Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 21
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. extransit (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NewTech Infosystems Inc.
- NewTech Infosystems Inc. (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 find significant coverage for this
- Delete. I see no refs, all first-page ghits are to WP, or the company's website, and the article sounds like advertisement. A likely candidate for ]
- Delete - More than 2.5 years on WP and no independent sources have been added. I find lots of recycled press releases via a Google search, but no significant coverage in reliable sources. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 02:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I started this page when I got price quote for this company product. So this is real company with very small footprint on the web. Why it is so I don't know. see http://www.nticorp.com/en/us/company/about_overview.asp User:Abune (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't doubt that the company exists, but can you explain how it meets the criteria spelled out in ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia historical, technical, or cultural significance. Nothing seems to indicate that this business has reached that level, though it surely exists. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the importance consideration here is not whether a company exists (and this one does), it's whether it's notable. If it has a "very small footprint on the web", that means that it most likely fails WP:CORP, and indeed, I can find very little independent coverage of the company anywhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:19, 27 June 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, fails
]Dragonball 2: Reborn
- View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've not been able to find any announcements that the film and what information I could find was either rumors or speculation from blogs and forum posts. Completely fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 23:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete per above, as pointed out in the original prod There are no reliable sources to prove production or filming of this film. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete As unconfirmed rumor/hoax. -- ]
- Comment I would like to note that dragonballrebornmovie.com is currently registered to a cyper-squatter.[1] On the other hand dragonballreborn.com doesn't appear to be registered. If the film is in production, than FOX would have acquired one of these domans by now. —Farix (t | c) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So speedy delete this as a hoax? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete - this article is seriously a hoax, doesn't have any sources per ]
- If the rumor gets more steam and reportage, then maybe then, but the guideline says not until production has confirmed to have started. For now, things aren't there yet: delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources to prove filming has begun or that the film is even in development. - talk) 08:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Someone copied information from the Dragonball Evolution article. The links to reviews are for Evolution. Dream Focus 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Note: Cut and paste move fixed, article is now at what IMDb gives as the title, and two AfD's consolidated. One comment was on the other one, which is as follows:
- Looks like someone began the AfD for this article but never actually finished it. Anyway, I'll have to go with weak incubation because although there seems to be a lot of sources about this movie being in development, they're all forums. In addition, the IMDb page doesn't even have a cast listing. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I highly disapprove of the move of the article and AfD to "Dragonball 2: Reborn" as there is no official title and "Dragonball: 2 Reborn" is/was the original name of the article up for deletion. The IMDB listing is apparently part of the ongoing hoax/rumor. Also, the list was completed, as shown by this edit. Apparently, someone must have removed it from the day's log. —Farix (t | c) 03:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Courcelles (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, rumour/hoax. Forum posts are so far from being reliable sources that I would even oppose incubation or userification on this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:20, 27 June 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. Consensus is clearly to delete. The comparison with Rickrolling would only be valid if this subject had significant coverage in independent sources (Rickrolling has 65 references, and 19 "further reading" references). This article has *1* reference, to a very minor mention in a YouTube video. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stealth clown
- Stealth clown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Possible attack page, and Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This was NOT an attack page, and I've posted a source now. Thank you.JHHster (talk) 23:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, it isn't an attack page. If anyone is interested in the YouTube link, you can save some time and skip the first 4 minutes; 'stealth clown' is mentioned at the end. Given this article is basically about a YouTube video, I think it can probably be speedy deleted as WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 - web content. PhilKnight (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seemed to me that although it probably wasn't intended to be an attack page, it was within ]
It's a potential meme. If you look up videos about it, or google it, you will find many things. I've heard it on Xbox LIVE all the time, so it's not "Basically about a YouTube video".67.114.107.235 (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an article about web content that doesn't indicate why it's significant, so it can speedy deleted under WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7. PhilKnight (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Im wondering if you even read my last post. It's significant because it's funny and is turning into a meme, believe it or not.67.114.107.235 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article doesn't even assert any notability. No coverage in reliable sources. Could probably be speedied. talk) 13:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if you're going to take my article down, so be it. If you're going to though, you might as well take down "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rickrolling" because it doesn't "SHOW WHY IT'S SIGNIFICANT" and it's "AN ARTICLE BASED ON A YOUTUBE VIDEO"67.114.107.235 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article 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 keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake
- 1998 Ryukyu Islands earthquake (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)
Disputed PROD. However this is a minor earthquake with dubious notability that resulted in no damage or injuries, and so this falls under
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep / merge. The article contains two distinct (albeit small) RS about the subject and as such it passes not a reason to delete, per deletion policy. That said, the article would be probably best merged in some list of minor earthquakes. --Cyclopiatalk 23:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I created this entry. I do not agree on the provided reason for deletion: shindo 3 is not significant. Again, as I have said in the talk page of another earthquake event page, (1) intensity is not a good criterion for the significance or importance of an earthquake (especially this earthquake is as strong as Mw 7.5, and (2) shindo 3 is strong enough to cause damage.
- In fact, in the English entry of Yonaguni, a strong submarine earthquake in 1998 is mentioned. I suspect that it refers to the same earthquake.
- As for the criteria for being significant, imaging that a M9.0 earthquake happens in some place far away from any major human settlement. It may not leave records of "impressive" intensity, but it is definately not "insignificant". Hence intensity is definately not a suitable criteria. If you look up the USGS historical earthquake records, you'll find that this is one of the strongest events in that year. It is definately not a "minor" earthquake. Qrfqr (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Excellent almanac type entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 02:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a 7.5 magnitude is pretty big, and past earthquakes of that amount have been kept here in the past. Usually, 5 or lower gets deleted, 6 is a maybe, and a 7 is a keeper. Bearian (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - This is marginal, there are probably some scientific papers out there that reference it, I only found the one abstract so far. The draft notability guidelines at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Earthquakes#Notability criteria suggest that just being magnitude 7 is insufficient. Mikenorton (talk) 15:14, 23 June 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
Kurdish Freedom Flotilla
*Delete: Non notable article. Its about a "plan" that a few students have to "assist kurds". There is no notability here. Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. Not enough independent secondary sources to pass notability threshold for an independent Wikipedia article. Cs32en Talk to me 23:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —nsaum75¡שיחת! 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Until this actually materialises AND some of the knife weilding batton bearing non-comformist Israeli peace aid students are gunned down by stunned Turkish soliders, this should not have its own page. Chesdovi (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is the reflexive reaction of a few lone students and is inane and fatuous, since the Kurdish region in Turkey is not subject to any blockade and doesn't even have a coastline! --386-DX (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Cs32en. If this event actually happens, it may become notable enough for its own article, but at its current stage, it probably isn't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a non-notable propaganda stunt. It hasn't happened, won't happen and cannot happen. It has received negligible mefdia coverage -- apart from references to this article itself, almost all of the three dozen Google hits are simply a copy of the original blog posting. This is not only non-notable; it is a non-event, and an attempt to hijack Wikipedia for propaganda purposes. Unless there is anything more substantial than the tissue of hype and speculation that this is based on, it should be deleted rather than merged. RolandR (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —RolandR (talk) 07:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete media stunt that no-one much seems to care about. Unless of course if they could find a way to sail to Kurdistan... Misarxist (talk) 17:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid. This was already suggested on the page. The information is sourced from reliable sources. I am concerned about the neutrality, but that can be solved. Linda Olive (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article lists numerous sources. Hence, it's notable.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The notability of a subject depends on the coverage it receives in reliable 3rd party sources, which this topic has, not on its status as a 'plan'. There are numerous plans that have articles- including numerous ones about plans that have been scrapped (and thus will never materialize) - such as NASA Design Reference Mission 3.0. Similarly, even if we accept the unproven premise that this is a 'publicity stunt' - that would not preclude an article about it - as the Balloon boy hoax article shows. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By that standard, we could split Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid into more than 200 articles. Cs32en Talk to me 16:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are 200 sub-topics with significant enough coverage, I don't see why not. There's certainly no Wiki policy against it, and at least ]
- Keep. - covered in multiple, high-quality and high-profile sources, and just looking at the Jerusalem Post article shows that there is enough material to add another one or two paragraphs. Yes, this article will probably be a stub for the rest of its life, but that in itself is of course not a problem. Pantherskin (talk) 20:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Merge. While their plans may be adequately covered by reliable media, nothing of turning this plan into action has happened yet. Merge as per Cs32en. Nageh (talk) 13:44, 27 June 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cardiff Cobras
- Cardiff Cobras (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. British University sports teams are rarely notable within their own institution never mind in the wider world. This does not appear to be one of the very small number of exceptions to this rule. A search on Google returns little beyond sites related to the team and its rivals. The only coverage I could find was this BBC page. The page is a local page for South-East Wales and does nothing beyond acknowledged the teams existence. It's also worth noting that it isn't updated anymore.
Article is unreferenced and given the lack of independent and reliable sources, I dont see anyway that it could be referenced. Given that the article hasn't had any non-trivial edits since its creation almost 5 years ago, it doesn't look likely that anyone will step forward to reference it, even if there were sources. Pit-yacker (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Pit-yacker (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. This does not appear to be one of the few British university sports teams that meet ]
- Delete no indpendent sources, no article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - with a few talk) 20:26, 26 June 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.
Julie Elizabeth Cooper
Not notable. Unsuccessful candidate. Fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete and Redirect Burnley (UK Parliament constituency). The article as it stands has to go as it's an obvious CV article. She's more notable than most second-place candidates because it was a close run with the Lib Dems, but the coverage seems to be almost exclusively local and run-of-the mill. Fair play to her for opposing an all-women shortlist and fighting and winning an open selection contest, but this barely registered interest outside of Lancashire. Who knows, in five years time she may be back. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in Wikipedia, like in real life, there are no prizes for coming second in an election. Subject fails ]
- There are in the European Parliament elections. [pedant mode off]Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete District Councillor = NN; failed candidate for MP = NN. She 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 delete.
A&SG
- A&SG (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 music group lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail
]- Delete: I found zero sources. talk) 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no sources that I can find, and no indication that they meet any of the WP:MUSIC criteria. If kept the article would need to be completely rewritten too. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:23, 27 June 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.
Green zebra adventures
- Green zebra adventures (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)
Creator removed speedy G11 nomination. Article has since been edited several times but still makes no claims to
- Delete - As per nom Codf1977 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - No indication of significance whatsoever -clearly falls under A7. Suggest an admin delete it now per ]
- Speedy delete Promotional. No notability shown. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. GregJackP Boomer!
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nomination. —]
- Delete, thinly-veiled advertisement for a non-notable tour company. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:12, 28 June 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.
Nordmanni
- Nordmanni (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)
Creator removed speedy tag. Copyvio issues appear to have been dealt with, but the article is pretty much entirely promotional and there is no indication as to how the organisation would satisfy even
]- Comment I have blanked the article pending OTRS permission verification, as the article is still a copy of the source. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Mentioned, in three articles from a local paper in a list of groups appearing in a parade.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hardly any coverage [2]. LibStar (talk)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
List of Chinese administrative divisions by population
- List of Chinese administrative divisions by population (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,OR BsBsBs (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese city population entries are completely unsourced. The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources, but to explanations of the type of the administrative region. The comparison entries are all unsourced except for India. Comparisons with other regions may be viewed as
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep: If an article has WP:SOFIXIT - certainly if you are concerned about the welfare of an article, you'd be bold enough to fix it yourself? The same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who is looking after the welfare of Beijing, I can assure you that
- it is not easy to obtain up-to-date population numbers in China
- once you have them, they are contentious (there was an edit war over Beijing's official population number of 22 million - pls compare to the number in this list)
- I am all for this list, but to stay alive, it must be sourced. Thank you for the invitation, but maintaining it timely and correctly is beyond my capacities. The assertion that "the same amount of effort following the three steps to AfD could have been made looking up statistics" is patently wrong. Try it on a few major provinces. If it's so easy, why isn't there a single reference? -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As someone who is looking after the welfare of Beijing, I can assure you that
- Keep I believe all nations have official websites that list their census bureau's information on it. Some information is listed on the American government's Census bureau's website. www.census.gov Shouldn't be difficult to find if any of the information is sincerely in doubt. I don't see any reason to have the section "Comparable country (country rank worldwide)". Why mention what nation or state has the same population of that area? I don't see as how that helps anyone. Dream Focus 03:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just noticed a little something. Quote: "The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources" - precisely. They are notes, not references. The article specifically states that. I don't see anything "wrong" with that. Many WP:FA also contain notes. They are used to clarify certain things that some readers might not understand, without completely ruining the format of the body article. Sources, on the other hand, are given as external links, because as the figures change each year, so does the page URL. I also don't see why linking to the main page of the Bureau of Statistics is "wrong". Linking to the direct page can lead to link rot. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Just noticed a little something. Quote: "The footnotes 1-5 do not point to sources" - precisely. They are notes, not references. The article specifically states that. I don't see anything "wrong" with that. Many
- Comment I have fixed the problem with footnotes not being separated from references. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I deleted all the nation comparison stuff, which got the nominator all worked up about OR and seems rather arbitrary to me. ]
- Comment It may seem arbitrary to you and me, but editors have been accused of Original Research in much less obvious cases. The fact that the list is unreferenced remains. I have made three good faith edits for WP:OR on the grounds of "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." I don't like it, but them's the rules.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't even see the rank until now. A rather useless column as you can use the autosort function to sort the table on population size, so I removed it. If you feel the need to remove all numbers you can not get a reliable source for, please do so. It would leave the list utterly gutted for now, but eventually lead to improvement. ]
- Comment It may seem arbitrary to you and me, but editors have been accused of Original Research in much less obvious cases. The fact that the list is unreferenced remains. I have made three good faith edits for
- Keep, a valid topic. If there is any uncertainty or dispute as to the numbers for a particular area, this should be noted and explained in the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:32, 27 June 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 incubate.
Dorothy of Oz (film)
Non-notable future film.
KeepComment The film's iMDB page and its home site indicate that it is currently filming.Hence, it appears to pass WP:NFF.ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The website lists the status as "in production", which is somewhat vague. Also, the chatter 21:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NFF includes instructions on how a film topic might be found notable if meeting ]
- The website lists the status as "in production", which is somewhat vague. Also, the
- Correct -- but the other notability guidelines are intended to apply only for projects that have "already begun shooting." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "WP:GNG. I can share examples if wished, but films that have never shot one frame can, as TOPICs, be found notable through meeting GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "
- I'll be honest -- I'm usually pretty trusting of iMDB for basic production details, but in this case their listing of the project as "filming" is, indeed, a vaguery. News sources suggest that sketches of the characters were unveiled only within the past week. Granted, the argument can be made that this constitutes "the animation process," but I think that's a bit of a stretch. Either way, I'm going to strike my Keep vote while I ponder this. There's a good amount of evidence that the production itself might be relatively notable, so there's a chance it passes muster either way, but it's not the obvious "uhm, dude, it's filming" that I initially thought it was. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Follow the Google Brick Road: [3]. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a valid argument for keeping the article. See talk 03:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "ghits" bring up a lot of significant media coverage that fits into the reliable sourcing requirements that these articles require. 23:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regent of the Seatopians (talk • contribs)
- Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. babble 00:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link he provided was quite helpful in making determination of possible notability per ]
- Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to.
- Not a valid argument for keeping the article. See
- Delete After some thought and searching, I really can't find evidence in reliable sources that the animation equivalent of "principal photography" (which I would consider actual animation work plus voice work with actors -- any work that brings some relative finality to the cast and crew) has actually commenced. All we have is a primary source indicating that it is "in production," with suspiciously recent (within the last few days) release of "character sketches." This, in the absence of reliable sourcing that says otherwise, strongly suggests that the level of certainty looked for in WP:NFF with its principal photography guideline does not yet exist. That said, this topic is almost entirely certain to pass NFF with flying colors at some point in the future, possibly in the relatively near future. But, until then, my opinion is that it's a delete. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A film production may be be found notable if having ]
- That caveat is specifically for films that have "already begun shooting." That is a direct quote from NFF. This film hasn't begun shooting. Ipso facto, the caveat does not apply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have learned that the caveat is one set to allow editors further means by which to presume that sources toward notability may or may not exist. Notability is not dependent upon the presumptions allowed in the SNGs... it is dependent upon having coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently you haven't read the first sentence of talk 16:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is far more to NFF than that single sentence, and your not seeing amiguity, does not make it go away. Your insisting that a single sentence out of several in an SNG absolutely overrules WP:N in their offering considerations as enouragement that editors be diligent in finding coverage, they do not replace it, nor replace the GNG. And your continually pointing at one part of NFF in an attempt to repudiate the rest of that same guideline is equally unhelpful, as NFF also allows that a production may itself be found notable through significant coverage in reliable sources. However, your arguments seem rendered moot in the face of the animation phase in this production of this animated film having begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources prove that the film is out of pre-production? babble 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources prove that the film is out of pre-production?
- There is far more to NFF than that single sentence, and your not seeing amiguity, does not make it go away. Your insisting that a single sentence out of several in an SNG absolutely overrules
- Apparently you haven't read the first sentence of
- I have learned that the caveat is one set to allow editors further means by which to presume that sources toward notability may or may not exist. Notability is not dependent upon the presumptions allowed in the SNGs... it is dependent upon having coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That caveat is specifically for films that have "already begun shooting." That is a direct quote from NFF. This film hasn't begun shooting. Ipso facto, the caveat does not apply. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete on the basis of no principal photography (as defined by Ginsengbomb above) means no production. As others have mentioned, the recent release of "sketches" doesn't help. All I have been able to find is this in Playbill, ( and similarly this in Broadwayworld WP:RS?,) which state that Bryan Adams has started working on the songs. "Bryan Adams is currently moving forward on the first songs and lyrics for the film." While I am not well-versed in animated films, it would seem to me that the songs would be written (and recorded) before the animation begins. (Maybe its possible to start animating some non-musical parts, but I would think the songs set the tone for the whole film. JMO) Production is scheduled to finish in late 2011. I know that animation takes a long time to complete, but it still seems like very early stages to me. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, the topic appears to meet the WP:NFF. Had it not the coverage it does it would have failed. Having the coverage, it passes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respects, the topic appears to meet the
- Keep per the reliable information on the production found above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What information? A verbalize 03:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What information? A
- Keep per the google (news) search. Big difference that someone who nominates articles for deletion should notice. You may have to hover over the link, or click it depending on your browser. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A confer 04:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are confusing counting links with their content, counting links is not what I did, it was the content of the Google News articles, not the number of them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Keep Coverage beginning in 2007 and continuing through 2010, meets the caveats of the stub article remain to grow and be improved through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The guideline seems pretty clear on this. No principal photography, no article. ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. ")
Here is the quote that I think is getting misconstrued in conversation here: "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. " The "production itself is notable" bit refers to films that have already begun shooting. We have no evidence that this film has begun shooting. Hence, it very clearly, objectively fails
]
- Clear, but then not clear. As I have recently been enlightened, the SNGs are set in place to allow editors to consider circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing, not to limit WP:GNG. It was noted by an editor at another discussion, that "Significant coverage is the touchstone by which notability is tested." Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear, but then not clear. As I have recently been enlightened, the SNGs are set in place to allow editors to consider circumstances which might allow a reasonable presumption of sources existing, not to limit
- Comment The guideline seems pretty clear on this. No principal photography, no article. ("Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. ")
- Where were you enlightened to this effect? The last thing I see in the Notability chat you directed me to is this, from an admin: "It should always be the case that if a work passes the GNG, it should be included unless specifically excluded by criteria in an SNG." NFF "specifically excludes" this film. By which I mean, if you are correct in saying this, we should immediately invalidate and delete WP:BLP1E is an obvious example (although not quite the same as NFF -- BLP1E attempts to predict that actual non-notability of a seemingly notable topic...NFF, to my eyes, does the same, on a temporary basis). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Where were you enlightened to this effect? The last thing I see in the Notability chat you directed me to is this, from an admin: "It should always be the case that if a work passes the GNG, it should be included unless specifically excluded by criteria in an SNG." NFF "specifically excludes" this film. By which I mean, if you are correct in saying this, we should immediately invalidate and delete
- Keep Passes GNG. Projects might give additional means of passing "notability", but they don't invalidate GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment many delete comments above deal with whether or not principle filming has commenced. As this is an animation, and animation and character design has commenced (as shown by release of images as provided in some proferred sources above), it might reasonably be concluded that for an animation, this may be considered the "beginning" of filming... as it does specifically involve particpation of director, artists, and animators. Such actual artistic production work in creating an animated film is not pre-production... it IS production, and voicework by the various contracted actors will be among the final steps in production, before moving to post-production. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is definitely a quirk worth considering in this AfD. My own opinion is that the animation equivalent ought to be that voice work has commenced, insofar as the NFF guidelines appear to be anticipating potentially huge changes in cast, crew, etc., if a film hasn't commenced "principal photography." But that's very much my opinion. I understand you are or are considering bringing this to the folks at WikiProject Animation, and would be very curious to hear their opinion on what I imagine is not an altogether uncommon issue.
Also, I wish to clarify my above Delete vote -- I am absolutely fine with any number of
alternatives to deletion in this case, including Redirect/Merge (to some target that I have no considered yet :) or Incubation. The content is fine, my issue is with the current independent notability of the topic. I am confident the topic will be very clearly notable at some point in the future, possibly in the not-at-all-distant future, so any solution involving keeping the content is ideal. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: chat 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snottywong personally changing a guideline[4] to support his arguments during an ongoing AFD is change that might better merit an RFC to gain wider consensus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The change was discussed on the talk page and has support from other members of that discussion - nor is it a major change, it is simply clarifying where the equivalent line of production is in an animated film, versus regular films as they don't have "principal photography". Please remember to assume good faith.-- ]
- Yes. I was unaware of any discussion between the several editors until his change was announced here. Had I known, I might have myself participated in that discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you weren't invited because you seem to disagree with me on just about everything. Whether or not that's intentional, I couldn't say. In any case, please do follow AnmaFinotera's advice and express 23:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you weren't invited because you seem to disagree with me on just about everything. Whether or not that's intentional, I couldn't say. In any case, please do follow AnmaFinotera's advice and
- Note:
- Comment This is definitely a quirk worth considering in this AfD. My own opinion is that the animation equivalent ought to be that voice work has commenced, insofar as the NFF guidelines appear to be anticipating potentially huge changes in cast, crew, etc., if a film hasn't commenced "principal photography." But that's very much my opinion. I understand you are or are considering bringing this to the folks at WikiProject Animation, and would be very curious to hear their opinion on what I imagine is not an altogether uncommon issue.
- Incubate seems to have some significant coverage, and it appears to at least be in production at some stage, however other than confirming its started and who is involved, what else is there to say. Incubate until it is fully confirmed that this animation is in full production, not the rough start process, with actual final animation being worked on and the final voice tracks being recorded. I was going to say merge to the base novel article, but it apparently does not have one. -- ]
- I am not adverse to Incubation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 25 June 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 incubate.
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (2011 film)
- The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (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)
Non-notable future film.
- Delete I cannot find any evidence that this film has commenced principal photography, hence not passing WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am also completely fine with Redirect/Merge and Incubate as outcomes -- I am fairly confident that this topic will be beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt notable at some point in the future, so there's no reason to remove the content that currently exists altogether. Just wanted to make that clear. Thanks for the nudge, MQS. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above: no verification that principal photography has begun. Cliff smith talk 23:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support merging verified info about this project to director John Boorman. Cliff smith talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also support incubation, as discussed below. Cliff smith talk 04:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A new film based of one of the most famous books of U.S. literature, directed by John Boorman (a major film artist) and packed with plenty of news coverage: [5]. Even the Scarecrow could figure this one out! Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline about the notability of future films, as cited by the nominator, states: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." Also, a "Google test" isn't always indicative of a subject having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Until this project becomes a production, it can be covered at the article of the project's reported director (]
- The "Google test" brings up a lot of high-profile coverage of this upcoming film. Your argument makes no sense. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. Also, please read squeal 00:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was saying that the results of a Google search for something aren't always indicative of something being worthy of inclusion here. A Google search can return trivial mentions in "high-profile" sources. If it's just saying that some director is working on a project which is supposed to be released in the near future, that's not really significant coverage. Also, we shouldn't make the assumption that "because a film is likely to be a high-profile release it will be immune to setbacks—there is no "sure thing" production. Until the start of principal photography, information on the film can be included in articles about its subject material." (Yes, that's also from WP:NFF.) Cliff smith talk 02:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide links to the coverage you are referring to. Also, please read
- The "Google test" brings up a lot of high-profile coverage of this upcoming film. Your argument makes no sense. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There appears to be enough details in the existing coverage which trumps the movie guideline. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly which details are you referring to? confabulate 03:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @ SW: There is a bit more to ]
- My understanding of the guideline is that it's less concerned with details than it is with two things: 1) the reliability/permanence of these details and, more importantly 2) Is any notability reflected by existing coverage going to be permanent? In other words, is this production itself so plainly notable based on reliably sourced coverage that, even if this movie never actually exists, will it still be a notable topic? The guidelines suggest that only extreme cases pass the very easily applied "principal photography" hurdle -- is this film really an extreme case? Or is it just a movie that is in pre-production? There are a lot of those, and some of them are based on enormously notable sources. That this potential movie is based on a great book does nothing to establish the production's notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG, and as per my !vote below, the topic so far, per the GNG and even as a merge/redirect if not a straight keep, merits inclusion somewhere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly which details are you referring to?
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either Keep per meeting NFF, or pPerother notability guidelines... and that event is not a "rare" as in being implied, and coverage as provided by Houston Chronicle, The Windsor StarMinneapolis Star-Tribune, Animation Magazine, Fantasy Magazine, Boston Globe, Cineuropa, Fantasy, Nina People, Showbizz, and MSNBC would seem to assure that the information has a place within these pages somewhere. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Yes, it's not as though all mention of this project should be removed from everywhere altogether. I could understand an argument to Adaptations of The Wizard of Oz. No prejudice towards recreation here, either, by the way. Cliff smith talk 03:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, as with the Dorothy of Oz discussion, NFF only advises that films be checked against other notability guidelines if the film can be shown, in reliable sources, to have "already begun shooting." This film has not been shown to have begun shooting, hence the direction regarding other notability sources does not apply. NFF very clearly states that unless a film has commenced principal photography it should not have an article, and there is no exception to this direction anywhere in NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But WP:GNG. If the GNG is met, it is met. Not having begun shooting, or ever shooting at all, does not affect how a topic]
itself being notable andworthy of inclusion in some manner. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply- Look, I think the bottom line is that while this subject does merit inclusion in some manner, that manner is at the article about its director, for now. It should not have its own article yet. Cliff smith talk 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I aggree and added thoughts toward possibility of WP:Incubation accordingly, while striking my NFF keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I aggree and added thoughts toward possibility of
- Look, I think the bottom line is that while this subject does merit inclusion in some manner, that manner is at the article about its director, for now. It should not have its own article yet. Cliff smith talk 00:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's not as though all mention of this project should be removed from everywhere altogether. I could understand an argument to
- Incubate per Michael; or merge to ]
- Keep it's still early in this film's life cycle, but there is enough coverage to justify notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 28 June 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.
The Toxic Avenger 5: The Toxic Twins
- The Toxic Avenger 5: The Toxic Twins (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 future film.
- Delete per nom - this film will probably get made, but we can't be sure that it will, and we don't need to create an article until it has been. Robofish (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that the film has commenced principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Motion Mountain
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was incubate.
This Must Be The Place
- This Must Be The Place (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 future film.
- Delete per nom - no need for an article on this film as of yet, when it hasn't started filming. Robofish (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Incubate until NFF is passed Article itself indicates that filming is set to start in August, 2010. Fails ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either other notability guidelines... and IFTN, Variety, Buffalo News, Cineuropa, Deadline, Newnotizie, La Repubblica, Gazeta do Sul, Showbizz, Daily News & Analysis, Digital Spy, and AHN, among many others, would seem indicative that this merits inclusion somewhere within these pages. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Again, I am seeing NFF being misread in all of these conversations. The guideline does not allow for exceptions in the case of films that haven't begun principal photography. It only allows for exceptions for films that have (direct quote) "already begun shooting." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:GNG. If the GNG is met it is met.... and even then, all the guideline suggests is no seperate article if seen failing. Meeting the GNG would be indicative that the information worthy of being included somewhere... such as the director's article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up I have struck the "keep" part of my opinion above. Coverage meeting set aside for additional work, or merged/redirected to the article on the director. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow-up I have struck the "keep" part of my opinion above. Coverage meeting
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all.
List of English Electoral Wards by Constituency
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Replicates near-verbatim SI 2007/1681. Wereon (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus subsets of the above:
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- )
- The Welsh equivalent:
- )
- And two redirects:
- )
- )
- I can see that this is potentially useful, and has been collated in an extremely organized way - it doens't seem the least bit indiscriminate. What is the exact problem with these articles existing in Wikipedia? At the very least they should have a place in some Wikimedia project or another, if they are not encyclopedic could they be rehomed e.g. in Wikisource? TheGrappler (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Wikisource accepts material under Crown Copyright. Besides, is reproducing secondary legislation really what any Wikimedia project is for, when HMSO / OPSI already do it? Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that this material is under Crown Copyright? These are just plain facts, no creativity seems to have been used even in the ordering of the facts. I think the source material is therefore ineligible for Copyright; besides which, it should be possible to wikify these pages to "add value" to them. The fact these improvements haven't happened yet doesn't seem a good reason to delete. As for whether any Wikimedia project is "for" reproducing information available anywhere else, the answer is a big fat yes, surely? The facts contained in Wikipedia are all from somewhere else (due to the rule against no original research); Wikisource contains lots of information straight from other sources as does Commons. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, publications that contain only facts are not copyrightable? talk 01:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no, they are not. You can sell your own phone book by taking the phone company's and copying all the info, at least in the U.S.. See ]
- So, publications that contain only facts are not copyrightable?
- What makes you think that this material is under Crown Copyright? These are just plain facts, no creativity seems to have been used even in the ordering of the facts. I think the source material is therefore ineligible for Copyright; besides which, it should be possible to wikify these pages to "add value" to them. The fact these improvements haven't happened yet doesn't seem a good reason to delete. As for whether any Wikimedia project is "for" reproducing information available anywhere else, the answer is a big fat yes, surely? The facts contained in Wikipedia are all from somewhere else (due to the rule against no original research); Wikisource contains lots of information straight from other sources as does Commons. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Wikisource accepts material under Crown Copyright. Besides, is reproducing secondary legislation really what any Wikimedia project is for, when HMSO / OPSI already do it? Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Certainly the articles are not perfect at present. But there are advantages in having wikified articles in addition to the source documents; it is clearer to link from one article to a specific section of one of the above articles (and backlink to the relevant constituency, placename etc) than it is to link only to a less structured document on an external website. The article does not seem to breach the policies listed at Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion (though the list is not intended to be exhaustive). More specifically, it is not clear that the articles are "indiscriminate" in the sense described at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, since they are ordered and wikified in an accurate and potentially useful way. Perhaps it would be sufficient to merge the county articles into just four articles (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales – corresponding to the four boundary commissions), so as to balance the advantages of wikification against the disadvantages of duplicated and scattered content. — Richardguk (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of relevant wards would be a welcome addition to the individual constituency articles, but I'm not sure what the value is of listing them all by country or county in such a way. Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose someone is interested not in which wards comprise a known constituency, but in which constituency each ward in a district is allocated to. More generally still, suppose someone wants an idea of the constituency to which each ward in a certain area is allocated (regardless of council boundaries). There is no perfect solution, but listing the data on one page makes it easier for the reader to gather information more flexibly than if it is only scattered across many articles or on an external site, allowing wikilinks to be used effectively. — Richardguk (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This sounds entirely reasonable to me. TheGrappler (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Suppose someone is interested not in which wards comprise a known constituency, but in which constituency each ward in a district is allocated to. More generally still, suppose someone wants an idea of the constituency to which each ward in a certain area is allocated (regardless of council boundaries). There is no perfect solution, but listing the data on one page makes it easier for the reader to gather information more flexibly than if it is only scattered across many articles or on an external site, allowing wikilinks to be used effectively. — Richardguk (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of relevant wards would be a welcome addition to the individual constituency articles, but I'm not sure what the value is of listing them all by country or county in such a way. Wereon (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The information provided is not indiscriminate. The fact that it has a good, reliable source is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In a mass nomination, it's poor strategy to nominate the best of the articles first, and I think it will prove to have been "a lot of work for nothing". Many of the "afterthoughts" are actually duplicates of the information in List of Welsh Electoral Wards by Constituency) so I see no reason to keep anything that duplicates info on a larger list. Rather than confusing the matter with a "keep this one, delete that one and that one and that one, but keep the next one" vote, I'll just leave the question of merger to others. Mandsford 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I know that, as the author, I am slightly impartial, but I feel that these articles are good reference guides and are useful. I also put a lot of hard work into them and would hate to see my work deleted. 07bargem (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikisource. There is nothing in these articles which doesn't appear verbatim somewhere on this site. talk 01:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only issue I have with this article is that this will be a bugger to maintain. I wonder if the information would be better contained in articles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland, where the people who maintain the pages are likely to be clued up on boundary changes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nothing indiscriminate here.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio. The information is directly copied from here. The material is under copyright. Nuttah (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*keep - useful and cited. The content is imo not a copyright violation, the copyright notice is here http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/copyright-notice.htm it looks to me like they are actively encouraging reprinting and requesting hyperlinks to be created to their site which we have done in our article. ]
- "…provided it is reproduced accurately…" — it may be accurate at the moment, but how can we ensure it stays accurate? Full edit protection?? Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we will try in good faith but I see your point. I am far from expert in copyright. ]
- It cannot be, unfortunately. The Crown Copyright exemption is that all material can be copied WITHOUT CHANGE. The nature of Wikipedia makes that impossible to guarantee. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quoting that copyright notice in full:
- "The Crown copyright protected material (other than the Royal Arms and departmental or agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. Where any of the Crown copyright items on this site are being republished or copied to others, the source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. The permission to reproduce Crown protected material does not extend to any material on this site which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned. OPSI encourages users to establish hypertext links to this site." — OPSI Crown copyright notice (emphasis added)
- Wikipedia policy implications: So long as due attribution is given and the article is created accurately with a link to the source, we can't limit ourselves by the hypothetical actions of future vandals, which would in any event be subject to correction by other editors and be made evident by examining the history page or comparing with the source, to which we link.
- After all, a vandal can insert text from any copyright publication on almost any page and immediately cause a copyright breach. This real risk does not cause us to delete every page of the encyclopedia! Instead, we maintain the articles and respond to informal and formal feedback as best we can.
- Practical implications: I'm sure all of us here want Wikipedia articles to be accurate. If someone notices an inaccuracy subsequently introduced, how likely is it the Crown would sue Wikipedia (or the miscreant editor)? Frankly, if the Crown even bothered to complain, we should be grateful for them taking an interest, but it's inconceivable that they would object in principle to an article that Wikified the data contained in the statutory instrument.
- — Richardguk (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. I'm afraid that Crown copyright is not permissible on Wikipedia. :/ As is noted at Nielsen Company wrote to the Wikimedia Foundation to complain that we were reproducing their lists of U.S. television markets, our attorney removed the content (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive170#Nielson DMCA Takedown). Except in the case of an official takedown request (which in spite of the language bandied at this discussion this was not; note that Mike said, "Wikimedia Foundation has not received a DMCA takedown notice"), he does not do that in situations without merit. (He didn't automatically comply with the American Psychiatric Association wrote us.) I would be inclined to presume that there is no creativity in the content, but the Nielsen market precedent makes that a bit complicated. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to let you know that I've asked Mike. Since there are 13 articles involved here, best to find out if copyright concerns are a factor. I'll update if he has an opportunity to respond to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Thanks for the advice, which is clearly an informed and thoughtful contribution, but I'm puzzled by the logic:
- There seems to be an assumption that "accuracy" precludes "modification". The Crown copyright waiver (and para 12b of the relevant guidance) requires accuracy, but there is no "Crown copyright mandate forbidding modification". Modification in the articles consists only of wikilinking, annotating and layout changes.
- Feist implies that facts per se are not copyrightable in US law. The article does not reproduce the other (creative and presentational) aspects. Nor are the statutory instruments the only authoritative source of the data (Boundary Commission reports, draft statutory instruments and National Statistics lists contain the same data in different formats, though are also Crown copyright).
- The lists can also be derived from CC-BY 3.0. (Admittedly this is not applicable to most Crown publications at present, but does happen to apply to the content being discussed here.)
- Unlike Nielsen, the Crown is not seeking to exploit its website content commercially, nor is it objecting to the current articles or similar instances. Clearly the Crown does not want us to mislead, but nor do we. If the content ceases to be accurate, the obvious remedy is to correct the content, not to pre-emptively delete articles.
- I can see that the articles could be criticised for duplicating information; that's a plausible view to be balanced against the advantages of having the data listed together and wikified, hence the tentativeness of my Weak keep. But the legal point seems a red herring.
- — Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Content on Wikipedia must be licensed compatibly with Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. This license does not guarantee that the material will remain accurate; our reusers may do whatever they wish with it, even if they wish to deliberately mess it up. They may modify it in any way. Per our copyright policy and Terms of Use (both linked above), we can't accept content that is licensed more restrictively than that even if we should agree that accuracy is a good idea. (For background, see this 2002 pronouncement by User:Jimbo Wales. Plus there are plenty of conversations about it in Wiki.) The only question here is whether there is sufficient creativity in the content for Crown copyright to apply. I am inclined to doubt it, but as I said I've asked our attorney. Pending his answer, further discussion of the copyright question seems unnecessary, unless he tells us to settle it in house. If he says it is uncreative, there is no concern. If he says it is protected expression, it will be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Mike has kindly offered quick response; copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for looking into this. It's certainly complicated, but thanks for obtaining such clear and swift advice. — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Content on Wikipedia must be licensed compatibly with
- Hi. I'm afraid that Crown copyright is not permissible on Wikipedia. :/ As is noted at
- Quoting that copyright notice in full:
- It cannot be, unfortunately. The Crown Copyright exemption is that all material can be copied WITHOUT CHANGE. The nature of Wikipedia makes that impossible to guarantee. Nuttah (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we will try in good faith but I see your point. I am far from expert in copyright. ]
- "…provided it is reproduced accurately…" — it may be accurate at the moment, but how can we ensure it stays accurate? Full edit protection?? Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is no consensus to delete. Copyright concern is inchoate at best.--Milowent (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Transwiki to Wikisource - I struck my comment after Moonriddengirl's comment. There are doubts as to the status of such content and for the limited value of the content I don't under the circumstances support Keeping it. ]
- If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks. — Richardguk (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I also think that under the circumstances and the no consensus that is present that as there is no hurry and relisting to get wider community comment would be a fair request. ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 20:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- "If the articles were moved to Wikisource, reproducing the statutory instruments verbatim, wouldn't it be harder to link to it from relevant articles on English Wikipedia, and vice versa, and harder to maintain those links? We don't need to reproduce the source unchanged, as it's already online at the official website; but by using the content here, we can enhance it with internal wikilinks."
It looks pretty verbatim to me, as you say...it is already online...to me this content in an external link, through wikisource or see also or wherever but our hosting it verbatim here when it is already hosted and when there are issues with copyright is not part of the remit ot the project.
]- There are not "issues with copyright". Moonriddengirl consulted an authoritative source and reported above (20:19, 21 June 2010) that "copyright concerns are off the table. The lists can and should be judged on other factors." — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; I don't see any major problems - organised, factual, and no doubt useful to those who study such things. I note the copyright issues; however, facts cannot be copyrighted, of course, only creative writing. talk) 21:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTREPOSITORY It's a direct copy of material available elsewhere on the net, thus it should be at most on Wikisource per the guidelines.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re NOTDIR: none of the seven cases listed there seem to apply; the information is lengthy but specific not indiscriminate. Conversely, the articles do not contradict anything at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Appropriate topics for lists.
- Re NOTREPOSITORY: none of the four cases apply. The articles are not "original, unmodified wording", they comprise the relevant facts rearranged and reformatted with wikilinks, which is what makes them useful as articles on enwiki, and would make them ineligible for Wikisource.
- — Richardguk (talk) 08:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep -- Many consistutency articles are weak on the description of the boundaries. Information on the local govenrment wards of which each consists is useful and should be added to those articles. However, I would be happier if the constituencies were grouped by District Council, so that it was clear which council the ward elected a councillor for. WP has many list articles, and this is just another. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One option would be to reformat the lists into a sortable table, so that readers can choose to view the list either in constituency order or in local authority order. This could also allow areas to be grouped by county or ceremonial county. — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea. The main list is 160kb long. Would sorting be practical, or might it take ages? I don't think there should be two copies of the info as this will be difficult to maintain. How about ]
- I've had a go, at User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. See note below for some initial thoughts. — Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting idea. The main list is 160kb long. Would sorting be practical, or might it take ages? I don't think there should be two copies of the info as this will be difficult to maintain. How about ]
- One option would be to reformat the lists into a sortable table, so that readers can choose to view the list either in constituency order or in local authority order. This could also allow areas to be grouped by county or ceremonial county. — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete, useful information and a valid list, unfortunately the crown copyright requirements are incompatible with our licensing, which allows the work to be further altered. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]- Wikimedia's chief lawyer has advised that copyright is not a problem in this case (via Moonriddengirl, above). Sorry for the emphasis, but this seems to be repeatedly being overlooked. So can we please consider this matter on its own merits?
- — Richardguk (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, he has. I trust that whatever admin closes this will take that into account when weighing "delete for licensing issue" arguments. There is insufficient creativity in these lists for copyright to convey under the U.S. law that governs us. (Closing admin: if you want more details about my e-mails with Mike, please feel free to e-mail me.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, Keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Indeed, he has. I trust that whatever admin closes this will take that into account when weighing "delete for licensing issue" arguments. There is insufficient creativity in these lists for copyright to convey under the U.S. law that governs us. (Closing admin: if you want more details about my e-mails with Mike, please feel free to e-mail me.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki or Delete. This is essentially directory information which should have a home somewhere but not on Wikipedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've created a prototype of an alternative layout using sortable wikitables: User:Richardguk/List of United Kingdom electoral wards by constituency. It's a hefty 500KB page, but that includes all four parts of the UK so could be split.
The list includes official ward codes to distinguish between areas of the same name where ward boundaries have changed.
As this is only a prototype, I've not included county or review area details. Also, the constituencies are listed in the order published and would need re-sorting so that the default ordering makes more sense without needing to click the header first.
— Richardguk (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two factors to consider here. The first is the status of Crown Copyright on Wikipedia (a matter on which, I've said several times, Wikipedia needs clear guidelines that it doesn't currently have). I'm pleased to see from Mike Godwin's remarks above that concerns about copyright may safely be disregarded in this particular case and we need only consider the benefits to the encyclopaedia.
The second factor is whether this is an indiscriminate collection of information. My position is that it isn't. The matter is clearly explained in the
WP:CLN, there's a secondary factor: this material also supports and clarifies the UK's political structure. In short, I can see a variety of reasons why this material is not an indiscriminate collection of information, but a highly focused and relevant one and I'd expect to find decent coverage of this on Wikipedia. Richardguk's version looks suitable for the moment, though in a perfect world we'd have a clickable interactive map.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 28 June 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.
Broughton Anglican College
- Broughton Anglican College (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 - The page is about a small unnotable country school whose been in the newspaper once for a regional award. To top it off, the "Nominated Moderator" from the school is threatening legal action and constantly vandalising the page to remove negative comments about the school. The page itself is poorly written and a stub that's seen no desire to be expanded upon in the last 3 years except by the "Nominated Moderator" who continually replaces the entire contents of the page with the school's prospectus, turning it into an advert. - Count23 (talk) 23:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the page should be deleted as it is continually vandalised by an individual who inserts irrelevant negative comments about the school. I would like to free up this individuals time to focus on meaningful pursuits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.8 (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This comment is posted from the IP address that is known to be the "nominated moderator" from the school. Whose vandalism includes exactly what was mentioned above by Count23 on no less then 15 previous edits. - 15.195.201.88 (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Possible Merge The school is rather insignificant in terms of even local education in Australia. Not notable at all as mentioned above. In regards to the anonymous IP submission here, it should be noted that this is one of several IP addresses from the school who are constantly whitewashing the page and replacing it with copyright information that was copy+pasted from the school's own website. An admin should look into blocking these IP ranges from making submissions on wikipedia because of actions which contradict ]
Obviously significant enough, for you to have attended it and to have an obsession with it. We support deletion of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.8 (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please read WP:NPA, do not attack the user submitting the content, attack the content directly. Personal attacks aren't tolerated on wikipedia and you may be blocked if it continues. While you, as a representative of the college may support deleting this page, you need to have a reason that is supported by Wikipedia's deletion policy. The comments you have made indicate you wish the page deleted simply because it portrays you in a negative light, this is more likely to result in the page remaining and simply being locked to prevent you from editing it. - Count23 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please also, as the anonymous user suggested, re-read WP:CENSOR. Wikipedia is not a place where you can simply hide the sins of the past. - Count23 (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support deletion of this page. If there is such angst over what should be on it and not, then it is not serving anyone's purposes. It is just a place for a local dispute and our community does not need that. Delete away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward John 2560 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sole reference lead to a page not found. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the established precedent of keeping verifiable secondary schools. This gets the same sorts and quantity of Google and Google news hits as almost all other such schools; if there are problems with the editing of the article, they can be dealt with through protection, blocks, or whatever other means may be appropriate. Deor (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Assuming content can be verified. High schools are considered inherently notable.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This place was extensively covered by Architecture Australia: Urbanity in the Suburbs. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ]
- Keep per Pdcook - high schools are almost always kept, especially when they can be verified by good sources. See also my standards, for which this school meets 7 out of 9 factors. Bearian (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it is kept, someone is going to need to flag this for cleanup by the wikischools project because it's been just a badly written article for over 3 years. It will also need regular checks to ensure that vandals or the "Nominated Moderator" are not constantly trying to whitewash it. - 121.44.129.73 (talk) 12:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - contains a high school with independent coverage. Sources available to meet talk) 14:57, 26 June 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NIILM School of Business (NSB)
This article seems to be advertising the school. While it *seems* notable, I couldn't even access the websites given because all the web alerts/anti-viruses get set off from detected malware. Dengero (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as copyvio and pure spam. Abductive (reasoning) 08:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Assume good faith as to the website contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.92.157 (talk) 09:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC) — 32.172.92.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
- This editor has been blocked for disruptive editing at several AFD's. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 12:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I have removed the obvious copyvio (while a lot of the rest looks like a copyvio, I couldn't locate the source). This still appears like it is an advert — but this is not a reason to delete. The article needs work to make it encyclopedic, but again, that is not a reason to delete. The ratings linked to at Business India (whose criteria for inclusion states "The survey is generally restricted to institutions approved by AICTE or recognized by the UGC." (see http://www.bibschoolsurvey.com/FAQ.htm), and this institution is recognised by UGC — see below), Competition Success Review, and the Dalal Street Investment Journal would seem to indicate notability. Secondary Schools, Colleges and Universities are generally counted as notable, as long as their existence can be proven (which it can by the above links). Accreditation is also useful (although some unaccredited institutes may be notable), and this pageat their website says:
- NSB-NIILM School of Business is having Educational Accreditation with the following UGC recognized Universities:
- NSB-NIILM School of Business (Centre Code No. 1148) is an authorized centre of "Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology, Hissar" UGC Recognized, HRD Ministry approved and "A" Grade NAAC Accredited for running MBA course in July Batches.
- NSB - NIILM School of Business (Centre Code No. 2269) is an authorized centre of "Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak" UGC Recognized, HRD Ministry approved and "B++" Grade NAAC Accredited for running MBA Course in Jan Batches.
- NSB-NIILM School of Business is having Educational Accreditation with the following UGC recognized Universities:
- On the whole, I think there is enough evidence to show that this institution meets the criteria for inclusion, even if the article needs a major revamp -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side-tracked question, did your computer present you with multiple malware warnings when you accessed their site? Dengero (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No - despite up-to-date anti virus protection. I see that Google shows it has having problems (see here): "Of the 14 pages we tested on the site over the past 90 days, 1 page(s) resulted in malicious software being downloaded and installed without user consent. The last time Google visited this site was on 2010-05-26, and the last time suspicious content was found on this site was on 2010-05-25." It might be that I did not visit any problematic pages. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side-tracked question, did your computer present you with multiple malware warnings when you accessed their site? Dengero (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Extremely Weak Keep I did a severe edit to remove several unverifiable claims and blatant copyvios as well as uninformative sentences with several adjectives. Verifiable, borderline notable - weak keep? prashanthns (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article creator has added some email addresses. I don't think they understand the rules. Abductive (reasoning) 07:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As said below, a newcomer. I have removed such information and cleaned the article and left him a note on his talk page. prashanthns (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the information the article creator added was purely promotional (Well, he's only a newcomer anyway, so we'll let him off for that). I think this article should be kept. It is a school article, and a lot of schools are usually kept on the encyclopedia. Minimac (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to a proper article being written by someone else. Author clearly has a COI. Article is too spammy. Incidentally Google reports: This site may harm your computer. so the link to their site should be deleted. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- Keep - Content can easily be edited or stubbed. Accredited universities are automatically kept.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a degree awarding institution. Sources are available from which the page can be expanded. talk) 20:21, 26 June 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 (
]Pouyan Mokhtarani
- Pouyan Mokhtarani (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 nominated this for speedy deletion for not indicating any notability, but the article creator removed the tag. The article does not indicate how the subject would even vaguely pass
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Alexf(talk) 01:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NTI Corporation
- NTI Corporation (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 find significant coverage for this
- Comment - The NewTech Infosystems Inc. article already exists, so I think this article could be deleted under CSD A10 (or redirected there). P. D. Cook Talk to me! 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged. talk) 23:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagged.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ]
BostonCHI
Non notable sub branch of a professional body. No evidence of the significant, independent coverage required to show how
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and Merge to parent article WP:CLUB: " Individual chapters, divisions, departments, and other sub-units of notable organizations are only rarely notable enough to warrant a separate article. Information on chapters and affiliates should normally be merged into the article about the parent organization." --MelanieN (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Merge and Redirect to SIGCHI. Little notability as an independent branch, but the body itself is notable and this information should be retained. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:38, 27 June 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 closed as moot, article deleted by User:Orangemike, apparently after page blanking. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Zoomlion Ghana Ltd
- Zoomlion Ghana Ltd (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 initially suggested that this article be G11'd, but creator removed tag. Article creator also removed blatant G11 elements (address, email). However, the article is still essentially a promotional piece for a company that appears to be utterly unreferenced and contains nothing within it to suggest that it would pass
]- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep- the nominator withdrew the nomination with no arguments for deletion (
]Great Directors
- Great Directors (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)
Does not meet any aspect of
Withdraw nom for now. On consideration this one may be better treated as a long game, seeing if it remains notable. Etrigan (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, if it is notable now, ]
- Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. I also thing the bar for notability is being set way too low here, esp given the examples on WP:FILMNOT - I think in particular significant coverage is kinda being forgotten about. Etrigan (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. : I've also seen a lot of things that violate policies and guidelines, but this doesn't make them less wrong (The only exception I can think is that sources become unavailable in the future and therefore the article becomes suddenly unverifiable). --Cyclopiatalk 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we're talking about two different things - yes, if something is notable it's always notable, but that's a different situation from editors deciding at some point in the future that the originally-deciding group were wrong in their assessment of an article. There's no policy against that happening. Etrigan (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. : I've also seen a lot of things that violate policies and guidelines, but this doesn't make them less wrong (The only exception I can think is that sources become unavailable in the future and therefore the article becomes suddenly unverifiable). --Cyclopiatalk 23:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ehm, I've seen some long-existing articles deleted because in retrospect they weren't actually notable. I also thing the bar for notability is being set way too low here, esp given the examples on
- Ehm, if it is notable now, ]
- Keep : It has two reviews now, so it somehow passes WP:GNG. Here an Italian article with a full paragraph on the documentary. COI concerns are irrelevant when deciding deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 21:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Agree that there are major COI and peacock issues (not to mention major cleanup work to be done), but it does meet talk) 00:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable per ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:13, 23 June 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 incubate. In reaching this determination, I've disregarded all procedural arguments, which are not very helpful in the particular posture of this AfD. There's more than enough evidence that the subject is verifiable, but, despite the fervent arguments to the contrary, no actual evidence of notability has been presented in this AfD. It may well be that they are in printed sources in Danish - and thus difficult to locate - but it's been three weeks, counting the last AfD, and nothing has come forward, so I accord less weight to those arguments. Taking into account the totality of circumstances - especially that, as Black Kite put it, it seems there should be sources - I think incubation is the best way forward here.
Crash (1984 TV series)
Television series which does not meet WP:N. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm renominating because the last AFD was closed due to the beliefs of some editors that significant coverage exists but (considering
]- Keep Per notability is not temporary. If this programme was notable enough to have a TV series in Denmark in the 80s, it was notable. If that show was to debut today, no doubt there would be lots of web sources available. Lugnuts (talk) 12:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- THIS CLOSED AS A KEEP in FIRST AFD YESTERDAY - give it a chance people, sheeeeeesh.--Milowent (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. —Milowent (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no ]
- Delete: no sources uncovered. Every link in the articles that are in the foreign-language Wikipedias has gone dead as well. There's just not enough material to build an article out of.—Kww(talk) 20:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Prior afd closed as keep yesterday; "quick renomination" is not "immediate renomination." There's no pressing reason to rush this. There doesn't appear to be any doubt that the program existed, and no reason to believe that it didn't receive nontrivial print coverage on its original broadcast. There's so much work that needs to be done here (eg, BLP cleanup) that demanding that articles like this be made highest priority seems abusive at best, and there are rational people who'd call it downright foolheaded. I would also note that the indignant nominator has recently created a batch of unsourced articles like Muhsin ibn Qaid, Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott, Buluggin ibn Muhammad, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano, andKar-Mulla, making me wonder why the animus towards this one? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look at the policies and guidelines, and the ANI discussion about this. Your "keep" rationale isn't valid and likely to be ignored. Best, Verbal chat 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There's no policy requiring immediate deletion of articles with sourcing issues, and good reason to allow time for articles to develop. Maybe you could cite something relevant, or your objection isn't valid and is likely to be ignored.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Ángel Calderón de la Barca y Belgrano is sourced, the early Islamic monarchs aren't sourced simply because the content was split from another unreferenced page, as was Colegio Anglo Americano Prescott. Every single other article I've created (there's a list on my userpage, which I presume you've been using) is well sourced. All unsourced would be immediately sourceable if someone challenged their notability, however, unlike Crash. Claritas § 06:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No. There's no policy requiring immediate deletion of articles with sourcing issues, and good reason to allow time for articles to develop. Maybe you could cite something relevant, or your objection isn't valid and is likely to be ignored.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have a look at the policies and guidelines, and the ANI discussion about this. Your "keep" rationale isn't valid and likely to be ignored. Best, Verbal chat 20:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per same reason as last one, "appears to have no significant coverage in reliable sources at all, not even in its country of origin, failing ]
- Keep because a renomination less than 24hrs after a 'keep' is plain rude and riven with agenda. As other have mentioned, why not give it a fortnight? --80.192.21.253 (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - a television series that aired in three countries, and also has an associated book, is notable. I'm quite sure there are reviews of it, and articles about it, just (1) they'll likely be in Danish, Norwegian, and/or Swedish, so not as accessible in English libraries as some, and (2) they'll have been published in 1984/5, so are not necessarily online. This is one of the times when WP:NRVE needs "to be treated with common sense" (which is also a quote from WP:N, for the I-require-chapter-and-verse crowd). --GRuban (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any policy or guideline that supports your keep rationale (I'm genuinely interested if there is). It only lasted one series, and despite being in screened in three countries and having a book (which isn't uncommon) there seems to be a paucity of WP:RS that can confirm anything about this program, even on the other language wikis. Verbal chat 15:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any policy or guideline that supports your keep rationale (I'm genuinely interested if there is). It only lasted one series, and despite being in screened in three countries and having a book (which isn't uncommon) there seems to be a paucity of
- Keep - was the show popular? If yes, then it can be notable. However, not all popular shows can be notable. This show may be little known. The article can be improved. Even thought there may not be a lot of reliable sources. Let's give it another shot. PopKorn Kat talk here Stuff I did 01:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or WP:NOHARM) in allowing the article to stick around for a while to give those who want to keep it a shot at finding sources. However, if the consensus here turns out to be "delete" then incubation should be considered as an option. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per many of the above arguments. talk) 03:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - If it takes a week or two, I'll find something to source this, be it on the web or in print media. One way or another, it's gonna get sourced if it kills me, and that is a distinct possibility :D BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you find RS then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Would you like it userfied so you can work on it? I'd support that. Verbal chat 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, Verbal! If you can userfy it, I guarantee I'll source it. I agree with Danmarks Radio) and see if there is anything printed from their TV guides or in independant media to source and verify it as notable. BarkingFish Talk to me | My contributions 15:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As nominator, I'd support userfication too until reliable sources can be found. It means we won't have to take this to AFD again, conversely, if no reliable sources are found. Claritas § 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)If the closing admin decides to delete (which seems likely, imo) then they will probably see this and move it to your userspace directly. If not, then simply ask them to userfy it. I don't think there'd be any problem with that. I don't think I should move it as I'm involved. Best, Verbal chat
- As nominator, I'd support userfication too until reliable sources can be found. It means we won't have to take this to AFD again, conversely, if no reliable sources are found. Claritas § 15:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolutely, Verbal! If you can userfy it, I guarantee I'll source it. I agree with
- If you find RS then there is nothing to stop you recreating the article. Would you like it userfied so you can work on it? I'd support that. Verbal chat 15:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - In Wikipedia:Notability (films) one of the inclusionary criteria to consider, and which applies here, is: "The film was successfully distributed domestically in a country that is not a major film producing country, and was produced by that country's equivalent of a "major film studio." Articles on such a film should assert that the film in question was notable for something more than merely having been produced, and if any document can be found to support this, in any language, it should be cited." The Transhumanist 17:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a flim, so that guideline presumably doesn't apply. Claritas § 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly doesn't apply. It is normal for TV shows of this type to be so distributed, and costs to be spread. However, if you have a WP:RS which shows it is "notable for something more than merely having been produced" then that would be great, please tell us. Verbal chat 18:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly doesn't apply. It is normal for TV shows of this type to be so distributed, and costs to be spread. However, if you have a
- It's not a flim, so that guideline presumably doesn't apply. Claritas § 17:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep This AfD was opened the day after the previous AfD closed as Keep. Edward321 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SpeedyKeep -an immediate renomination is completely disruptive and uncalled for.-- Whpq (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Immediate renomination was in good faith and not disruptive, due to a misunderstanding of the closer's reference to "quick renomination" on my behalf. See [6] for an ANI thread concerning a short-lived closure which contains more discussion on the issue. 16:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
- Delete and userfy. I have searched but not been able to find references asserting notability. Favonian (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
I have relisted this for one more week. This will have given the article over three weeks to be sourced. It looks as though it should be sourceable, even if not in English language sources - but as yet, none have been provided. The one existing source does not refer to the program itself. If this reaches 28 June without sourcing being provided, I can see no reason why the closing admin should not close as delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Keep - Ridiculous that so many people are asserting "I searched and couldn't find anything" when sources will almost certainly be Danish and 25 years old. Wikipedia has a huge bias towards online sources as it is, no reason to make it worse. One good editor has promised to find sources for what seems to be a prima facie notable topic, so I don't see how it serves Wikipedia's purpose to delete this for a week or two until that happens.Minnowtaur (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. After this amount of time, "surely sources exist" is unpersuasive, given that they are not in the article. Guy (Help!) 10:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep per Ron Ritzman. There is the one book and I don't see the issue with waiting a bit to see what can be found in paper-land. Igoring the POINTY nature of the nomination, the lack of sourcing at this point is troubling, but WP:IAR exists for a reason... Hobit (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There was nothing pointy about this nomination, and the book is the book of the show, it isn't a review of the program or show notability at all. The lack of sources and valid keep rationales mean this article will be userfied/deleted unless RS is added soon. Verbal chat 19:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The circumstances around the renomination were my misunderstanding of Ron Ritzman's "quick renomination" as equivalent to "speedy renomination". Assume good faith. I didn't withdraw my nomination because I still believe there is a very strong case to delete this unless someone can produce a reliable source. Claritas § 20:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While this may be unpopular with some inclusionists, I don't see that the article meets WP:V. I've done a 30 year Lexis-Nexis search, including non-English sources, and I cannot find a single reference to the exact title. All procedural nonsense aside, I don't see anything to substantiate this as a real TV series. Userification and a pursuit of offline sources seems appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well [7] would seem to address WP:V worries if I'm reading everything correctly (in Dutch I think). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Danish, not surprisingly, and I don't have any doubts about the existence of the show, but since the link is from Danmarks Radio, who made the show in the first place, it's a primary source. We still need those reliable, independent, secondary sources to establish notability. Favonian (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's Danish, not surprisingly, and I don't have any doubts about the existence of the show, but since the link is from
- Well [7] would seem to address WP:V worries if I'm reading everything correctly (in Dutch I think). Hobit (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The series exists [8] and it was aired on television [9]. It is an early work for Danish award winning actor Robert Awards in 2004. Both are major film awards in Denmark. The series has a page on each of the Scandanavian language Wikipedias that the show aired in. This article is handicapped by being about a Danish television programme on an English language website and being from an era before the internet. Movementarian (Talk) 16:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dammit Verbal. I knew you'd be the first one to call me out on my flimsy argument. I got nothing, but I don't speak Danish. This article was never given a chance, it was simply nominated for deletion. time to develop. If it hasn't been touched in a few weeks, then renominate it and I'll be there to argue for deletion. Movementarian (Talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I aim to please ;) See the note at the top of the AfD. I would support userfication. Verbal chat 19:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having a problem letting this one go. Television series that were broadcast nationally or internationally are generally notable. We can't find sources at the moment because of the dual handicap this article faces. Common sense tells me that if the series exists (which we can establish) and that it was broadcast internationally (which this one was), it is notable despite the lack of references. I think WP:IAR might be applicable here. Movementarian (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am having a problem letting this one go. Television series that were broadcast nationally or internationally are generally notable. We can't find sources at the moment because of the dual handicap this article faces. Common sense tells me that if the series exists (which we can establish) and that it was broadcast internationally (which this one was), it is notable despite the lack of references. I think
- Dammit Verbal. I knew you'd be the first one to call me out on my flimsy argument. I got nothing, but I don't speak Danish. This article was never given a chance, it was simply nominated for deletion.
- Keep per my previous arguments. --Bensin (talk) 21:21, 27 June 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.
Iwebkit
- Iwebkit (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 could not find significant coverage in
]- Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [10]. talk) 23:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
Abigail Bakan
- Abigail Bakan (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 Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Be in Nepean (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - significant numbers of GScholar and GBook hits, including high cite numbers on the scholar site. Refs need to be added, but apparently meets ]
- Keep per GregJackP above. Seems to have published a respectable body of work, which seems more than enough for ]
- Keep Full professor at a research university with a host of publications that in turn have been cited widely (see this GScholar search). RJC TalkContribs 19:15, 22 June 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.
Dorothy Schwartz
Reason Wkharrisjr (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, by the looks of it she had a long and valued career, and I'm sure she was a lovely person, but the article reads like an obit rather than an encyclopedia article. Also, it doesn't look like she'd meet either the ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adis Obad
- Adis Obad (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 guy does not meet notability criteria. No English language sources refer to him. No reliable source in any language say anything about him as a person; he is only marginally mentioned as a football player. That's why the article consists of an infobox and one sentence. Per
- Keep. Has played for his national team[11] and in the UEFA Cup[12], both levels that are generally accepted to confer notability. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - He is notable as a football player, appearing twice in FIFA "A" internationals and playing three seasons in the fully-pro German second division. I've added a few references that show the article passes WP:ATHLETE, and I suspect it will pass WP:GNG with a little work. Jogurney (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - With appearances in the ]
- Keep - obvious notability that a quick Google search (or a pop down the road to chat with the guy!) would have shown. GiantSnowman 22:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per ATHLETE, played 2.Bundesliga and a couple of international appearances, referenced. note: this suggests he only played 45 (9) for Oberhausen, not the 108 (23) per article. --ClubOranjeT 09:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think transfermarkt.de is a reliable source. Kicker.de and fussballdaten.de support the 108 (23) figures. Jogurney (talk) 14:46, 25 June 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.
Shelter Compilation
- Shelter Compilation (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☯ 16:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, 75 copies? No independent coverage, as far as I can see. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:41, 27 June 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.
Maren Bennewitz
- Maren Bennewitz (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)
Not notable per
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article itself doesn't assert any notability beyond being involved in a team that won a robotics competition, which doesn't pass WP:NOTINHERITED. I also couldn't find any additional coverage of her though a Google search; very little coverage of the NimbRo robot itself. RJC TalkContribs 19:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. As with another case now in AfD, ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
First Principle of Energy Consumption
- First Principle of Energy Consumption (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)
Pure
- Delete in this form, verging on a G11 Speedy, as this all seems to be a plug for the book that is the only reference. It certainly meets the "would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" clause of G11, the only question remaining is whether it is "exclusively promotional". Beyond the original research concerns, I would want to see third-party sources for this theory to establish its notability. Much of the theory has already been included in the articles on the book itself and the author. ArakunemTalk 16:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's really just an essay based on a summary of a specific book -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This concept is an important contribution to the global energy debate. It reveals a 6000 year-old relationship that correlates personal wealth and well-being directly with energy consumption. It is the idea being used behind many pragmatic and innovative solutions being put forward in the marketplace for curbing energy appetites, from some of the largest corporations in America. It is thought that it will help provide a solution that is not only virtuous, but also financially appealing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communications1234 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You use words like "provide a solution" and "financially appealing"; this is an encyclopedia... so how does this article help an encyclopedia? — Timneu22 · talk 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is very current, and being used behind economic derivative models. This article based on facts and concrete data, nonetheless, historical reference is very powerful in solving today’s problems. No reason to be overtly dismissive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communications1234 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide references from multiple reliable sources to attest to its current notability? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea is very current, and being used behind economic derivative models. This article based on facts and concrete data, nonetheless, historical reference is very powerful in solving today’s problems. No reason to be overtly dismissive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communications1234 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You use words like "provide a solution" and "financially appealing"; this is an encyclopedia... so how does this article help an encyclopedia? — Timneu22 · talk 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as spam. The article outlines a problem, and tells us that The End of Energy Obesity can provide us the solution. The article does not provide the solution, but rather promises the solution in a book. Seems like a pretty blatant ad to me. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Johnfos (talk) 22:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not only is it an essay (rather than an encyclopaedia article), it's also thinly disguised advertising for a book. Neither of which we want here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete per Lankiveil. Beagel (talk) 17:37, 28 June 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.
This is Innovation
- This is Innovation (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)
There is no evidence at all for notability, and does not meet notability requirement for books.Farhikht (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And see the author of the book!Farhikht (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sources are all WP mirrors, etc. no indication found of any notability. dont forget to remove redlinks if deleted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:39, 24 June 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.
AVERT (software)
- AVERT (software) (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
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.
- Did you even look at the references? Because they are not all to in-house sites. Additionally, A lack of Gnews coverage is not a requirement of notability by Wikipedia. Additionally, these articles are not promotional in nature. I felt that the software had enough information to have their own articles. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to the publisher's website, ARES Corporation: internal. A press release based story about the purchase of the product by the US Department of Defense: internal, as well as routine, and from an online trade website with small readership. A press release announcing a new version: internal. Yes, I looked at your sources, and looked for more myself, and came up with nothing that indicates that this product has the kind of long term historical interest to rate an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth is a "press release based story"? That is a news article releasted by the Department of Defense. ARES Corporation does not own the Department of Defense and did not write that article. That is an external link and verifiable of it's notability. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Department of Defense buys thousands of products every day. Simply being awarded a defense contract does not elevate a business or its product to historic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What on earth is a "press release based story"? That is a news article releasted by the Department of Defense. ARES Corporation does not own the Department of Defense and did not write that article. That is an external link and verifiable of it's notability. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to the publisher's website, ARES Corporation: internal. A press release based story about the purchase of the product by the US Department of Defense: internal, as well as routine, and from an online trade website with small readership. A press release announcing a new version: internal. Yes, I looked at your sources, and looked for more myself, and came up with nothing that indicates that this product has the kind of long term historical interest to rate an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you even look at the references? Because they are not all to in-house sites. Additionally, A lack of Gnews coverage is not a requirement of notability by Wikipedia. Additionally, these articles are not promotional in nature. I felt that the software had enough information to have their own articles. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources, no valid assertion of notability. ]
- Delete, no notability, no sources, and apparently part of a series by this editor to promote the products of ARES Corporation. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:51, 22 June 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.
Arsenal F.C. squad numbers
- Arsenal F.C. squad numbers (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)
per
- Delete per nom. — Luxic (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; a step too far into non-encyclopaedic stats assembly. Any interesting features can be summarised in the main article. talk) 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails ]
- Delete - The content is nice, and obviously well-researched, but the topic is not exactly encyclopaedic. – Jay 14:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any prose not already included in Arsenal F.C. strip to that article, do not merge the big tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom and previous AfD. GiantSnowman 22:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge the prose (but not the table) to an article on the football club. Useful and decently sourced. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:44, 27 June 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.
Play (drum and bass album)
- Play (drum and bass 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)
Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of notability. Nageh (talk) 13:49, 27 June 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.
ARES Corporation
- ARES Corporation (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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Did you take time to even read the article? This is a very notable business that is having a significant impact on society, science, and economics. Please take time to read the article, building a plant that will produce 15 million gallons of biodiesel fuel is notable in itself. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The references in the article when I nominated were: a link to a company website, a dead link to a press release, another dead link to an online "community" site, a local story about their failure to build the biodiesel plant as planned, and four more links to the company website. What I found when I looked myself was not more promising. I don't think I miscategorized the sources given. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have issues with the references, then you can address them through editing the page or proposing the edits on the discussion page. Issues with references does not mean the subject of the article is non-notable, that is causation. Instead of jumping to an AFD, recommending improvements to the page is preferable in accordance with WP policy. This is especially true when the article in question is 3.5 years old. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As notability of something." The question is whether this consulting business with a few government contracts has any long term historical significance. I looked, and found nothing better than what was in the article, which does not appear to make this rise to that level. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As
- If you have issues with the references, then you can address them through editing the page or proposing the edits on the discussion page. Issues with references does not mean the subject of the article is non-notable, that is causation. Instead of jumping to an AFD, recommending improvements to the page is preferable in accordance with WP policy. This is especially true when the article in question is 3.5 years old. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The references in the article when I nominated were: a link to a company website, a dead link to a press release, another dead link to an online "community" site, a local story about their failure to build the biodiesel plant as planned, and four more links to the company website. What I found when I looked myself was not more promising. I don't think I miscategorized the sources given. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you take time to even read the article? This is a very notable business that is having a significant impact on society, science, and economics. Please take time to read the article, building a plant that will produce 15 million gallons of biodiesel fuel is notable in itself. Bsanders246 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: article needs to be improved but according to [13] it is notable. Dewritech (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The NASA reference barely tops three sentences. Not really coverage, the paragraph in question merely reiterates that the company exists, they're a small business contractor for the ISS and that NASA likes the work they're doing for them. ]
- It's not hard to do what your doing. You can find a small clause in WP:RS to discredit almost any link out there. This link may not have significant coverage, but others do. This reference, in conjunction with others, proves the company is notable. NASA is a very well-respected government entity and to be 1 out of 3 companies to receive an award from them causes ARES Corporation to stand out in their niche. The company is notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are standards of coverage that are supposed to be uniformly applied to all references. ]
- It's not hard to do what your doing. You can find a small clause in WP:RS to discredit almost any link out there. This link may not have significant coverage, but others do. This reference, in conjunction with others, proves the company is notable. NASA is a very well-respected government entity and to be 1 out of 3 companies to receive an award from them causes ARES Corporation to stand out in their niche. The company is notable. Bsanders246 (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Company is not notable, and the original author is on an obvious campaign to promote the company and its products on Wikipedia. (All of these articles are under AfD discussions.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been around for 3 years. You need to work on assuming good faith. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Longevity of an article has absolutely, positively nothing to do with whether or not an article should be deleted. You have created or done major work on articles related to the company which are promotional in nature. Assuming good faith is one thing, but ignoring a pattern of action is quite another. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These articles being "promotional in nature" is your opinion. I mentioned that the article had been around for 3 years so that you would pick up on the fact that i'm not the original author of this page, which you still haven't figured out. "I worked on articles related to the company"... obviously. This is a result of me interpreting a WP Guideline the wrong way and branching out this companies products into seperate articles, instead of keeping it on the same article. "ignoring a pattern of action". I'm not asking you to ignore your insticts, but rather your inherent bias to that any attempt to work on an article must mean i'm associated with the company and must mean i'm trying to promote it. Which neither is true. See my previous response to your comment on the Avert Page, first attempt at a major re-write + WP's random article feature = This Bsanders246 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but you can understand when one person works on a series of article about a company and its products, there is often an attempt to promote that company in violation of WP guidelines. I've seen it too many times here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me)
- I understand where your coming from. It probably wasn't the best idea to attempt my first re-write on a company. At least I learned a few things about notability/reliable sources and the deletion process. Bsanders246 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, but you can understand when one person works on a series of article about a company and its products, there is often an attempt to promote that company in violation of WP guidelines. I've seen it too many times here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me)
- These articles being "promotional in nature" is your opinion. I mentioned that the article had been around for 3 years so that you would pick up on the fact that i'm not the original author of this page, which you still haven't figured out. "I worked on articles related to the company"... obviously. This is a result of me interpreting a WP Guideline the wrong way and branching out this companies products into seperate articles, instead of keeping it on the same article. "ignoring a pattern of action". I'm not asking you to ignore your insticts, but rather your inherent bias to that any attempt to work on an article must mean i'm associated with the company and must mean i'm trying to promote it. Which neither is true. See my previous response to your comment on the Avert Page, first attempt at a major re-write + WP's random article feature = This Bsanders246 (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Longevity of an article has absolutely, positively nothing to do with whether or not an article should be deleted. You have created or done major work on articles related to the company which are promotional in nature. Assuming good faith is one thing, but ignoring a pattern of action is quite another. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been around for 3 years. You need to work on assuming good faith. Bsanders246 (talk) 13:13, 22 June 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Astrid Peth
- Astrid Peth (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)
For the same reasons suggested for Adam Mitchell. Companion has only appeared in a single episode and fails to warrant an article of her own. magnius (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Hardly your typical one-shot character. Plenty of out of universe information in the article meeting the ]
- Keep- although I would typically say merge for a simple one episode character, there is enough info here to warrent its own article and enough references to justify ]
- Keep: Passes talk) 19:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep GA articles need to be delisted before being nominated for deletion. Keep it anyway per the other information in the article. Jclemens (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one episode character but there are enough sources to WP:verify notability including reception. Might merge to the article about the episode itself but that can be discussed later. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:57, 27 June 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lady Christina de Souza
For the same reasons stated for Adam Mitchell. Companion has only appeared in a single episode and fails to warrant an article of her own. Merger and deletion of main article suggested. magnius (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Plenty of out of universe information in the article, so hardly your typical one-shot character. Meets the GNG by light years, and there's simply too much verifiable out of universe information in the article that a merge isn't a viable option either. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes talk) 19:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: My reading of WP:N for these articles is the amount out of universe information available. Although this character appears in only one episode, she is played by a well known actress, and the casting made an impact at the time so there are lots of production and reception information. Edgepedia (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of independent RS coverage. The fact that the character wasn't all that important isn't actually a detriment to notability, given the coverage. Jclemens (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep seen enough 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.
No Control (Time-Life album)
- No Control (Time-Life 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)
Non-notable compilation album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Justin. Nageh (talk) 13:58, 27 June 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.
Shuzo Matsunaga
- Shuzo Matsunaga (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 biography of an translator with some publications and translations to his credit. Prod contested after deletion, brought here because there does not seem to be sufficient independent coverage on himself.
]- Weak delete unless sources added. From googling, the person seems to likely be marginally notable [14], but allowing an article to stay forever as a completely unsourced BLP is obviously not acceptable. --B (talk) 15:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources in either English or Japanese (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). All works of his in the National Diet Library catalog seem to be self-published (can't link their searches directly; search page here). No third-party reviews. cab (talk) 09:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources available to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 11:02, 22 June 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.
Kevin Lau
Non-notable Chiropractor lacking GHIts and GNEWs of substance. Claim to fame is self-published non-notable book and "people's choice" award. Appears to fail
]- Delete Non notable - only claim of notability (award for healthcare provider of the year) turns out to be a "readers choice" email from one person. 7 09:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a miss-statement, if referring to this source, which is a Straits Times article/column. It refers to nominations for that award being by email, and quotes from an email or two. That does not mean the person was voted for by just one person, it simply means the nomination was received by email. The Straits Times is one of the leading newspapers in Singapore. --doncram (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a vote. Please re-read the whole article before claiming I am misinformed. I have now read it twice. The Best Health Care Provider awards issued by the Straits Times went to three doctors mentioned in the top section: Dr Lau Tang Ching, Dr Benedict Tan, and Ms Jeanette Jackson-Yap. Not to Kevin Lau. After the main section of the article, in the readers choice section, it clearly indicates that the single letter referring to Dr. Kevin Lau was one of the top four selected from "about 100" letters sent in by readers across for all health care providers in the area. It does not indicate whether or not there was more than one letter for any provider. 7 23:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That seems to be a miss-statement, if referring to this source, which is a Straits Times article/column. It refers to nominations for that award being by email, and quotes from an email or two. That does not mean the person was voted for by just one person, it simply means the nomination was received by email. The
- Keep Appears notable; vote for Delete above seems mis-informed. --doncram (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pending some further showing of notability. The "readers choice" award doesn't seem to be "a well-known and significant award or honor" (per WP:ANYBIO). According to Amazon, his book is published by CreateSpace, which is a vanity press. Media coverage mentioned in the article might suggest that he is on his way to notability, but I'm not sure he's achieved it yet. According to the article, his name is "劉子傑". I get 27 hits on google news archives ([15]). Courtesy of google translate, I can tell that most of them are about athletes (two on a baseball player, the rest on a basketball player), except these: [16], [17], [18], which are clearly not this guy. (The name translates Liu Zijie). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no actual coverage in either English or Chinese, either by GNews or by directly searching in newspaper websites (like Channel NewsAsia in English). I read Chinese and can confirm that the hits pointed to by Moonriddengirl are about different people with the same name (which is rather common, especially among Cantonese-speakers). cab (talk) 10:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the notable articles that suggest Kevin Lau to be an important and significant figure in both nutrition and spinal correction http://scoliosis.com.sg/media-appearances.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.187.133 (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC) — 124.157.187.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- http://scoliosis.com.sg is his own website. 7 22:45, 28 June 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.
London Steverson
The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
Cyrill Stachniss
- Cyrill Stachniss (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)
Not notable enough per
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WoS indicates that this person participated in a few well-cited projects under his advisor, Wolfram Burgard, but that he's not yet notable independent of his advisor. Essentially, he's an early-in-career academic (grad in '06) who has a (low) h-index of 4, commensurate with what you'd expect for his career stage. His website indicates he's still a post-doc (under same advisor). Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete. His work has attracted a substantial level of citation but there is no way to disentangle his contribution from that of his more notable advisor. A classical example of someone on a successful academic career trajectory but whose article was created too soon in his career, before he has had a real chance to distinguish himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:44, 23 June 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. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but discounting the last comment in the AfD (no reasoning given), with 3 deletes and 3 Keeps there is clearly no consensus either way. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ResPublica
- ResPublica (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)
"Think Tank" that fails
- Keep - (I'm the article's creator - no wp:COI). Not just any old think tank, but "a leading think tank". The latter is a direct quote from the BBC presenter Stephen Sackur, & taken from (5 mins 20" into) his HARDtalk TV program interview with Phillip Blondof ResPublica.
- Moreover, UK MPs on ResPublica's advisory board. I don't think the latter should be dismissed as run-of-the-mill inherited notability, as the 6 notable people share many aspects of the same essential professional field as the organsisation in the article.
- Also, ResPublica has had some mentions by name in several UK national newspapers. Trafford09 (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the "a leading think tank" quote was given to the BBC presenter Stephen Sackur by Phillip Blond or his staff, as a way of self promotion. The reason why I think that is, according to the BBC site this program went out at 11:30pm on Tuesday 20th October 2009, however over a month later Simon Hoggarts in The Guardian comments on going to the Respublica Launch - so I have to ask how can this organisation be "a leading think tank" if it has not yet launched ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A less-conspiratorial theory is that ResPublica was conceived & spoken about months before their Official Launch event. The latter surely required the funds & preparation necessary to book a large venue, & attract an audience of 300 people with busy diaries, and the attendance of Mr. Cameron. Please see the links here, dated 2 Aug 2009. I see no cause to question the professional integrity of either Stephen Sackur or the HARDtalk staff. Trafford09 (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that the "a leading think tank" quote was given to the BBC presenter Stephen Sackur by Phillip Blond or his staff, as a way of self promotion. The reason why I think that is, according to the BBC site this program went out at 11:30pm on Tuesday 20th October 2009, however over a month later Simon Hoggarts in The Guardian comments on going to the Respublica Launch - so I have to ask how can this organisation be "a leading think tank" if it has not yet launched ? Codf1977 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - babble 21:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although notability is not inherited, surely this is not a normal inheritance. If David Beckham bought a hotel, that hotel would not become notable. But in this case, we're taliking about a UK political think tank, and on its advisory board sits Oliver Letwin, who's the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office, Chairman of the Conservative Research Department and Chairman of the Conservative Party's Policy Review, and sits on Cabinet meetings. That's kinda related to the article's subject. --Trafford09 (talk) 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Glance through the dozens of summaries that appear when Google news search is used for "ResPublica" AND "think tank".[19] Seems notable to me. They quote from them at times, and talk about their agenda to break up the four big supermarkets. Dream Focus 03:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean this article - more about what Philip Blond said than ResPublica - Only mentions ResPublica twice once to confirm that Philip Blond was talking at the ResPublica launch and secondly to report that a spokesperson for ResPublica expanded on what Philip Blond had said. Codf1977 (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And the others, including the one after that which is titled "Phillip Blond: Conservatives should break up big supermarkets" from the Telegraph.co.uk. Look at the ones with the word "supermarket" in them. Dream Focus 06:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read that one, and that one is even less about ResPublica - as far as I can see this is a new "think tank" desperate for the oxygen of publicity and trying to do so by association (I am NOT saying that this WP article is a part of that). None of the refs shown address the subject of ResPublica and what it has done in anything approaching the significant way as mentioned in the ]
- But surely this is catch 22. You say that ResPublica doesn't get coverage just because Newsnight, HARDtalk etc. always interview its founder/director. If they approach, interview & quote him, and whilst doing so, speak the words "think tank, ResPublica" & also display that on-screen, isn't that still a reference to ResPublica? You're saying that a director can't represent a body, or isn't doing so whenever he is given on-screen recognition for doing so? --Trafford09 (talk) 08:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, are you saying that, no matter how many thousands of people read about ResPublica in UK newspapers, or see it on TV, they're not entitled to look it up on our encyclopedia, to find out more information on the topic? (Which is precisely how I came to be involved in any of this, having no ]
- I am not saying anything - the consensus guidelines layout what constitutes a notiable organisation and as of yet none of those advocating keeping the article have been able to provide prove of significant coverage only mentions. Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Identifying a reliable source which deals non-trivially with the subject takes a bit more work than finding an interview which contains the words "think tank" and "ResPublica". Just because those two words appear in the same article doesn't mean that this source establishes notability. Again, what have they done? What have they accomplished? So far all I can tell is that they have talked about some supermarket chain. Remember, gab 17:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Identifying a reliable source which deals non-trivially with the subject takes a bit more work than finding an interview which contains the words "think tank" and "ResPublica". Just because those two words appear in the same article doesn't mean that this source establishes notability. Again, what have they done? What have they accomplished? So far all I can tell is that they have talked about some supermarket chain. Remember,
- I am not saying anything - the consensus guidelines layout what constitutes a notiable organisation and as of yet none of those advocating keeping the article have been able to provide prove of significant coverage only mentions. Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did read that one, and that one is even less about ResPublica - as far as I can see this is a new "think tank" desperate for the oxygen of publicity and trying to do so by association (I am NOT saying that this WP article is a part of that). None of the refs shown address the subject of ResPublica and what it has done in anything approaching the significant way as mentioned in the ]
- Keep. ResPublica is a relatively new think tank but it and Philip Blond and his ideas have had coverage by multiple independent sources and are clearly notable. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind listing them ? Codf1977 (talk) 10:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A very quick search for recent press coverage turns up the following, all of which are on the subject of ResPublica rather than just mentioning them in the context of a wider piece. I've also not included some smaller reportage about their launches and their pamphlets:
- John Harris, "The man who wrote Cameron's mood music" (Saturday Interview), The Guardian, 8 August 2009, p. 28
- Camilla Long, "The red under Cameron's bed", Sunday Times, 18 October 2009, p. 5
- "Blond shakes up the Tories", Liverpool Echo, 23 October 2009, p. 8
- Andy McSmith, "The rise and rise of Cameron's philosopher-king", The Independent, 25 November 2009, p. 14
- Martin Ivens, "Cameron's tactical Blond moment", Sunday Times, 29 November 2009, p. 19
- Dominic Lawson, "The man who wrote Dave's bible", Sunday Times, 28 March 28 2010, p. 39
- James Delingpole, "Purple with rage about a Red Tory", Mail on Sunday, 11 April 2010, p. 13
- And I gave up as the election campaign started. There are not many book references because the think tank is so relatively new. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have to disagree
- John Harris, "The man who wrote Cameron's mood music" (Saturday Interview), The Guardian - is not about ResPublica but about Phillip Blond.
- Camilla Long, "The red under Cameron's bed", Sunday Times, 18 October 2009, p. 5 - again is about Phillip Blond - with only one ref to ResPublica - "Happy but exhausted, because not only is he (Phillip Blond) running from pillar to post, he’s also setting up his own think tank, ResPublica, which launches next month.".
- "Blond shakes up the Tories", Liverpool Echo, 23 October 2009, p. 8 - again is about Phillip Blond - with only one ref to ResPublica - "Now, aged 42, he is setting up his own think tank ResPublica.".
- Andy McSmith, "The rise and rise of Cameron's philosopher-king", The Independent, 25 November 2009, p. 14 two mentions "Phillip Blond, the intellectual father of "Red Toryism" is launching a new think tank, ResPublica, to take Tory thinking further into the left's traditional home turf, by exploring what Conservatism can do for the poor and for the shattered communities in inner cities." and "Phillip Blond's time at Demos barely lasted four months before he fell out with them this summer. By then, his catchphrase "Red Toryism" and his reputed closeness to David Cameron, and particularly to Cameron's adviser, Steve Hilton, had attracted so much interest that he was able to raise £1.5m to fund ResPublica for three years. " - the rest is about Phillip Blond.
- Martin Ivens, "Cameron's tactical Blond moment", Sunday Times, 29 November 2009, p. 19 Again two mentions "Amid fanfare, David Cameron took part in the unveiling on Thursday of ResPublica, a new think tank devoted to “Red Toryism”, an idea conceived by Phillip Blond, a garrulous former lecturer in theology." and "Cameron curiously spent only five minutes at the launch of ResPublica before leaving." the resy is unrelated to ResPublica
- Dominic Lawson, "The man who wrote Dave's bible", Sunday Times, 28 March 28 2010, p. 39 - is not in the archive so I can only comment based on the title, which looks like it is to be about Phillip Blond again.
- James Delingpole, "Purple with rage about a Red Tory", Mail on Sunday, 11 April 2010, p. 13 like wise is not in the archive, but no reason not to suspect like all the rest is about Phillip Blond.
- I would have to disagree
- A very quick search for recent press coverage turns up the following, all of which are on the subject of ResPublica rather than just mentioning them in the context of a wider piece. I've also not included some smaller reportage about their launches and their pamphlets:
- so still no significant coverage of ResPublica, only mentions along side Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with your contention that a reference to ResPublica in the context of a profile of Philip Blond personally means that it does not count as source about ResPublica. It would not be right to allow the fact that media profiles concentrate on personalities to distract us from the fact that both Blond personally and ResPublica as an organisation are considered notable. In any case, dispute over sources ought not to take place in threaded discussions in an AfD, and contributors to an AfD discussion ought to be free to state their views without being interrogated on whether they are justified in holding them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not interrogating you, you stated that multiple independent sources exited, and as my nomination was based on the fact I don't think they exist, if they do exist and are significant ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so WP:GNG) then it would be grounds for me to withdraw my nomination. Codf1977 (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not interrogating you, you stated that multiple independent sources exited, and as my nomination was based on the fact I don't think they exist, if they do exist and are significant ("Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so
- I don't agree with your contention that a reference to ResPublica in the context of a profile of Philip Blond personally means that it does not count as source about ResPublica. It would not be right to allow the fact that media profiles concentrate on personalities to distract us from the fact that both Blond personally and ResPublica as an organisation are considered notable. In any case, dispute over sources ought not to take place in threaded discussions in an AfD, and contributors to an AfD discussion ought to be free to state their views without being interrogated on whether they are justified in holding them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- so still no significant coverage of ResPublica, only mentions along side Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 12:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BBC links: As ResPublica is a UK think tank, I searched the BBC for news of it here, and the first news item it that this search brought up is:
- Cameron backs Phillip Blond's 'Red Tory' think tank, including the view of Ross Hawkins - BBC Political correspondent - that "both Conservatives and their opponents will study the output of Phillip Blond's new think tank.".
- Is this news item a better ]
- (edit conflict) It is a good source, we know it exists, but what has is done since then, the only coverage is centred around Philip Blond and Cameron attending it's launch - there does not appear to be any coverage of ResPublica significant or otherwise since the launch back in November. I still think it should be deleted or best a redirect to Phillip Blond. Codf1977 (talk) 12:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or to put it another way - what output have they (both Conservatives and their opponents) had to study ? Codf1977 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No coverage of ResPublica - significant or otherwise - since November?
- Today: Wednesday 14th April reminded readers of ResPublica, and
- The Full Election story: 26 April found ResPublica noteworthy, even on a busy election night.
- It seems that, in the UK, ResPublica have not disappeared off the political radar. --Trafford09 (talk) 13:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again these are mentions in relation to Phillip Blond - absolutely NOT coverage of ResPublica !!!
- Where is the coverage on the big policy announcements or recommendations in the last 8 months ? Have they even made any? What has this think tank actually achieved other than getting the then leader of the operation to the launch event for 5 mins. Codf1977 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, when the BBC in April wrote: "Phillip Blond, from the think tank Respublica, says ...", and "Phillip Blond, director of independent public policy think-tank ResPublica", they were adding non-relevant information by mentioning the think tank? Akin to saying he's in a local tiddlywinks team? No, I think the BBC is independent and experienced enough to present readers with relevant information. It's perfectly clear, to me, that when a director of a think tank is quoted about politics, then - unless he is careful to first stress that he's speaking in a personal capacity - he's speaking for and representing the think tank - hence the BBC's quite correct references to ResPublica. To conveniently dismisss anything Blond as non-ResPublica seems quite perverse. Trafford09 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well yes it is non-relevant for determining is ResPublica notable in it's own right; the fact you were unable to answer the other questions I raised should show you what I mean - perhaps if I refrase the question - "What is ResPublica notable for doing ?" Codf1977 (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So, when the BBC in April wrote: "Phillip Blond, from the think tank Respublica, says ...", and "Phillip Blond, director of independent public policy think-tank ResPublica", they were adding non-relevant information by mentioning the think tank? Akin to saying he's in a local tiddlywinks team? No, I think the BBC is independent and experienced enough to present readers with relevant information. It's perfectly clear, to me, that when a director of a think tank is quoted about politics, then - unless he is careful to first stress that he's speaking in a personal capacity - he's speaking for and representing the think tank - hence the BBC's quite correct references to ResPublica. To conveniently dismisss anything Blond as non-ResPublica seems quite perverse. Trafford09 (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete or redirect: existence is not notability... not much in this article that isn't a rehash of the think tank's promotional websites... ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
Newgate Technology
- Newgate Technology (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 - Company fails
]- Delete per lack of verifiable coverage to meet the criteria for ]
- Delete. A a developer of data collection software, yet another free ad host. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:12, 21 June 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.
Trash Talk (band)
- Trash Talk (band) (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. I removed the speedy tag because it was inappropriate. Before this was even speedy-tagged the article already contained references from Rolling Stone and Spin magazine - not in-depth coverage but enough to make speedy-deletion inappropriate. WP:BEFORE involves looking for alternatives for deletion, and at least making some effort to find coverage, before bringing an article to AFD. Had you searched for sources you may have found, within the first few pages of Google results, coverage from Pitchfork Media, the BBC, The Guardian, Drowned in Sound, and again, Stereogum, BBC again, and Rock Sound ([20], [21]). See also Metacritic - reviews from Q Magazine, NME, Absolutepunk.com.--Michig (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Michig. talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Eek. That's a mountain of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I'm frankly not sure how the nominator comes to the conclusions they come to, and if WP:BEFORE was considered I'd recommend trying Google as part of your due diligence next time. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination -- I just randomly clicked on two of the sources Mich links (The Guardian, BBC) and either of them are enough to let this band plainly pass any notability concerns, let alone verifiability ones. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 23 June 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.
Tara Ehrcke
- Tara Ehrcke (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)
Speedy and prod declined. Does not pass
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- actually no prod was declined, my prod was a blp prod that was "satisfied" by a reference. So you could also try a normal prod too. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nom has it right – only claim to notability is head of a teacher's union local and this is way short of established standards. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - per substantial reasoning of the nom. Claritas § 13:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete in the absence of the substantial news coverage that might allow someone at this level to be notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 23 June 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
Phoenix Prize for Spiritual Art
Lacks media coverage. The three mentions in ArtNotes are quite short; one gives a little detail about the prize; the other two only mention the winner. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 10:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg (chat) 10:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If it isn't notable, we should transwiki or create a page on Commons given that project has many related images. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Useful and reasonable article about an aspect of contemporary art in Australia. Good credentials with hosting organisation and judging panel. An ongoing event. Refs also given from The Canberra Times. At the very least merge to Australian National University. No cause for deletion. Ty 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP but I would say that, as I am the person who created the page, and I was the President/Chairman of the organiation at the time of its endowment and creation (some AU$5,000. The point of the Prize was that people would create religious-themed art. This has been a national as well as local prize, for the Australian Capital Territory but also Australia and internationally. Hundreds of artists have participated through the arrangement and sponsorship by the Australian National University and its Institute of Art. Even if this prize dies out, it has been a significant art prize, and deserves to be memorialised. - Peter Ellis - Talk 11:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Australian National University - not enough coverage to have an independent article, but a well-sourced paragraph on this on the University's article would be relevant. Claritas § 13:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Australian National University or keep, I don't see the point of deletion...Modernist (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't understand why "Lacks media coverage" is an argument for deletion, let alone a sufficient argument for deletion. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By "Lacks media coverage", I am saying that I dont believe it is notable. i.e. this article fails the policy WP:N, IMO. The Canberra Times is the local newspaper for the region where the ANU is situated; we generally disregard such sources as evidence of notability because they are reporting on local issues. As far as I can tell, this is the only newspaper which has ever mentioned the Phoenix Prize. Being attached to a university doesn't automatically make an award notable; external recognition of the award is required. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By "Lacks media coverage", I am saying that I dont believe it is notable. i.e. this article fails the policy
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both.
Censored
Looks at first like a well referenced article but when you look at what the references actually are it's clear that this is not the case. When you get rid of youtube, blogs, fanzines, primary, user contributed, gig listings, stores, press release, refs where censored isn't mentioned, all we are left with is a small amount of local interest coverage (
]I am also nominating the following related page about a band member that is similarly referenced (a large part is just a compressed version of the censored article) and for whom there is no notability show outside the band:
- Matt Henshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) duffbeerforme (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the 60 references this article had this morning, nearly half were to random subjects' home pages, the band's music videos on YouTube, or Amazon / iTunes etc. links to digital downloads. I've had a go at removing unreliable sources and that has roughly halved already. Also note Template:Matt Henshaw, a navbox containing only one blue link (to the article under AfD here), which I've taken to TfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. both of them.Farhikht (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fail ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 23 June 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.
Privilege of the predecessors
Concerns raised in the previous AfD still seem to be valid; the complete lack of English sources for this subject, along with the highly dubious premise (flagrant corruption at the most basic legal level in an advanced economy), mean that we cannot establish that this is a trustworthy article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - any article that starts with "... it is a well known fact" raises alarm bells. There are no English references and only one non-English reference which looks like some sort of wiki style online encyclopedia, I don;t know, I don't speak/read Korean - in any case it's very unlikely to satisfy Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. In addition, the entire premise of this article seems highly unlikely, so I would want to see some pretty heavy duty sources before I would agree to the article's retention. - Nick Thorne talk 13:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First, Naver's online encyclopedia is not user-generated content, but a compilation of various paper encyclopedias, primarily the Hankyoreh editorial from some years ago confirms the outline of the content here, translates it rather clumsily as "allowing privileges associated with one's former post". It's not just a recent news topic-of-the-day, but a continuing issue in the South Korean judicial system which has been discussed repeatedly over the years, including in scholarly journals [25]; I'm trying to find a paper with an English abstract, to see if we can improve on the title. cab (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article and added various sources to it, including both English and Korean ones. Since there is no particular consensus among English-language writers what to call it (usually something about "special consideration" and "former judges"/"judges-turned-lawyers"), I'd suggest also moving it to transcription of the Korean name) as User:Polarpanda recommended at the last AfD. cab (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have expanded the article and added various sources to it, including both English and Korean ones. Since there is no particular consensus among English-language writers what to call it (usually something about "special consideration" and "former judges"/"judges-turned-lawyers"), I'd suggest also moving it to
- A listing in one online encyclopedia does not satisfy the reliabile source criteria - I think I would want it put up to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard before I would be too happy about using it in the English Wikipedia. In addition, I have checked the English references recently added and they do not support the primary proposition of the article, but rather refer to peripheral issues. Their inclusion on particular minor points in the article are fine so far as that goes, but they do not address the primary concern about the lack of sources for the main subject of the article. One could be forgiven for thinking that the purpose of the inclusion of all these suplementary references is to game the system and make it look like the main idea of the article is well sourced when in fact it is not. Similarly, issues about the name of the article are non-sequitur until we resolve the issue of whether the article should remain in the project at all. Please keep the discussion on topic. - Nick Thorne talk 12:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please, this is not about "gaming the system". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The fact that other encyclopedias (in this case, Doosan and Britannica) choose to write an article about a topic is a pretty good indication that a topic may be appropriate for Wikipedia. Park's paper, in English, devotes a section to the topic, and so I included it primarily because it can aid any reader to verifythe basic outline of the article. The various judicial reform proposals discussed in the Korea Times are in fact directly related to the issue of former judges who enter private practise, which is precisely the topic of the article. The Hankook Ilbo, Hankyoreh, and Donga Ilbo articles in Korean are solely about this phenomenon. Dozens more sources are found in Korean in both general-interest national newspapers and legal magazines.
- Oh please, this is not about "gaming the system". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The fact that other encyclopedias (in this case, Doosan and Britannica) choose to write an article about a topic is a pretty good indication that a topic may be appropriate for Wikipedia. Park's paper, in English, devotes a section to the topic, and so I included it primarily because it can aid any reader to
- A listing in one online encyclopedia does not satisfy the
- And it is a perfectly standard practise in deletion discussions to point out when the name of an article may need to be changed (which also alerts people who just paste the existing title into Google and don't find anything, that they may not be getting the whole picture). So don't accuse me of taking the discussion off topic, and don't make false characterisations of a good-faith effort to use on-topic sources to expand a topic as "gaming the system" because it involves a language you don't read. cab (talk) 13:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You failed to address the point I was making that none of the English references support the basic premise of the article. Even the example you quote in your post above does not go to the nub of the matter. The premise of the article is not about former judicial officers entering private practice, but rather that these people in some way are given precedence in judicial proceedings in which they are involved. The references do not support that argument and yes, I do not count references in non-English language. This is not some non controversial issue, it is a highly charged one, if true, and so in the English Wikipedia it needs to be supported by English references - Korean language sources would be fine as suplemental references, especially if provided with accurate English translations, but they are not enough on their own. So far there has not been one single English reference included that supports the main premise of the article. So, I do call it gaming the system, because it gives the impression that the article is well referenced when it is not. If that is not gaming the system then I'd like to know what is. The article needs to either be appropriately referenced by reliable sources and evidence of its notability provided or else it should be deleted. - Nick Thorne talk 12:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable to Korean reliable sources = notable. Polarpanda (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Multiple English language sources directly addressing the topic of the article are linked, although technically they're not necessary. This is a very notable topic in Korea.Minnowtaur (talk) 00:26, 26 June 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.
Dennis Steele
Subject of the article is a minor party candidate for governor of Vermont, which fails
- Coverage is not generally trivial. I have been on channel 5 news and channel 3 (I appeared on "You Can Quote Me". These are the biggest tv stations in Vermont. Furthermore, I am the founder of Radio Free Vermont. This is Vermont's largest online radio station. Please let me know what more you need.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisRFV (talk • contribs)
- Delete - relevant information about this candidate should be in the election article. Given his minor party affiliation, it's unlikely that he'll advance very far and garner anything other than minor coverage. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all the tests of notability.--Orange Mike | Talk 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Change to Reluctant keep - his stunt in getting himself arrested by interrupting another party's debate, plus his connections with the notable and controversial ]
- Hi Orange Mike,
- I do get it. Would it be better if I had my campaign manager edit the article from now on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DennisRFV (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not!!!!! His/her COI is almost as bad as your own. talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly not!!!!! His/her COI is almost as bad as your own.
- Delete no substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, only a bit of local coverage such as every political candidate gets. The interruption of the debate can be filed under WP:NOTNEWS. Can be redirected to the Vermont election page and any salvagable content included there. Valenciano (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The arrest stuff is trivial, but the guy has been written up in Time Magazine. [26] Not just a mention or a quote, but paragraphs about him and his movement. That, my friends, is notability. BTW I would urge the candidate to stop editing the article himself, and not to have his friends/campaign manager edit it. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography. If you are notable enough to be here, somebody will write about you. If nobody does - maybe you weren't as notable as you thought. --MelanieN (talk) 04:51, 28 June 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. Lots of SPA comments duly disregarded per usual practice.
Andrew Giallombardo
- Andrew Giallombardo (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)
Player is non-notable soccer player with no professional experience, and no relevant collegiate history. Fails
]- Delete per nom. Actually, it could have even been speedied. — Luxic (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 23:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG; was not eligible for a speedy as some degree of notability is implied. GiantSnowman 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Comparable players have profiles, see WP:IAR we need make this better. Nothing is more frustrating to wikipedia's users than to see articles on a topic riddled with red -- if we are covering the PDL on Wikipedia, and it seems we are, the key players should have profiles. Also, Andrew played for Southampton FC which, at the time, was Championship Division in England. He is quite young, but is in the early stages of a very promising career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MKS1923 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see, ]
- Actually (and this is completely unrelated to this AfD), but I'm begging you please DON'T delete the redlinks on the PDL squads. This is because the redlinks are used not just for article creation, but also for career-tracking when the players turn professional. There is currenly no way using other sources to follow a player's PDL career - the USL website doesn't do it, and there is no other information source which keep track of all the PDL teams a player has played for prior to turning pro. When he turns pro his article is usually created via his pro team's roster; by keeping the redlinks, we can use the "What links here" toolbox to track back and see which PDL team(s) the player has played for, and be able to put together a proper career history. It's a vital way of keeping track of this info, and why the redlinks exist in these instances. (Oh, and BTW, Seattle Sounders in the USL First Division, while Giallombardo never played a senior game for Southampton) --JonBroxton (talk) 00:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an argument, I think, that our Athlete notability guidelines are not in line with current Wikipedia practice. PDL is the highest "amateur" level of soccer in the US and many of its athletes have profiles. Since all its teams have redlinked rosters it might improve the user experience to adapt to expectations. Maybe WP:FOOTY/N should be a little less restrictive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.151.208.130 (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that soccer is not an amateur sport. The "highest amateur level" guideline of of WP:FOOTY project entirely unmanagable. If Giallombardo is good enough, he will turn professional at some point anyway, and will be eligible for an article then. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that soccer is not an amateur sport. The "highest amateur level" guideline of of
- Actually (and this is completely unrelated to this AfD), but I'm begging you please DON'T delete the redlinks on the PDL squads. This is because the redlinks are used not just for article creation, but also for career-tracking when the players turn professional. There is currenly no way using other sources to follow a player's PDL career - the USL website doesn't do it, and there is no other information source which keep track of all the PDL teams a player has played for prior to turning pro. When he turns pro his article is usually created via his pro team's roster; by keeping the redlinks, we can use the "What links here" toolbox to track back and see which PDL team(s) the player has played for, and be able to put together a proper career history. It's a vital way of keeping track of this info, and why the redlinks exist in these instances. (Oh, and BTW,
- As far as I can see, ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Andrew is promising player who has already established a quite successful career —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etochihara (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following was added to the talk page of this AfD by an IP, I move it here for completeness.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC): Keep - Though it may not seem newsworthy to some, being able to track PDL players is extremely beneficial to those of us that keep track of the United States National Teams from the youth level moving forward. There is no harm from a player of Giallombardo's caliber (Southampton, US National Team U17 Captain) having a wikipedia page, as I believe the original guidelines were probably meant to keep out "frivilous" players. Though he may not be Landon Donovan, his name is recognizable within American soccer circles.[reply]
- Delete - never played professionally. Personally I think the last thing we need to do is to make our notability guidelines for sportspeople less restrictive, a lot of editors think they're already far far too lax as it is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:FOOTY/N since he has no professional experience. Whether he is promising is irrelevant to the question. The last thing we need is to relax the guidelines - there are already far too many articles on footballers. While some may regard Giallombardo as a high caliber player, the Wikipedia standard is whether he has played a professional game: if he has, he is deemed good enough to be included; if he has not, he is not good enough YET and he should not have a page to himself YET. While some may want to track Giallombardo's career, Wikipedia is not the medium for it. Craddocktm (talk) 11:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - per original research is needed as per WP:GNG to "extract the content". The coverage as WP:GNG is significant because he was mentioned by name in the articles' titles and filled the reports. ----moreno oso (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And what makes this different from the thousands of other amateur players who recieve significant coverage? We can't include everyone. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about ]
- Actually, WP:GNG also says that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. — Luxic (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know about ]
- Keep - It meets WP:OTHERSTUFF and the absence of articles for every amateur player does not mean this one should likewise be deleted. It looks fairly substantial at this point. The presumption is established, and personally I have to disagree with a strict deletionist perspective here. We can't include everyone, but we can include an unlimited number of notable persons. Treko (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't see how you can call WP:OTHERSTUFF.
- Don't see how you can call
- I don't think it would be a balanced argument to ignore WP:FOOTY/N since they are all relevant to the argument. To be fair, all the relevant guidelines should be read together. My interpretation of the guidelines is this: if reliable third party sources can be found on a certain subject, there is a presumption that that subject is notable. However, presumptions can be rebutted by certain facts. In footballer articles, the presumption may be rebutted by the failure to have achieved professional status. Whether the rebuttal will be successful depends on the strength of the presumption: the more reliable sources you can cite, the stronger the presumption. The failure to achieve professional status would rebut a weak presumption but not a strong one. In the case of Giallombardo, only 2 reliable sources offer significant coverage. The presumption tends to be weak and is easily rebutted by the failure to achieve professional status.Craddocktm (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it would be a balanced argument to ignore
- "Keep"---I strongly reccomend this article should be kept as it has value and merit. Andrew is a strong player with a bright future. I have followed his career since his time in residency and I see his potential. This player was signed to a professional with Southampton FC. In addition the Dayton Dutch Lions are thought to be promoted to USL next season. Furthermore, numerous players who were in residency in Bradenton, who play for comparable clubs in other countries and the US, have their own wikipedia pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.172.212 (talk) 11:24, 25 June 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.
Something Incredible This Way Comes
- Something Incredible This Way Comes (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 unauthorized biography. – Zntrip 07:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just out of interest, in what way does a biography have to be "authorized"? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An "authorized" biography would be one that the band approves and helps write by providing the biographer with information. Unauthorized biographies are quite common, and thus would have to be significant to warrant an article. This one in question doesn't seem to have any notable qualities. There are at least four unauthorized biographies of the band listed at Amazon.com. – Zntrip 07:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what I meant was "In what way does a biography have to be 'authorized' according to Wikipedia policy?" - if you can show any policy that rules against "unauthorized" biographies, that would be helpful. In general, many biographies are not "authorized" by their subjects (and I'm not just thinking of biographies of bands), but that does not prohibit their inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, if a biog had to be authorized by its subject for inclusion, then we would only see favourable biogs being included in Wikipedia, which would clearly be against our WP:NPOV policy. Notability is what counts here, not whether the biog is authorized by the subject. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not nominating the article for deletion simply because it is an "unauthorized" biography. One relevant example is Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana, which is an "unauthorized" biography of a band, but is still noteworthy because the author conducted extensive interviews with Kurt Cobain. The article in question, however, has no notable qualities and is one of several such biographies written about the band. All of them are rather obscure and do not meet any of the notability criteria for books. – Zntrip 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - we seem to be agreed that "authorized" is not a relevant criterion and that the decision rests on notability -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not nominating the article for deletion simply because it is an "unauthorized" biography. One relevant example is Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana, which is an "unauthorized" biography of a band, but is still noteworthy because the author conducted extensive interviews with Kurt Cobain. The article in question, however, has no notable qualities and is one of several such biographies written about the band. All of them are rather obscure and do not meet any of the notability criteria for books. – Zntrip 09:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what I meant was "In what way does a biography have to be 'authorized' according to Wikipedia policy?" - if you can show any policy that rules against "unauthorized" biographies, that would be helpful. In general, many biographies are not "authorized" by their subjects (and I'm not just thinking of biographies of bands), but that does not prohibit their inclusion in Wikipedia. In fact, if a biog had to be authorized by its subject for inclusion, then we would only see favourable biogs being included in Wikipedia, which would clearly be against our
Delete - not notable, does not seem to satisfy
]- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this talk) 19:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 23 June 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.
European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights
- European Network for Indigenous Australian Rights (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 WP:ORG. despite its grand name only 6 gnews hits. LibStar (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom, grand name, and there is some coverage, however none of it is significant coverage. Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not informed in this area, but I think it would be important to see if anyone from WikiProject Indigenous Peoples of Australia wants to offer suggestions, since this seems like it could be an organization more notable to specialists in the area than the general public. I'm going to post a neutral request for advice on their talk page. Hash789 (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this talk) 23:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — Misarxist (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 23 June 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.
Use These Spoons
- Use These Spoons (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)
NN, fails
- Delete as article fails all criteria of ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless more significant coverage is presented. All I'm seeing is this review, which on its own is not enough to satisfy ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.
Masjid Annur Islamic Center
- Masjid Annur Islamic Center (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)
Claims to be the largest mosque in the greater Sacramento area. (Granted, Sacramento is the capital and seventh-largest city in California, so this is not claiming to be the largest in East Podunk or something.) Still, Gnews archives show a few articles on the impact 9/11 had on the attendees, an article about their school, and a few others but nothing that seems to make this particular mosque significant. Speedy was declined (though editor/admin noted that they thought the Mosque was the largest in the whole State of California), PROD was removed by another editor because of belief that Mosques are "under-represented" and of the school associated with the Mosque. The school does appear to have more coverage but I'm not an expert on school notability guidelines. However, I don't feel that the Mosque itself has met notability guidelines per
- Comment - The school is apparently a high school, so would definitely be considered notable. Might be best to create "Al-Arqam Islamic School" and merge the information here into that.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve - largest mosque in the metropolitan area of a major city, significant GNEWS hits from WP:Reliable sources about involvement in fund-raising for the Pakistan earthquake, Muslim community relations, etc. Many of these are unfortunately behind paywalls, but not all. I'll try to improve it. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yep, i removed the PROD and I noted in an edit summary that it includes a high school, meeting notability directly by that. I think the article should stay about the mosque first, and include the school coverage; the school is one program of the mosque. That one program suffices to establish notability already, but the mosque is more notable, really, whether our easy-to-apply standards recognize that or not. I also noted in passing that I do believe that mosques are under-represented. (Aside: I believe there is exactly one mosque listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places, whose 85,000 listings include probably 100 places named "First Presbyterian Church", and thousands of other churches. There are 3 other NRHP-listed places with "Mosque" in their name but those are Shriners/Elks/Masonic club places.) --doncram (talk) 13:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - As a WP:OTHERSTUFF applies and becomes Buggs (keep) versus Daffy (delete). ----moreno oso (talk) 18:03, 26 June 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.
The Midnight Curfew
- The Midnight Curfew (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 unauthorized documentary. – Zntrip 04:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN, "fake" dvd. pride 04:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - gets a few notability points since apparantly MTV released the name of the film as the name of their new album creating a buzz with their fans. In the end the film fails ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect sourced stub to My Chemical Romance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 25 June 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.
Mick Wingert
- Mick Wingert (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 BLP (technically, has his personal website and IMDb, weakly justifying removal of the sticky prod). "Best know for" role is voicework in an as-yet unaired TV series. Other credits are "additional voices" roles, producer in a redlinked production and such.
- Delete - per nom. Fails ]
- Delete per nom, very little out there I can find. Hobit (talk) 13:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 June 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.
Reconstellation
- Reconstellation (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 bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN Album. pride 04:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 23 June 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 speedy delete. no indication of notability DGG ( talk ) 23:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sydney Girls High School SRC
- Sydney Girls High School SRC (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)
Trivial, no sources, probably a prank. Grahame (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete (A7). No credible claim of significance or importance, let alone established notability.--]
- Speedy delete. No real claim to notability, and no sources provided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete the school is real, but student council is totally non notable. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - as per nom and ]
- Speedy delete - as per nom. Hash789 (talk) 14:11, 21 June 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. –MuZemike 02:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nolan Menachemson
- Nolan Menachemson (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 WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. 1 hit in gnews [27]. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this talk) 03:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN person, and clearly COI pride 04:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:30, 23 June 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. –MuZemike 02:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Turrell
- Thomas Turrell (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)
Individual is of questionable notability. He does not appear to be a major politician, and does not appear to have held a key role in the UK Youth Parliament. What's more the article is largely written in autobiographical style. roleplayer 00:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Anyone who mentions advertising pizza outlets is clearly non-notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The Youth Parliament is a mere debating forum, with no powers. Regional assemblies had limited powers (until abolished). They consisted of councillors nominated by other councils and a modest number of appointed members. They were thus of similar standing to councils, and councillors are generallly NN. The fact that two of the apparently approprate categories do not exist speaks for itself. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly speedily for lacking a credible claim to notability. There's no significant coverage of him in reliable sources, and the article is based mainly on his own autobio that goes in excruciating detail about his life. I recommend that we use {{]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –MuZemike 02:10, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hugh "Skip" McGee III
- Hugh "Skip" McGee III (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)
limited reported notability, doubtful compliance with wiki
]- Delete Looking at the article's history it is clear that the major content of the article regarded a complaint made by the subject to a school, and the subsequent gossip. That non-issue has been properly removed from the article (zero encyclopedic value), and we now need to evaluate the topic. Since it fails WP:BIO it should be deleted. If any information regarding Lehman is warranted, it should be at Lehman Brothers. Johnuniq (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable, though most likely highly paid, bank employee. talk) 05:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He was one of the top 12 people at Lehman Brothers,[28] and is now one of the top 12 people at Barclays Capital: he's head of global investment banking.[29] Coverage of him dates back to at least 2000:[30]. There is certainly sufficient coverage of him to assert notability, though you have to look in the financial press for much of it. He received significant coverage in at least one book published by a reputable publisher about the financial crisis:[31]. Another mention here:[32]. More significant coverage from Business Week:[33][34][35]. Coverage by Reuters:[36]; the FT:[37]; NYT blog:[38]; Bloomberg:[39]; Forbes:[40]; The Deal:[41]; MarketWatch:[42]; Financial News:[43][44]. Yes, the coverage of his leaked letter was silly, but he notable aside from it and there's also a reliable source for the letter, i.e. the Telegraph:[45] (whether we include it is another matter). Deletion would be a knee-jerk response. Fences&Windows 15:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 15:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per FnW. Plenty of coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He may of been one of the top 12 people at L-man bros but does that mean he is notable or that there will be coverage of him to make a decent biography? Have we got BLP articles of the other eleven top people at L-man bros? As regards Fences and Windows comment and citations were he is only named or briefly mentioned, Fences says,Coverage of him dates back to at least 2000: in the cite provided it smply has his name that is all [46] Perhaps merge with ]
- Peter George Peterson, who does indeed have a bio? Don't just dismiss all the coverage because the citation from 2000 is just mentioning him by name, some of those references discuss McGee in detail. Fences&Windows 18:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and you seem to be under the impression that what I found freely available by Googling is all that has been printed about the man. My Google foo is indeed powerful, but I suspect other sources will exist that I didn't find. And did you try looking for sources in the financial press ]
- I missed these snippet: he's on the advisory councils of the McCombs School of Business at UTA, one of the top US business schools,[47] and the Bendheim Center for Finance [48] at Princeton Fences&Windows 18:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the internal, I missed that, as I said though being one of the 12 top lehman people is not a precurser to a BLP, I appreciate the links but I am swamped with links, you have had a look, is there anything in them that is worthy of adding to the articles about him? Do you have any intention of adding anything from these links? He is on the advisory board of the bla buisness school, what is notable abouut that? nothing, and he is on the belnhiem center for finance, also not worthy of inclusion unless you want to fluff it up, come on, all these links you have added but there is nothing of value to add is there? Surely if there was you would have added it. ]
- Keep and expand the stub. Reliable sources exist to pad it out to a full paragraph. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Article has been greatly improved, all things considered in its present state I would not have nominated it. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. JForget 15:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Marit
Non notable person, same information is pretty much available from the main article for Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities which this page links to. Cat-five - talk 00:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 7 June 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) 00:04, 14 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Second relist rationale. The article is a ]
- Redirect to ]
- Redirect to Saskatchewan Association of Rural Municipalities. Marit's notability is tied up to that group and he wouldn't appear to be independently notable yet. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:50, 27 June 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. NW (Talk) 13:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RTillery
- RTillery (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 real notability shown for this bio. of the coverage provided none of the refs that provide independent coverage of RTillery appear to be reliable sources. nothing satisfying
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 8 June 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) 00:04, 14 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Second relist rationale. The article is a ]
- Delete, doesn't seem to meet either of the WP:ENTERTAINER criteria. There might be an argument for the notability of Decypher Collective, which this person supposedly helped to form, but it's unclear how deep his involvement with the group is. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:49, 27 June 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.
Maxwell Huckabee
- Maxwell Huckabee (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 WP:ENT. the best is 7 appearances in 1 series. and we don't relax guidelines for child actors. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Child actor pushing nicely at meeting significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions"... and his career is not over yet. It serves the project to have this article remain and grow over time and through regular editing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- it is questionable whether these are significant roles. LibStar (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am in strong agreement with MichaelQSchmidt on this one. These are important roles in important projects. And yes, we have not seen the last of this actor. The point made about the "depth" of a given career is long overdue in these discussion. Evalpor (talk) 04:49, 11 June 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, 14 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Second relist rationale. The article is a ]
- Comment. The essence of the article is this: "Maxwell Huckabee is a child actor who took his first role in 2006." It lists his roles, but offers no other details about the subject. Where is the "significant coverage" to pass ]
- What more do you want? He's seven. Named roles in multiple major network series look good enough to me.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want something more than: "He's seven and appeared as kid A in TV show X, kid B in TV show Y, and kid C in TV show Z." The depth of coverage of this subject does not appear to be significant. ]
- Comment. That suggests to me that the article should be expanded a little, not deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You will notice that I have held off making my recommendation. If there are reliable sources with significant coverage, now is the time to use them to expand the article. ]
- The meeting of ENT requires verifiability, but does not also require meeting GNG. While in agreement that meeting the GNG would be delightful, if it were the "only" guideline editors were allowed to consider, there would be no need for any of the notability sub-criteria to exist at all. Interstingly, and toward your request for the preferred "significant coverage", I have seen far too many discussions where editors argued for deletion of articles which quite positively met GNG but failed a chosen sub-criteria. The sword seems to cut both ways, depending on who is wielding it. Since meeting ENT is the proposistion, it would be best to follow the nominator's lead and discuss whether or not the verifiable roles are significant. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- There is no doubt that if a 7-year-old somehow had significant coverage in reliable sources, this discussion might be different. But if an editor believes it serves the project to have a stub remain and be expanded over time and through regular editing, as for example User:Minnowtaur seems to be hinting at above, that would be use of relevent guidelines as well. I suppose this is devolving into the "Immediatism vs Eventualism" argument: If Wikipedia is nearing completion, having something as perfect as possible right away is paramount vs If Wikipedia is still growing, then accepting an artcle as imperfect and allowing it to grow over time and through regular editing might serve. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:12, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- The meeting of ENT requires verifiability, but does not also require meeting GNG. While in agreement that meeting the GNG would be delightful, if it were the "only" guideline editors were allowed to consider, there would be no need for any of the notability sub-criteria to exist at all. Interstingly, and toward your request for the preferred "significant coverage", I have seen far too many discussions where editors argued for deletion of articles which quite positively met GNG but failed a chosen sub-criteria. The sword seems to cut both ways, depending on who is wielding it. Since meeting ENT is the proposistion, it would be best to follow the nominator's lead and discuss whether or not the verifiable roles are significant. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You will notice that I have held off making my recommendation. If there are reliable sources with significant coverage, now is the time to use them to expand the article. ]
- Comment. That suggests to me that the article should be expanded a little, not deleted -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want something more than: "He's seven and appeared as kid A in TV show X, kid B in TV show Y, and kid C in TV show Z." The depth of coverage of this subject does not appear to be significant. ]
- What more do you want? He's seven. Named roles in multiple major network series look good enough to me.Minnowtaur (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No source, just a short bio. I like to insiste that we don't talk about the future actor b/c the wikipedia IS NOT a crystal ball. we just check the article and vote. If someone want to save the article he has to find reliable source. and a question: These are important roles in important projects, ok, good! but how do you know this?Farhikht (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I see no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion here is not that the actor might meet GNG, but that he meets ENT... and meeting ENT does not also
requiremandate always meeting GNG, else there would be no reason to have notability subcriteria at all. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assertion here is not that the actor might meet GNG, but that he meets ENT... and meeting ENT does not also
- Keep - the part in Dexter was fairly substantial. The stub needs ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep - there are plenty of reliable sources easily available about this notable college basketball player. I know next to nothing about basketball, but I know my BLP. This AfD has been listed for over two weeks. Would someone please add the sources found herein? Bearian (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Raymar Morgan
- Raymar Morgan (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)
College athlete, fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If you will click the provided "search news" link at the top of this AfD, significant third party coverage is readily apparent. Gigs (talk) 00:59, 12 June 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, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep extensive non-trivial third party coverage, thus meets GNG -Drdisque (talk) 01:54, 16 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Second relist rationale. The article is a ]
- Delete No indication that he meets the expectations of WP:ATHLETE for college players. No postseason awards or All-America picks. "Coverage" is no more than can be expected of any player of an elite-level college basketball program. Coverage by recruiting sites is not truly significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not true. As others indicate, there is robust genuine coverage by RSs. I've provided the diffs of same, in both RS articles and books, in my comment below.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per DarkAudit, there isn't any genuine significant coverage, and he likely fails both ]
- Delete - We have an essay for basketball players and I think the article fails ]
- Keep Just noticed this while working on WP:FOUR) 15:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although he is not expected to be chosen in the June 24, WP:FOUR) 15:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has enough third party coverage and was a crucial player in Michigan State's run to the 2009 Final Four, and until his injury this past season he was a major influence in their successful season as well. I doubt he'll get drafted in the 2010 NBA Draft, but the 2010-11 NBA season doesn't even begin for another four months. Let's wait and see if he gets picked up as an undrafted free agent prior to the start of the season, and if he doesn't then re-list him here. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article needs a lot of work but he appears notable. Check out this - [49]. This article may help the article out [50]. Remember (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought this sentence might be of some use to establish his notability "He's won two straight Big Ten championships...He went to the Sweet 16 his first two years, now he's gone to back-to-back Final Fours. He's scored over 1,000 points, has 800 rebounds, it's just the expectations are so high. And he made the winning free throw. So now I guess what he can do is go out and win a national championship." [51]. Remember (talk) 16:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable collegiate athlete. IMO, a player needs to be at least a first-team all-conference player to meet notability requirements (and even that probably isn't enough) or do something else of note. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Well-referenced in RS books and RS articles, the core test of notability. See, for example, this, this, and this. This isn't even a close call. I would suggest that nom in the future do the required ]
- Comment The nature of sports is that there is a lot of media coverage from reliable sources. However, the same coverage is applied to all Division I teams across the country. The fact is, Morgan is an above-average player that hasn't done anything notable compared to other Division I college basketball players. — X96lee15 (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Our standard wp:Basic notability test clearly applies to athletes ("A person is presumed to be notable if he ... has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."). He meets it. Extensive coverage in RSs always, without exception, qualifies a bio for a "keep". With all due respect, your POV that he is "above average that hasn't done anything notable compared to ..." misses the point. That's POV, which impacts not at all the issue of whether he has sufficient RS coverage to qualify for notability under wiki standards. That, he does. And, with all due respect, your personal test, which you set forth above, is not the wikipedia guideline. He so clearly meets the wiki standard that this nom and discussion is actually a waste of time, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nature of sports", as you put it, creates many people that Wikipedia standards consider notable, because as you noted, sports are extensively covered by the news media. If an individual meets WP:GNG, significant coverage from reliable independent sources, then they are notable to Wikipedia. All Division I athletes do not receive the same amount of coverage, and certainly all do not receive enough to meet WP:GNG. Morgan has. Strikehold (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "The nature of sports", as you put it, creates many people that Wikipedia standards consider notable, because as you noted, sports are extensively covered by the news media. If an individual meets
- Keep He passes a newspaper company), MLive 2, MLive 3, MLive 4, MLive 5, MLive 6, MLive 7. Strikehold (talk) 22:41, 22 June 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.
Durrell Summers
- Durrell Summers (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)
College athlete, fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep significant third party coverage apparent in Google news search. Gigs (talk) 01:01, 12 June 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, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep extensive non-trivial third party coverage, thus meets GNG -Drdisque (talk) 01:55, 16 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Second relist rationale. The article is a ]
- Delete An elite-level college basketball program such as Michigan State will garner more than it's fair share of "coverage". Players on these teams will frequently be the subject of "feature" articles for no other reason than their presence on the team. That does not guarantee that the player is notable. There is no indication that this player has won any postseason awards or was picked for All-America status. DarkAudit (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To the contrary - their presence on the team and subsequent extensive media coverage indicates their notability and meeting of WP:GNG. -Drdisque (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - major college players are usually notable. He clearly meets the requirement of significant coverage in reliable sources. --B (talk) 05:41, 26 June 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) 03:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isaiah Dahlman
- Isaiah Dahlman (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)
College athlete, fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Fails
- Keep meets the WP:GNG significant third party coverage is apparent in the Google news search. Gigs (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete - per nom. Fails
- 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, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep extensive non-trivial third party coverage, thus meets GNG -Drdisque (talk) 01:55, 16 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Second relist rationale. The article is a ]
- Speedy Delete - per nom. Cf. above. ----moreno oso (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The actual stats for this player put the lie to "significant coverage". Any player for an elite-level program such as Michigan State will attract an abundance of coverage. That does not make the player automatically notable. There is no indication that this player received any postseason awards or was selected as an All-American. DarkAudit (talk) 00:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No awards. Fails ]
- Delete 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 delete. Consensus seems to be the article does not pass
]Kay Rush
- Kay Rush (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)
Publicity page seeking to establish notablility of a non notable person. No references to verify and no true notability asserted. All external links are spammy in nature Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Kay rush is a notable person in Italy.User:Lucifero4
- Using Google, which I agree is not the ultimate arbiter of notability, I see no notability for this person from reliable sources, certainly yet. When and if Kay Rush is verifiably notable then she may have an article with pleasure. So far she appears to have been very involved with self publicity in this article in an apparent attempt to create notability. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise one's self. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kay Rush has been the host of San Remo music festival, Raiuno is also the most viewed tv station of Italy.User:Lucifero4
- Please see this google search. Wikipedia requires verifiability, assuming that this is notable. If you have relevant citations then add them to the article. That is what will save it, not the making of statements here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see San Remo Festival#Hosts, where Rush's name is absent. This looks to be the festival you mention. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a link of rush in San Remo [52], then a link from Raiuno official website where Rush is mentioned with the surname Sandvik[53] the surmane of his stepfather .User:Lucifero4
- Youtube is not a valid source for citations. As for the other one, I thought Rush was a lady. If you have valid citations please ensure that you add them to the article. Note that they must pass WP:RS to be acceptable. Adding links here is pointless. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have place the links in order to show to everyone that Rush is a well known woman and because you have written that you can find citation about rush in Sanremo.User:Lucifero4
- And I can still find none. 'Sandvik' is Sandvik; where does Sandvik equate to Rush? Where can this be cited? And Youtube is not relevant here. FInd citations and place them in the article if you can. So far all you are achieving is a long and fruitless discussion. The article is a curriculum vitae and an advert. It is borderline Speedy Deletion material. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB: "Pazza famiglia" (1995) TV series (as Kay Sandvik) - BalthCat (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is a user edited site and thus not a ]
- Google reveals plenty of adequate if not ideal sources. The most reliable mistakenly spells it with a C, so I suppose we can't "prove" anything. Just pretend the information doesn't exist, since you can't find it in a peer reviewed article, I guess. Or does that mean we have to spell her name wrong, since it's sourced as such? - BalthCat (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IMDB is a user edited site and thus not a ]
- IMDB: "Pazza famiglia" (1995) TV series (as Kay Sandvik) - BalthCat (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And I can still find none. 'Sandvik' is Sandvik; where does Sandvik equate to Rush? Where can this be cited? And Youtube is not relevant here. FInd citations and place them in the article if you can. So far all you are achieving is a long and fruitless discussion. The article is a curriculum vitae and an advert. It is borderline Speedy Deletion material. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have place the links in order to show to everyone that Rush is a well known woman and because you have written that you can find citation about rush in Sanremo.User:Lucifero4
- Youtube is not a valid source for citations. As for the other one, I thought Rush was a lady. If you have valid citations please ensure that you add them to the article. Note that they must pass
- That is a link of rush in San Remo [52], then a link from Raiuno official website where Rush is mentioned with the surname Sandvik[53] the surmane of his stepfather .User:Lucifero4
- Please see
- Please see this google search. Wikipedia requires verifiability, assuming that this is notable. If you have relevant citations then add them to the article. That is what will save it, not the making of statements here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kay Rush has been the host of San Remo music festival, Raiuno is also the most viewed tv station of Italy.User:Lucifero4
- Using Google, which I agree is not the ultimate arbiter of notability, I see no notability for this person from
- Wikipedia requires Reliable Sources, not adequate sources. It's an encyclopaedia, not a gossip column, and it is certainly not a place for Kay Rush to establish her own notability as she appears to be seeking to do. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, why is verifiability a suggested tag under WP:ATD? (Also don't bother me with Rush's COI, that's a completely separate issue.) - BalthCat (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are so keen on saving the article, cease the rhetoric and hop in and edit it and save it that way. Currently is is pretty much blatant advertising. Wikipedia is not a place to post your resumé. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If that is the case, why is verifiability a suggested tag under
- Wikipedia requires
- Note to closer I think this would benefit from relisting. The original listing was slap bang in the middle of a set of procedural nominations and/or relistings and may have been obscured. I see insufficient interest even to classify this as no consensus at this stage. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:36, 20 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Keep: Notability is asserted multiple times, such as She wins a Telegatto, the Italian equivalent for an Emmy. The claim is that she's all over notable television networks and shows. This may be a BLP but there appears to be nothing contentious, this really ought to be brought to the attention of some WikiProjects for fixing. - BalthCat (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete."Notability is asserted multiple times"? In this article it is, yes, but there are no references to show so outside wiki. Moriori (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this refers to me: Sourcing is a problem to be fixed. WP:ATD says If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. - BalthCat (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's your chance then. If you fix the problem, I'll change my vote. Moriori (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "vote" isn't needed. You might take to heart that it's as much your responsibility as mine to find proper sources for this article. - BalthCat (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like hell it is. Every editor has the right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work. It is not our responsibility to come along after them and do their job for them. We're already busy trying to make wiki look like an encyclopedia.Moriori (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So in what way is it my responsibility more than yours? WP:ATD is pretty clear. If you want to do something extraordinary, like delete an article with clear assertions of notability and significant indication in weak sources that notability may be verifiable, then YOU go the extra mile. The verify tag exists for a reason: tag it and move on. - BalthCat (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How disingenuous. I didn't say it is more your responsibility than mine. I said editors have a right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work without having to do it for them. It is revealing that you think my vote isn't needed. Moriori (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this isn't my work, or my creation, so challenging me to justify and reference it is making it my responsibility to fix this article's problems. There's nothing disingenuous about calling you on that. Your vote isn't needed (by me, at least) because you haven't provided a justifiable reason for deleting this article, considering the clear meaning of ]
- How disingenuous. I didn't say it is more your responsibility than mine. I said editors have a right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work without having to do it for them. It is revealing that you think my vote isn't needed. Moriori (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So in what way is it my responsibility more than yours? WP:ATD is pretty clear. If you want to do something extraordinary, like delete an article with clear assertions of notability and significant indication in weak sources that notability may be verifiable, then YOU go the extra mile. The verify tag exists for a reason: tag it and move on. - BalthCat (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like hell it is. Every editor has the right to ask people to justify/reference their creations/work. It is not our responsibility to come along after them and do their job for them. We're already busy trying to make wiki look like an encyclopedia.Moriori (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "vote" isn't needed. You might take to heart that it's as much your responsibility as mine to find proper sources for this article. - BalthCat (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's your chance then. If you fix the problem, I'll change my vote. Moriori (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this refers to me: Sourcing is a problem to be fixed.
- Keep She is a well known radio personality in Italy. That's what the first result from a Google news search told me. [54] Plus if she's won a notable award, that counts too. Dream Focus 04:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - notability is asserted plenty of times, but there's no genuine significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails [{WP:BIO]], ]
- Comment Precisely the reason I nominated it. This page seeks to establish the subject's notability, it does not record it from ]
- Do you people ever actually read WP:ATD then proceeds to specifically tell you that the { { verify } } tag is there for you to use. How is this not an obvious directive to keep articles that assert notability until there is indication (aside from some googling) that the article is unverifiable? - BalthCat (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking as one of you people, a term which I find to be disparaging to the point of general incivility, I have read it. I have chosen to nominate it because those tags have just plain not workd. If you care that much then leap in and edit it. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would need an army to fix all the articles nominated for deletion despite WP:ATD, among others. I'm not entirely sure what would satisfy people at this point, to be completely honest. Pazza famiglia 2 had an average audience of 5.4 million viewers as per this. I find other Google book references, but I can't read Italian. - BalthCat (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would need an army to fix all the articles nominated for deletion despite
- Speaking as one of you people, a term which I find to be disparaging to the point of general
- Do you people ever actually read
- Comment Precisely the reason I nominated it. This page seeks to establish the subject's notability, it does not record it from ]
- Delete - The babble 04:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doubt has been expressed over whether sources are likely to exist. To rebut this, sources should be shown. Yes, there are many claims of notability, but no sources to back them up. At the moment WP:V is as much a problem as WP:N. Bear in mind that had this been created a couple of months later it would have been deleted as BLPPROD. I cannot imagine why we should be any less stringent going through an AfD than sticking a prod on. talk) 10:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I legally changed my adopted name back to my birth name, hence the confusion with Rush and Sandvick. In Europe, they had difficulty spelling and pronouncing my name Kay Rush Kayrush (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Article in English about me and my name change: http://www.onmilwaukee.com/ent/articles/kaytalks.html Now that we are past this obstacle, what do I need to do or cancel to make my page acceptable? It was already in Wikipedia Italia; I only translated it. I am also in Wikipedia Spain because I worked in television there for four years. I have not had any problems in either of these countries. If I have to cancel some sentences, no problem. I do not need the publicity; I only wanted the page in my mother tongue for people who do know me in the United States. Thank you. Kay Rush Kayrush (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at the Italian and Spanish articles. As far as I can determine, the sources there do not pass WP:RS either. Their standards may be different from here, of course. I have no way of judging. But, so far as I can tell, even using those sources as citations fails to assert and/or verify notability. Ms Rush has asked me for advice on my talk page, and I have responded there in the hopes that she may yet find appropriate sources to allow this article to be kept. I have also advised her that editing an article about one's self is deprecated. Perhaps an editor who feels strongly about keeping this article might approach her to help her avoid COI. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked at the Italian and Spanish articles. As far as I can determine, the sources there do not pass
- Article in English about me and my name change: http://www.onmilwaukee.com/ent/articles/kaytalks.html Now that we are past this obstacle, what do I need to do or cancel to make my page acceptable? It was already in Wikipedia Italia; I only translated it. I am also in Wikipedia Spain because I worked in television there for four years. I have not had any problems in either of these countries. If I have to cancel some sentences, no problem. I do not need the publicity; I only wanted the page in my mother tongue for people who do know me in the United States. Thank you. Kay Rush Kayrush (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- after nearly two weeks at AFD, the side advocating keep still have not satisfied WP:BURDEN- and I can't find any substantial coverage either. Reyk YO! 01:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, for the first week the notice was somewhat lost. Even so those concerned with editing the article only seem to have switched a gear yesterday by asking (above) what to do. Yet the Italian and Spanish articles also suffer fromthe same problem. As someone commented above, I, too, do not read these languages, but I was not satisfied that the media I could find in them were themselves {{WP:RS]] compliant, so reading the text was hardly relevant. And there is Google Translate. We also know that anyone can wrte a book and that you acquire an ISBN as a matter of course whether your book is vanity published or mainstream published. WP:PAPER was quoted, something which looks like a last ditch attempt to save the unsavabale. "Look, we can't actually find any references for this, but let's keep it anyway, we have shedloads of room" is not a valid argument. Itls like taking in all the stray mongrel puppies you can find and pretending they are pedigree dogs and entering them for Crufts. When Ms Rush becomes notable and verifiable, then the article on her has a place here. However I can find, so far, nothing to suggest that she passes our criteria. And her references to "my article" reinforce my belief that this is a publicity exercise, an advert. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also refer to an article about me as "my article", rather than "the article about me" for brevity's sake, as she might refer to "her picture" whether or not it was taken by a provessional photographer or a hobo on the street, so long as the subject was her. I believe the COI issue is completely irrelevent to this AfD. - BalthCat (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I can simply point you to these: ]
- I would also refer to an article about me as "my article", rather than "the article about me" for brevity's sake, as she might refer to "her picture" whether or not it was taken by a provessional photographer or a hobo on the street, so long as the subject was her. I believe the COI issue is completely irrelevent to this AfD. - BalthCat (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To be fair, for the first week the notice was somewhat lost. Even so those concerned with editing the article only seem to have switched a gear yesterday by asking (above) what to do. Yet the Italian and Spanish articles also suffer fromthe same problem. As someone commented above, I, too, do not read these languages, but I was not satisfied that the media I could find in them were themselves {{WP:RS]] compliant, so reading the text was hardly relevant. And there is Google Translate. We also know that anyone can wrte a book and that you acquire an ISBN as a matter of course whether your book is vanity published or mainstream published.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ash Bowie
- Ash Bowie (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)
BLP, unsourced and tagged since creation in February 2007, no showing of notability —Finell 02:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced and notability not even asserted. Playing a guitar does not in itself make a person notable.
Wolfview (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of independent coverage (reviews and interviews) for this guitarist:
- [55] City Pages
- [56] PopMatters
- [57] Duke Chronicle
- [58] Pitchfork
- [59] The Stranger (newspaper)
etc. --
]- Keep: Passes talk) 01:41, 15 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply - Keep: Notability is indeed asserted. Passes ]
- Keep -- notable, passes ]
- Keep. Coverage more than adequately demonstrates notability.--Michig (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above evidence of notability. -- roleplayer 12:53, 21 June 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
ABCT GLBT Special Interest Group
Non notable sub group of a professional body, no evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources so fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge back to the parent org. Jclemens (talk) 00:38, 16 June 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, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete - no Ghits, no coverage anywhere, non-notable. Minor4th (talk) 04:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge to ABCT Couples Special Interest Group, for the same reason.) --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 28 June 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
Logic and Conversation
Delete and Merge content duplicated at
- Merge to ]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply
- Delete. Already covered at Gricean maxims - and perhaps a mention of Grice's 1975 paper should be added to that article (with a reference). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:49, 21 June 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.