration to this action, nor to his actions and statements on this page. I also think that it is inappropriate for editors to 'refer' to each other and use the term 'we' in this context.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have discussed. For some time, actually. Whether or not you want to accept the reasons we have given is your own business. elektrikSHOOS 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to close and userfy as consensus appears to be to delete the article and I don't see any reason to continue this discussion further at this time. elektrikSHOOS 23:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- After I 'finished up argueing' with this editor on his talk page, he 'went off' putting tags all over the place; including a notability tag on the biography of Erwin Hillier, which is supported by all sorts of things, including extensive obituries. He obviously did not give proper consideration to this action, nor to his actions and statements on this page.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't meet notability criteria. One of the sources, the Independent, doesn't even appear to mention him at all. The others just confirm his existence and don't provide much in terms of coverage needed for WP:N. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Extensive defense is concerning. Christopher Connor (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His co-creative role is clear WP:V; which 'can' be accepted as sufficient coverage because the guidelines are not policy. I can be as defensive as I like; this is largely due to my inexperience in these discussions and that they started before I had a chance to finish the article. I conceed that not much coverage is there, although what is there is not 'trivial'. My arguments are difficult to convey because they involve asking the editors to look at the fundamental principals behind the guidelines; they cannot see the grass for the trees. The Hillier article is not meant to mention Cecil, but to establish Hilliers identity and the notability of his films (that Cecil co-created). Your comments are not well considered, and you haven't bothered to try to comprehend my arguments. I beleive your comments on the Hillier article are what I pointed to earlier, in that you are 'refering' to tne comments of another editor without thinking it out yourself. Please read the paragraph Please Discuss.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- His co-creative role is clear
- Final Comments by Author: His co-creative role is clear WP:N. The principles of 'conflict of interest' or 'neutral point of view', are not violated in this article. Another point of notability is his life story within the framework of the history of cinema.--Jacky Smythe (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Normandy Park, Medina, Ohio
- Normandy Park, Medina, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N, is unreferenced, and isn't even listed in the Geographic Names Information System. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to
Ryan Lafferty
I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:
- )
Unreferenced article that fails to demonstrate notability of the character. No real world treatment of a fictional character.
Article was prodded but this was contested by the block-evading IP of an editor who was temporarily blocked at the time (and is now indefinitely blocked) The prod was restored but removed by an administrator on the day the prod was to expire. This nomination is related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Whedon but it didn't seem appropriate to add this article there as the discussion has already been open for 7 days. AussieLegend (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as appropriate. I don't see evidence, wrt Wiki standards, how there is notability sufficient for a standalone article. Eddie.willers (talk) 13:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both - fails ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Brothers & Sisters (2006 TV series)#Extended family and friends per the outcome of that other AfD. Or create a "list of characters..." article and merge there. Jclemens (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete Not enough covered --Rirunmot 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William Slater-Meade
- William Slater-Meade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - minor fictional character that has no reliable sourcing to indicate separate notability. Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete couldn't find sources to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Charlie (Ugly Betty)
- Charlie (Ugly Betty) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete - minor fictional character with no independent reliable sources to establish separate notability. Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Minor character who appeared in a handful of episodes. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete minor character with no independent reliable sources to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorrow (Bobby O song)
- Sorrow (Bobby O song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Contested" prod. Subject is an ordinary nonnotable song. The only ref is trivial track listing. The album this song came from has itself only just been created and might not even be notable itself. SPA. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 19:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete per nom.--Chaser (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.... not much else to say. Ryan Norton 02:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — ξxplicit 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Parent profile
- Parent profile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article appears to be about a non-notable subject. The article (especially the external links section) reads advertish. Although it's content is relevant in terms of adoption, I don't feel it deserves it's own article. --
I am also nominating the following article, because it appears to be an even shorter article on the same subject:
Delete per nom. --Sulmues Let's talk 16:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete both. These appear to be thinly-disguised advertisements for some sort of profile database. JIP | Talk 07:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Albert Camus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Blood of the Hungarians
Article was published in 1957, not in the US. Author died in 1960, which would put into the public domain in 2055 under normal circumstances. No evidence that the document has been released to the public domain, or that it can be reprinted in full as "fair use".
Possible to delete as "copyvio" though may be fairer to discuss as AFD. billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps this can be reverted to earlier stub form [50], thus removing copyright concerns. It can then be expanded with sources, or redirected to Camus article. JNW (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any indication this has received widespread coverage? If we can't have the text (which would go on Wikisource anyways, if copyright permitted it), and there's no independent reliable sources which discuss the text, we really can't do much but mention it in another article, can we? Jclemens (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I agree with Jclemens here. If there is material on coverage on the text, it can be added. The copyvio quote can be removed right anyway. --Soman (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Redirect to Albert Camus. I was unable to find any extensive coverage of this outside of direct copies of the speech. Mauler90 talk 18:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You Love Her Coz She's Dead
closest thing to notability is a track appearing on an episode of a tv program. not enough for their own article. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Have received some coverage, won an award, appeared in a fairly major television programme.--Michig (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 19:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep. Per the above keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep per notability being established. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jason McCann
- Jason McCann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced and neither character nor episode is listed on IMDB Eeekster (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Appearently a one-off character in an episode that hasn't even aired yet, i.e. it screams non-notability. If secondary sources begin to cover this character, first develop an episode article, a section in a character list, or cover it in the artist's article. – sgeureka t•c 06:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: This character is a Minor Character, and will only appear in 3 or 4 episodes of a show that, by the end of its 11th Season will have shown over 250 episodes. Characters who have appeared in many more episodes than this do not have there own page. Please Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Langston Bonasera (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: minor character without sources to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adrian Magson
- Adrian Magson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article utterly lacks any
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete. Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Reviews are capsule reviews or from unreliable sources. Christopher Connor (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merged. Chaser (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WestlawNext
As noted in the previous discussion under Merge on the talk page, this discusses a facet of Westlaw that is already fully discussed on the main Westlaw page. Hence, it is totally unnecessary, as well as violates any rule about main treatment being in one place. -Busjack (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. The discussion page seems to support it, and you can do it without bringing the article to ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arya Vedic School Kenya
Non-notable school, no hits on Google. All of it original research and dubious claims. (Entire section about jennifer.) Acebulf (talk) 17:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Minor school. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable and not sourced. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 21:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - contains a high school and the reasons for keeping these are contained at talk) 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep All high schools are notable. As TerriersFan said, Kenyan schools have a poor Internet presence, so more time should be given for local sources to be found. Schools should never be deleted unless they are hoaxes; if schools such as primary schools are non-notable, they should be merged to the nearest locality. The sources added to the article are sufficient to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability, so this article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 18:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep
Comment: I'm somewhat concerned that search from the Kenyan government website returns "Total: 0 results found" for this school. That said, if it can be verified that this school ]
- Comment - it is not a government school so I wouldn't expect it on their website. Verifiability is demonstrated by the sources in the article, including a whole chapter in a book. talk) 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I would argue that this comment was a valid request, I have
struckmy comment and changed my !vote to keep, in agreement with ]
- Comment - it is not a government school so I wouldn't expect it on their website. Verifiability is demonstrated by the sources in the article, including a whole chapter in a book.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 matter of whether to merge or not can be taken up on the article talk page if desired. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Double cross
We already have an article for betrayal. Powers T 19:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article needs a better definition than "betrayal" and in-line citations for the etymology. The relationship between WP:NOT#DICT. I'm unclear on the meaning of this sentence from the policy: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject,[under discussion]". Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What it means is that some lexical topics have undergone extensive analysis by linguists. Words like fuck have had entire books written about them, and therefore we have enough material to write an encyclopedic article focusing solely on the word itself, rather than on what the word denotes. I think it's obvious that "double cross", while certainly a notable topic in the sense of betrayal, has not itself been the subject of extensive scholarly discussion (as a phrase). In other words, the topic that "double cross" denotes has been analyzed, but the phrase "double cross" has not. Powers T 00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're being misled by the badly written introduction. (This article has been badly developed. See below.) If the article had been written in accordance with Wikipedia:Writing better articles#Use of 'refers to', it would have begun "In boxing, a double cross is where both parties to an agreement break that agreement." (as per the source below) and you wouldn't be on this tangent in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What it means is that some lexical topics have undergone extensive analysis by linguists. Words like fuck have had entire books written about them, and therefore we have enough material to write an encyclopedic article focusing solely on the word itself, rather than on what the word denotes. I think it's obvious that "double cross", while certainly a notable topic in the sense of betrayal, has not itself been the subject of extensive scholarly discussion (as a phrase). In other words, the topic that "double cross" denotes has been analyzed, but the phrase "double cross" has not. Powers T 00:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move Double cross (disambiguation) here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Double cross has a specific sporting meaning and so is somewhat different from concepts such as treachery, betrayal, double-dealing and the like. To blur all these distinctions is sloppy and would tend to mislead our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. The last time that I came across this article, in 2005, it was about the double-cross symbol, known in heraldry as the cross patriarchal (but it's also explicitly called the double cross, Clarityfiend). I see that that was expanded upon and then scribbled over. That's verifiable information that has vanished from Wikipedia as a result of poor editing. Colonel Warden is right that we should we should cover the sporting concept. But look to Gilbert Odd's Encyclopedia of Boxing (ISBN 9781555213954) for the right way to do that. Odd covers the cross and the double-cross as one (on page 175). It's pointless to separate the twain. Other sources (covering both boxing and wrestling) go further, and explain how crosses and double crosses relate to "trusts", "works", and "shoots". Again, they are not really separable, but parts of a larger whole. Uncle G (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to comment 22:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Wow, this is complicated. Here's my suggestion: First, create Double cross (symbol) or some-such as a redirect to Patriarchal cross and add that to Double cross (disambiguation). The historical content Uncle G mentions had no sources or detail beyond the fact that such a cross appears on the coat of arms of Hungary. Next, create Double cross (boxing), either a stub describing the sense mentioned by Colonel Warden or as a redirect to Cross (boxing), where the information that would otherwise be in the stub should be added. Then add that to the DAB page. Finally, move the DAB to this title -- oh and finally finally add a Wiktionary link to the DAB. I guess that's a kind of delete. Cnilep (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for ISBN 9780415262934 pages 190–191, is where a boxer breaks an agreement to "work" a card and instead decides to "shoot". A "double cross" is where both fighters decide to do that. Uncle G (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I misunderstood. Thank you for updating the DAB. All that remains to be done (if others credit my suggestion) is to create content on the cross/double cross/trusts etc. as you describe. I don't think the creation or non-creation of that page would really effect the outcome of this deletion discussion, though. Cnilep (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for
- Keep and create new articles or sections as suggested by Cnilep. Bearian (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was looking for the definition of this phrase and found this article. It explains it well and goes beyond a simple dictionary definition. talk) 13:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you were looking for a definition, why did you look in an encyclopedia? We already have an article on this topic, which would have been just as illuminating for you. Powers T 12:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for it on Google and it's the first article that came up, so I guess at least Google thinks it's a more relevant result than the Wiktionary definition (and the Wikipedia article is indeed a lot more comprehensive). talk) 15:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I searched for it on Google and it's the first article that came up, so I guess at least Google thinks it's a more relevant result than the Wiktionary definition (and the Wikipedia article is indeed a lot more comprehensive).
- If you were looking for a definition, why did you look in an encyclopedia? We already have an article on this topic, which would have been just as illuminating for you. Powers T 12:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge some content to WP:DICDEF, and I am unclear of its potential for development. However, if it does have potential, then it is more likely to grow when placed in context as a section within the parent article - Betrayal. However one reads it, a double cross is a form of betrayal. SilkTork *YES! 10:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge content into a subsection in Betrayal marked "Double cross". Move Double cross (disambiguation) into this namespace, so readers looking for "double cross" will land at Double cross and find all the possible alternative meanings. Update Double cross (disambiguation) to provide a link to Betrayal#Double cross. SilkTork *YES! 11:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She Got Me
- She Got Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Single fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- "She Got Me was released on iTunes on May 5th, 2010, with a limited Canadian release. It failed to chart." I think says it all.... Delete. Ryan Norton 02:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, although a redirect would be appropriate if there is an appropriate target. Rlendog (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ménage à 3
Only its own website found on Google no reliable sources no good content and does not meet notability guidelines. Whenaxis (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I think being a Keenspot Featured Member is notability (although I could be wrong). I'll also say that the title makes this one extremely hard to Google for. DS (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh wait, duh, I know how to narrow my search results. Okay, let's see: it's been shortlisted for an award this year, and I've found a lot of reviews. Mm? DS (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- if deleted, redirect to Ménage à trois. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and then redirect to Ménage à trois as above. No significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for this topic. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adequate determinism
- Adequate determinism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a philosophical idea created by Bob Doyle, who may also be the author of the article itself. While Mr Doyle is apparently notable enough to have an article (even if he did create that himself as well), he is not a published philosopher (letters to the editor of Nature don't count), and the term has no third-party use. – Smyth\talk 20:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete. The article is incoherent and citations are obscure. Ted Honderich uses the phrase dismissively but otherwise there are no sources that discuss it apart from Bob Doyle's essay. It can always be recreated if there are in fact any 3rd party articles that discuss the concept. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious merge No sense or reason behind losing the worthy tidbits or editing history. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What worthy tidbits? There is no reliably sourced material. Even the quote from Cicero doesn't cite any particular translation, and so is unusable. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails notability; literature uses of the two words together do not refer to this term. No reliable sources in article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Kemp
- Arthur Kemp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails
- Keep Debs didn't hold any "major office" <g> so holding office is not a requirement for notability. Is the article sourced? Yep. Noted in RSs? Yep. Despicable? Likely. That is not, however, a reason for deletion of a BLP. Conclusion on the Jan 2009 AfD was "Keep" [52] There has been no new reason for deletion at all, hence the prior overwhelming "Keep" consensus is likely to recur. Collect (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please address Eugene Debs is not solely or even mostly known for being a political candidate. Getting 6 % of the vote in a race for President of the United States may establish notability, but being a fringe candidate in a local constituency race does not. TFD (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete He's written books, but have they attracted any outside interest to the level of ]
- Keep. The subject may not be notable by the specific guidelines for politicians or authors, but that is irrelevant because the sources in the article from ]
- While I can find many references to Kemp, I cannot find any articles specifically about him or that cover him an any detail. One of the sources for the article for example says that he was seen using a photocopier at a BNP campaign office. Can you point to any sources that the article could use? TFD (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you just read the sources specifically about Kemp that are already in the article?[53][54] ]
- There is very little in those articles and the correct place for the information in them is the BNP article. TFD (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is exceedingly little connecting him with the BNP, that article is assredly the precise wrong place to have him end up. The articles on Apartheid opponents whould be where he would be most notable in such a case, but that is a weird thing to do with a sourced BLP indeed. Collect (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the articles are called "BNP's attempt to gain first European seat aided by man linked to ANC leader's killer" and "BNP activist was linked to South Africa murder", they appear to be sources for the BNP. But if as Collect says "there is exceedingly little connecting him with the BNP", then there is no basis for the article. There are no sources that provide extensive detail about Kemp's opposition to apartheid. TFD (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As there is exceedingly little connecting him with the BNP, that article is assredly the precise wrong place to have him end up. The articles on Apartheid opponents whould be where he would be most notable in such a case, but that is a weird thing to do with a sourced BLP indeed. Collect (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is very little in those articles and the correct place for the information in them is the BNP article. TFD (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why don't you just read the sources specifically about Kemp that are already in the article?[53][54] ]
- Delete per lack of significant coverage in RS. Doesn't meet ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Strong keep. - Absolutely a public figure, extensive authorship. Carrite (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and clean up article to meet That his views are controversial is not a valid reason for deletion. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added another reference, there is enough coverage of him to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Minor figure, revision history shows article is little more than character assassination by obscure and irrelevant political opponents. TheFallenCrowd (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Obscure political figure. JamesHilt62 (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.