Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 22
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:46, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
White jazz
This article constitutes a
Of the three citations given, I have two of them in front of me. Philip Larkin's book has a short article about Bix Beiderbecke, a white...jazz musician who was, and is, lauded as one of the most expressive white performers of the 1920s. But Beiderbecke did not play a type of music distinct in terms of genre from his black contemporaries such as Louis Armstrong; he had a personal style, but calling it "expressive of whiteness" is, at best, unclear, since many black musicians in the 1920s played "sweet" ("white"?) jazz, and many white musicians played "hot" ("black"?) jazz. The Midwest Encyclopedia entry is not a top-level musical resource and mostly notes the growth of both white and black jazz musicianship in middle America. I don't have the Jones reading, and I admit that, of the three, he is the most likely to try and carve out a specifically white jazz as opposed to black jazz music, but without a general scholarly or critical consensus that such a division is warranted, it's not enough on which to hang an article. "White jazz", as a genre label, is not in common use anywhere I'm aware of, and has no entry in the Grove Dictionary of Jazz; the closest thing I can think of that would support this is Richard Sudhalter's book Lost Chords, which argues that twentieth-century jazz historiography has underrepresented the historical contributions of white musicians to jazz. Yet Sudhalter's own framing undermines the very idea of a genre-separated "white jazz" - I quote from the introduction: "the music may not be so much a black American experience as an American experience, with various racial and ethnic groups playing indispensable and interlocking roles. Not just a handful of white musicians, but many, now appear to have been decisive in the making of jazz." (p. xvii; emphasis his).
It's certainly the case that there is much to say about the relationship between jazz and racial identity in America, and there are other articles which should cover this in greater detail; jazz and race record could both be expanded on this topic, and perhaps a new article, on jazz and race, is warranted, as there continues to be a flood of scholarship impinging on historical and sociocultural aspects of this area. But "white jazz", as a separate genre of music embodying or promulgating whiteness, is original research at best, and in fact probably inadvertently misrepresentative. Chubbles (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's ]
- Delete - Not a legitimate genre covered in multiple published sources. Carrite (talk) 03:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The OED recognises it. Who are you to say that this is not "legitimate"? Warden (talk) 12:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The
- Keep - This article does not constitute synthesis; each of the sources make independent statements about "white jazz" as distinct from "white jazz musicians". There are plenty more sources on the topic of "white jazz" and not just "white jazz musicians", including the following: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. At the very least, the term should redirect to a section of the main Jazz article called "Race" or something similar. Neelix (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I encourage editors to look through the sources provided above and see the diversity of uses afoot. I don't have a preview for the first one, but the JazzTimes one is just an ad for the Sudhalter book I mentioned above, about whites and their contributions to jazz from the 1910s through World War II. The Japan Pop book quotes a 1969 essay about ethnicity as it related to contemporaneous jazz players and audiences; we're far removed from Bix Beiderbecke and a midwestern, uniquely "white" jazz music. The Rough Guide is clearly talking about musicians who were white, playing in a style (in the 1910s) that was at the time broadly construed as "race music". The remaining three books talk about 1920s-era jazz, and so are localized around the time Neelix's article currently addresses, but Making Jazz French mostly quotes other musicians and holds the categories of "black" jazz and "white" jazz in quotation marks. That leaves the Frith and the Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes; Frith's a careful and perceptive writer, and I'd argue he is just using that as an ironic shorthand, but read for yourself and decide. Only the Dictionary of the Avant-Gardes follows Neelix's line of argument; I respectfully disagree with that author's framing of style in terms of "soul", but it's a published source.
- My point in all this is that there is no common usage here, and that these important topics are better served in an article more broadly discussing racial aspects of jazz music with a better title and a less straitjacketed definition of genre. The terms "black jazz" and "white jazz" should probably redirect to it, and the insightful comments in the Japan Pop book on pp. 35-36 would be an excellent starting point. Chubbles (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just created a "Race" section on the Jazz article; it needs to be expanded, but it's a start. I would be quite content with "white jazz" redirecting to that section. I simply do not believe deletion is the solution; we seem to agree that there is valid, encyclopedic content on the subject. No matter how controversial the issue is or how diverse the views are on the subject, "white jazz" is a concept and a term that has been used in the literature. Neelix (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article surprised me when I first saw it a few days ago: strong sources are required to state that "white jazz" is a "genre". The Larkin piece uses "white jazz" only in its concluding section, without clarifying how it is to be interpreted; p. 92 has "he established himself as the greatest white jazzman", which I interpret in the same way as Chubbles: white person who played jazz. I also agree with Chubbles' reading of the seven additional sources offered by Neelix. The American Midwest: An Interpretive Encyclopedia does use "white jazz" in contrast (unspecified in detail) to "black jazz", but, from the next sentence, uses "white" to modify words such as "players" and "musicians", but not "music", "style", "genre", etc. I have not seen the Amiri Baraka book either, but it is important to note that he is a controversial figure in jazz commentary, particularly for his views on race.
- Given that the claimed "genre" should have been in existence for around 90 years, there should be lots of evidence that "white jazz" is an accepted term. What has been presented as evidence is a combination of one interpretation of what is in the sources and (assuming good faith) one writer's (Amiri Baraka) line of argument. The article is thus either synthesis or unsupported by a sufficient number of original sources. As Chubbles suggests, the role of race in jazz requires greater stressing in the articles available in Wikipedia, but a separate article on one part which is at most a fringe interpretation is not justified by the available evidence. EddieHugh (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've followed the history of jazz for many years, and acknowledge that there were white jazz bands who played jazz following on and imitating sometimes in a corny or commercial way (Original Dixieland Jazz Band, Paul Whiteman) the music of black jazz bands such as those of Louis Armstrong,. Then there were white performers (Bix) whose innovations were admired by Armstrong and others. But there were not really separate genres as the article states. The article contains original research, and the nominators criticisms are well taken. Edison (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are several books which cover this topic including:
- Lost Chords: White Musicians and Their Contribution to Jazz, 1915-1945
- Cats of Any Color: Jazz Black and White
- Jazz in black and white: race, culture, and identity in the jazz community
- Such sources do not just focus upon race (and gender) but also upon the associated musical differences. For example, Artistic Strategies and Social Class in Modern Jazz — "The new modern jazz style of cool jazz in the fifties was performed by predominantly white jazz musicians ... This general difference between black jazz musicians and white jazz musicians was in part the result of ..." There is clearly plenty to say here. For a similar article which has been further developed, see British blues which describes the way in which white Englishmen took an African-American genre and made something of it. Warden (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your linked source actually provides further evidence for deletion: the words "white jazz" are in "white jazz musicians" except for one instance, which is ""white" jazz", again (see above) in contrast (unspecified in detail) to ""black" jazz". The point being discussed is not whether white people play(ed) jazz in some different ways, but whether "White jazz is a jazz music genre", as claimed in the opening sentence. Some direct quotes from the additional sources you suggest, clearly showing that "white jazz" is a term used to refer to a specific genre, would help the cause for keeping, but the nominator has already countered the first book... EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is not a determination of whether or not white jazz is a distinct music genre; it is clear that at least some sources suggest that it is, and several more refer to it as an entity without making a claim about its status as a genre. The point is that "white jazz" is a concept that is discussed in multiple reliable, secondary sources and should therefore be covered on Wikipedia. We can keep it as a standalone article or we can merge it elsewhere, but deletion doesn't solve anything. Neelix (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not solve the WP:SYN issues here. The topic discussed in multiple, reliable, secondary sources is not a "genre of music which expresses whiteness". It is jazz and race, and I encourage the development of a more nuanced and NPOV article on this topic at that title or a similar one. Chubbles (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have WP:OR or WP:SYN concerns, you can address them through normal editing. That an article is deemed to be poorly written is not a reason for deletion. Neelix (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The ]
- This does not solve the
- This discussion is not a determination of whether or not white jazz is a distinct music genre; it is clear that at least some sources suggest that it is, and several more refer to it as an entity without making a claim about its status as a genre. The point is that "white jazz" is a concept that is discussed in multiple reliable, secondary sources and should therefore be covered on Wikipedia. We can keep it as a standalone article or we can merge it elsewhere, but deletion doesn't solve anything. Neelix (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your linked source actually provides further evidence for deletion: the words "white jazz" are in "white jazz musicians" except for one instance, which is ""white" jazz", again (see above) in contrast (unspecified in detail) to ""black" jazz". The point being discussed is not whether white people play(ed) jazz in some different ways, but whether "White jazz is a jazz music genre", as claimed in the opening sentence. Some direct quotes from the additional sources you suggest, clearly showing that "white jazz" is a term used to refer to a specific genre, would help the cause for keeping, but the nominator has already countered the first book... EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If the Oxford English Dictionary defines it, then its a real thing. Books and news sources found cover it also. The article should list famous examples of this, and information on when it emerged. Dream Focus 18:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad vote. Please read ]
- Its not just a definition, its a genre of music. Dream Focus 00:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad vote. Please read ]
- Merge or delete I'm not comfortable separating jazz into "black jazz" and "white jazz". I am reasonably certain that in the preponderance of jazz subgenres, there are both black and white musicians. This is a poor way to bifurcate jazz ]
- Agreed. The discussion has been open for almost a week, and there is still almost no presented evidence that 'white jazz' is used as a genre. The opening sentence is now "White jazz is jazz played by white musicians", with one source that is the same as for the previous opening claim that "White jazz is a jazz music genre", and another that is a dictionary definition: WP:DICDEF. Even as a dictionary definition, it makes no sense – what does a band of 2 white and 2 black musicians play? – and further illustrates the confusion over how 'white jazz' as a term has been used. Some of the content from the article has been moved to jazz; this can be treated as a merge, so White jazz can now be removed by making the merge formal. EddieHugh (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of the sources presented refer to "white jazz" as a genre. Even if they did not, a plethora of sources refer to "white jazz" as a concept, demonstrating notability. Controversy over the definition is something to expand the article with; it is not a reason for deletion. Neelix (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. The discussion has been open for almost a week, and there is still almost no presented evidence that 'white jazz' is used as a genre. The opening sentence is now "White jazz is jazz played by white musicians", with one source that is the same as for the previous opening claim that "White jazz is a jazz music genre", and another that is a dictionary definition:
- Comment: Regardless of whether a separate article should exist, I think the current content who easily be fit within the jazz article, where I feel it would work better if we really are writing an encyclopedia. I'm a little iffy on whether "white jazz" is independently notable, its usage is nothing like blue-eyed soul.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Chargeurs. MBisanz talk 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Novacel
Seems to be a direct translation of fr:Novacel. Currently just contains a timeline, list of products and employee turnover rates. I would advocate for a re-work, but currently, I think the entire article can be deleted and started fresh once someone actually wants to spend time on it. Sasquatch t|c 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Merge/redirect to the parent company, ]
- Delete. This company is probably notable, but the lead and the history section seem to be a very close paraphrase of this and a copy of this from the company website (I haven't checked the rest of the article), so this should be deleted as a copyright violation without prejudice to the creation of a properly independently sourced article. ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, clearly fails
]Malana Lea
- Malana Lea (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)
Seems to only have one small role in ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete At the present time, she fails WP:NACTOR. According to IMDb, she's appeared on a few TV shows, but it doesn't look like any of that would amount to a significant role; she also doesn't appear to have a large fan base. ALH (talk) 00:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The role in Olympus Has Fallen is obviously metaphorical. It's notable for the quasi-feminist angle, but more so the girl-with-a-gun manga connection. This role is much bigger than a simple movie review lets on. She has been in exclusive interviews, as here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH86seJS7dY Actually the whole point of adding the biography is that such an important strong female role in a block-buster (she is after all JUST AN ACTRESS) is that all of the biography information is spread out in different areas like that interview, Glady's magazine, twitter, Facebook etc. I've seen the movie. There is a message in the movie similar to Dr. Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut, The Shining and Twilight's Last Gleaming, however that's going to be original research, so I have left it out. Let's just start by growing the bio. The rest will fall into place over time as movie critics get over the shock-and-awe aspect of the action. It's not quite up there with the Kubrick films, but clearly inspired. Jok2000 (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Further, here is a *negative* review from a rottentomatoes critic: "It's a terrible action film but a brilliant piece of North Korean propaganda. The American characters act so stupidly that you're pretty much rooting for Kim Jong-un. THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS." You can see that the message of de-escalating in Korea and Malana Lea's character seeming to *win* are not lost on the critic, he just doesn't *like* the hidden message. Malana Lea executes the role and the mission to disable all ICBMs almost flawlessly. The joke about the hashtag in deactivating the destruct sequence gives you a moment for pause in the movie -- what if all the ICBMs were destroyed in their sealed silos? It's as cruel as Twilight's Last Gleaming. Which is the other face-palm of the movie, but I digress. How many links to critical reviews of this aspect would you require for a keep, by the way? Be sure to read the negative ones. Jok2000 (talk) 02:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It should be kept, regardless how short it is at the moment. It might be bigger later on. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fails WP:N now, it should be deleted and recreated later on once it does meet those. We don't make pages that hedge on whether a person get more famous later. Sasquatch t|c 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If it fails
- Delete. One henchwoman role in Olympus Has Fallen doesn't satisfy WP:NACTOR. "The rest will fall into place over time"? "It might be bigger later on"? These comments just show she hasn't arrived yet. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG. Interviews and social media posts aren't enough. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As for general notability in reliable sources: There is a long list of interviews HaloHalo, ClevverMovies, Glady's, MoniqueBlog, SciFiVision, UbnRadio. Once this film hits Asian wide release there are sure to be vastly more. Jok2000 (talk) 13:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those you listed would be considered too "reliable" in my books for denoting coverage. In general, blogs and youtube vlogs do not fall under the "reliable sources" umbrella unless they fall under some other major publication. See ]
- Consider those listed as evidence of her fan base. There are blogs listing her under titles like "hot asian girl of the month" with a detailed filmography. Although self-published, it is evidence of a fan-base. I'll need some time to find film-industry magazines at the local magazine shop tonight. The movie is opening much higher world-wide than in the US (e.g. UK), as we discuss it, so articles are likely to appear in the next magazine cycle next week. Jok2000 (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The IMDB credits serve to confirm the person is a working actor. The lack of significant coverage in reliable sources indicate that inclusion of this article on Wikipedia is no warranted at this time. -- Whpq (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She continues to be interviewed by reliable media outlets. The last one was unfortunately in Chinese on some LA cable station. The show had clips from several movies and TV shows. If you want to find some yourself, search @MalanaLea on Twitter, or "Malana Lea Interview" on Youtube. If you have something against "bad guy characters", you can also search Youtube for the "bad guy" interview of Yune (Kang) and the "traitor" from Olympus has Fallen to see why it is not relevant when writing up actor articles. The actual significance of this actor is that she did take on a role of the Dr. Strangelove or Twilight's Last Gleaming caliber. If you read "Dr. Strangelove" in "On Kubrick", you can see that several notable actors of the era refused the role that Slim Pickens took (John Wayne) because the movie itself was too left wing for them. Olympus has Fallen is more subtle in the bunker, plot wise than George C. Scott's turnabouts in the War Room in Dr. Strangelove. It is as Malana Lea herself said, her role and the movie do not establish firmly anything about Koreans in general (she is ethnic Chinese, born in USA) and she and her role are important for establishing a non-jingoistic interpretation of the opposing side's mission in the movie, and is thus notable in that context, and considering the risk that actors in similar roles in the past like Burt Lancaster or Peter Sellers have taken. Jok2000 (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm unclear as to what you are trying to claim here. Are you saying her role in Olympus is iconic just like Pickens' role in Strangelove? -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply' - It's more like what Malana Lea said in her interview around about minute 39 on UBN radio's March 20, 2013 with her, that opportunities for her, being of Chinese ethnicity (or for any Asian actor) is that opportunities in blockbusters are more available now than before, in other words, a turning point both in the industry and for her career. In particular she sees opportunities in SciFi and fantasy forthcoming in Hollywood for the intelligent type of character she plays. She also mentions in the interview that she has done a lot of voice-over work that is uncredited and confidential. Anyway, I should say I don't fully understand the importance of the "working actor" reference above. In this interview she mentions that she went from bit parts, to Mad Man, and now felt that this character in Olympus has Fallen was her big break and change in her career. I'm not here to gaze into a crystal ball, but, if you want my personal opinion, I'm sick of Disney portraying asian actors in subordinate roles, like Brenda Song, for example (and she broke away from it in The Social Network). Here we have an opportunity to begin an article about an intelligent scientist given the opportunity to replay a position like that in previous classic movies (Twilight's Last Gleaming and Dr. Strangelove). From my POV, if you assume the ICBM's would have been destroyed and contained in their silos, then the mission that she executes is actually moral, so the director has chosen her to be in such a position and people curious about the movie Olympus Has Fallen may want to know more about the actor chosen for this unusual, not ground-breaking, but demarcating role. Jok2000 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It's her own (and I guess your) opinion that is this is some sort of breakthrough role for her that is industry shaking. But neither the personal opinion of the actor, nor your personal opinion is useful for establish notability; her's is not indpendent, and yours would be ]
- Reply - The above is original research, which is why it's not in the article. I happen to value my opinion. ;) More to the point, when the actors like Yune (Kang) quote the director, it's not an opinion. That the movie is about ICBMs is also not an opinion ,it is fact, etc. I'll save you the effort of listening to the interview however, she was giving her opinion that the director of Olympus Has Fallen's casting choices would be reflected in movies by Asian directors as well. The bottom line is that we are giving opinions about deletion, and I've found lots, as well as facts. I don't deny it. I do believe in intellectual honesty, I did say it was not a ground-breaking role, which implies I would agree that it is not industry shaking, just important. I think the key element to my "opinion" about the movie and her role is that I'm not an American; which is important as well since the producers are trying to make a movie that will sell well globally as well. Jok2000 (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - It's her own (and I guess your) opinion that is this is some sort of breakthrough role for her that is industry shaking. But neither the personal opinion of the actor, nor your personal opinion is useful for establish notability; her's is not indpendent, and yours would be ]
- Reply' - It's more like what Malana Lea said in her interview around about minute 39 on UBN radio's March 20, 2013 with her, that opportunities for her, being of Chinese ethnicity (or for any Asian actor) is that opportunities in blockbusters are more available now than before, in other words, a turning point both in the industry and for her career. In particular she sees opportunities in SciFi and fantasy forthcoming in Hollywood for the intelligent type of character she plays. She also mentions in the interview that she has done a lot of voice-over work that is uncredited and confidential. Anyway, I should say I don't fully understand the importance of the "working actor" reference above. In this interview she mentions that she went from bit parts, to Mad Man, and now felt that this character in Olympus has Fallen was her big break and change in her career. I'm not here to gaze into a crystal ball, but, if you want my personal opinion, I'm sick of Disney portraying asian actors in subordinate roles, like Brenda Song, for example (and she broke away from it in The Social Network). Here we have an opportunity to begin an article about an intelligent scientist given the opportunity to replay a position like that in previous classic movies (Twilight's Last Gleaming and Dr. Strangelove). From my POV, if you assume the ICBM's would have been destroyed and contained in their silos, then the mission that she executes is actually moral, so the director has chosen her to be in such a position and people curious about the movie Olympus Has Fallen may want to know more about the actor chosen for this unusual, not ground-breaking, but demarcating role. Jok2000 (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - I'm unclear as to what you are trying to claim here. Are you saying her role in Olympus is iconic just like Pickens' role in Strangelove? -- Whpq (talk) 13:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She continues to be interviewed by reliable media outlets. The last one was unfortunately in Chinese on some LA cable station. The show had clips from several movies and TV shows. If you want to find some yourself, search @MalanaLea on Twitter, or "Malana Lea Interview" on Youtube. If you have something against "bad guy characters", you can also search Youtube for the "bad guy" interview of Yune (Kang) and the "traitor" from Olympus has Fallen to see why it is not relevant when writing up actor articles. The actual significance of this actor is that she did take on a role of the Dr. Strangelove or Twilight's Last Gleaming caliber. If you read "Dr. Strangelove" in "On Kubrick", you can see that several notable actors of the era refused the role that Slim Pickens took (John Wayne) because the movie itself was too left wing for them. Olympus has Fallen is more subtle in the bunker, plot wise than George C. Scott's turnabouts in the War Room in Dr. Strangelove. It is as Malana Lea herself said, her role and the movie do not establish firmly anything about Koreans in general (she is ethnic Chinese, born in USA) and she and her role are important for establishing a non-jingoistic interpretation of the opposing side's mission in the movie, and is thus notable in that context, and considering the risk that actors in similar roles in the past like Burt Lancaster or Peter Sellers have taken. Jok2000 (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of meeting ]
- Comment WP:GNG is met because Olympus Has Fallen meets GNG for the reasons explained above (unintentionally ironic movie driving curious film buffs to surprisingly good team of "baddies".) See also black-listed site "examiner dot com" article. Jok2000 (talk) 04:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Notability is not inherited. Your lengthy explanation is self-admitted original research. -- Whpq (talk) 10:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I reject your generalization to the lengthy part of this discussion being original research. The only original research is the parallel to Twilight's Last Gleaming and Dr. Stangelove. That is all that I "admit" for your consideration as interesting original research. That notable sources (examiner and many comprable reviews of Olympus Has Fallen) have recognized that "the Baddies" have a good team is not inheritance of anything, it is proof that the baddies have a good team. Jok2000 (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Arguments are boring I know, so since you want more notability, here is the list of films and TV spots she has been in, so that we could create a page similar to Doona Bae in the future: Flexx 2014, Olympus Has Fallen 2013, Wedding Party (TV) 2012-2013, Bitch in Apt. 23 2012-2013, Love Sick Diaries 2010, True Jackson 2008-2012, My First Crush 2008, Wizards of Waverly Place episode "Private Practive", Mad Men TV, 2007 "Ling", House, MD "Fawn", Desperate Houseives "Mariko", CSI "Lauren Walderon", Manor 1998 "Maya", Young and Restless "Alice", Compulsions 2009. In several of these, she's credited as "Elizabeth Tsing", although I have the impression I'm the only one in this discussion who ever read the list of movies she's been in. I don't recognize the credentials of any of the editors requesting "delete". Not one of them mentioned her previous name "Elizabeth Tsing", which is a strong tell that they have put no effort into their words, and also interesting that there are all sorts of broken links on Wikipedia to that name in the episodes listed above. So if the article is kept, the links could be fixed up. Pretty much notable just from references on Wikipedia itself, wouldn't you agree? Jok2000 (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary - It's been 7 days since the AfD nomination. The discussion centers on WP:GNG and why there is no inheritance from Olympus has Fallen. In actuality, the notability guidelines suggest Merge if the role is important to the movie, however recognition of the ICBM topic of the movie or the citable "baddies had a good team" and the sociological aspects of the movie and the casting of the baddies are a topic for researchers. The article as it stands would not cloud the Olympus Has Fallen article nor hinder film researchers looking into unintentionally ironic movies, or movies where the "baddies" have a good team (typically in Film Noir). Thus by keeping the cited article separate, film researchers may find the information they need for their research without encountering any "original research" undercurrents that a merge would entail. So being notable enough to merge, but causing suggestions of OR or NPOV inside of the Olympus Has Fallen article if done, it is better to leave it as a stand-alone article for serious researchers to find the relevant facts on their own accord. Or in a sentence, "Because she's a baddie in the movie, a positive article about an actor would skew a merge into a movie article." Citations: "Olympus Has Fallen might be the most inadvertently un-American film ever made" http://www.redcarpetcrash.com/review-olympus-has-fallen-is-unintentionally-anti-american/ Just Google for "Olympus Has Fallen Unintentionally" It's a legitimate topic. Jok2000 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Summary - It's been 7 days since the AfD nomination. The discussion centers on WP:GNG and why there is no inheritance from
- Comment - Notability is
- Comment
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Book Tour Radio
- Book Tour Radio (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)
Not enough independent coverage for me, would be borderline A7 but I thought I'd post it up here since the author objected to the PROD. Sasquatch t|c 23:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete - Nothing as far as reliable references can be found. Although, if you are interested, looks like ]
- Delete - no coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Whpq. — Joaquin008 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted per CSD A7 by User:Jimfbleak. (Non-administrator discussion closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 07:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ballodica
- Ballodica (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
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete. Makes no effort to establish notability. Fails every point of the ]
- Delete Simply fails ]
- Delete. I like the idea, but this is not an acceptable article for many reasons including those mentioned above. Iketsi (talk) 01:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Utterly fails WP:MADEUP. Unfortunately, no applicable CSD criteria. Safiel (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miriam Slozberg
- Miriam Slozberg (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)
Not Notable. No reliable secondary sources other than three radio interviews. No reviews of her books. Jojalozzo 21:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - of those three "radio" programs, at least two look to be solely internet-distributed and on distribution systems that are for-hire or are simply conduits provided to their users, and thus are WP:SPS. Article created by an apparent commercial spammer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete Sources are unreliable, and include blogtalk "radio" and user-generated forums. Fails ]
- Delete - No xcoverage in independent reliable sources. - Whpq (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing ]
- Delete WP:SPAM ring of paid editors. [9] [10] PeterWesco (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Jenkins (fighter)
- Paul Jenkins (fighter) (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)
MMA fighter with only 1 top tier fight so he fails
- Weak Keep - Step away from going directly to the MMA guidelines as that only further defines general notability. First, does he meet WP:GNG? Looking at generally notability, I would say yes (barely), but not like he would want. According to the Bleacher Report, he holds the record (actually he is 2nd) for most losses by TKO [11]. There is also coverage in MMA Universe for what it is worth. The article in its current form is too promotional. I say strip it down to what the references say, create it as a stub, and make it about what he is notable for (losing fights). --FoolMeOnce2Times (talk) 00:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a one line mention about his number of TKO losses and a PR release from a promotion touting its next card qualify as the significant independent coverage required by ]
- If you look at all the sherdog sources they're lists of fight results. No publications actually about the fighter and as a result are not close to meeting GNG. Mkdwtalk 23:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think a one line mention about his number of TKO losses and a PR release from a promotion touting its next card qualify as the significant independent coverage required by ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete Fails to meet WP:GNG. He lacks both notable MMA fights and significant non-routine coverage. 204.126.132.231 (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Narrowly passes ]
- Can you please point out the significant independent coverage of this fighter? The article's sources are routine results reporting (mainly by Sherdog) and I agree with Mdtemp's assessment of the sources mentioned by FoolMeOnce2Times. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to point out that Sepulwiki !votes 100% keep on every AFD (which have all been MMA articles) and holds only a 29% !vote to consensus match. I bring this up because no specific guideline argument has been made except 'it's notable' which is an ]
- Can you please point out the significant independent coverage of this fighter? The article's sources are routine results reporting (mainly by Sherdog) and I agree with Mdtemp's assessment of the sources mentioned by FoolMeOnce2Times. Papaursa (talk) 18:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Fails ]
- Delete Another fight with no WP:NMMA. I had to remove several references that did not even mention Jenkins (in fact 3 of them did not even lead to pages that existed nor did Google have archived). The remaining sources are only event listing results with nothing focused on Jenkins. Mkdwtalk 23:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Since he fails to meet ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sami Berik
- Sami Berik (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)
Has no top tier MMA fights, the only sources are his fight record and youtube video, and has a 14-34 fight record. Doesn't meet any notability criteria such as
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete — Fails ]
- Delete — Fails ]
- Delete Inclined to agree with the nomination; does not meet ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Silva
- Jean Silva (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 both
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete — Fails ]
- Delete 1 ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ]
Ross Pointon
Fails to meet
]- Redirect to The Ultimate Fighter 3 Don't know how I missed that TUF article. Thanks, Poison Whiskey.Mdtemp (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Redirect to ]
- Redirect to ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Robbie Olivier
- Robbie Olivier (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)
MMA fighter with no top tier fights and all coverage of him seems to be routine sports reporting so he fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Weak delete — He has compiled a nice record for ]
- Delete — Fails ]
- Delete Not a lot of in-depth ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ]
Marvin Berry and The Starlighters
In universe band that doesn't meet
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Back to the Future. ALH (talk) 03:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Back to the Future#Music. While sourcable,[12][13] there is no separate notability outside that film. We can at least send readers to where it makes sense to have this fictional group mentioned in context. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:12, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Back to the Future, per above. — Joaquin008 (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with unanimous !keep votes. The Bushranger One ping only 05:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aid station
- Aid station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources and only definition. Delete or move to Wiktionary. nerdfighter 20:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rewrite. Nom is absolutely right - current article is nothing but a DICDEF. But I think this could be expanded with better examples (military, marathon, cycling, music festivals, etc.) and better sources. This book, for example, details their function and history with regard to the ]
- Keep Seems an important aspect of endurance races. I'd say it's a little more than a dicdef at this point, but it just needs expansion. I'll apply a stub tag. --BDD (talk) 22:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe "nothing but" was a bit harsh. Ha ha. Maybe "not much more than..."? Anyway, stub tag was a good idea. Stalwart111 00:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Can we find sources to assert its notability? If not it should be deleted per ]
- I think there are about 30 hits in the book I linked to and many discuss history, importance, awards for "best aid station", etc. and that's just for the Chicago Marathon. I'm certainly happy to do some more digging for a wider range of sources. I just think this article defines the idea too narrowly; limiting it to marathons only when a quick search suggests military aid stations (in the field) are actually the more extensively covered version of the concept but are not mentioned at all. Stalwart111 00:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Comment - per my comments above, I have had a crack at adding to the article. There's still more to go but I've expanded on what was there, included other examples and provided some references. Stalwart111 03:30, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, although the article needs a significant amount of work, AfD is ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abdul Mohamed
- Abdul Mohamed (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)
He has no top tier fights so he fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete — Fails ]
- Delete Not a lot of in-depth ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Score Revolution
- Score Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established, reads like advertising--Fil
]- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete— No mention in reliable sources as far as I can see. Purely promotional.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is about a music licensing company specializing in film scores. They have an online platform. References are all routine coverage of the fact that the business has opened, and do not establish anything that would turn it into an encyclopedia subject yet. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The company is 4 months old. Coverage is not sufficient to establish notability. -Whpq (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Davin Michael Garg
- Davin Michael Garg (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)
IP user 38.88.6.34 initially voiced opposition to this page, citing a lack of notability. Though the user improperly made this request and I have reverted his article changes, I agree that this article has not demonstrated notability, though I am not comfortable with tagging for speedy deletion. Jackson Peebles (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for this article. --Cerebellum (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
]Dhantoli
- Dhantoli (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 makes no claim to notability other than it being "the best". No secondary source for the first paragraph and the only source appears undue. Andrew327 20:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dhantoli is a medical hub of central india. it is a genuine claim to notability. I have a source. The rest is written in a neutral point of view. Drbkmurali (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC) The wiki pages of the prominent personalities does show that Dhantoli is the place from where they come from or still reside!Since Wikipedia does not have the same space limitations as a paper encyclopedia, there is no need to restrict content in the same way that a paper encyclopedia does. Usually the AFD discussion takes up the same or greater amount of disk space than the article. No performance problems result from having many articles . Inclusionists (see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia)claim that authors should take a more open-minded look at content criteria. Articles on people, places, and concepts of little note may be perfectly acceptable for Wikipedia in this view. Some inclusionists do not see a problem with including pages which give a factual description of every person on Earth.I feel that since the original article sources are reliable, and independent of the subject, they should be reverted!I think the article can be improved upon rather than deleting it!Drbkmurali (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The articles added from the Times of India only mention this place in passing. The general notability guideline mandates significant coverage, and this neighborhood clearly lacks that. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I disagree.Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material. The title of the articles and the content are primarily about the issues concerning hospitals in Dhantoli.It is a significant coverage! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbkmurali (talk • contribs) 08:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That the articles are about hospitals and not the neighborhood itself proves that the coverage isn't significant per WP:Notability. Thank you for helping me to prove my own point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worthy of notice because the neighbourhood is a medical hub of central India. If this isn't significant per WP:Notability, then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redasabeet (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no proof that it is a significant medical hub in India, though. As the nom pointed out, three articles from the Times of India aren't significant coverage and can't support the claim that this neighborhood is known as a medical hub - if it were, then proving it would be easy. MezzoMezzo (talk) 05:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worthy of notice because the neighbourhood is a medical hub of central India. If this isn't significant per WP:Notability, then what is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redasabeet (talk • contribs) 12:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That the articles are about hospitals and not the neighborhood itself proves that the coverage isn't significant per WP:Notability. Thank you for helping me to prove my own point. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Whether this is a medical hub or not is irrelevant. There is plenty of evidence that this is a recognised subdivision of a major city, so should be kept per our standard practice for populated places. ]
- Keep. For the same reason as Phil Bridger's. However, the article needs significant improvement. It would be useful to cite sources such the 2011 Census and an administrative body (the state government, the municipal corporation, and the like). The Maharashtra state gazette and the Nagpur district gazette are likely to have vast and reliable reference material on Dhantoli. Rohini (talk) 08:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment from the article, it's hard to tell if this a neighborhood, a village, or a hospital complex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger, I'm sure we can find more sources for it, if we dig in a little deeper. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 07:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't have to dig too deep, but this is the from the first pge of Google when I search for Dhantoli: 1, 2, 3, and 4. I'm pretty sure, this will be more than useful to back up somethings in the article. :). Cheerio, --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have addded a few references and an image to the article, although i have a strong feeling that this article was created primarily to support ]
- Keep for the reasons outlined by Phil Bridger. But remove the section on the medical hub, agree with Trinidade, it does appear to have been created to support the Hope Hospitals article. I am also detecting the whiff of sock. LGA talkedits 22:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I think I can give you all a clue why this has remained open for so long. One reason is that a lot of admins and other users are weary over the constant battles related to pornography-related content. The other reason is that several users have suggested incubation as solution and a lot of admins don't even know what that is. The reason for that is that
Vanilla DeVille
- Vanilla DeVille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- WP:SELF - Many sources are interviews, website, etc.
- WP:RS - Videos clips, interviews, IMdB, etc.
- WP:PORNSTAR - Nominations are mainly for website. Notability is not inherited. Nominations for the website are not nominations for the subject of the article
- WP:SPIP - Self promotion piece tinged with WP:COI.
PeterWesco (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I stated when I contested the prod:
This article was prodded with the reasoning being:
“ | FAILS: WP:PORNSTAR
FAILS: WP:SELF FAILS: WP:RS FAILS: WP:N Self sourced sources - Interviews, personal website, etc.. Fails notability for WP:PORNSTAR. Fails for depth of coverage in the remaining sources. |
” |
I'm not exactly sure how she fails
- Also, most of the awards may be website-related, but all of them aren't (as the preceding statement indicates). Erpert ]
- Delete more or less per nom. The sourcing is just awful; website award noms don't contribute to performer notability (especially when handed out like candy by a PR business which openly acknowledged its nominations are generated by its clients!), and no more than one of the remaining noms falls outside the group of insignificant tinfoil trophies that don't contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. The nominations are insignificant; if she were repeatedly nominated for notable ones, or even won one or two, that'd be a closer call. The coverage is far from WP:GNG quality, failing mostly reliability and independence. JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes WP:PORNBIO. Aside from her scene and website nominations, she has been nominated for AVN's MILF/Cougar Performer of the Year award and XBIZ's Best Actress and MILF Performer of the Year awards. I also think that the XBIZ Web Babe/Starlet of the Year and AVN Web Starlet of the Year awards are performer awards, not website awards like MILF Site of the Year, Best Solo Girl Website, Best Porn Star Website and Performer Site of the Year, which apparently don't count as performer awards so I'm not even going to get into that discussion. The first three awards I mentioned are more than enough to prove she meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. Apparently this article needs to be improved because it "appears to be written like an advertisement" and I think the solution is to improve it, not delete it. --Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment currently, the article is so terrible to even be eligible for a speedy deletion under ]
**Speedy delete? Really? The article looked nothing like that when it was first created (by me, btw, not the subject's husband; in fact, there's a ]
- Actually, now that I reread your statement, it kind of makes sense, but you should be aware that ]
- So, I removed the vote, but the point remains. Frankly, the only way to fit her biography to BLP standards is remove almost enterely all her biography. As I demostrated above, what the subject said/wrote about herself is not reliable. And the Playboy claim was not added by her husband. Cavarrone (talk) 07:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also suggest adding the additional nomination Rebecca1990 found. Erpert ]
- Comment I realize that COI prevents me from fairly voting on this subject, but I would like to clear up some inaccuracies posted above. User:Erpert loves to post about me all over this site (I expect I will be mentioned in his holiday newsletter as well), but he also likes to twist the facts, and apparently doesn't realize that his posts are time-stamped and viewable by all. The truth of the matter is, he created a poorly written and badly sourced article, similar to several of his other works that have also been proposed for deletion. Being a new contributor, and at first unfamiliar with all of the procedures here, I tried to correct the article and made the mistake of following his example in the types of sources used (including using many of the same sources he cited originally). I agree that the article needs major revisions, but reverting back to his original article will not make it better or compliant. I believe that there is enough evidence to keep and rewrite the article, and I am willing to provide information and assist other editors in any way I can within the COI guidelines (I have refrained from making any changes since the issue was first submitted to COIN). As for the Playboy claim, Vanilla was featured in various photos in the July 2004 issue, on pages 74-81, which was shot on location in Las Vegas and at the old Playboy headquarters in Chicago, by photographer George Georgiou: Playboy Statistics Knowledgebase. Stewiedv (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seriously need to stop. When I refused to be part of your battle on COIN, that doesn't mean you should try to re-ignite the battle here. And don't think you can get away with trying to blame your COI mistakes on "following ['my'] example". I simply mentioned your name to clarify something to Cavarrone; nothing more. Erpert ]
- I stayed out of this debate until you brought me into it, using my name in an attempt to defend another one of your bad articles. You started the battle on COIN, as well as everywhere else you posted about it after refusing to discuss things otherwise, and started up again here when it had no relevance to the existing comments. You refuse to let this go, but instead keep posting about it in new places when you don't get the response you want from the community in previous locations. If you want me to stop replying to your inaccurate posts, then stop citing me to defend yourself. I took responsibility for my actions, and it's time that you did the same. Stewiedv (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You seriously need to stop. When I refused to be part of your battle on COIN, that doesn't mean you should try to re-ignite the battle here. And don't think you can get away with trying to blame your COI mistakes on "following ['my'] example". I simply mentioned your name to clarify something to Cavarrone; nothing more. Erpert ]
- Incubate As Rebecca1990 points out the subject does appear to be notable BUT there are significant POV and sourcing issues. Take it out of mainspace and give editors an opportunity to get it fixed up. J04n(talk page) 12:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per J04n and my reasoning above, it sounds a good compromise. Cavarrone (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't persuade of notability. Not sure what Incubate means, but if it means take it out of mainspace and work it in userspace, the author can do that anyway. The article doesn't even provide her real name. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- About incubation, read ]
- Yes, adult film stars' real names are very hard to find in reliable sources (IMDb notwithstanding); also, not having that listed definitely isn't a valid reason for deletion. (BTW, why is this still open? It's been almost two weeks.) Erpert ]
- Delete Article's subject does not meet ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (
]List of NHL playoff series
- List of NHL playoff series (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 matrix cataloging every historical NHL playoff matchup.
]- Keep Saying this page is "indiscriminate" implies that the information was compiled in a thoughtless or haphazard manner. However, one can see that is not the case, as the information is clearly organized with thought and care. In addition, the nominator's rationale "A matrix cataloging every historical NHL playoff matchup" reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, by claiming the information on this page is indiscriminate, just because they believe it to be true, without providing any deeper reason for why this page should be deleted. Canuck89 (have words with me)22:57, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that every playoff has its own article, I fail to see how it is indiscriminate to list them; the nom should expand his rationale beyond a ]
- Keep, since nominator's reasoning isn't really correct. With regards to WP:LISTPURP above, I'm not sure but I guess it satisfies it. Ansh666 21:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not in this to win any argument, so I have no reason to withdraw. I'm actually on the fence on this myself. Pardon if I didn't point an established precedent that fits this example exactly. Is correlating data and presenting it in a new fashion considered WP:CRUFT? I am trying to find similar articles (or evidence of similar articles in AFDs), but I haven't come across anything. TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first I've seen of its kind, but it's not OR (from the page, "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.") since the information is all readily available and referenced (this page has the nhl.com source, as well as I guess the individual sources in every page.) I personally think that it's a bit unnecessary, but that isn't really a good reason to delete it. In response to the other concern about cruft and such, the list isn't organized too well; if anything, it should be by year instead of by which other team was played and get rid of the stats, which would considerably shorten the list and remove that issue. Ansh666 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Organizing a sport's history by team/franchise does not raise any OR concerns because it is standard and obvious for the subject, as is outlining the histories/rivalries between individual teams. Player turnover is a constant for any team in any sport and doesn't at all change that the teams have continuity as entities and are treated as such by sports historians and the general public (cf. WP:ATD. One last comment: in the future, please don't list an article at AFD if you are "on the fence". This venue is for if you think content should be deleted, not if you don't know if it should. postdlf (talk) 21:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I was referring to cruft, not OR, but basically I agree with you here. Ansh666 23:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is not an indsicriminate list as it utilizes a set and fixed inclusion criteria. You could perhaps move each team's table to their seasons article, but after going back and forth in my mind, I think this works too. Resolute 22:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Morris City Pool
- Morris City Pool (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 local pool
]- Delete This looks like a standard business type listings are starting to crop up quite often and I don't believe they should remain here. Funny Pika! 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As non-notable and run of the mill. Unless someone can provide links to discussion of its architectural merits, merits as a pool, historical importance (on a more than city-wide level), major sporting events held there, or anything to lift this above a business directory style listing. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Seems like advertising to me. Ansh666 21:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. — Joaquin008 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was procedural close. Wrong venue, try renominating this over at
]...Kimi e
this is a useless Redirect and no page in the Articlespace is using it and in uuserspace there are only archives using this. My1 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmarx
- Checkmarx (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 previous article on this company was deleted as non-notable; the present version was created just a few days ago. It was full of promotional language and marketing speak, most of which I've removed. However, I'm not satisfied that what remains meets our sourcing and notability requirements. A large majority of the references are still to the company's own publications, and even the seemingly independent sources used to establish notability are suspect. (For example, one of the claims to notability is an award at a regional OWASP conference, though the company itself sponsored this conference. Also, some of the media coverage is quite clearly simply reprints of Chekmarx press releases.) Psychonaut (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The promotional language was re-inserted today by the article's original author. I won't remove it again for fear of starting an edit war, but will wait until this AfD is complete. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt: an application security company that develops next generation static code analysis software. Highly unusual circumstances would be needed to make encyclopedia subject, and trade awards nobody outside the industry has ever heard of (if anyone inside has) do not make such a case. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aram James
- Aram James (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)
It appears that from 2005 to 2007 the subject was mentioned in local newspapers and alternative weeklies for attending city council meetings and speaking out against the use of tasers. His views do not seem to have been reported on outside of the local area and I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources that would shed light on the usual biographical details. Fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete, the subject has received multiple mentions in non-primary significant coverage in any of those mentions; at the same time I can see the arguement that all of those mentions added together may be considered one significant coverage source. That being said, it is my view that multiple significant coverage reliable sources indicate clear notability. As the subject's notability is unclear to me at this I will weakly support deletion, and maybe persuaded to change my opinion given proper evidence being presented.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep. Withdrawing nomination. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 14:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lambertseter Upper Secondary School
- Lambertseter Upper Secondary School (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)
Doesn't meet
]- Keep - Schools are kept regardless!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Are you serious? Why should this particular article be deleted when we have a lot of articles on other Norwegian (upper secondary) schools? Take a look at Fagerborg Upper Secondary School. The article consists of only two sentences, still it has been existing since 2006. I want to know what makes "my" article less relevant compared to let's say Berg Upper Secondary School or Oslo Cathedral School? Do not they all belong to the same category? If it is of no relevance to Wikipedia then why do we have so many articles on other Norwegian (or any country, for that sake) schools, both on this English version and other versions of Wikipedia? Going by your logic all articles found in Category:Secondary_schools_in_Norway should be deleted. As far as relevance is concerned, I do not see any issue. Yes, the article is surely a stub, but it contains all the basic information. Anyways that is a whole different matter. I want a good explanation for the unfair nomination for deletion. Sandip90 (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per longstanding consensus that high schools of confirmed existence (as this is) are treated the same way as cities, rivers, highways, and professional athletes and presumed notable. Carrite (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
InsideSales.com
- InsideSales.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hate to AFD it so fast after creation, but extensive searching finds nothing to establish notability. I did find one interesting article, but it was written by one of the founders (on Forbes). Promotional article about a company that doesn't pass WP:CORP at this time, no matter how much we edit it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination, advertising, and the sort of business that just won't ever be an encyclopedia subject: Its primary product is dialing technology embedded inside customer relationship management (CRM) software. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nomination. The refs seem to be things that mention the product in passing, rather than the kind of writeups that would indicate notability. I note in passing that this article has been speedy-deleted three times in the past, too. Pseudomonas(talk) 12:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder also if there's also a link between Leo D is Me and Leo Dirr, "Content alchemist at http://InsideSales.com" [14]. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:18, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — Joaquin008 (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted under G11. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Dharmavir
- Dr. Dharmavir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Dharmavir Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible vanity autobio.
]- Delete - Doesn't have any reliable sources. However, I also don't believe that an article's being an autobiography is a reason for deletion. Rather, it should just be a red flag for possible problems with sourcing and neutral point of view. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 17:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At the moment, I would go with delete. Right now, I cannot determine from the sources given if this guy is a tenured academic at a notable college/university. Right now, it is ambiguous and without a sign of notability, delete would be the proper course. Safiel (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. --BDD (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's Kingsley Bitch
- It's Kingsley Bitch (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)
Was previously speedy deleted under the article name King Russell, which is now a redirect to this article. Rationale here: Not notable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable internet personality Sasquatch t|c 00:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Would this be a possible candidate to be speedied because of its previous deletion? Andrew327 01:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be a candidate regardless of a previous incarnation. Drmies (talk)
- But not a candidate solely because it was previously a CSD candidate. We only "delete because it was previously deleted" if the previous was an AFD, which is why I brought it here, knowing it will get recreated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be a candidate regardless of a previous incarnation. Drmies (talk)
- Just as insignificant/nonnotable as when I speedied it; I'd speedy it again, but AfD's good too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under ]
- Delete per nom. Non notable person. — Joaquin008 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Non notable. Postoak (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 27 April 2013
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted by Lectonar. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sanad Rashed
- Sanad Rashed (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)
Fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete & salt — Recreated against consensus. This article's subject fails every ]
- Speedied as a G4; could someone please close this? Lectonar (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to ]
The Amazing World of Gumball (Pilot)
This rudimentary write-up of the summary of the pilot short doesn't need a standalone article. It could easily be incorporated into the main article, or the List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to ]
- Redirect to List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes#Pilot per above. JJ98 (Talk) 20:56, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of The Amazing World of Gumball episodes. — Joaquin008 (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn with no support for deletion. (]
Iddhi
- Iddhi (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)
- "Iddhis"is a misspeling of "Siddhi"
- The page contains no ]
- At second thought, I may be incorrect about "Iddhi" being a misspelling; nevertheless, there are no proper source sbeing used, only ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
Comment by JJ: Okay, there are sources... [15] [16] Sorry for the trouble, discussion can be closed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was already deleted.
Gamma-Dynacare Medical Laboratories
Non notable. A directory listing is not a source. Article should be deleted unless any reference can be added.
]- This article is notable. Being listed as one of Canada's top 100 employers is not simply a directory listing. This is a prestigious award to be named as one of the topp 100 employers in the entire country on more than one occasion. Magnetawan (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as unambiguous advertising: most respected providers of laboratory services and solutions, with more than 50 years of experience. Whether this is a notable business or not, this requires a complete do-over, and none of this spam should linger in history. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I have tagged the article with a copyvio and listed it for copyvio review. The article is in part a copy of the standard blurb at the bottom of Gamma-Dynacare's press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DO NOT DELETE This article is notable and should not be deleted. This page is for a company which has been listed as one of Canada's top 100 employers in the country on more than one occasion. It is no easy feat to be listed as one of the top employers in the entire country. Being awarded as a top employer in the entire country certainly makes a company notable. Magnetawan (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further this company was listed company of the year in Ottawa (The nations capital) adding to its notability. Magnetawan (talk) 00:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 00:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TigerWiki
- TigerWiki (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 notability per
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete - software article lacking reliable sources to establish notability, created by an SPA as possibly promotional. Dialectric (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to ]
Craft International
Nonnotable security group. No independent sources about the group, mentioned in passing in profiles about the compnay's founder. Has also become prime conspiracy bait following the Marathon bombings. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:ORG. The subject is founded by a notable individual but the company does not inherit his notability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Chris Kyle, founder. --George100 (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Chris Kyle; not independently notable enough for standalone article based on available sources. MastCell Talk 00:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Chris Kyle, founder. Mista-X (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Chris Kyle. — Joaquin008 (talk) 20:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; notable for their presence at the Boston marathon; see http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/freedom-press-not-free/2013/apr/18/men-backpacks-boston-marathon-private-contractors/. Dan56789 (talk) 16:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the conspiracy bait I speak of. The Communities section of the Washington Times are self-published, non-edited blogs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't "conspiracy bait" a prejudicial term? Almost anything can be used as "bait" by misguided conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean the information isn't worth reporting. Dan56789 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's absolutely a prejudicial term. It's not worthy of attention, nor does it confer any information making this article worthy of inclusion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't "conspiracy bait" a prejudicial term? Almost anything can be used as "bait" by misguided conspiracy theorists. That doesn't mean the information isn't worth reporting. Dan56789 (talk) 18:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the conspiracy bait I speak of. The Communities section of the Washington Times are self-published, non-edited blogs. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Fails notability guidelines, sufficient reference already made in Chris Kyle. ShepTalk 05:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Frostbox
- Frostbox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- "WP:NOTABILITY. Article is about a service product. "Frostbox" gets zero relevant gnews hits. The one reference in the article which shows any sign of notability is this, which includes just two paragraphs on this product amidst a list of similar products. The remaining references are either references on the company that provides the service (covering their offering stock in trade for promotion), press releases (the "One Stop Backup For Social Media Junkies" info referenced to multiple sources), or databases. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)"[reply]
- "
Unfortunately that AFD failed to get response so this spam is here again. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, per me! -Nat Gertler (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The reference | Here is in a reliable source, as is the NBC article mentioned above. The article | Here is extensive. Between the three may be a tenuous claim of notability. IMS91319 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that Startribune reference, while in an apparent WP:RS, makes only a passing mention of the service product Frostbox, which this product is nominally about; what it says about Frostbox is more about the company Frostbox, and even that is in being really about Wahooly, just choosing Frostbox as an example. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- And the 2nd article mentioned was writer by the founders of the company, as can be seen by not just glancing at it, but reading all the way to the bottom. DGG ( talk ) 22:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But that Startribune reference, while in an apparent
- Delete No substantial reliable sources; I'm pretty flexible about sourcing for this type of article, but I expect at least one good third party review DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If anyone wants to merge any of the info into Jascha Heifetz or any other appropriate taget I would be happy to userfy it to them. J04n(talk page) 12:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Helen Claire Hodgkins (Wright)
- Helen Claire Hodgkins (Wright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to meet
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She and the Jascha Heifetz Society could be mentioned in Jascha Heifetz. BLP presumably doesn't apply since she's apparently dead. But while there are sources mentioning her[17][18] there's arguably not enough to establish notability (I don't think violinist.com counts as a reliable source, since it seems to be a one-person operation). --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Did the nominator look for any other references? I found with very little effort:
- Violin Community News 2011 notice of her death
- LA Times article about her & the society she founded for Heifetz;
- Eugene Register-Guard / short article with description of her as "a well known violinist in the Northeast" ... soloist with Portland Symphony Orchestra, etc.
- So without being an expert in the field or doing any research in relevant classical music coverage, I would give her a provisional pass. --Lquilter (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article creator, Lvwarren (talk · contribs), deleted the AfD tags from the article. I restored them and left a warning. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, the nominator did a search and found most of the sources you listed. I did not see the LA Times article but, having read it, agree with You can help! 16:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete, subject does not appear to have multiple non-primary ]
- Weak Delete per RCLC. Furthermore, the LA Times article discusses her in the context of promoting her teacher, so arguably it's an article giving evidence for notability about her teacher, not her. Other coverage seems to be mostly trivial. RayTalk 00:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diamond Pet Foods
- Diamond Pet Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this at
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 12:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - spectacularly fails ]
- Delete - since WP:oneevent candidate and lack of notability from other sources. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 15:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Just repeating part of the reason for my request for this... Apart from the recall notices, it contains some very glowing language about the company, such as "...focused on providing the best nutrition for every pet, whether it was an expensive show animal or a child's free puppy or kitten." Sounds like marketing hype to me, and certainly not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is simply spam pretending to be an article. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a shortcut for that - ]
- Delete, non-encyclopedic stuff. — Joaquin008 (talk) 21:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Article is redirected one minute before nomination.. В и к и T 11:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2guys1horse.com
- 2guys1horse.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about non notable website. 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ekorrgos
- Ekorrgos (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
]- Delete. IDONTKNOWTHIS is not a reason to delete, but as a native speaker of a language it's always a red flag when you see a term that you've genuinely never seen before, and which looks like a random compound - note that Swedish can form compound nouns rather more easily than English, and all Swedish-speakers create lots of temporary compounds on the fly, all the time. That being said, I have Googled the term and it does pop up in some blogs, on Facebook pages and forum posts, but it still fails WP:MADEUP applies here. The term is not used or discussed in any reliable sources at all - but I don't think G3 appplies, it's not a hoax, just a really obscure neologism. --bonadea contributions talk 10:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ephemeral neoologism sourced to a blog from 2009. Incidentally it was deleted from Swedish Wikipedia as a neologism in 2011 and as a dictionary word on 8 April 2013,[21] the same day that it was created here (in Swedish yet, see history). Bishonen | talk 11:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete.. No reliable sources exist for this neologism with a jokey, hoaxy feeling to it. Given the known history it seems clear this was one person's idea of amusing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's a hoax, really. The history may simply indicate the creator feels quite strongly it should exist somewhere. (I look forward to it appearing in the Nynorsk or Tagalog Wikipedia.) Bishonen | talk 14:08, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete. There are several good reasons for deleting this article, including the WP:NOT argument that English Wikipedia is not a dictionary of obscure and local Swedish slang (as I native speaker I had never heard this one before, BTW), even if it should turn out not to be a neologism and the article would be rid of its other issues. To me the case for deletion is so obvious that I would have PRODed it myself if I had stumbled upon it before this nomination. Tomas e (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete hoax at worst, utterly non-notable micro-neologism at best. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete (G12) by
]Usbstor
- Usbstor (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)
Textbook
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Listed under G12 (copyvio) per this 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 keep. (
]Sir Billi
- Sir Billi (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
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Keep It meets WP:GNG because of the considerable press interest, mainly in the Scottish press but also in the USA. I've added some more references. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its the film equivalent of a Vanity Press, by a couple who happen to have the money and contacts to push it to a stage where it cost staggeringly more than an equivalent length CGI tv episode/tv movie yet delivered a worse product. The Hartmans have a PR company so plenty of means to push mention of it into many sources but none of them cover it in more than a superficial way (hence my assertion they do not produce substantial coverage). It will be forgotten as Scotlands first (if that's true as the claim originates with the Hartmans) and won't even be counted as its first unless it gets a release, as for Connery's last film; mention it in his bio but his notability is not inherited by this film. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 09:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a notable topic as demonstrated by the significant coverage that Colapeninsula has now included in the article. I find the coverage from Variety and The Huffington Post particularly noteworthy. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment to Colapeninsula above. Tessa Hartman and her Daughter both write for Huffington so it's neither independent nor unbiased. The Variety review is nearly short enough it could have been tweeted (especially when the plot summary which makes up 50% of the review is removed) neither are particularly noteworthy in this case. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These were not the only sources; Colapeninsula did an excellent job showing that this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please be aware of escalation of commitment; dismissing the Variety review when it is more than "a trivial mention" (especially when it gets attention from The Scotsman) is indicative of that. It is perfectly acceptable to concede and withdraw, as I suspect the consensus will not build in your favor. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In what way is the Variety review "substantial coverage" when it consists of 520 characters (not words. 530 words would be substantial coverage) of review and 700 characters of plot outline? The Scotsman takes this further taking two lines from the variety review and adding a similar (~700) number of words in plot and cast
- . I'm not sure why you want me to withdraw, it's probably the first time in many years of submitting AfDs someone has asked me to do that. I don't intend to though, as I don't believe the article provides any significant encyclopaedic value no matter how many of these sources are brought in to it, as I say above the Hartmans like many other PR companies can easily produce such "noise" in regard to the products they are trying to push whether it's snakeoil, or a film , but delivering unbiased quality sources of "Information" is another thing entirely. If consensus is against me this time, I can wait I've seen consensus change much more radically to AfDs submitted 2,5,8 years later - I can be patient until that time if I have to be. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition of significant coverage does not involve actual word count; see WP:SIGCOV. The point is, Variety is a prominent publication that reviewed the film. That is a point in favor of establishing it as a stand-alone topic on Wikipedia. Colapeninsula included numerous other sources that also provide significant coverage. WP:NOTFILM says that WP:GNG suffices for the majority of topics and that the specific notability guidelines for films are considered if there is not much coverage readily found. I do not believe WP:NOTFILM applies here because we can find a variety of reports online with ease. I do agree that The Huffington Post has a promotional tone to it, but in such cases, I prefer to mine basic information (especially about the making of the film) to include in the Wikipedia article, sans the tone. I mention "escalation of commitment" because the state of the article has changed since you nominated it for deletion, yet you seem unfazed in your initial stance. I've seen other AfDs happen similarly, and I've also seen closures with a bit less coverage than what we have here, which is why I am confident this will not be deleted. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No it doesn't but the point of significant coverage is that there should be enough information in there to write a rounded article that hasn't been demonstrated either before or after Colapeninsula's adittions. You refer to "mining basic information" and that's exactly the problem here - we shouldn't have to "mine" information - the coverage should be substantial enough that we're not looking for the one sentence out of 20 or 30 that differs from the 21 or 31 in all the other sources (The Scotsman source is a prime example of this) then there's all the other sourcing problems - The date it *was* shown is sourced to an article published before that date, the only positive review listed is to an SPS, It has a controversy section that isn't really a controversy it's the creator spouting in a another paper she has written for. You can quickly whittle away a lot of the sources because they fail to make any substantial coverage of the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only referred to "mining" in regard to The Huffington Post specifically. Significant coverage means: "Sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." We have multiple sources about this film that are more than trivial mentions. I doubt that this article will be well-rounded, but the topic is referred to enough times for there to be a compact article. Not all topics have articles that could aspire to Good or Featured status at their most extensive. Concerns about sourcing and use of section headings are matters of article improvement, not existence. (I do agree about the "Controversy" not being appropriate per MOS:FILM#Controversies, but as these guidelines say, "isolated criticisms may be briefly summarized".) I think there are too many sources to make the unsubstantiated claim that the filmmakers' PR firm pressured them all to write about their movie. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I only referred to "mining" in regard to The Huffington Post specifically. Significant coverage means: "Sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." We have multiple sources about this film that are more than trivial mentions. I doubt that this article will be well-rounded, but the topic is referred to enough times for there to be a compact article. Not all topics have articles that could aspire to Good or Featured status at their most extensive. Concerns about sourcing and use of section headings are matters of article improvement, not existence. (I do agree about the "Controversy" not being appropriate per
- No it doesn't but the point of significant coverage is that there should be enough information in there to write a rounded article that hasn't been demonstrated either before or after Colapeninsula's adittions. You refer to "mining basic information" and that's exactly the problem here - we shouldn't have to "mine" information - the coverage should be substantial enough that we're not looking for the one sentence out of 20 or 30 that differs from the 21 or 31 in all the other sources (The Scotsman source is a prime example of this) then there's all the other sourcing problems - The date it *was* shown is sourced to an article published before that date, the only positive review listed is to an SPS, It has a controversy section that isn't really a controversy it's the creator spouting in a another paper she has written for. You can quickly whittle away a lot of the sources because they fail to make any substantial coverage of the subject. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition of significant coverage does not involve actual word count; see
- These were not the only sources; Colapeninsula did an excellent job showing that this topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Please be aware of escalation of commitment; dismissing the Variety review when it is more than "a trivial mention" (especially when it gets attention from The Scotsman) is indicative of that. It is perfectly acceptable to concede and withdraw, as I suspect the consensus will not build in your favor. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See my comment to Colapeninsula above. Tessa Hartman and her Daughter both write for Huffington so it's neither independent nor unbiased. The Variety review is nearly short enough it could have been tweeted (especially when the plot summary which makes up 50% of the review is removed) neither are particularly noteworthy in this case. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly notable, extended coverage of this project in multiple sources over a span of years as Colapeninsula has shown and a GNews search of <"Sir Billi" Connery> bears out. The nominator's criteria for what qualifies as substantive coverage are not consistent with those generally applied to films. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I searched Access World News for additional coverage about the film, and I found this, a 2,000-word article by The Sunday Times. Most of the article is behind a paywall but can be seen via TinyPaste here. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In your last comment you said " I think there are too many sources to make the unsubstantiated claim that the filmmakers' PR firm pressured them all to write about their movie." then you present this source. The UK's most significant newspaper interviewing a non-notable first time director, who is self financing a film - this doesn't happen for anyone else. At any one time there are thousands of films in the same boat and have been for the past 30 years, yet I have never seen this for any other unknown and unproven director (and know many known and proven directors who still wouldn't get it) but when your wife runs Hartman media, is an editor at the Glasgow Herald and Evening times , has written for the Daily Record , and Scotsman, have a daughter who writes for huffington post, and your wife apparently has a friendship with the Journalist writing about you [22] you can - Chris Jones should add that as a key skill to his film making handbook. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, Sean Connery's involvement is a reason for news coverage of this film. If you want to claim notability is not inherited, an impartial tone. However, the significant coverage goes beyond the connections that you mention. There will be such cases where the creators of some work will push for their creation to be known, and the question is one of independent coverage of said work. If it has "caught on", as I believe it has here, then Wikipedia will use that coverage to establish an article for the topic and ensure a neutral point view. Not only is there a reception, there is a negative one. A Wikipedia article with that proper tone would not be anything the filmmakers care to have (unless you buy into Barnum's statement about publicity). Erik (talk | contribs) 23:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I can tell, Sean Connery's involvement is a reason for news coverage of this film. If you want to claim notability is not inherited,
- In your last comment you said " I think there are too many sources to make the unsubstantiated claim that the filmmakers' PR firm pressured them all to write about their movie." then you present this source. The UK's most significant newspaper interviewing a non-notable first time director, who is self financing a film - this doesn't happen for anyone else. At any one time there are thousands of films in the same boat and have been for the past 30 years, yet I have never seen this for any other unknown and unproven director (and know many known and proven directors who still wouldn't get it) but when your wife runs Hartman media, is an editor at the Glasgow Herald and Evening times , has written for the Daily Record , and Scotsman, have a daughter who writes for huffington post, and your wife apparently has a friendship with the Journalist writing about you [22] you can - Chris Jones should add that as a key skill to his film making handbook. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Clearly meets ]
- Is it really essential to ask the question at RSN whether sources which haven't seen the film such as slashfilm who saw the directors showreel and Flayrah,or the Express who saw a trailer, are reliable criticism of the film? Or to ask whether it's suitable for two sources from before an event are used to cite a claim that it actually happened on that date as we use hollywoodreporter and the napa valley register to do? Or the fact that we use multiple sources which are variations of the single Variety review such as the sun and The scotsman - These should be regarded as a single source for the purposes of notability. What about the use of Selfpublished Sources and Blogs as Review material they're not accepted anywhere else unless the writers are recognised experts, is that the case for any of these? [23][24][25] But if you still feel it needs to be asked, I'm always willing to do that. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 08:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What might be more helpful when you choose to Verifiable as Scotland's first CGI animated feature film AND being the final acting role for Sean Connery. Those caveats are met and even if you feel it lacks in sigcov, its historic notability is unrebutted. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked a question about one of of your points, that I should take sources that were not reliable for the claims to RSN. This doesn't mean that I wasn't considering your other point's but trying to find definitive answers for them - two questions can we definitively prove that no CGI animated feature films were made in Scotland prior to 2012? There certainly were some CGI animated films made in Scottish animation houses - Axis animation in Glasgow did some of ]
- What might be more helpful when you choose to
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Snow Keep and close - Clearly passes the "General principles" section of WP:MOVIE. Multiple instances of significant coverage in reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As above. Alborzagros (talk) 13:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above. JJ98 (Talk) 20:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Faxed Head
Article fails to meet
]- Delete. Notability is still not inherited. This band has extremely limited coverage, and none from reliable, secondary sources. If anything, should be a section on Trey's own page. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander Rusev
Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andre Tyson and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachelle Walker, is a wrestler that only has sign a contract with WWE. He is in the farm territory, but now, I think that he isn't notable. He can be in a future, but we need more than sign a contract with WWE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- Delete- Fails to meet the GNG. Feedback ☎ 17:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spartan Dischords
- Spartan Dischords (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 college a capella group. No third party sources, which are required under Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Does not meet alternate guidelines of Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria musicians and ensembles. Recreation of previously deleted material.GrapedApe (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- Delete per nom. I've seen better collegiate a cappella group articles deleted. There's no objective reason why these articles should be any more promotional than anything else, but that's the way it tends to work out. --BDD (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is a List of collegiate a cappella groups which is almost all blue links. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a valid reason for keep.-GrapedApe (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only non-announcement reporting or critical response is from the school paper. Also 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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rabih Baroud
- Rabih Baroud (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 Lebanon-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Pointy Shoe Factory
- The Pointy Shoe Factory (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)
Otherwise unknown band who had three songs included on the soundtrack to Dragon Ball Z: Broly – The Legendary Super Saiyan. There's a review of their first album in the Dallas Observer. Other than that... Shirt58 (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Band fails WP:V too. If there were references to establish notability of the subject, I'd consider a merge, but as it currently stands, delete. Charon123able (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would have brought this to A7—the band makes no claim to notability and otherwise 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Airbag (Norwegian band)
- Airbag (Norwegian band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musical group. No evidence of in depth coverage, awards or charting.
]- Delete. Nothing found to indicate a band that should have an encyclopedia article. Very little coverage found, none in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found two album reviews in reliable sources (aftenbladet (1), dagbladet) (2), but that may be a bit thin for notability (I am not familiar with the notability guidelines for music). The band is a bit hard too google, because of the generic bandname. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Makes no claim of notability. Could have been A7'd. 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. MBisanz talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Manu V. Devadevan
- Manu V. Devadevan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject fails
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KeepThe author is quite notable and has written and translated famous books. Definately passes ]
- Care to cite some ]
- Delete. No ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 05:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Daydreamin' (Ariana Grande album)
Per
- Delete: There are unused reliable sources out there, although fans editing the article make it completely hard to give it any sort of decency. Also considering she is still working on the album and hasn't even released many details about it, it's purely unneeded on Wikipedia right now. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffrey Carl
- Jeffrey Carl (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 journalist/writer. Fails
]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing ]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Hoppers Crossing, Victoria. MBisanz talk 00:21, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
St James the Apostle Primary School
fails WP:ORG. primary schools are not inherently notable. could not find significant coverage of this. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Schools are kept regardless!. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- primary schools are not inherently notable, only high schools are. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been told any school is notable, Whether it's primary, secondary/high or special. -
- →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct - please see ]
- Thanks, Much appreciated!, →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 12:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct - please see ]
- I've been told any school is notable, Whether it's primary, secondary/high or special. -
- Delete or Merge - Given that there is no proof of notability on the page (the only source cited is the school's website), and since no source is forthcoming following a Google search, I can't see a reason to maintain it. I know that primary schools are typically merged with the school district if they do not meet the normal criteria for an organization to be notable, so it may be possible to merge this in some way with the article for the Archdiocese of Melbourne. Given the current content of that article, though, that doesn't seem possible. Chri$topher (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indications of ]
- Redirect to Hoppers Crossing, Victoria. Merge is not appropriate as the article is unsourced. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. It's snowing. There being no valid reason for deletion, it could also be a speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tanhouse lane railway station
This article is not part of any of the relevant WikiProjects, did not cite any sources in its creation, has poor formatting and sentence fragmentation, and is a stub. I do not see the significance of this article's content. It is also an orphan, indicating that it is likely insignificant. Jackson Peebles (talk) 04:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Speedy keep - none of the nominator's arguments are in any way criterion for deletion. Articles are not required to be part of WikiProjects; lacking references is policy-based reason for deletion, the article can be speedily renominated. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to The Bushranger's comments, I've now fixed all of the identified problems (other than it being a stub, which is still not a reason for deletion). Thryduulf (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also note that I've moved the article to the correct capitalisation of Tanhouse Lane railway station. Thryduulf (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW Keep. If it hadn't been clear from the outset that this was a real place on a historic railway, it is now. All kudos to Thryduulf for such nice work tidying up the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank the people who have turned my initial "get it going" offering into something to be proud of. I am not precious, I put it on so that blind references to Tanhouse Lane Station in other Wiki screens had something to attach to, but I was put out that the first I hear from the Wiki people is a threat, not exactly encouraging! It looks like we've all woninthe end, warm thanks once again. Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidAHull (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seems notable enough. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 14:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep, trout nominator for not providing a single reason for deletion, and making a solely ]
- Speedy keep -- We have 1000s of such articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep we do indeed have WP:OTHERSTUFF as an argument. Nevertheless, three of us (Thryduulf; myself; and Lamberhurst) have added quite a bit to this since it was AFDd (and I've not finished yet), and in the space of a few hours it's been put into somewhat better shape than some (much older) articles about stations on the same line (e.g. Halewood, Padgate or Chassen Road). --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Railway stations are invariably considered to be notable. In what way is "not part of any of the relevant WikiProjects" a criterion for deletion? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as railway stations ARE notable. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Despite Zgonnik references, I don't see editors (except Praemonitus) convinced on this article being notable. Deleting it currently; if any user wishes it to be userfied, will accede. Thanks. Wifione Message 08:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hydridic Earth theory
- Hydridic Earth theory (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 reliable sources since 2008.
- PS: Larin is listed in fringe science list: "Vladimir N. Larin Hydridic Earth " and relisted in "Hydridic+Earth The Worldwide list of dissidents scientists page 838. `a5b (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- PPS: there is another theory about hydrogen in earth core: ]
- PS: Larin is listed in fringe science list: "Vladimir N. Larin Hydridic Earth " and relisted in "Hydridic+Earth The Worldwide list of dissidents scientists page 838. `a5b (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete. Negligible sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- It is fringe, but Lochie is not accepted in the scientific community either, and no one will be deleting that article for being fringe. Fringe theories abound in the earth sciences because of Creationism, and many of these will be notable, such as, I am sure there is an article on Young Earth theory. And these are promoted by fringe scientists, like Michael Behe, but there articles will not be deleted because they are fringe theories. More to the point, this particular fringe theory appears to not be notable; or, it wasn't until Wikipdia published an article on it that got mirrored all over cyberspace. Ouch. I hope you are checking the contributor's other offerings to the 'pedia. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 06:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable fringe theory that, based on my own Google searches, has never received even a single word of mention in mainstream reliable independent sources, never mind anything resembling significant coverage. As IP mentions above, some fringe theories are notable, but this one is far from it. Absolutely nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The topic is verifiable; hydrogen-future.com has some books on the topic. But I could only find primary resources--no independent discussions of this theory from reliable sources could be found, at least online. There is one independent source quoted in the article, but it does not seem to be a reliable source. Unless independent in-depth reliable sources can be found, this topic fails general notability guidelines, per ]
- Here is the list of works, citing this theory. Please note, that some works are based on the Hydridic Earth Theory:
1) Eneev, T. M., & Kozlov, N. N. (1981). A model of the accumulation process in the formation of planetary systems. I. Numerical experiments. Solar System Research, 15(2), 59–70. Retrieved from http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981AVest..15...80E
2) Fedonkin, M. A. (2009). Eukaryotization of the early biosphere: A biogeochemical aspect. Geochemistry International, 47(13), 1265–1333. doi:10.1134/S0016702909130011
3) Gilat, A. L., & Vol, A. (2012). Degassing of primordial hydrogen and helium as the major energy source for internal terrestrial processes. Geoscience Frontiers, 3(6), 911–921. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2012.03.009
4) Gilat, A. L., & Vol, A. (2005). Primordial hydrogen-helium degassing , an overlooked major energy source for internal terrestrial processes. HAIT Journal of Science and Engineering B, 2(1-2), 125–167. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Primordial+hydrogen-helium+degassing,+an+overlooked+major+energy+source+for+internal+terrestrial+processes#0
5) Hunt, C. W. (1996). Metal orefields and petroleum deposits resulting from silane and hydrocarbon emanations through crystalline terranes. Theophrastus contributions to advanced studies in geology (Vol. 1). Athens, Greece.
6) Pavlenkova, N. I. (2009). Nature of particular structure position of the Antarctica. Ukrainian Аntarctic Journal, 8, 108–113. Retrieved from http://www.uac.gov.ua/en/uaj8/
7) Syvorotkin, V. L. (2010). Hydrogen degassing of the Earth: Natural disasters and the biosphere. Man and the Geosphere (pp. 307–347). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Retrieved from http://iflorinsky.narod.ru/mg-10.htm
8) Walshe, J. L., Hobbs, B., Ord, A., Regenauer-Lieb, K., & Barmicoat, A. (2005). Mineral systems, hydridic fluids, the Earth’s core, mass extinction events and related phenomena. Mineral Deposit Research: Meeting the Global Challenge (pp. 65–68). Springer. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007%2F3-540-27946-6_17
I can add 15 more in Russian language. Hope, this is enough to leave the article. Note also, that most of articles were published after 2005, showing the increasing interest to this theory during last years. Zgonnik (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zgonnik, some of articles listed by you only cite Larin's theory. Is there some articles describing his theory but not written by him or his followers, I mean describing from a critical point of view `a5b (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They're not actually citing the theory, just the article, in passing, and just a specific part of it, the ones I read. I may be wrong about the notability, but I can't tell that from these articles. Do you have one, Russian would be okay, though not best, that actually discusses his theory,, as Af5 suggests? I would be glad to get it and read it. I also work with a petrologist who does primary cosmology research, and I can discuss the issue with him, if a good article arises; not to post this scientist's opinion, simply to gather whether or not to spend time researching. I am always concerned about a Wikipedia article that has the primary support of what appears to be a very limited purpose account. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zgonnik, some of articles listed by you only cite Larin's theory. Is there some articles describing his theory but not written by him or his followers, I mean describing from a critical point of view `a5b (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It may be fringe, but it does indeed appear to receive some coverage in peer reviewed journals. Unfortunately, many of the references are behind pay walls. But I'm not convinced it's non-notable in the Wikipedia sense of the word. Praemonitus (talk) 04:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did a little investigation through the scientific databases and found almost nothing just mentioning of this "theory". It is so evidently fringe, so nobody even bothers to criticize it. --RedAndr (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I did a large investigation through the scientific databases and found many works mentioning this theory (see above). It is so unbelievably idfferent from the mainstream and so unevidently to criticize it, so nobody did this. Vladimir Larin defended his Doctor's dissertation in 1991. In the commission of opponents were "E. Milanovskiy", "D. Mineev" and "T. Eneev" - all prominent scientists, and all of them accepted Larin's work. Zgonnik (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As I point out above, they are not actually mentioning the theory. If you can give me a single source, as I said above, that mentions the theory, rather than just cites some small portion of this one article, then I would be glad to read it. I also want to point out that a theory, if it is accepted by any group of scientists, will be the subject of numerous articles, not just mentioned in one, and never cited as that theory in others. We can't decide on Wikipedia that it is a theory; that's the job of others. We can report about theory once there is general agreement that there is one. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Wifione Message 08:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of most expensive video games to develop
- List of most expensive video games to develop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "List of most expensive video games to develop" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
While potentially a good list subject, it's hurting for notability. The sources attached (and available) are extremely lacking, with the main refs citing unreliable, unsourced "estimates" instead of confirmed figures. I don't know if it's possible for this list to ever be definitive or encyclopedic with the available information and the nature of disclosing these figures. PROD was removed. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Delete It's a worthwhile topic. However unless there is at least one official or even somewhat reliable source that tells us the costs of video game development this is really "List of most expensive video games to produce according to info discovered by WP editors." Even that is worth something, but I don't think we should put WP's stamp of approval on it as reliable information. (If there is such a source change my vote to keep.) -Borock (talk) 04:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- According to one source in one case the cost of developing a new game engine (which could be used for future games) was included in the cost of the game. Not ]
- Keep. It's a notable topic, as a Google search for "most expensive video game budgets" (without quotes) will show. There are plenty of sources out there for each individual figure, as well, and I've added a few at random to prove the point. Yes, these are estimates (and I notice this article tends to include only the highest estimates, but that can be fixed through editing), but they're estimates reprinted by reliable sources like the New York Times and the BBC. Most WP articles about video games mention the estimated development cost – this list is simply bringing all that information together. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Most WP articles about video games mention the estimated development cost – this list is simply bringing all that information together."
I've found the opposite to be the case—most major vg articles don't mention even estimated dev costs because their methodologies for estimating are too shaky. What articles do you know that cite hard figures? ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Lists of video games. I think it fits in better with that article. epzik8 14:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists of video games is a compilation of other WP list articles on video games. Each of the articles listed is itself is a list containing multiple entries. Nowhere does the article link to individual video games or define criteria under which specific video games are listed. So I'm afraid I don't see how that could be an appropriate merge target. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I stated on the article's talk page when I removed the PROD, the list of most expensive video game development budgets appears to have originated from a blog. However, the story was subsequently picked up by a few media outlets. If the media outlets themselves are to be regarded as WP:RS, the fact that they published such a list would definitely support the article's notability. Even if a story originates on a blog, it becomes reliable if it subsequently receives significant coverage in other media sources that are themselves reliable. In this instance, I'm not clear on how reliable these media sources are:
- Ashcraft, Brian (February 25, 2010). "Report: The Ten Most Expensive Video Game Budgets Apparently Are..." Kotaku. Retrieved 2013-04-20.
- Gaskill, Jake (February 25, 2010). "Top 10 Highest (Estimated) Game Budgets Of All Time". G4. Retrieved 2013-04-20.
- Horvath, Stu (March 8, 2010). "Most expensive video games: Were they worth the money?". Daily News. Retrieved 2013-04-20.
- Regarding Kotaku, WP:RS, but I'm not certain about The Game Fanatics. --Mike Agricola (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: After a bit more reflection, I'm going to cast a "Keep" vote. The MSN Games article to which I linked above and (probably) at least one or two others among the five sources I listed earlier qualify as reliable. These sources demonstrate that the construction of this type of list is an established, and notable, concept. Added to these sources are others which describe specific games as having one of the most expensive development budgets in the gaming industry (a few of which DoctorKubla already added to the article). Both types of sources permit a well-documented list to be constructed that involves no ]
- The sources themselves are reliable, as in they have a system of internal editorial oversight, but the estimated numbers tend to be of a wide, unreliable range instead of a single figure, from unknown industry insiders, and calculated with no common methodology (e.g., see the NYT articles). I'm not sure those numbers can be called encyclopedic. ]
- Those are good concerns to address editorially. For example, a footnote accompanying the table could note that the provided figures are only estimates. If possible, multiple sources should be consulted for each game and budgetary ranges (e.g. 40-50 million) presented where discrepancies occur. Reliable media outlets often quote "unnamed sources", yet these news stories are still acceptable to cite so long as the outlet itself qualifies as a ]
- The sources themselves are reliable, as in they have a system of internal editorial oversight, but the estimated numbers tend to be of a wide, unreliable range instead of a single figure, from unknown industry insiders, and calculated with no common methodology (e.g., see the NYT articles). I'm not sure those numbers can be called encyclopedic. ]
- Keep - A couple clicks in the footnotes indicates that the cost of game production is indeed a subject covered in multiple, independently published sources. Does it need better sourcing? Yes. Are the numbers accurate? Quite likely. These are editing matters. As to the basic question of notability and encyclopedia-worthiness, this is clearly a keep, it seems to me. Carrite (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a bare-bones article in need of more content and sourcing, but the topic is definitely notable. I know that SWTOR in particular received a lot of coverage for being the most expensive video game ever developed, here for instance. —Torchiest talkedits 13:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The current citations seem like a good start, so I think it satisfies WP:GNG. This is the type of information that I've gone hunting for in the past and I think it's a good topic for an encyclopedia. Praemonitus (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not non-notable, just needs improvement/expansion. Ansh666 21:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. withdrawn by nominator (
]Microshaft Winblows 98
- Microshaft Winblows 98 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find video game sources: "Microshaft Winblows 98" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)
Doesn't pass
]Withdrawn by nominator. Print sources exist (for someone who can get past the paywall) and there is no opposition. Speedy keep #1. ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the ]
- Keep. GNews and HighBeam searches show coverage of this product in multiple independent sources. Many are behind paywalls but I added a few that were not. Appears to have been a notable Microsoft parody and passes GNG. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't able to replicate on GNews. And since the added refs only mention the game in a cursory fashion, I think we'd have trouble (1) passing the "significant coverage" ]
- You have to look at GNews Archives.[26] Theoretically this should be reachable in one click from the "news" link in the AfD header, above, but there's something wrong with the link. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks—I put a note on the template's page. Some of those refs look like they could be useful, but I can't see the character of their discussion from outside the paywall or proof of the parody's ]
- You have to look at GNews Archives.[26] Theoretically this should be reachable in one click from the "news" link in the AfD header, above, but there's something wrong with the link. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't able to replicate on GNews. And since the added refs only mention the game in a cursory fashion, I think we'd have trouble (1) passing the "significant coverage" ]
- Keep - While the current sourcing is borderline, with only the PC Gamer review being substantive, there is other significant RS coverage out there. A Google Books search turned up articles in Computer Gaming World, Time, and Business Week. —Torchiest talkedits 13:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete (housekeeping) ]
Jaden Social
- Jaden Social (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 about an advertising agency that gives no indication of notability. It also appears to be promotional in tone. I was unsure about tagging it for speedy deletion, so I am bringing it here. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 01:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I nominated this article for speedy deletion at the the same time as this AFD (being unaware of the AFD) on lack of notability. I did the usual google search for independent sources but found not much apart from facebook, linkedin etc. I'm not sure which method of deletion is best, I support either CSD or AFD. Jschnur (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to ]
Once My Mother
non-notable documentary. I can't find any sources on it. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteRedirect per TokyoGirl79 and Michael Q. Schmidt andWP:TOOSOON as the film premieres in six months (according to the article) and one source for a quote is an unverifiable personal letter. I was unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Redirect to ]
- Sometimes I am able to "just" get in first. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL. I did manage to find ample notability for the director to where I feel she's free of deletion worries. ]
- (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)
- Redirect to film's writer/director WP:NFF. And so we might improve the article in case it goes to the Incubator please note that in searches for the director we find it has some verifiability under its working title of Remember Me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge as ]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 05:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, I have added a reference to the documentary being financed under the prestigious Signature Documentary program of Screen Australia, the national film financing body in that country. You can also find a POLISH wikipedia page on Sophie Turkiewicz. She is quite famous in that country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finepoets (talk • contribs) 01:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to ]
C Intermediate Language
Not notable. Qwertyus (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to ]
- Merge to C programming language is the right target article for the merge. --Mark viking (talk) 19:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to ]
- Agree. Qwertyus (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relistedto generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Relisting comment: The nominator redirected the article to ]
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ]
- My apologies; I wasn't fully aware of the procedure and thought that, because the redirect solution does not involve an actual deletion, I was allowed to ]
- Comment: In my opinion, the redirect destination should reflect the sort of context that the majority of readers who use "C Intermediate Language" as a search term are looking for. To put that more concretely, do most readers look up CIL to learn about (1) George Necula's involvement in its creation, or do they want to learn about (2) the language itself, its software applications, and its relationship to other versions of C? Although we can only guess at the motivations which lead others to look up information on CIL, my intuition is that option (2) is more applicable. Therefore, I'm maintaining my vote on the article redirect destination, although I can concur with Mark viking that C programming language#Uses is a good choice for the specific section to which to address the redirect. I would just note though that the merged text should clearly reflect George Necula's involvement in CIL's creation. Anyone looking for information on him can easily find it through a wikilink on his name. --Mike Agricola (talk) 16:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you say is true. However, given the size of the ]
- Agree. Given the academic/experimental nature of the language, I think it's more appropriate to redirect to the academic that created it than to the article on C. CIL's notability is minute in comparison to that of C. Qwertyus (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Everything you say is true. However, given the size of the ]
- Comment It appears that all participants, including the nominator, seem to have reached consensus that merge and redirect is the best action here--the only question is the proper target. Since deletion is off the table, I suggest that we could close this discussion and continue the merge discussion on the article talk page. --Mark viking (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.