Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 September 29
![]() |
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aimery IV of Narbonne
- Aimery IV of Narbonne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of noteability via third party sources. Article has lacked any kind of references or sources, and has been tagged as such since 2007. Jtrainor (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Unfortunately, I believe several reliable sources may be Italian and the usual searches through Google News probably wouldn't provide much. I should note that a user added 1 reference shortly after the page was nominated and the Italian article also provides one source. Honestly, I believe the article needs attention from users familiar with 13th century history and preferably, fluent with Italian. I should note that 2007 was a year where several users were learning about Wikipedia and certain areas weren't as advanced as they are now, but several articles have improved since then. Google Books found a few mentions but, as mentioned, it's likely that additional sources may be Italian or print (haven't been scanned to the Internet yet) and this appears to be so, Italian Google Books provided additional results. SwisterTwister talk 00:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Keep. The Google Books and Scholar searches linked above find loads of sources verifying that Aimery passes ]
- Keep per Phil Bridger. Just a suggestion to Jtrainor that some searching for sources prior to proposing deletion is wise. --Bejnar (talk) 08:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and suggest withdrawal per ]
- Keep. Appears to be a notable person. Passes WP:SOLDIER, which, while unofficial, is still common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I am afraid I am going to throw a couple of spanners into the works: Firstly, between about 1100 and 1400, almost all male Viscounts of Narbonne (and quite a few other relatives) were named either Aimery or Amalric - and, while the family (and most but not all modern historians) do seem to have treated them as two different names, some sources don't (as a name, Aimery quite possibly originated as an Occitan variant of Amalric - compare northern French "Amaury"). Add (or don't add) in the possibly legendary chanson de geste hero from whom the viscounts claimed descent, and the numbering of the Aimerys of Narbonne gets chaotic: our subject can be anything between Aimery IV and Aimery VII, depending on source. So any reference needs to be treated with care, to determine exactly which Aimery (or, indeed, Amalric) is being talked about. Secondly, either name could apparently be translated into Italian as Amerigo - and sources seem split between whether the "Amerigo di Narbona" of the Battle of Campaldino (who definitely seems to be notable) was Aimery IV or his son and successor as viscount of Narbonne, Amalric II (see, for instance, the fr:Bataille de Campaldino article on French Wikipedia or these Google results). Having said all this, even if he wasn't the Amerigo di Narbona at Campaldino, there seem to be enough sources on Aimery IV (mainly his patronage of Guirart Riquier but also his involvement in southern French politics of the late 13th century) to make a case for his notability. PWilkinson (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are absolutely correct. I believe that Guiraut wrote a planh for the first Aimery and also wrote about his son. I believe that it was the latter at the battle of Campaldino and that he is the same person as Amalric II. Thus, the current article should probably be moved to Amalric II of Narbonne and another article on the real Aimery IV be created. But any numbering we choose will be contradicted by some source or other, the best of which appear to be in French and I have no access to them except through some sparse Google Books previews. Vicomtes et vicomtés dans l'Occident médiéval edited by Hélène Débax has what looks like a very useful article in it. And I'm sure some issues of the Annales du Midi do too. I will continue to add what I can on the presumption that this article is about a young warrior at Campaldino (not his father who was viscount at the time). Srnec (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep (possibly renamed) -- we have articles on many medieval peopel who did much less. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:SNOW. It is indicative of our recentism that such an article is even *considered* for deletion. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus Ambivulus
- Marcus Ambivulus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of noteability through third party sources. There's not going to be any either, because he's been dead for centuries. Should be merged to some kind of list. Jtrainor (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't understand how a governor of Judaea fails notability criteria. Wikipedia:Notability (people) provides general guidelines for notability, including "[p]oliticians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office...." There may not be much known about Ambivulus, but there's enough to support a stub, and one could certainly add more explaining his significance and place in history. Even though only one original source is cited now (Josephus) and one recent book based entirely on it, it's entirely possible that Ambivulus is mentioned in other sources, perhaps with additional information. So we're not dealing with a non-notable subject, and there's no need to delete a historical stub with the potential to be expanded.
- The reason for deletion given here seems to be that there's no third-party source. That isn't one of the criteria for deletion. If all persons known only from historical sources such as Josephus (or Livy, or Valerius Maximus) were deleted, we'd be deleting hundreds of articles about persons from classical antiquity. I don't see how that would make any sense. P Aculeius (talk) 03:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep The nomination proposes merger not deletion. And the nomination fails to explain how merger would improve matters. Warden (talk) 07:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As prefect/procurator of Judea and Samaria, he complies with the guidelines for notability. In addition, while there may not be any further details of his life or career at the moment, that is not to say that an inscription will not come to light at some point, outlining his career in further detail. Oatley2112 (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, obviously, per ]
- Keep. I don't know where the nominator gets the idea that there are no third-party sources; even a cursory search of Google Books indicates otherwise. And I'm pretty sure we have lots of articles on people who have been dead for centuries, so I fail to see how that's a criterion for deletion. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A Google books search shows plenty of reference to him, either under this name or as "Marcus Ambibulus"; it isn't SYNTH to take the two as the same, since the years of Roman procuratorship match. The mentions aren't in-depth but they establish notability and are encyclopedic. The merger is also not tenable for the same reasons a deletion isn't. Churn and change (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. "No indication of noteability through third party sources. There's not going to be any either, because he's been dead for centuries" has got to be one of the silliest things I've read during my time on Wikipedia. Provincial governors are most definitely notable by virtue of their office. They don't have to have someone jumping up and down shouting "he's notable"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per all the above. And seriously? Intothatdarkness 15:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Obvious keep -- I expect it will never be more than a short article, but we should certainly have it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I added annother ref. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 QT Inc.. merge & redirect as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biometal Socks
This is
]- Merge to (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge maybe a single sentence to QT Inc. and redirect. --MelanieN (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect as above. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will
]Polish parliamentary election, 2015
- Delete Content largely off-topic (the 2011 election); the only reference to the 2015 election is, as nom mentions, a WP:CRYSTALBALL reference. No inline citations, and even adding them is not helpful, since there is no notability or enough content for an article. Churn and change (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is mistitled because the next election could take place before 2015, but, if we have any verifiable information, there is no reason not to have an article on the ]
- If enough material exists, yes an article would work. We have an article on the US elections for 2014. If not, as is the case here from the complete lack of sources, it won't. We don't have an article on US elections for 2016 (except for the Senate in 2016). Note that this applies to the gubernatorial elections too, and isn't hence a function of the two-year term of the US congress. It is just that the year 2016 is a bit too far out. If that holds for the US elections, I don't see Polish elections for 2015, affecting a smaller group, being more relevant. The article can be recreated closer to election time. Churn and change (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If enough material exists, yes an article would work. We have an article on the US elections for
- Delete or userfy if requested, but now it is really ]
- Comment. I am willing to support keeping this IF a single ref about 2015 election is added to the article. Future elections can be notable, if they are discussed by sources. Just saying that an election will happen is not very useful, a note on a page like Next Finnish parliamentary election and a number of other election pages suffering from similar no meaningful content from the elections in 2013+ categories. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to be anything to say about this yet. The article is mainly about the previous election. If there is more substantial information that can be added, I'll change my vote. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or userfy per ]
- Userfy - seems premature. --Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 12:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Giselle V. Steele
- Giselle V. Steele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I came across this article while doing a search on 2012 novels and I noticed that there was a general lack of sources and a lack of anything in the article to show that she would pass
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This has been around for years, but it reads like a publisher's puff piece, and it is no surprise to find that all the contributors are ]
- Delete. The reviews mentioned at her own webpage do not meet the WP standard of two credible, independent reviews for notability of a book. She has no potential notability other than as an author. Churn and change (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete - Both Google US and Google Cuba provided nothing relevant and, considering that the article mentions she is a physician, I searched Google Scholar but found nothing. As mentioned by Churn and change, the reviews listed at her website for her new book "THE BURNING OF GREY" are not sufficient for Wikipedia standards. Although her website's "books" section lists several books, it appears that she has never received any significant coverage much less her books. Giselle V. Steele is not notable at this time. I should also note that, considering that the article was heavily edited by the publisher's Wikipedia account, it was significantly trimmed prior to this AfD nom. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking evidence of in-depth coverage in independent sources. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft Roslyn
- )
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. This overly technical article is not
Really now? Have you even used .NET? Do you know what it is? Roslyn is a milestone development in the .NET framework, and is at the core of Microsoft's next iteration of the .NET Framework and Visual Studio 2012 development. Noldorin (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please no talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - at least a few third-party reliable source material seems to exist. [2] [3]. talk) 23:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. That's quite true. I thought it still does not fit the bill for "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" especially since Mary Jo Foley usually gets more and more closer to rehashing a dependent source. But let's see what comes out of this discussion. Not all the AfDs end in deletion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to ZDNet and InfoWorld, also coverage in Visual Studio Magazine[4][5] (an independent publication), ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the coverage in Visual Studio Magazine and The Register listed above. The topic passes WP:GNG. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep as it's notable. MountWassen (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Microsoft Forefront. merge & redirect as suggested DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forefront Protection Server Management Console
- )
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I believe this stub does not have
- Merge and redirect to ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Microsoft Forefront as the previous speaker said. MountWassen (talk) 07:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Microsoft Forefront. merge & redir DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forefront Protection for Exchange Server
- )
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I believe this article about a discontinued software product lacks
]- Dear Codename Lisa, please disclose the competing antivirus company which you work for! I strongly suspect that to be the case. MS FPE is indeed a notable product, with many millions of seats licenced worldwide. It is not discontinued, it remains officially supported with malware/spam fingerprint database updates and potential security patches until April 2015, but no new software versions or new feature-adding service packs will be published from Sep 2012. This kind of "extroduction" from the market realistically gives current operators 1 to 1.5 years to move on to other Microsoft in-house offerings (typically Forefront Online Protection for Exchange a.k.a. the new Exchange Online Protection) or buy into solutions from any 3rd party IT-sec vendor. 87.97.99.95 (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Microsoft Forefront as the previous speaker said. MountWassen (talk) 07:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Microsoft Forefront. merge & redirect as suggested; stuartyeates, could you do the merges for these 3, please. DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forefront Protection for SharePoint Server
- )
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 23:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I believe this article about a discontinued product lacks
- Merge and redirect to ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 20:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Microsoft Forefront as the previous speaker said. MountWassen (talk) 07:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to amantadine. I note the current debate, but it's really an open-and-shut case. The current article is a poor fork of the same exact compound located at a different article title. There is absolutely no reason to keep to parallel articles. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adamantamine
Delete. Non-notable chemical and it is no more than a technical summary. After tagging it with multiple issues I thought that deletion is in order. Note that it has been CSDed and PRODed (and now AFDed!). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Will the nominator take this to DRV when this third attempt to delete the article fails? See ]
- No. And what is your reason for keeping the page? I won't grace it with the term "article". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're the one trying to make a case here and nobody's buying it. You've been told already by two admins that they are not going to delete the article. What's your ]
- You seem to miss the point the the CSD and the PROD were declined on procedural grounds and you don't seem to be aware of the fact the another editor had put it up for CFD. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I take issue with describing my edits as being disruptive. Why do you think an attempt to remove a poorly written page on a topic that is not really justified can be classed as disruptive? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, as per Wikipedia:AFD#Before_nominating:_checks_and_alternatives, nominators should always search to see if the article can be rewritten and improved including searching for sources. Considering that this article was science-related, there would have certainly been several sources with Google Books or Google Scholar. I have started several successful nominations due to my careful and thorough searching for sources, one of them includes Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Black Press Foundation. Searching for sources will save time for users and the article itself rather than deleting a potentially useful article. SwisterTwister talk 21:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, as per
- (edit conflict)*But WP on the whole can be improved incrementally be deleting the article (IMO). To edit with the big picture in mind is not disruptive. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - First, I should note that the speedy tag was declined because it provided context for viewers. Although the article is not written like a usual Wikipedia page, this is not a case for deleting the page. The article also needs attention from a chemist or chemists, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry may be useful thus I have notified them of this debate. Although I'm very fascinated with science, I am not an expert, unfortunately, but it appears that Google News archives found one result and Google Books found several. Articles for components should always be kept as they have potential. SwisterTwister talk 21:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The identifier number is a tip off. It is highly notable compound, so I replaced this klutzy draft with a redirect to a polished article on Amantadine. Names for chemical compounds are horrendous. Hopefully this change takes care of business, otherwise undo my work with no bad feelings. --Smokefoot (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD discussions are normally kept open for seven days and so your action was perhaps too precipitate. I have reverted so that editors may continue to inspect the article in question. Note that multiple sources such as Neurochemistry of aminosugars indicate that Amantadine is the hydrochloride salt of Adamantamine and so they wouldn't be quite the same compound. Warden (talk) 21:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But why keep such a poorly written page in article namespace? It does WP and its readers no favours. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:41, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is our ]
- You are incorrect in thinking that I have not created any articles. Also, retaining such article as this one (and I am hardly tearing down the work of others since there was no effort made) is simple adding to the backlog that we are not clearing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original author provided much technical content and several sources which seem to be high quality. You, on the other hand, failed to engage in discussion on the article's talk page; failed to consider alternatives to deletion; and only waited four minutes after tagging the article for improvement before nominating it for deletion. You have wasted the time of several editors in the unproductive process of deletion such as this obnoxious discussion. It would have been better if, after tagging the article for improvement, you had moved on to another topic. In due course, one would expect a member of the Chemistry project such as User:Smokefoot to come along and normalise the content in line with other similar topics. See festina lente. Warden (talk) 22:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that your desire to retain this page is completely misguided and is clouding your judgement. Yes, there is content and the sources appear to be of a suitable type but we should not allow such poorly formed articles in article namespace. And once again you have your facts wrong. I did not nominate the article for deletion after four minutes. Another editor pout it up for CSD after an our and I put it up for a PROD after three hours. We are all wasting our time here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- When your PROD was removed, you ]
- All the essays and the policies that you point to show that WP has a number of flaws that need addressing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Flawed articles need to be deleted especially if they are promotional, but Adamantamine is not. As I mentioned, the only issue is that this article needs attention from an expert, simple. SwisterTwister talk 01:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the current number of articles in WP I think we should be taking a harder line on poor quality articles otherwise we will never clear our backlog and never get around to writing the articles that are missing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A verified chemical, per the sources available in this search here (for CAS Registry number 768-94-5, for starters) and per sources provided above by User:SwisterTwister. I've significantly cleaned-up the article's style and layout. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Honestly. All that was needed was a call to Amantidine and it should be turned into a redirect. User:Smokefoot was BOLD, and had his actions been allowed to stand then this would all have been over a long time ago and everybody could get on with useful stuff instead of wringing their hands and abusing each other. Please, somebody with some sense close this and turn it into a redirect.Chris (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Color and communication
The page is wroten as an
- Note: The article has been now tagged for speedy deletion per CSD A10. Personally, I agree. Sorry, I've not considered this criterion for CSD. --Dэя-Бøяg 18:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — This topic is not WP:OR; the "sources" at bottom are crap: not particularly reliable, unscientific, and promotional/adverts. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Pretty much all ]
Delete It's ]
- Keep Per DGG. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, source, merge with the other article, and expand A valid topic, about which there are many references available. The manner of introduction into wp is unfortunate, but I think it represents a good faith attempt at an article. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick check for books in WorldCat: Favre, Jean Paul, and André November. Color and, Und, Et Communication. Zürich: ABC Edition, 1979 has been published in several languages & is in hundreds of libraries. Knight, Carolyn, and Jessica Glaser. The Graphic Designer's Guide to Effective Visual Communication: Creating Hierarchies with Type, Image, and Color. Hove: RotoVision, 2000 is also in hundreds of libraries. Arnoldi, Per, and James Manley. "Colour Is Communication": Selected Projects for Foster+Partners 1996>2006. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2007 is a more specialized book on the work of a single firm, illustrating the appropriateness of the phrase. Also immediate relevant are Berger, Arthur Asa. Seeing Is Believing: An Introduction to Visual Communication. Mountain View, Calif: Mayfield Pub. Co, 1998.And there's Tufte, Edward R. Visual Design of the User Interface: Information Resolution, Interaction of Design Elements, Color for the User Interface, Typogragphy and Icons, Design Quality. Armonk, N.Y.: IBM, 1989.-- and his later famous works -- some of us may have heard of him. Additionally, ever book of graphic communication discusses this extensively DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Smerge to Color psychology. I'm also concerned that there appear to have been numerous copyright violations in the text - I've removed what I can find, but the fact that I and other editors have had to remove substantial passages because they repeated the sources verbatim makes me highly suspicious of the remaining content. Yunshui 雲水 08:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jituparida. Yunshui 雲水 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per User:Yunshui per redundant to Color psychologyCurb Chain (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, source, merge with the other article, and expand as per User: DGG. MountWassen (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into color psychology. The topic of color psychology is color and communication. As noted in the color psychology lead paragraph, color psychology is the study of color as a determinant of human behavior. Human behavior only is affected by color if color is communicated to the human. If the color is not communicated to the human, then the human is not affected by it. "Color and communication" is a fork of color psychology and covers the same topic - the psychology reaction of humans to the communication reception of color. Topics that would be different from this are (i) the communication transmission of color from a source item (e.g., how they need to use gold in stained glass to get wine red and violet to transmit outward) and (ii) communication travel of color (e.g. reflective light waves through the air and things that may affect such travel) between its transmission from a source item and its receiption by a target (e.g., a human). Since color and communication is a fork of color psychology, merge any reliably sourced information into color psychology and delete the rest of color and communication. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there were useful and well-sourced material in this article, I'd recommend a merge to Color psychology. Unfortunately, this is not the case. In this article, OR and statements from sources are inextricably interwoven; since the few references appear at the end of the article with no footnotes indicating which sources go with which assertions, it'd be impossible to separate out the sourced material and incorporate it into the color-psychology article. Copy the references to Talk:Color psychology, then delete this article as unsalvageably tainted with OR. Ammodramus (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The subject is covered, better, at color psychology. --John Nagle (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How colour affects communication
- How colour affects communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The page is wroten as an
- Delete — Not a speedy deletion criterion jumped out at me as a shortcut to discussion. JFHJr (㊟) 20:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ]
- Delete and someone start an SPI if necessary. ⁓ Hello71 16:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, source, merge with the other article, and expand A valid topic, about which there are many references available. This seems a good faith but naïve atempt at an article, attempted in two versions under different titles. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a quick check for books in WorldCat: Favre, Jean Paul, and André November. Color and, Und, Et Communication. Zürich: ABC Edition, 1979 has been published in several languages & is in hundreds of libraries. Knight, Carolyn, and Jessica Glaser. The Graphic Designer's Guide to Effective Visual Communication: Creating Hierarchies with Type, Image, and Color. Hove: RotoVision, 2000 is also in hundreds of libraries. Arnoldi, Per, and James Manley. "Colour Is Communication": Selected Projects for Foster+Partners 1996>2006. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2007 is a more specialized book on the work of a single firm, illustrating the appropriateness of the phrase. Also immediate relevant are Berger, Arthur Asa. Seeing Is Believing: An Introduction to Visual Communication. Mountain View, Calif: Mayfield Pub. Co, 1998.And there's Tufte, Edward R. Visual Design of the User Interface: Information Resolution, Interaction of Design Elements, Color for the User Interface, Typogragphy and Icons, Design Quality. Armonk, N.Y.: IBM, 1989.-- and his later famous works -- some of us may have heard of him. Additionally, ever book of graphic communication discusses this extensively DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Largely redundant to Color psychology, and the chunks of copyvio I've had to remove from this and the not SPI confirmed yet user's other article make me extremely concerned for the remaining content. Yunshui 雲水 09:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jituparida. Yunshui 雲水 09:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete redundant to ]
- Weak delete and merge non-redundant information into the abovementioned article. MountWassen (talk) 07:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into ]
- For color and communication, I posted,[11] "Merge into color psychology. The topic of color psychology is color and communication. As noted in the color psychology lead paragraph, color psychology is the study of color as a determinant of human behavior. Human behavior only is affected by color if color is communicated to the human. If the color is not communicated to the human, then the human is not affected by it. "Color and communication" is a fork of color psychology and covers the same topic - the psychology reaction of humans to the communication reception of color. Topics that would be different from this are (i) the communication transmission of color from a source item (e.g., how they need to use gold in stained glass to get wine red and violet to transmit outward) and (ii) communication travel of color (e.g. reflective light waves through the air and things that may affect such travel) between its transmission from a source item and its receiption by a target (e.g., a human). Since color and communication is a fork of color psychology, merge any reliably sourced information into color psychology and delete the rest of color and communication." -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If there were any useful and well-sourced material in this article, I'd vote! for a merge to Color psychology. However, the article apparently interweaves OR and legitimate sourced material, with no way of distinguishing one from the other (since all the citations are piled up at the end, with no indication of which sources go with which assertions). I don't see any way of extracting useful material from this article for a section in the color-psychology article, short of going through the reference list and writing the new section from scratch. Copy the reference list to Talk:Color psychology, then delete this article as unsalvageable. Ammodramus (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The consensus is to delete, with the particularly strong assertions that
George Geritsidis
- George Geritsidis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Following disputed PRODing. The subject does not appear to be individually notable. He is mentioned solely in connection with the suppression of the Polytechnic uprising, which involved several other violent deaths, and his daughters. Constantine ✍ 17:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — This person is not clearly the subject of WP:VICTIM for further reasons to avoid having an article about this apparent victim generally. JFHJr (㊟) 20:23, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As I said on Talk:George Geritsidis when the Prod was removed, Notability is not inherited and there is insufficient evidence that this person was notable in his own right. AllyD (talk) 11:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The subject is individually notable, as said previously, because he is mentioned as being a coverup political murder rather than another entry in the list of violent deaths of the Polytechnic uprising. It has been covered by two newspapers, one right wing and one extremely left wing, so secondary independent sources are present. Note that notability is not ONLY ascertained by extensive coverage but also by quality of coverage. Dimzam10 (talk) 18:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Dimzam10[reply]
- Merge to WP:BLP1E, but I think some of the content would make a good addition to the article about the trials. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Greek and pre 1974 means that we are unlikely to find any English sources online. However, that doesn't mean the topic fails WP:GNG. From what the article currently says,[12] there might be enough reliable source information in the Greek language for a Death of George Geritsidis article, but seems unlikely that there would be enough source material for a George Geritsidis biography article even in the Greek language. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KeepNote that notability is not ONLY ascertained by extensive coverage but also by quality of coverage. Lastly, I added the most important source, the reference of the Greek Court Decision about the Junta Trial and where someone can find the original documents. Dimzam10 (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2012 (UTC)Dimzam10[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. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Liu Ye (artist)
- Liu Ye (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As has been noted by others, article appears to be written like an advertisement. Some of the sources cited are of questionable reliability. Google search using Chinese name yields some independent hits, but not a lot as far as I can see (and some are false positives due to people with same name). Weak delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment He can be found in these two Guardian articles: from June 2011 from June 2010. Also several accessible via Highbeam (subscription reqd): Birmingham Post 2007, China Weekly News 2011 (indicating he is in the "Top-10 ranking of global artists by auction revenue"), International Herald Tribune 2009. AllyD (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Wall Street Journal describes the subject as "one of China's most prominent contemporary painters" [13]. See also the ArtInfo piece from this month about his work in New York: [14]. The article is not wonderful, but that is a matter for normal editing improvement; I'd say we have enough 3rd party sources to indicate the subject's notability. AllyD (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Also featured in China! New Art & Artists by Dian Tong (2005). Ewulp (talk) 08:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Found focused coverage here. Biographical information can be sourced from the National Art Museum of China site (one of the country's largest art museums). Quality of article doesn't decide whether it should be deleted. Churn and change (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dongzi Liu
- Dongzi Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Is what appears to be a single comic publication (by a notable publisher, for sure) sufficient for notability? That appears to be the only potential basis for notability for this person. As an outsider to this field, my feeling is delete, but I'd like more thoughts. --Nlu (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain but possible weak delete - I'm voting delete because it appears that Sang Royal was released two years ago and he hasn't released any recent work since then. I had strong feelings that reliable sources may be French and this is so, Google US provided all French sources and appropriately, Google France provided additional French sources. Unfortunately, I am not fluent with French, but several of them seem to focus with Sang Royal. I also believe that additional reliable sources may be Chinese, considering that the artist is from China. I used the Chinese variation of his name (刘冬子) that the article provides but found no article at Chinese Wikipedia, I also noticed that a French Wikipedia article hasn't been started. SwisterTwister talk 01:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: One source isn't enough for notability, and the source itself isn't reliable. Google searches for both Sang Royal and the author give very few results showing any notability.Lugia2453 (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga because the Anime and Manga wikiproject does not cover manhua. Maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Comics and animation would be the correct place to list it? Calathan (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.
Philica
- Philica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Open access journal in existence since 2006, when an AFD was closed as "no consensus". Tagged for notability and sources since September 2010. No independent sources (there is one reference to a blog interview, but that link just goes to the main page of the blog and a search for "Philica" comes up negative) and the journal is not included in any selective database. Does not meet
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Their innovative method of dealing with peer reviews leads me to believe it may fall under NJ#3: "The journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history.". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 18:37, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as interesting but lacking coverage. If in-depth coverage in multiple independent sources is added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — I've found no indication this journal passes WP:GNG. I'll watch here in case anyone pans gems out of the less-than-reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 19:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I found some good sources on Google Books which I've added to the article. In particular, Fitzpatrick's Planned Obsolescence: Publishing, Technology, and the Future of the Academy (NYU Press 2011) has a 4-page discussion of Philica, but various other sources discuss its innovative nature, advantages and disadvantages. Also mentions in other books and in Nature Physics. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those sources are just an in-passing mention (with the exception of the Fitzpatrick book). Some of the stuff that you added to the article (the Watson and Crick thing) are not supported by the source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - Along with what now is in the Wikipedia article,[15] some sources Web journals threaten peer-review system September 29, 2006, "PLoS ONE, similar to established online academic journals such as Philica and the International Journal of Medical Sciences, is ..."[16], Philadelphia Inquirer October 20, 2006, "Philica, an online interdisciplinary journal that's still in testing, offers a new twist for incorporating readers' opinions."[17], (Footnote 2 cites a Philica article),[18]. Guillaume2303's comment above -- "Some of the stuff that you added to the article (the Watson and Crick thing) are not supported by the source." tips the scale towards weak delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thuppariyum Anandan
- Thuppariyum Anandan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
contains lot of fake information. Nothing is true.. Geocraze (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete... but to make a point of it... asserting "nothing is true" is a bit of overstatement, as "many" things in the article are properly sourcable if one Thuppariyum Anandhan to prevent problems at that time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NFF, lets have the article after the principal photography has begun. --Anbu121 (talk me) 15:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Dont Delete The movie has a page in imdb itself.. so no need to delete this page. -- Thanks, Jeevanantham Karunanithi (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2012
- Anything can get an IMDb page; as well as blockbusters, there's all kinds of totally unimportant small films that about 5 people have ever seen on there. Wikipedia requires a bit more coverage than just an IMDb listing: some reviews or coverage in books or articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Katrīna Šķiņķe
- )
- (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)
I do not think this chess player is notable. Her Elo rating is only around 2200 whereas the notability threshold would be more around 2500 at least. She does not have the Grandmaster title, and not even the Woman Grandmaster title. She has not won major chess tournaments. SyG (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC) SyG (talk) 12:48, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An easy keep, for appearances representing Latvia in three Women's Chess Olympiads and one European Team Chess Championship. Quale (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Quale. Pburka (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find her accomplishments notable as well. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Swain House Watchet
- Swain House Watchet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I declined this G11 and A7 CSD, but I don't think it is notable enough to be kept. I found one source - a review in The Guardian - which satisfies significance (so avoids speedy deletion), but is not enough to establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - a single article in a national newspaper does not confer notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No assertion of notability. Standard review. These days almost every pub, restaurant, and guest house has a review, so existence of a review is not in itself an assertion of notability, merely that the place exists. I think it would have been acceptable to delete this under A7, but understand getting confirmation first. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I cannot belive that any B+B is notable, without very special circumstances. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Dennis Vink
The result of this discussion was 'Deleted'. 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.Douglas Anthony Cooper
The result of this discussion was keep. 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paolo Piliero
- Paolo Piliero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsure about the notability. Please also note this file and this deleted page on Commons. Trijnsteltalk 10:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails ]
- Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in a talk) 15:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Private schools over public schools in namibia
- Private schools over public schools in namibia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per Danrock's PROD (14:21, 26 September 2012) article is an essay by a student whom it cites as one of its own sources. It may be an interesting discussion topic but I do not believe it is an encyclopaedia article. The title's very meaninglessness seems to reinforce this view - how is this a topic?DBaK (talk) 09:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: looking at the user's edit history this may be to some extent based on the (I think) previously speedy-deleted Private schools/institutions - see that history and also User talk:Moshana asser#Your contributed article, Private schools/institutions. DBaK (talk) 09:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as original research. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think you can technically speedy it now it is at AfD and OR is not a speedy criterion - indeed it's an explicit non-criterion there. DBaK (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure ]
- Delete - Per nom, ]
- Delete - WP:OR as above - the links within the article are:- 1) to a picture - 2) broken link - 3) to a poor, generic, discussion on private education in the UK. Arjayay (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Original research and little chance/scope for salvage.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People
- Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Here we go again!! Haha. But yeah. Fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not something I'd ever pick up, but in addition to the one RS in the article, this appears to render it as meeting the GNG. Note that there are many valid articles, including bestseller lists, represented in the default Google News link above. It sounds stupid to me, but it appears to have sufficient coverage, and even if it does fail WP:BK (which is not clear to me), it still passes the GNG. Jclemens (talk) 08:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep its a notable book in the Captain Underpants series why are you nominating it? should I nominate Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets?--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 08:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I haven't really done a search for sources, I will say that we need more than just two sources to show that the book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books or for notability guidelines in general. I set my minimum limit at about 5-6 sources before I start thinking about saying it passes notability guidelines, but I do know that we need more than two. Also, just because a series as a whole is notable does not mean that each individual entry passes notability guidelines. It's actually fairly common for a notable series to not be able to merit individual entries for its books and comparing it to Harry Potter is just silly. While Captain Underpants is pretty well known, it's not as wildly popular and notable as the Harry Potter books are and even if talk) 13:28, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability rules say we need two sources with non-trivial coverage. -- talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What book articles have 5-6 sources in them? Most certainly don't. That just ridiculous. Two is fine, meeting the requirements. Dream Focus 00:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability rules say we need two sources with non-trivial coverage. --
- And as far as the current sources go, neither are actually specifically about this entry in the series. They talk about the series as a whole and give a brief mention of PPotPPP, but it's more of an afterthought than anything else. It would be considered a trivial source at best. That doesn't mean that sources don't exist out there and that the book might not pass notability guidelines after I finish a search but I want to stress that the current sources do not show how this entry has individual notability outside of merely being an entry in a notable series. To show that an individual entry in a series passes notability guidelines, you must show that this specific book has received coverage for this specific entry rather than for the series as a whole.talk) 13:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles can inherit notability when it makes sense to split them off (article length too long for example). That doesn't mean notability is automatically inherited, but a case can be made for it. Clearly the series is notable as a whole, does it make sense to put every book in the series in one article or separate articles? -- talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles can inherit notability when it makes sense to split them off (article length too long for example). That doesn't mean notability is automatically inherited, but a case can be made for it. Clearly the series is notable as a whole, does it make sense to put every book in the series in one article or separate articles? --
- While I haven't really done a search for sources, I will say that we need more than just two sources to show that the book meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for books or for notability guidelines in general. I set my minimum limit at about 5-6 sources before I start thinking about saying it passes notability guidelines, but I do know that we need more than two. Also, just because a series as a whole is notable does not mean that each individual entry passes notability guidelines. It's actually fairly common for a notable series to not be able to merit individual entries for its books and comparing it to Harry Potter is just silly. While Captain Underpants is pretty well known, it's not as wildly popular and notable as the Harry Potter books are and even if
- Comment - The book is on a lot of lists that have been published over time (after November 5, 2005[24]), but there's not much information about the book. Some source material: [25][26]list of best selling books September 7, 2006[27][28]. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All but brief mentions, no more no less. Sad as it is, it seems that this page must go yah? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto on this. Being on bestseller lists or similar doesn't in itself give notability except in very, very rare circumstances. One such circumstance would be if the ALA were to put it on its list of best books for the year. They only choose a limited number of books from the hundreds to thousands of children's books that are released, so that does give notability. However, the book must be on the final official list rather than on any of the ballots and it must be through a very specific source. Otherwise it's something that can be used to flesh out the article as a trivial source, but wouldn't in itself give notability. It's one of those things that have frustrated me, although I can understand why it's done.talk) 14:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto on this. Being on bestseller lists or similar doesn't in itself give notability except in very, very rare circumstances. One such circumstance would be if the ALA were to put it on its list of best books for the year. They only choose a limited number of books from the hundreds to thousands of children's books that are released, so that does give notability. However, the book must be on the final official list rather than on any of the ballots and it must be through a very specific source. Otherwise it's something that can be used to flesh out the article as a trivial source, but wouldn't in itself give notability. It's one of those things that have frustrated me, although I can understand why it's done.
- Redirect to talk) 14:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article length is too long to merge into a single article. Articles can inherit notability when it makes sense to split them off due to practical considerations of article length. With inherited notability it doesn't need to prove on its own that it's notable. It's part of a notable series, and the series article is too long to fit everything into a single article. -- talk) 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This bestselling novel is notable. It is recommended in places such as [29]. Various results from a Google news archive search show promise, but alas are hidden behind paywalls.
- Akron Beacon Journal : FALLS AUTHOR HAS NEW THRILLER $2.95 -Beacon Journal - Aug 27, 2006
- The Waistband Warrior is back in Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple :Potty People, in which George and Harold
- St. Paul Pioneer Press : ONCE HOOKED, THEY'LL BRANCH OUT
... -$2.95 - - St. Paul Pioneer Press - Aug 20, 2006
- "Time For New Underpants," trumpeted the bags, which touted "Captain Underpants and the Preposterous Plight of the Purple Potty People." It's due out this ...
- So not sure how much has been written. And remember, not every newspaper and magazine in the world is indexed by Google. Dream Focus 01:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In regards to the "too long to be merged" statement, the plot summaries of this and other Underpants books are overly detailed and underly sourced p 03:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No question we all agree the series is notable. Whether to have articles on the separate books can be based either on individual notability (which may be debateable from book to book depending on what sources we happen to find), or whether its the best way to organize coverage of the subject. Every time I see one of these books, though, I'll admit I can't believe the titles the author gets away with. Toilet humor is very popular in its target age group, but not so much among book reviewers and wikipedia editors.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Ricky Ricotta's Mighty Robot vs. the Uranium Unicorns from Uranus
Nothing but a plot..... Nothing else, nothing more. Fails
DeleteDelete/Redirect to Dav Pilkey - It appears that the book may not have received significant news coverage. Google News archives found one result here and appears to be an insufficiently detailed book review and Google Books found one result here as part of a book listing for young readers. SwisterTwister talk 22:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Delete/Redirect to talk) 16:12, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an entry for the series as a whole. See Ricky Ricotta's Mighty Robot (series). :) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that! I'm changing it to redirect to the main series article then.talk) 17:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean merge the content, or delete it entirely from Wikipedia? Seems like we could keep this content in the series article. -- talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I missed that! I'm changing it to redirect to the main series article then.
- Merge/Redirect to talk) 23:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've gone ahead and merged all the content into the series article. Reasons are the same above: there is not enough content in these articles to justify standalone, and more so, there is no sourcing to establish notability on a per-book basis. If there is contention, please discuss on the article talk pages and notify me and/or this discussion page. I left the Uranium Unicorns from Uranus article since it's still an active AfD. -- talk) 00:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Captain Underpants. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Underpants and the Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants
- Captain Underpants and the Perilous Plot of Professor Poopypants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sigh. As much as i *love* the captain Underpants saga, one must admit that it fails
- Redirect Despite this being required reading I think at Stanford University for undergrads (I'm pretty sure I heard it from a recent graduate, or noticed it in their writing style), this title would probably be better served hanging out with it's cohort's at talk) 08:29, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh???? Required reading? Not as interesting as String Theory and Gravimetry??? Come again? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol I guess it depends on who is reading it! Regardless of the fun to be had in the discussion, I think you are on target with your suggestions Bonkers! talk) 08:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Im sorry, but i don't quite understand. Graduates are required to read captain underpants??? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol x2 Bonkers :) The Captain series may have been difficult reading for the attendee I infer from there...hehe. Putting it on the recommended list would probably have helped their humor and vernacular though! I ain't being too literal on the actuals here Bonkers, life has to have a little fun in it :) talk) 12:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol x2 Bonkers :) The Captain series may have been difficult reading for the attendee I infer from there...hehe. Putting it on the recommended list would probably have helped their humor and vernacular though! I ain't being too literal on the actuals here Bonkers, life has to have a little fun in it :)
- Im sorry, but i don't quite understand. Graduates are required to read captain underpants??? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol I guess it depends on who is reading it! Regardless of the fun to be had in the discussion, I think you are on target with your suggestions Bonkers!
- Redirect to talk) 16:02, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Same discussion as talk) 01:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers
- Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers
- Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers (2nd nomination)
- Articles for deletion/Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers (3rd nomination)
- Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I love the book, yeah, but still, methinks this fails
- I do notice the changes to the article by Tokyogirl. But is that sufficient to pass the criterion of WP:NB? If yes, happy I would be to withdraw my nomination. * Tra la la!!! * Bonkers The Clown (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It sort of depends on your interpretation, to be honest. While I've used the looseness of talk) 10:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It sort of depends on your interpretation, to be honest. While I've used the looseness of
- So maybe.... As in? On the fence, weak keep, or, weak delete?? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 13:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm going to go with a weak keep. It's lighter than I want but it's just enough to where I'd say that it barely squeaks by.talk) 15:48, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'm going to go with a weak keep. It's lighter than I want but it's just enough to where I'd say that it barely squeaks by.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Same discussion as talk) 01:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:WAX, this discussion may not be the same as that. Also, do you know why the article is so long? Its because of the excessively described plot... So. Being too long to merge into the series article is not a good argument. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn...I withdrew my nomination, and since there was no one who wanted to delete, I believe it is appropriate for me to close this per
]Alan Ruddock
- Alan Ruddock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails an obituary from "The Telegraph"...this doesn't pass the threshold of notability to me Go Phightins! (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply
Response
1) This is a stub- a substantive article with references/citations from multiple sources included < From texts/journals/online interviews etc> is currently being proofed.
2) The obituary from "The Telegraph" relates to another individual with a similar name- suggest your goggle drumming try <Alan Ruddock Aikido> and see what happens
cheers ;->
NortSide505 (talk) 03:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for catching that, I never made the connection that an article saying someone died couldn't have been made 2 years prior...that was dumb of me, it's been a long day. Anyway, that is one less claim to notability, then. Thanks again. Go Phightins! (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Several references have now been added, The stub was (ironically) only put up as a placeholder to facilitate the loading of one of the relevant pictures. Please bear with me as I'm a WK noob. Fully appreciate that verifable sources are required etc but I was doing the background checks on same before committing the 'full' article (which is much longer & provides in-depth citations etc).NortSide505 (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It looks ok to me now. There is enough content for a meaningful stub and the references, while not ideal, seem sufficient. LeSnail (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify a few points:
- This article concerns a *deceased* person.
- One of the primary sources for the additional references is a book, copy of which has been ordered but it sounds like it will be three weeks before it arrives.
- In terms of notability, please google <Alan Ruddock aikido> - this individual was widely known in martial arts.
- I'm new to WP, please allow a little extra time for proofing of the full article, many thanks.
NortSide505 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two additional sections were added earlier. Further content will be added within next week. Written permission is being gathered for some additional photos which may take some extra time.NortSide505 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the search for "Alan Ruddock aikido" gives enough to establish notability, together with his role in establishing Judo in Ireland and his two books. Arjayay (talk) 18:27, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep I'm having problems finding what I consider to be independent sources (I can't find an online version of Leyton's book). I would agree he's notable if he really was the person to introduce both karate and aikido to Ireland, I just wish I saw more independent evidence of that. Papaursa (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for feedback, multiple sources for Laytons book can be found by searching "Layton, Clive (2006). Shotokan Dawn Over Ireland: A Selected, Early History of Shotokan Karate in Eire: 1960-1964. AIKI PATHWAYS"- don't think it's "online" given fact it (seems) to be currently out of print- but notably please check pdf link from here The "core" element of this "Alan Ruddock" entry( with accompanying references from two independently published third party interviews,two book citations, multiple online collabrating links & considerable pictorial evidence (it's been a big task to round up the permission 'sign-offs') is almost complete but I can't put it up until I have a paper copy of Ruddocks "Memoirs" book in hand. Apart from introducing both Aikido & Karate to Ireland, Ruddock is notable by virtue of being one of the few westerners & only Irish national to have be a direct student of the Aikido founder, please appreciate that it's tough to round up verifiable independent evidence as although there are a large number of online references ( eg see here, one of a large number of similar accounts if you know where to look)..many are web forum style sources. But I'm fairly certain that once the entire list of citations is posted ( as per above) , this should more than easily pass both the "notability" & "evidence" criteria essential for WikiP entries. Nearly there- please bear with me!NortSide505 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of article has now been loaded.. as per above, in addition to two texts & two interviews there are several pictures incorporated & multiple other references to provide the 'evidence' requested. This has been an interesting learning experience which will hlep guide my further WP entries;
> Can this 'proposed deletion' discussion please be shut down now so that tag can be removed? NortSide505 (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, nomination withdrawn per the outpouring of additional content, references, verifiable information, and expansion added by several editors. Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NearlyFreeSpeech.NET
- NearlyFreeSpeech.NET (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article completely fails notability test, no sources other than self sources. Its an advertisement. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't the article that should satisfy ]
- There are no reliable sources that cover the subject. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anything either, if Postdlf has a reliable source, then please say what it is. talk) 23:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find anything either, if Postdlf has a reliable source, then please say what it is.
- Delete - this article's references consist of a list of links to the organization's own web site. There are a few mentions of the company at other web sites which discuss web hosting, but those don't seem to be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. So it seems to fail talk) 23:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG, all sources are self published (from the companies own website). Searching yields no unique results. meshach (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 21:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Coast Guard Station Tom's River
Non-notable coast guard station. No sources found to indicate why it's notable and different from others. Tinton5 (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I noticed the 7 sources at the bottom, but I still could not find any of my own. Tinton5 (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this station dates back to the 1870s as the article states, it's quite likely to be on local heritage registers (or whatever the US equivalent of this Australian term is!). Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it isn't listed on the National Register of Historic Places. I found a historic account on the US Coast Guard web site, but it doesn't mention anything about the building being historic or exceptional. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to Seaside Park, New Jersey. This is not an active coast guard station, and the buildings are in use by Seaside Park. We can wind all the information into the borough article, which has plenty of space for expansion. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:31, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - My own personal belief is that there is no such thing as a non-notable Coast Guard station. Whether this is extant or defunct is neither here nor there. I wish the information were footnoted properly, I doubt we'd be having this debate if it were. A simple Google search turns up THIS HISTORY published by the USCG at the very top. It cites shows published postcards of the facility and lists other titles among its sources, including Ralph Shanks, Wick York & Lisa Woo Shanks. The U.S. Life-Saving Service: Heroes, Rescues and Architecture of the Early Coast Guard. Petaluma, CA: Costaño Books, 1996; and U.S. Treasury Department: Coast Guard. Register of the Commissioned and Warrant Officers and Cadets and Ships and Stations of the United States Coast Guard, July 1, 1941. Washington, DC: USGPO, 1941, both of which would appear to constitute substantial coverage in independently-published sources. This passes GNG on its own merit with a very quick scan of the internets and I would argue that we shouldn't have to even do that for military bases and stations. Carrite (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve There are more references under the early name for the station. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that it's been expanded. It sounds like it has some good history, despite not being listed on the National Register. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 19:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Diane Hoh
- Diane Hoh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only reference is an extremely minor mention of one of her books. Article also has little content apart from an unreferenced quote. Does not meet
]- Speedy Delete No claim is made about why the author is notable. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it seems to have been edited extensively recently, I have not looked at the old versions. Anyway, the article now clearly has multiple reliably-sourced third-party coverage of the author's work. talk) 23:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability for authors is not dependent upon the number of titles published, but on the criteria detailed at ]
- The criteria at talk) 04:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews aren't enough. Millions of books are reviewed. Where are the feature stories about her? Qworty (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've provided you a quote from talk) 08:44, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Read what you are quoting. The reviews have to be of a significant work, not an insignificant one. More damningly, only one of the proffered "reviews" is a stand-alone article of one of her books. Most of the other "reviews" are only one-line mentions or entries in lists. Qworty (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've provided you a quote from
- Reviews aren't enough. Millions of books are reviewed. Where are the feature stories about her? Qworty (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The criteria at
- Review of the "reviews". The first source is not a review at all, but just a meaningless list of authors [30]. It is absurd to think that this satisfies ]
- OK, so even if Diane Hoh's work is, for example, quoted at length in a New York Times article on horror fiction for young adults, it doesn't count? I'm not so sure that everyone but you is being absurd. Also, by the way, please don't rely on Google Book search, it is horribly unreliable, as I found out to my cost in one of these discussions before. talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's my two cents on the reviews. I haven't officially made a decision yet because everything I've found is a little on the light side. It's enough to where I'm leaning towards "keep" but not enough to where I'd say it's overwhelmingly so. I'm stuck between saying that we should keep the article and saying that she should redirect to Point Horror, as most of her books were released under that publisher and she was one of their major contributors.
- [37] First off, This book is a textbook written the director of the National Centre for Research in Children's Literature at Newcastle University and a lecturer at the University of Surrey Roehampton. It goes into depth about children and young adult literature and is more than "a meaningless list of authors".
- [38] This isn't exactly about Hoh by herself but she is quoted extensively in it as an example of teen lit for the time period in relation to the horror craze of the 90s. It's not like it's a list of every author that published teen horror during the 90s, just the most visible and influential ones.
- [39] This is a very well received book that goes over various teen series. It's not some fly by night book and was edited by the founder of VOYA. It's used extensively as a resource in various other books and journals, which is part of the reason I see it as a source that would show notability. ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]) You can't entirely rely on the views given by Google Books, as it only gives you a brief glimpse of the book. The entry for this takes up two pages, so it's more than just two words.
- [46] This brings up a review of the book in the St. Petersburg Times.
- [47] This one is brief, but it is a review by a reliable source.
- [48] Another brief one, but she is mentioned as an example of horror for the time period.
- [49] This is a review by the Hamilton Spectator of one of Hoh's books.
- Even if we were to ignore five and six, that still leaves us with five sources that go over her work. It's less than what I'd like, but you've got to remember that much of her work was done pre-Internet and it's taking a very long time to find sources because of this. The sources on the article aren't perfect, but they are more pertinent than you are giving them credit for.talk) 04:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My college has a copy of Serious about Series and I've taken the liberty of typing up parts of the sections on both of Hoh's series, Med Center and Nightmare Hall. (talk) 12:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- My college has a copy of Serious about Series and I've taken the liberty of typing up parts of the sections on both of Hoh's series, Med Center and Nightmare Hall. (
- OK, so even if Diane Hoh's work is, for example, quoted at length in a New York Times article on horror fiction for young adults, it doesn't count? I'm not so sure that everyone but you is being absurd. Also, by the way, please don't rely on Google Book search, it is horribly unreliable, as I found out to my cost in one of these discussions before.
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep contrary to what Qworty says, reviews are enough. In fact, they're the almost universal sources of which we base notability of authors--provided they're non-local, and more than mere mentions. Authors are notable because of the importance of what they write, just as musicians are for their music. worldcat shows about 15 books with 300 or more copies in libraries, Considering the short life-span of children's fiction, that's very substantial. More important are the translations: 14 of her books have been translated into Portuguese, 12 into Norwegian and 12 into Swedish, 10 into French, 6 into Italian, 4 into German, 3 Hebrew, 2 Dutch, 2, Spanish. [1] They;'re published by one of the major children's publishers. That's way enough for notability. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:OUTCOMES, and DGG. According to the Heymann standard, Tokyogirl79 has done a fine job of fixing up the problems noted in the nomination, especially in sourcing. I have great "Respect for contributors willing to improve articles of questioned notability...." In the past, articles about authors often must be fixed up, sometimes due to bad paid editing. In agreement with DGG, reviews and quantity of translations are often the only ways to prove that an author is notable; see, e.g. Amy Krouse Rosenthal, which infamously went from speedy deletion to DYK status in two days. Finally, we have to be more welcoming of women's BLPs. Bearian (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haindavam (Malayalam)
- Haindavam (Malayalam) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I prodded the page before but the creator removed the prod notice. I correctly explained that it might not meet the GNG, is written like an ad, and unsourced in the prod notice. ]
- Comment: This article is now a candidate for WP:SPEEDY for being advertising or promotion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- tentative delete I removed the speedy, because the article is informative about the book, and not purely promotional. It reads to me like a copyvio of a book review, but I have not located the source. The book is not in worldcat, but many Indian books are not. This is the sort of article for which it is almost impossible for anyone but the author of the article to find sources. I've reminded him. DGG ( talk ) 17:05, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pure spam. No evidence that the book even exists let alone that it is notable. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haindavam Book Link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chowhanu (talk • contribs) 05:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Before deciding to delete based on obvious COI, we need to determine of the article itself is kept, even if 90% of the content is deleted. Since this is published in and for an Indian audience it will be more difficult to track down sources, but that doesn't mean it's not notable in India. -- talk) 01:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am interested in this topic and in this work (Haindavam), and am presently in the process of improving this page.A number of persons I know too are keen on keeping this page undeleted, but with improvements in it to comply with the Wikipedia policies. Being rather new to this process, I am taking some time over it, and would suggest that it be retained for at least another week so the improvements we are working on can be posted.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.42.77 (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment above copied form the talk page — Frankie (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to McKinleyville,_California#Six_Rivers_Brewery. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Six Rivers Brewery
This article has been tagged for
]- Agreed: The only decent source I could find is this article about how they sponsored a local skateboard park. No real loss to the encyclopedia here. —Zujine|talk 05:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to McKinleyville,_California#Six_Rivers_Brewery - I agree with SilkTork's comment, the article appears to be significant to McKinleyville residents. Rather than deleting the article as a whole, redirecting would leave it open for a possible future expansion.
Delete - Google News archives found few significant sources and all of the BeerAdvocate.com links listed there appear to be reviews and nothing significant. The first result (Times-Standard, 2010) was a dead link but I retrieved it from web.archive.org here, the news article mentions the founders but also reads like an advertisement ("We also have", "We want people to feel" and "It is important to us"). The second result here appears to focus with a license suspension and is probably insufficient. Aside from this, the other results appear to be event listings for musicians who performed at the brewery. Google Books found insufficient results, with several of them simply listing the brewery's address. This brewery is not notable to Wikipedia standards at this time.SwisterTwister talk 06:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Delete nothing ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The brewery has won a silver and a gold at the Great American Beer Festival, which at least puts it in contention for notability IMO. I have added some citations to the article. The brewery hasn't gotten much general publicity but that's not surprising; it is in an area remote from major media markets. However it did get a mention in the national magazine "Every Day with Rachel Ray;" I could not find an independent link, just this at the brewery's page, so I didn't cite it in the article, but I believe that is significant for such an out-of-the-way brewery. --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to WP:Breweries. If material/information on the business develops sufficiently it can be split back into a standalone per WP:Summary style. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion of a merge can and should continue on the relevant talk page.
1,000 Grams
- 1,000 Grams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable mixtape. Fails
Merge toWP:NALBUM. Keep. Aside from a few articles on MTV, I couldn't find any significant coverage online, and I don't think this is quite enough to justify a separate article. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:49, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- I really should have looked at the ]
*Delete *Merge No significant chart positions, no awards, no significant sales, no gold/platinum certifications, no major club rotations, heavily sampled w/o fully original context, etc, etc. Pretty much fails
- Keep. Received sufficient coverage to be considered notable. --Michig (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sources presented in the previous AfD. My bad for not adding them before. I've now included them. With that coverage, the mixtape appears to meet ]
- Comment per The Washington Post listed as a source, they give this caption quotation under his picture; Jeezy's latest mixtape isn't much more than a placeholder. (Michael Blackwell). The Fader says in part; It’s mostly him rapping over other people’s stuff, which, for 75% of the rap industry usually means that we should all batten down the hatches and prepare for watered down versions of the the original. These reviews hardly speak volumes as to the merits of the "recording". The reviews discuss rehash, etc. With revues like that, who needs enemies? Can we really say; "This thing isn't particularly remarkable" and still call it talk) 12:09, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NALBUMS don't require that the sources like the album under discussion, it just requires that they cover it. As long as the coverage isn't routine track listings or release dates, it doesn't matter what the sources' opinion of the album is. If the coverage exists, then the album is notable, no matter what the opinions expressed in the coverage are. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:44, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. A review that amounts to "This recording is meh and here are a bunch of words to explain why" is exactly what significant coverage is: a source that addresses the subject directly in detail. An album does not have to be considered good to be notable. Gongshow Talk 15:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment per The Washington Post listed as a source, they give this caption quotation under his picture; Jeezy's latest mixtape isn't much more than a placeholder. (Michael Blackwell). The Fader says in part; It’s mostly him rapping over other people’s stuff, which, for 75% of the rap industry usually means that we should all batten down the hatches and prepare for watered down versions of the the original. These reviews hardly speak volumes as to the merits of the "recording". The reviews discuss rehash, etc. With revues like that, who needs enemies? Can we really say; "This thing isn't particularly remarkable" and still call it
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're preaching to the choir here - as a prior record promoter for Warner Bros - Elektra/Asylum, my boss in NYC used to tell me the same thing unfortunately; "Son, you don't have to like the piece of "music", you just have to get it on the air. Or else." This "mixology" may be talk) 10:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You're preaching to the choir here - as a prior record promoter for Warner Bros - Elektra/Asylum, my boss in NYC used to tell me the same thing unfortunately; "Son, you don't have to like the piece of "music", you just have to get it on the air. Or else." This "mixology" may be
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
John Moulton (medical practitioner)
- John Moulton (medical practitioner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A doctor for a national sport team is not inherently notable. Receiving an OAM is also unremarkable. An article that needs to mention the subject's great grandfather is clearly struggling. Fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WWGB (talk) 02:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A doctor for a sporting team is sufficiently notable for there to be a category (Team physicians) bringing them to our notice. From 1986 until 1992 Moulton was the team doctor for the 1991 Rugby World Cup Final itself receives an article in Wikipedia and every member of the team and the coach has a Wikipedia bio. The team photo of 1991 has every player, the coach, and Dr John Moulton, the team doctor, in it - he was part of a team. Receiving an OAM is sufficiently remarkable for there to be a category (Recipients of the Medal of the Order of Australia) bringing them to our notice. An article that mentions the subject's great grandfather is hardly remarkable. The Order of Australia recognises Australian citizens for achievement and meritorious service. If Australia, through its honours system, believes John Moulton is notable then I believe Wikipedia should also accept him as notable. Castlemate (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See ]
- Delete We don't do if "A,B,C" is in Wiki, then "X,Y,Z" should be too. Also, you can't cross-prioritize honors and recognitions, etc. If the reasoning is that he had been the Doctor for "X" team, then absolute reasoning would lead us to recognizing any "Y" Doctor provided they won some award or supported some team. There are no absolute similarities, and these cannot be used to support one another. talk) 09:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination: notability is not inherited Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't agree more, "notability is not inherited", and the inclusion of a forebear was not to suggest it is. Many articles record ancestors and in Moulton's case it was of interest only because his forebear was a founder of the school he attended. In any case I have removed his great grandfather and hopefully being the recipient of an Order of Australia honour will prove his notability. In the mean time I think one of us should call for the deletion of Henry Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland because all he did was inherit. Castlemate (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Henry Percy was in fact a Member of Parliament ( whether he took his seat is another question) Porturology (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He inherited a seat but did not take it up. His contribution to the Dukedom was to plant a few trees. Sadly he didn't look after a dog shelter for twenty years and so didn't receive an MBE otherwise he may have been notable. Thoroughly likable chap who liked a good snort but hardly notable. Castlemate (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Henry Percy was in fact a Member of Parliament ( whether he took his seat is another question) Porturology (talk) 03:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't agree more, "notability is not inherited", and the inclusion of a forebear was not to suggest it is. Many articles record ancestors and in Moulton's case it was of interest only because his forebear was a founder of the school he attended. In any case I have removed his great grandfather and hopefully being the recipient of an Order of Australia honour will prove his notability. In the mean time I think one of us should call for the deletion of Henry Percy, 11th Duke of Northumberland because all he did was inherit. Castlemate (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unremarkable per all the above. medical professional needs to be outstanding to pass ]
- Where is it said that any one profession needs to be more outstandingly notable than any other? This comment shines a light on how subjective notability really is. Castlemate (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Medical professionals are not judged differently. They do not need to be outstanding to pass GNG, they just need to pass GNG. Jayant Patel is not outstanding (in the commen understanding of the term). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Jayant Patel is quite notable for an entirely different reason, and feel free to nominate him for deletion. Jayant Patel never received an OAM. The 2 medical practitioners are not comparable and the OAM does not confer John Moulton any notability.Curb Chain (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Medical professionals are not judged differently. They do not need to be outstanding to pass GNG, they just need to pass GNG. Jayant Patel is not outstanding (in the commen understanding of the term). duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is it said that any one profession needs to be more outstandingly notable than any other? This comment shines a light on how subjective notability really is. Castlemate (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Believe me from personal experience this was a very ordinary man Porturology (talk) 11:38, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it possible for this offensive remark, made under the cowardly cover of a nom de plume, to be struck from the record? Castlemate (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no problem with his comment.Curb Chain (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see the offence but I apologise if offence is taken. I knew John well - he was an ordinary bloke who would be surprised to have an encyclopaedia article - he does not fit any WP criteria that I know of. Porturology (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Putting aside the obvious personal attack this !vote is ]
- Is it possible for this offensive remark, made under the cowardly cover of a nom de plume, to be struck from the record? Castlemate (talk) 20:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your apology and I apologise for not assuming good faith but "very ordinary man" was not a respectful description of a man who through numerous honorary positions served his country with distinction. Many doctors love Rugby but how many of them become team doctor for the national team? The medical profession nominate medicos for Order of Australia honours with clinical precision but how many are actually awarded these medals. He might have been an "ordinary bloke" in the sense of a "good Aussie guy" but he was hardly "very ordinary". Sadly your contribution to this debate was little more than a vote and furthered the discussion in no way at all. Thank you again for your apology and if you are in NSW I hope you enjoy your long weekend. Castlemate (talk) 04:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Castlemate - thank you - there are a few points I'd like to make but they are probably better said on your talk page - I'll send a message to youPorturology (talk) 06:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I commented on the person who voted keep's talk page urging them to add newspaper, magazine and journal references to the article to establish notability as they might have access to sources I do not have. No such edits have been made to the article to establish notability. I've looked through Newsbank using a variety of keywords, looked through Google news and its archives, looked through Trove, the catalogue for the ]
- Keep per WP:ANYBIO, "has received a well-known and significant award or honor". OAM fits that very definition, wether you want to call it unremarkable or not. Personal dislike of that award from the nominator does not change that. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling an OAM a "significant award" is an opinion. It's hardly a Nobel Prize. WWGB (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling an OAM "unremarkable" is an opinion. Most awards are "hardly a Nobel Prize." duffbeerforme (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most awards are not awarded by the head of state. Most awards are not nationally announced by major national media organisations. Most awards do not confer post nominals that are internationally recognised. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By your reasoning, all OAM recipients and future recipients should have a wikipedia article.Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- yep duffbeerforme (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The question of whether OAM recipients are inherently notable should be discussed on a forum rather than on an individual AFD. If it was discussed my argument would be against for the following reasons:
- 1. Number - there are over 30,000 Order of Australia recipients - 45,000 if you add the associated military, public service and police medals - about 1 in 500 adult Australians have a medal or higher honour
- 2. Reasons for selection - the award is often given to retiring mid-level public servants or long term charity workers - if you have looked after the dog shelter in a country town for more than 20 years you are likely to get a medal - this is not disparaging the recipient but it does mean that they are not necessarily notable in a wikipedia sense.
- 3. Method of selection - the inherent bias in the selection of recipients is included in Order of Australia. Further to this recipients are not chosen initially by a panel but are nominated to a panel by someone. This is open to abuse as serial nominating of family and friends is not unknown.
- 4. Image in Australia - the Australian character/sense of humour means that many Australians take these awards fairly lightly and some argue they are elitist tosh which should not have been used to replace the imperial honours. For an example of this attitude to a different but related award see We can be Heroes.
- 5. International comparisons - the Canadian, New Zealand and Imperial honours do not currently imply notability.
- I do not think that receiving an OAM makes one inherently notable in the WP sense Porturology (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By your reasoning, all OAM recipients and future recipients should have a wikipedia article.Curb Chain (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most awards are not awarded by the head of state. Most awards are not nationally announced by major national media organisations. Most awards do not confer post nominals that are internationally recognised. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling an OAM "unremarkable" is an opinion. Most awards are "hardly a Nobel Prize." duffbeerforme (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling an OAM a "significant award" is an opinion. It's hardly a Nobel Prize. WWGB (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Both points of view are adequately discussed but there is no agreement. Castlemate (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence that people who have an OAM would routinely pass WP:GNG? In this case, despite looking in a number of sources, including 199 newspapers on newsbank, Trove, the library at the National Sports Information Centre, my collection of books about rugby, the collection at the University of Canberra and Trove, I do not see evidence that this would be the case, at least for John Moulton. --LauraHale (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence that people who have an OAM would routinely pass
- Both points of view are adequately discussed but there is no agreement. Castlemate (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete as hoax. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:32, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tall Wolf of Millarville
- Tall Wolf of Millarville (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Well, this... looks like it needs some
- Speedy delete. A very quick search proved my initial hunch, that this was pretty much a blatant hoax. Even if it's an urban legend for the area, there'd be some sort of mention of this on the internet for the most part and the only things that come up are hits for this page. I've tagged it for a speedy deletion for a hoax.talk) 03:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, there doesn't seem to be a speedy criterion for this sort of thing, but I say strong delete. This is just a story written in the first and second-person (it appears that the article creator is Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Don Carlos (musician). Mark Arsten (talk) 01:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Harvest Time
- Harvest Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete and merge to
]- Delete not notable per no ]
- Comment. An article can be merged without actually being deleted, you know. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 06:28, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. There is a brief review here. Given that Carlos was the singer in Black Uhuru, it's almost certain that the album would have been reviewed in publications such as Echoes and likely the mainstream British music press. We don't however have enough for an article, and there's nothing really worth merging, so for now I would go for a redirect to
Don Carlos (musician). --Michig (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC) ...actually a redirect to Harvest would be more appropriate as there's a more likely target for this term there. --Michig (talk) 06:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to artist page. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reaction video
- Reaction video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing on google scholar. No
]- Delete The article has no contents (e.g. a list of things that have caused the apparition of hundreds of reaction videos, like those from 2 girls 1 cup). Seems that the fenomenon is too recent or unimportant, so few or no RS will be found.--Fauban 14:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: This is a tricky topic to research. A preliminary WP:NEO here: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a 'true' term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." I would like to see if others can find any worthwhile coverage before taking a stance. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While earlier versions contained examples, the current article consists only of the sentence "A reaction video is a genre of short amateur video that captures the reaction of an individual or group of individuals." In book searches, it would seem the term does see usage,[50] as well as usage in news articles,[51][52] but none of these sources attempt to define a "reaction video". Like Erik, I would welcome someone being able to expand that one sentence into a properly sourced and encyclopedic article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pierre William Johnson
- Pierre William Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I believe the subject fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails ]
- Delete as above and as apparently completely missing from google scholar. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Captive State
- Captive State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. -- talk) 00:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Passes ]
- Keep. There are more sources, reviews in The Guardian, Ecologist;Dec2003, Vol. 33 Issue 10, p11 and still another one at Lloyd, J. (2001). Britain's lonely left. Foreign Policy, 126:82–84. Can be used to grow the article from its one-sentence birth. Churn and change (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Due to low participation in the debate, undeletion of this article may be requested at any time via
]E-ScienceTalk
- E-ScienceTalk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
According to it's blurb this project "brings the success stories of Europe's e-infrastructure to a wider audience." In other words it's a press office / awareness and publicity engine for other EU funded projects. None of the references amount to in-depth coverage by independent sources, many amount to entries in directories of projects; websites which are part of E-ScienceTalk or partner projects; or they don't even mention E-ScienceTalk at all.
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, @DipankanUpgraded! Tag me! 08:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- important note Before this was relisted, a non-admin close was done. The closer was asked to reverse their actions and they relisted the debate but failed to restore the AFD tag to the article, which I have only done just now. Therefore a second relist may be required as the article was not tagged for a good part of this week. talk) 17:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media Idee
- Media Idee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references and I couldn't find any myself, none of the claims are sourced. Does not meet
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CORP. No reliable, independent source that covers the subject significantly. --SMS Talk 06:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The company appears to be non-notable at this time, the only relevant result I have found is this interview with the CEO Ehmer Kirmani. The interview reads like an advertisement and the only significant content would be "We started the company way back in 2006". Considering that the company is Pakistan-based, it is likely that significant sources may not be English but rather any of the languages native to Pakistan (]
- Delete as lacking independent sources. If independent references with in-depth coverage get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 [[53]]. I'm closing as merge to the article on the author. The book itself is a composite of works published in the 30s and 40s, u. It does have some current significance, but it is primarily significant as a work of its author, and can most usefully be merged into the article on him, which will eliminate the dispute over whether to use the russian or english title DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zaveshchanie russkogo fashista
An article only about modern reprint edition of works by Rodzayevsky, which seems to fail
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The book was a lot of critical articles in the Russian press, and now banned in the list of banned books of the Ministry of Justice of Russia. Therefore ]
Merge to the article about the author (Konstantin Rodzaevsky) and delete. Only minor notability. --DonaldDuck (talk) 12:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How come all of a sudden? --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Painfully obscure Fascist material. No notability. Delete or merge. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. It should be renamed to The Last Will of a Russian fascist. It may be notable after the court decision that it represents an extremist material [2][3][4]; the book has been included in the Federal List of Extremist Materials. My very best wishes (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The mere inclusion in this list does not provide notability. There is over 1000 items in the list, see s:ru:Федеральный список экстремистских материалов. And it mostly consists of various leaflets of obscure groups. The inclusion of "The Last Will of a Russian fascist" there went almost unnoticed by Russian media. --Blacklake (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is why I hate using Publisher UPC codes (ISBN numbers) in Wikipedia articles. We are not in the book-selling business, but such links help to put us into that position. The article, such as it goes, seems uncontroversial, informative, useful, and is poorly sourced. If it is indeed a "banned book," chances are there are extant Russian language sources. I don't have time to look at the moment and thus have no opinion other than a lasting hatred of ISBN numbers at WP. Carrite (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Konstantin Rodzaevsky. I'm overthinking this. Nobody is going to search for the transliterated Russian-language title, it is non-functional if not unencyclopedic... Just start a section on the book under his biography, importing the most useful information there. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the problem? Put the name in English. Although it is transliterated into worldcat. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the problem is that there aren't sources showing describing the banning of the book. Without that to differentiate it and emphasize its distinctiveness in that way, the page becomes a mere summary of one title out of millions, with no viable search name for an English-speaking audience. Carrite (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did redirection. Now the search is viable. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess the problem is that there aren't sources showing describing the banning of the book. Without that to differentiate it and emphasize its distinctiveness in that way, the page becomes a mere summary of one title out of millions, with no viable search name for an English-speaking audience. Carrite (talk) 02:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It may be notable and better references may emerge. --Stormbay (talk) 21:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the author of a historical figure, who became the subject of study scientists. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 09:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 00:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to ]
- Keep In the Russian section of the Wikipedia article is. Rules article about the book all matches. Face significant, studied by scientists. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear: no deletion decision to delete here can be binding on the Russian language wikipedia. This discussion is only about the English language wikipedia.
- Keep In the Russian section of the Wikipedia article is. Rules article about the book all matches. Face significant, studied by scientists. --Kolchak1923 (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've added a ref that seems appears to be an English-language summary of Russian-language content by the same information source. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ron Anderson (Celebrity Vocal Coach)
- Ron Anderson (Celebrity Vocal Coach) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
To my opinion plain advertising and copyvio from [54]. The Banner talk 00:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is pretty much a promotional page, but a search is bringing up enough to give me slight pause at applying the napalm. This is one of those cases where there's a lot of trivial mentions but not really any in-depth coverage from what I can see. I'll do a cleanup and look for sources, but I don't think I'll find any that would give him enough notability for an article.talk) 04:16, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This guy is more notable than some of the other "associated with Hollywood A-listers" people that have had articles on here, but ultimately he still falls short of what we'd need to show notability. Anderson has a ton of trivial mentions in various places, but no amount of trivial sources will add up to give notability enough to keep an article. I've found three sources, but these are not enough to show notability. There's tons of primary sources that show various celebrities and singers praising him, but those are ultimately primary sources and can't show notability. Notability isn't inherited by being associated with people who do pass talk) 04:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Seems like advertising and copyvio. -- ]
- Delete as per WP:N. A mere mention in the articles of the artists he treated may be enough, or even too much. Fauban (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. If consensus emerges to keep, rename 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.