Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 28
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G3/G5/G10. Take your pick. Courcelles 00:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Plant Crying[edit]
- Robert Plant Crying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relevance. Non encyclopedic Mlpearc powwow 23:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - completely unreferenced, no real indications of notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete There isn't even a video titled that on YouTube, and the 'like/dislike' system would never be bent that far towards 9 million negatives. Nate • (chatter) 23:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As is almost always the case in these discussions, it all comes down to significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. It seems that sufficient sources could not be found for the subject of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Nye[edit]
- Matthew Nye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable minor political activist. No independent sources. Sole reference just mentions him in passing. Will Beback talk 23:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Nye's involvement in the Tea Party in Florida and with the national Republican Liberty Caucus is noteworthy. I started this page and can add more references. I would encourage others to help build the page too, unless the proposal for deletion hinges on my sole participation in building the page. If that's the case, I will start adding the necessary references - it's easier to delete these pages than to help build them - but the latter option is more informative. Swift deletion of a page that is barely getting started on Wikipedia discourages others from making contributions. I'd ask that you please give this volunteer writer the time to flesh the page out today.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- These discussions generally last at least a week, so if more sources are available there's time to add them. I can't find any references to this subject in the Proquest newspaper archive. The accomplishments in the article currently do not seem to meet the criteria at WP:POLITICIAN for notability. Will Beback talk 23:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is National Treasurer of the Republican Liberty Caucus a noteworthy position? Dream Focus 14:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National treasurers to comparable organizations (College Republicans, Young Republicans, etc.) are hyperlinked for a Wiki article though these don't exist. I began the article to contribute to the process of fleshing out an understanding of who the folks are that come forward to do this type of work and who they are working with. I don't see it as dissimilar from an article on the Executive Director of another political entity that is about as equally sourced if not less than this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Clarke_Cooper. My sole intention in adding this is that as I peruse Wikipedia (and normally I do so in largely two areas: politics and music) I tend to get frustrated at names mentioned (or bands, etc.) that don't have an article. If there are references (even if just a couple) then I feel that's sufficient for me to be able to corroborate some modicum of information on the person (the fact that Wikipedia is a place where you can find something so easily is the reason I felt inclined to contribute - that's what makes it unique and useful). I'm sincerely curious, being fairly new to editing here (everyone is new at some point - I don't feel that should minimize what I can contribute): how many people does it take to decide to delete an article? I thought the point was that people would collaborate to build these over time. Some friends and colleagues who could really contribute to Wikipedia have stopped in frustration that they feel it's not worth their effort because people delete too swiftly. As a music fan I've been frustrated to see articles on certain musicians taken down rather than fleshed out collaboratively. I recently created an article for a musician and couldn't believe an original was taken down for whatever reason. The article I wrote had many references (why didn't folks with more experience help build the article rather than just take it down?). Even with half the references the article seemed noteworthy... I appreciate that Wikipedia is a democratic collaboration, but I feel all articles should start somewhere and I see many that are equally referenced or less so than this one. I feel it adds a piece of a larger puzzle that is referenced more strongly, (the overall Republican Liberty Caucus and Tea Party) and it fits within that piece. Some articles will be long, some short, but they are all bound to evolve. Some people will pay attention to who is serving in any officer capacity in any organization. I do. I suspect not everyone that does is participating in these discussions: Wikipedia is not that easy to navigate beyond finding articles and reading them.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq: isn't your article on Desmond T. Burke http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_T._Burke referenced with the exact same amount of references as Matthew Nye's? You stated Nye's article is not referenced enough: that it "lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability" but your article on Burke is practically equal in reference length. Can you explain how your article is somehow more noteworthy with the exact same amount of references? Same amount in your articles on Bruce Stambler http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Stambler, WF Romain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Romain, Mozart Festival http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midsummer_Mozart_Festival, and Turkey Point http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey_Point_Provincial_Park.
From there it goes down to three references in these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Township, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Abbott_(British_Columbia), http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronis%C5%82awa_Ludwichowska, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonehooking, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgian_Bay_Littoral, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_Measures_(novel),
Some of your articles have only TWO references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Anne_Gardner
But what really trumps are those with ONLY ONE reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Smith, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forks_of_the_Credit_Provincial_Park, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrowhead_Provincial_Park, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Lester_Whiting, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Douglas_Ogilby.
How many of those should we nominate for deletion? Or do you plan to improve them?--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - Firstly, articles stand or fall on their own merit (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). The primary inclusion criteria for this, and any article on wikipedia is defined by WP:NOTABILITY, and is not a simple exercise in counting references. If you feel that any of the articles that I created fail to meet the inclusion criteria, you are welcome to discuss the specifics with me and other editors at the article's talk page, or if they clearly fail the inclusion criteria, nominate them for deletion, so long as you aren't doing that just to make a point. (See WP:POINT). I'll gladly evaluate sources and change my mind if I feel WP:NOTABILITY is met, but at this point, I see none of that. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whpq: you stated that notability was lacking for lack of references. This is your case against this article standing: "Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)" The majority of your articles fail your own standard for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk • contribs)
- PoliticalJunkie2012, I'm responding here to your message on my talk page. To begin with, anyone may nominate an article for discussion. However nominations made in bad faith are often closed immediately.
- Second, the most important issue in these discussions is notability, not number of references. For example, if obscure scientist John Doe wins a Nobel Prize, then he deserves an article even if we could momentarily find only a single decent source. OTOH, a press secretary may be quoted frequently in news stories without ever becoming notable himself because all of those appearances in print are not about him; they're about whatever topic he's addressing. In the case of Nye, some of the references are like that: just him being quoted about some political topic.
- Have you read the notability guideline? Until you have then it's hard to discuss whether Nye meets that standard. I think that once you have you'll see for yourself that he does not. Will Beback talk 19:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will Beback:
I feel notability carries a pretty subjective weight. I think it's resourceful to point out inconsistencies in what others argue for this reason. As I mentioned: the case being made for lack of notability was the amount of references. Do as you wish with the Matthew Nye article. I still feel there's an arbitrary interpretation of the notability guide being put in practice. I'm not personally offended at this, I just feel it's an important fact to point out. Some people are more interested in politics than others. Do editors specialize in areas and topics here on Wikipedia? I'd prefer to see the discussion take place with folks who have edited substantially on political subjects - but that's just a preference.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 20:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- PJ, have you read the notability guideline? If so, please tell me how this subject meets that standard. There is even a special version for politicians, WP:POLITICIAN, which I've already referenced on this page? How, specifically, does the subject meet that standard? It really is a fairly objective determination. Are we missing something? Will Beback talk 20:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Just to be clear, it not the number of sources, but the nature of the sources that matter. The sourcing in the article as of this version consists of:
- The web site of the RLC which is not an independent source
- An article about sea turtle studies funding in which Nye is quoted, so is not significant coverage about Nye
- A Meetup link which is not a reliable source, and is essentially self-published
- Local election coverage, which is a reliable source, but which relatively short, and by itself does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the article may bear relevance if researched more aggressively by writers. Not sure how to encourage more involvement among Wiki writers to do that. I'm willing to do some research for more news sources. Seems like a reasonable article, at least through the 2012 election or until his involvement with the Liberty Republican group expires. is there a certain amount of time set for this page to be worked on or is it being deleted?--Libertyconsulting (talk) 07:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A "Matt Nye" search seems to generate some hits on Google that are neglected here in the article. May help improve this.--Libertyconsulting (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Are any of the hits profiles of Nye? If so they'd be useful. If not, then they're probably not very relevant to this discussion. Will Beback talk 08:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are profiles, but two I found are blocked by Wikipedia - makes it tough to improve the article, for example, stuff posted on examiner (dot) com...?--Libertyconsulting (talk) 08:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Examiner.com is not a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm sorry, but I'm just not finding the notability - in a Google News search or in his claimed achievements. He is treasurer of one of many caucuses within the Republican Party; not notable. He is a tea party activist in Florida; nobody seems to have noticed except his county's local paper, "Florida Today" [1]. He is an unsuccessful candidate for local office; not notable. Rewriting is not going to help; the subject just does not meet the criteria for inclusion per WP:BIO. --MelanieN (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2011 (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. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 22:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indiana Student Chronicle[edit]
- Indiana Student Chronicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced and possibly non-notable newspaper. The 'current' newspaper at the University doesn't have an article. If it did, I would propose a merge, but no such luck. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 22:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Article has since been updated - Current newspaper does have it's own article - will propose redirect. AfD closed. Osarius : T : C : Been CSD'd? 22:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liberation Frequency[edit]
- Liberation Frequency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about an online magazine. There is no quoted coverage of the magazine in published, independent sources, so it does not meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. I can't find any news of book coverage of the term "Liberation Frequency" that refers to the magazine, so I do not believe it is notable. Sparthorse (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Sourcing in the article is entirely primary sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comment below was on the talk page. I have taken the liberty of moving this here so it is easily visible to other editors in the dicussion.-- Whpq (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC) [reply]
I believe that Liberation Frequency illustrates the difficulty in establishing notability for online publications. Perhaps a reconsideration of Wikipedia notability criteria is merited. Liberation Frequency is clearly a notable online magazine, given the way it is cited by various notable artists, whose notability is evidenced by their own Wikipedia pages, and who clearly value their interviews or subject articles on the publication. However, Liberation Frequency has not been independently reviewed by other media, print or otherwise, at least as far as I could find. On a personal note, even though the Liberation Frequency article is indentified as weak, I couldn't have added much substance to the Dome Records page without it.
I hope that the page can be maintained, if only because Liberation Frequency is subject to multiple citations and, hence, linkages, elsewhere in Wikipedia.
Dreadarthur (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you believe there needs to be a change to the guidelines, then it would need to be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If LF isn't discussed in print or online media other than LF itself. It doesn't pass the test. patsw (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2011 (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 and improve. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listening Prayer[edit]
- Listening Prayer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
personal essay without sourcing and with lots of odd attacks on "witchcraft prayer" and the like; speculative and unverifiable bundle of idiosyncratic assertions Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment According to Google Books, this seems possibly to be a notable theological topic, with at least three books devoted to it. I am not in a position to judge whether the three books discuss the same topic, or just use the same words about different concepts. I am also not prepared to rewrite the article, and OrangeMike's assessment of the current state of the article is correct. Therefore, I will watch the debate, and recommend deleting the article later unless someone steps up to the plate and does a proper referenced rewrite. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 22:18, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The current article is in sad shape, but the concept of listening prayer appears to be covered in significant detail with an entire book devoted to the subject as well as books with chapters or sections devoted to covering it like these: [2], [3], [4]. Also covered in religious media like [5], and [6]. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Despite being poorly written and unreferenced (except biblical citations), this has the potential to be a useful article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (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 Bangla Academy. Deleting before redirecting and doing the same to Bardwan House, Dhaka. Dcoetzee 05:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bardwan house[edit]
- Bardwan house (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find any information in addition to the fact that this article has no refs and is all original research. As I was editing I realized that this was written from a persons point of view and ended with "Written By : Monoara Binta Rahmen". If I am wrong please let me know. Thanx. ReelAngelGirl (talk) 21:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is potentially a notable topic, but the content is 100% unsuitable for Wikipedia: if we ever have a suitable article on this topic, it will require a complete rewrite, so there's no benefit in keeping the current version — and of course if it doesn't pass the notability standards, it definitely doesn't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Bangla Academy. The article manages to spell the name of this building three different ways. The Bngla Academy article spells it as "Burdwan House". The current article is unsourced and its unclear on the notability of the building. I can't establish that it notable or non-notable, but it is part of the Bangla Academy so a redirect there is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without a redirect. Nothing worth saving here. Also delete the substantially identical article Bardwan House, Dhaka. --MelanieN (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maiden Rock bantam[edit]
- Maiden Rock bantam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While established breeds of animals are inherently notable, this is not an established breed that can be verified through any reliable, published sources. The only two sources cited are to a forum for backyard chicken keepers and a breeder website.
Since there are hundreds of thousands of potential combinations of breeds, Wikipedia does not generally and should not contain articles about newly-created breeds unless there are enough reliable sources to provide verification. This is a similar situation to the many Poodle hybrids, most of which do not have articles for good reason.
I looked for sources in books or newspapers about this cross, and did not see any. Steven Walling • talk 21:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This may become an established cross, like the Holland Lop rabbit, but there's no proof that it will be, and un-established crosses don't belong here. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This breed is not established, or notable. Google search provides no mention of these breed anywhere besides a poultry discussion forum, and no poultry standards accept it. Certain mentions even imply that this breed is only kept by its creator and no-one else. Anjwalker Talk 01:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This breed is kept by three breeders and will soon be offered for sale to the general public. Unlike poodle hybrids or "labradoodles", this breed in homozygous state does breed true. In post number 76 of this thread one can see that this breed is indeed kept and bred by more than one breeder. I myself also keep this breed, as does another gentleman in Minnesota. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Zierke (talk • contribs) 02:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but the metric for what is included in Wikipedia is not that X breeders keep the animal, but that reliable, independent sources have written about it. If there is no published secondary source material about a subject with which to verify facts, Wikipedia cannot have an article about something. As an encyclopedia, we can't rely on primary sources or verbal accounts of something. We need secondary sources. Steven Walling • talk 19:24, 2 December 2011 (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. Jayjg (talk) 16:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of songs about the September 11 attacks[edit]
- List of songs about the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Full of redlinks, unverifiable entries ("Welcome to Hell"? Really?) and blatant OR. Cleaning this list up would require trimming it to like four songs. There may be a good list here, but a.) I think it's better to start over if such a list could be done and b.) redundant to category. The list is just so out of order that it needs to be blown up ("info provided by a friend"? What crackhead put that on?). It's been tagged for maintenance for over a year, but all anyone's doing is just making it worse. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see a legitimate deletion rationale. I've erased some of the obvious crap. Everything else needs citing. Obviously, we need a secondary source telling us that "Empire State of Mind" is "about the September 11 attacks" but it could be done. I think it's a somewhat cited, otherwise citable, and somewhat interesting list. So let's keep it. -- Y not? 23:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Legitimate list, subject of reliable sources, e.g. [7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. Should be easy for TPH to expand and curate the article using the available sources. Fences&Windows 00:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No real rationale given for deletion - lots of articles are in a poor state - WP:SOFIXIT! AfD is not for cleanup. Lugnuts (talk) 06:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I sympathize with TPH -- if this list were to be reduced to a meager four verifiable entries, that would be perfectly fine with me. Any song currently listed which is not backed by a reliable third party source should be removed immediately. WP:OR is not allowed. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fix and keep: Can be cleaned up to be a reasonable, notable article Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 16:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, completely ordinary list of songs by subject. Whether a song is about the September 11 attacks is unquestionably verifiable for many songs by notable musicians. The nom's criticisms are not about the article's potential, but rather it's current state, which is completely inappropriate as a reason for deletion. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm in a hurry right now, but this seems a reliable source: Springsteen to Alan Jackson: Top 10 Tunes About 9/11 postdlf (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the nom does not appear to have followed WP:BEFORE even within Wikipedia, as many of the listed songs have articles in which their subject matter of 9/11 is cited within those articles (such as the Beyonce song). Not bothering even that minimal check before listing something for AFD on the claim that it's OR or unverifiable is completely unacceptable. postdlf (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also a whole section on music in the reference book September 11 in Popular Culture: A Guide. postdlf (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant keep, per Coccyx Bloccyx who has a made a valid point. FWIW I checked most of the blue links, 2 didn't direct to a song at all, one was written before 9/11, of the remainder only 3 or 4 actually mentioned they were about or partially about 9/11. All of which confirms in my mind nearly most of these lists by theme(especially for songs) are nothing more that depository for unreferenced opinions and not worth the trouble of the upkeep. It was a fair nomination, Ten Pounder, let's hope that one of us going for keep actually bothers to make the article actually worth keeping. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Source anything possible, and remove everything else. I'm glad that this AfD has, at least, caused some improvement of the article, which has shown that it has potential.--Slon02 (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2011 (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. Will userfy if requested for merging once a suitable merge target is agreed upon. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Border pairs method[edit]
- Border pairs method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete: Notability not established. "Border+Pairs+Method" Google Scholar says no citations. This is not at all surprising for a 2011 published work, but still doesn't qualify for Wikipedia IMHO. Chire (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources, and in particular, as an academic concept, there appears to be be no papers about this aside from the notation of a conference. -- Whpq (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Machine learning. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm not sure that it is suitable for merging. As far as I can tell, this method has only been introduced as a conference paper in January 2011 [14] and I don't see any real discussion about it. We don't include every single concept ever written about in an academic paper. Even for merging, I'd expect to see some hint of notability. If this concept is useful, I suspect it would need additional research and peer review before it could be established. -- Whpq (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the machine learning article is a mess, I wouldn't cram yet another method (in particular a non-standard one) in there. Since it is a neural network method, that article would be at least a bit more appropriate, but I wouldn't cram it there either. --Chire (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Machine learning#Approaches. Not notable enough as stand-alone article. This is not a difficult merge. Editors of Machine learning can determine if the material is notable enough to be retained there. --Kvng (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, this is not a general, broad machine learning method, but a very specialized one. It doesn't fit into the "Approaches" section, that discusses much more general approaches. According to the Border pairs method page, it is specific to learning a Multilayer perceptron (it links "MLP"), which is then a type of Artificial neural networks, which are (rightfully) linked from Machine learning#Approaches. Therefore, it should not be merged to machine learning. And IMHO the quality of the article doesn't warrant merging it into any article, given that the method apparently is uncited so far in literature. --Chire (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous comments to User:Cusop Dingle's merge proposal did not go unnoticed. I feel these issues can best be dealt with by editors of Machine learning. --Kvng (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not Multilayer perceptron, which AFAICT (I'm not deep into machine learning) is more closely related? --Chire (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous comments to User:Cusop Dingle's merge proposal did not go unnoticed. I feel these issues can best be dealt with by editors of Machine learning. --Kvng (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, this is not a general, broad machine learning method, but a very specialized one. It doesn't fit into the "Approaches" section, that discusses much more general approaches. According to the Border pairs method page, it is specific to learning a Multilayer perceptron (it links "MLP"), which is then a type of Artificial neural networks, which are (rightfully) linked from Machine learning#Approaches. Therefore, it should not be merged to machine learning. And IMHO the quality of the article doesn't warrant merging it into any article, given that the method apparently is uncited so far in literature. --Chire (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing vote to Merge somewhere. Perhaps Artificial neural networks. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google scholar finds only one research paper containing this phrase, with zero citations. That's not enough even for including it as part of another article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per David Eppstein. —Ruud 22:25, 4 December 2011 (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Bodie[edit]
- Keith Bodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable baseball figure. Some coverage as a minor league manager, but none of it is about him in depth. It all covers his managing of the team. Minor league managers are not inherently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found a source citing him as the San Francisco Giants minor league coordinator in the Sporting News after looking over about 20 individual articles with nothing but routine passing mentions, but past precedent seems to have decided that doesn't qualify as a major league coach or executive, thus failing WP:BASE/N and no significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 18:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Had long and accomplished career as minor league manager. Alex (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- — Note to closing admin: Alexsautographs (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. —Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's 'accomplished', why haven't I seen a single source of significant coverage or a single write-up? Google News drew up nothing, and I spent about 10 minutes on the Sporting News archives looking for any small sliver of hope that this guy had any write-ups beyond routine passing mentions. Please help me out here. You've tried to say, "oh Vodello's an inclusionist, so he's just voting against 'me', instead of actually trying to put forth a valid argument to save this article. Your claim so far can't be backed up by the results, and minor leaguer players and managers by default fail WP:BASE/N without coverage. If the subject has zero sources, zero coverage, that means zero potential and I have to vote delete. Please find me some significant coverage, and I'll change my vote to keep. Agent VodelloOK, Let's Party, Darling! 15:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep.. lengthy minor league managing career, including several years at the AAA level and a few years overseeing the entire minor league system for the Giants. That carried him over the threshold for me. Spanneraol (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG with no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources.—Bagumba (talk) 02:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. For some reason this name seems familiar to me, but I cannot find any worthwhile sources to validate this. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine McElroy[edit]
- Katherine McElroy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no significant coverage about this muscician. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete How does this page survive for over six years? Vanadus (talk | contribs) 11:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've now nominated Snow Machine (band), her band, for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:22, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Angsana Resort & Spa[edit]
- Angsana Resort & Spa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of passing GNG or ORG. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This particular resort is not notable. However, it is just one of a chain of similarly named resorts, whose parent company Angsana Hotels and Resorts might merit an article. [15] --MelanieN (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, possible advertising. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bina Bangsa School[edit]
- Bina Bangsa School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible failure of WP:GNG & WP:ORG. Can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources and no sources given in the article other than the official website. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per our usual practice with verifiable high/secondary schools. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The school's only mention states: "Even educational institutions of an international standard can be found in Pluit. Offering classes of various levels, including preschool classes, they include Sekolah Pelita Harapan, Bina Tunas Bangsa, Singapore International School, Bina Bangsa School, Sacred Heart, High Scope and Tutor Time." The only information than can be verified is that a school exists in Pluit, which would take up less than 1 line of text to state in the article. JoshyDinda (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the source more carefully, as you will then find, "Meanwhile, Asta Anugrah Foundation, which runs Bina Bangsa School, also applies an international system. This school is affiliated with a Singaporean educational institution that is in the world's Top Five in the educational sector. Established in Indonesia in 1999, this school adopts the Singaporean curriculum. Since 2004, Bina Bangsa School has been carrying out its pilot program in music. In cooperation with Bina Musica, it gives the opportunity to half of the students from Primary 5 to Secondary 2 levels to learn how to play musical instruments." More sources are available by clicking on the Google News link automatically provided above. Those links are there for a reason, i.e. to help inform the opinions of nominators and others taking part in a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The school's only mention states: "Even educational institutions of an international standard can be found in Pluit. Offering classes of various levels, including preschool classes, they include Sekolah Pelita Harapan, Bina Tunas Bangsa, Singapore International School, Bina Bangsa School, Sacred Heart, High Scope and Tutor Time." The only information than can be verified is that a school exists in Pluit, which would take up less than 1 line of text to state in the article. JoshyDinda (talk) 16:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger. It is a shame that we are still wasting time on a topic that has been deemed worthwhile for this encyclopedia nearly a decade ago. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica Party[edit]
- Britannica Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable political party. I can find nothing in news sources beyond a bare mention for getting 11 votes in a council by-election in Glasgow Hillhead this month.[16] Appear to be a split of Scottish BNP, so it has been discussed on the UK far-right forums and blogs, e.g. the "Advanced Ape" referenced (blog of an ex-BNP and British Freedom Party member), but nothing reliable. Fences&Windows 21:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Mais oui! (talk) 04:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tiny political party, fails WP:CORP, no non-trivial reliable sources. 2 lines of K303 13:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Britannica Party : For British Culture with British Values for British People. Britannica supports the Union of Britain,with all its citizens being treated equally.
Britannica advocates that the role of government is to provide for secure borders, law and order, health, education and welfare. The private sector, should be given strategic and fiscal support in the provision of utilities and infrastructure. European countries are respected from their longstanding cultural and trading association with Britain. However, British sovereignty is non negotiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Baillie (talk • contribs) 18:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Is this a joke? "It contested a Glasgow City Council Hillhead by-election in 2011. The candidate Charles Baillie (BTW note the username of the editor who posted the comment above) came last with 11 votes (0.35%)." Assuming this is not a joke, this "party" is still completely non-notable. Google News search finds literally nothing.[17] --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2011 (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 speedied G7 by TexasAndroid (G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page (TW)). Guess that's that. Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dunn Mabika Hove[edit]
- Dunn Mabika Hove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Likely hoax; sources have no content relevant to the subject. HurricaneFan25 21:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as hoax. Neither "Dunn Mabika Hove" or "Paris Checherere" scores any hits on Google Books, Scholar or News, and this article is the only Google hit on the entire web. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not Delete. Deleting this will only highlight the bias that Africans of prominance are not worthy of Wikipedia.
There are much less proiminant individuals (non-African) on Wikipedia who are there even though they have a much smaller impact on the lives of ordinary people. Africa has the least access to internet in the world and so you can't expect all prominant individuals to have links to articles somewhere on the internet. Check African newspapers (most of which are still not online), check archives, read the books or articles cited here before deciding this person is not worthy. We in Africa are not impressed by the assumption that our stories have been told on the internent or other places typically accessible to the developed world. Where will we tell our stories if not here? I have a taught Zimbabwe liberation history for over 30 years and was pleased to see this article. Aeneas Chigwedere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.146.247.184 (talk)
- It appears that this anonymous IP, which geolocates to South Africa, is claiming to be a Zimbabwean provinical governor and former education minister. That seems unlikely, and rather strengthens the case for this being a hoax. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While the IP editor above is correct insofar as African sources are not as widely available online as American or European material, I've made a fairly exhaustive effort to confirm the content of this article. Although key terms (like "Dunn Mabika Hove") are completely unproductive as search terms, I attempted to search based on only parts of the purported subject's name as well as features of his claimed career, under the assumption that there may have been variations of the spelling or form of the name. The closest that I was able to discover was the existence of one Richard Chemist Hove, who does not have a Wikipedia article at this time, but might perhaps be notable. However, Richard Hove is not the person described in this article; he was born in 1939 (not 1959) and died in 2009 (not 2007) -- although the circumstances of his death (diabetic coma) and his burial in the Heroes' Acre are fundamentally similar to those described in the article. Richard Hove was also not a colonel (he is titled Cde, which is "comrade"), and was not apolitical; on the contrary, he was a member of the ZANU-PF and is a "designated person" on several countries' lists of economic sanctions against Zimbabwe (Canada, US). Hove's burial attracted media attention in and out of Zimbabwe when Mugabe was out of the country receiving medical treatment,[18] leaving Acting President Mujuru to speak at the occasion.[19] A separate person, David Hove, was also recognized as a Zimbabwean war hero (here, paywalled) but died in 2004 and has even less in common with the purported details of Dunn Mabika. While African topics present research challenges, the claims made in this article are sufficiently distinctive that, if Dunn Mabika Hove were real, information would be obtainable. It does not seem to be. This is a probable hoax. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (after edit conflict) Delete. I've checked the sources cited in the article as suggested by the unregistered editor above:
- http://www.uz.ac.zw/units/cds/staff.html is currently inaccessible to me.
- http://www.thezimbabwean.co.uk/news/zimbabwe/50267/hove-to-be-buried-on.html is about someone else named Hove.
- http://www.mod.gov.zw/ is the home page of the Zimbabwe Ministry of Defence. Searching the site for "Hove" or "Checherere" finds nothing
- http://www.rhodesianforces.org/OperationUric-GAZAMazambique.htm has no mention of the subject.
- Guerrilla Veterans in Post-war Zimbabwe: Symbolic and Violent Politics, 1980-1987 is available for preview via Google Books. Searches for "Hove" and "Checherere" find nothing.
- I have been unable to track down "The Commonwealth Intervention in Zimbabwe 1980". Was this published in a journal or book?
- Ditto for "Ulogy of the late Col. Mabika Hove".
- Another Wikipedia article wouldn't be a reliable source, even if it mentioned the subject.
- "Mortality in the Democratic Republic of Congo: a nationwide survey" is an article in The Lancet, which I have access to via my library. It makes no mention of the subject.
- "Congo war-driven crisis kills 45,000 a month: study" doesn't mention the subject.
- The article may not be a complete hoax, but the inclusion of such fraudulent references is enough for us to abandon the assumption of good faith and assume that it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per the above posts by Squeamish Ossifrage and Phil Nick-D (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2011 (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 both. Jayjg (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Youssef and Leading the Way[edit]
- Michael Youssef (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Leading the Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Converting a WP:CSD#G11 nomination, which I declined. The notion of the CSD nominator, as I perceive it, is that these articles are promotional in nature and being edited by the Youssef himself or one of his colleagues (LeadingTheWay (talk · contribs) and Youssjm (talk · contribs) being the most obvious examples). For convenience, I am adding Youssef's Leading the Way ministry to this nom. Since I acted in an administrative capacity, I am officially neutral. -- Y not? 19:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Promotional articles with a single reliable reference for Youssef. De728631 (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both as unsourced promotional articles. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Michael Youssef I got as far as "God intervened". Biased, and if you took out all the POV stuff there'd be nothing left. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete both. Present articles are very promotional and I can't find any reliable sources providing anything beyond passing mentions - not even close to passing WP:BIO (Youssef) or WP:ORG (Leading the Way). Alzarian16 (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Emre Anuk[edit]
- Emre Anuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Has not appeared in a fully-professional league, so is not notable according to WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG, so no reason to keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:05, 30 November 2011 (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. Since the redirect target is not obvious, just deleting. Feel free to create redirect. Dcoetzee 07:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
American Free Corps[edit]
- American Free Corps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No 'American Free Corps' actually existed. A note that no such unit existed should be placed at Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts, but wikipedia should not be perpetuating any myth that such a unit existed. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The source provided says that the American Free Corps did not exist. The only purpose of this article seems to be to dispel a myth; that is not adequate rationale to keep an article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that the term has some popular culture links, a Redirect to Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts#Americans would be logical per the above. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - information in the article about U.S. citizens in Wehrmacht/SS service can be mentioned in other articles; in any case, with only two examples, the topic is almost completely insignificant. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Mother Night, since this is, I believe, a fictional construct created by Kurt Vonnegut in that book. If there were Americans in the Waffen SS (I have no idea on this question one way or the other), that material can be incorporated into the appropriate place elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge and redirect to British Free Corps is another way to play this. Carrite (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Diakonia Catholic School[edit]
- Diakonia Catholic School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article appears to fail GNG & WP:ORG which states: "Some organizations are local in scope, but have achieved national or even international notice. Organizations whose activities are local in scope (e.g., a school or club) can be considered be notable if there is substantial verifiable evidence of coverage by reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization's local area instead.". JoshyDinda (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As well as WP:ORG, I think that the common outcomes and WP:NHS could be useful. The problem with the article at the moment is that it is unclear what kind of school it is (primary, high, etc). If it is a high school, then a brief look for sources would probably be enough to keep the article. If it is primary school (or equivalent), then we'd need more independent coverage to satisfy WP:ORG the WP:GNG. Essentially then, my position depends on the kind of school this is. It would be helpful if that could be established. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the websites that mention it just seem to be mirroring this Wikipedia article and there's no mention of it anywhere on the Indonesian Wikipedia so I can't even find evidence that the school exists or what type of school it is. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If no sources whatsoever can be found, then I would support its deletion. We must remember, however, it will be difficult to find sources on an Indonesian school on the internet, so need to allow for that. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All of the sources I can find (which are not mirror sites) seem to refer to Diakonia as something to do with the Christian community, Jesus' teaching, etc [20]. This does seem to question the actual existence of the school.
In light of recent discussion, I vote delete. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Further comment below. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Why should that bring into question the existence of the school? It's just the kind of name that I would expect a Catholic school to have - see Diaconia. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All the websites that mention it just seem to be mirroring this Wikipedia article and there's no mention of it anywhere on the Indonesian Wikipedia so I can't even find evidence that the school exists or what type of school it is. JoshyDinda (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. My knowledge of Indonesian is non-existent, so could the nominator (or anyone else) please confirm whether this is the school in question, and if so whether it is a high school? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be so. The website states 'Play group' 'Nursery' 'Primary School' 'Junior High' and 'High school' here. So it appears to cover all ages I think. JoshyDinda (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt we are going to find many more sources for the school. I'm not sure this is due to it being any less notable that other schools; it seems to be more a case of systematic bias. The question is, then, whether a school which seems to have children from play group up to high school is notable - the common outcomes suggest that primary schools tend to be deleted and high schools are kept. As we have verified the existence of the school, the fact that this has a high school in it, coupled with problems of systematic bias, lead me to vote keep. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to be so. The website states 'Play group' 'Nursery' 'Primary School' 'Junior High' and 'High school' here. So it appears to cover all ages I think. JoshyDinda (talk) 20:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It appears to be a mainstream school to Grade 12 (according to its web site). It's size is irrelevant, and more information may become available as they develop their site. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a highschool (apparently grades 1 to 12). Experience shows that if the articles are here, they will often be added to, we have a viable compromise, one of the few viable compromises that has held up for several years now, and I do not know why peoplewant to attack it. Thee alternative is debating each individual primary and secondary shcool here at length, which would paralyze AfD and prevent consideration of issues that need consideration. DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Status as having a high school verified through The Jakarta Post. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tyler Shields[edit]
- Tyler Shields (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Biography of a photographer who seems to be better known for causing controversy than for any skill in taking pictures. If this seems familiar, it's because it was recently deleted at AfD. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep New sources seems to support notability including this substantial article from LAWeekly but also the others I've added to the article.--v/r - TP 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per newly available sourcing found by TParis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep several sources show enough to meet WP:GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the sourcing added by TParis. The subject now has significant coverage in reliable third party sources establishing the subject's notability. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Changes to article have addressed reasons for first deletion. --Jayron32 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Interesting earlier nomination: Photographer with "no formal training" who has been involved in a series of events which have made the news, but not due to the quality of his photographs. First, it's only recently that many among photographers who are undeniably significant -- and I'm thinking here of Parnassus: members of Magnum and the like -- have had formal training. Secondly, the quality of photographs is in the eye of the beholder, or in that of the (daft) art establishment, or both -- but anyway, since this is en:WP, in the eye of "reliable sources". Though actually quality is by the way: no matter how crappy the work, if it's [Wikipedia-style] "notable", that's enough. ¶ I'd agree that screenfuls of gush about this person in the dismal Daily Mail constitute solid evidence of Wikipedia-style "notability", but I hope that the Wail is not treated as a "reliable source". -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This individual meets to basic requirements of the general notability guideline. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:49, 29 November 2011 (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 but split. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of fictional towns and villages[edit]
- List of fictional towns and villages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Similar articles have been deleted, article topic is too wide a subject for one article, topics in list are unrelated, except for having the quality of being fictional. Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak SplitKeep. I created the article, and it's interesting to me but I don't believe that it can stay how it is. It's not in such a bad shape as it is right now, but down the line as it starts filling with more and more items it's going to become a mess and be deleted anyway. Perhaps we could split each section into a new article along the lines of this: List of fictional city-states in literature. I've thought about doing this for a while but I wanted to see if anyone else thinks it should even be here.Ncboy2010 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Keep but consider split. The entries are related by the nature of what they fundamentally are: fictional cities and towns. And that's all this list does, index articles by the shared type of subject, the most basic kind of list. The entries in List of islands are not related beyond the fact that they are all islands. As for the list's scope, as noted above, the solution for a list that is too broad is to split it into sublists, and that's just what has been done with the category that is parallel to this list, Category:Fictional populated places. Which is an editing solution, not one calling for AFD. postdlf (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but prune drastically. Only iconic places should be kept (e.g. Mayberry, Sunnydale), and one-offs like Pleasantville
and Mos Eisleydeleted. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- Mos Eisley is no less iconic in science fiction because of the cantina scene, but the better solution regardless is to link the list of Star Wars cities and towns from this list (though maybe with one or two examples mentioned). postdlf (talk) 23:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but split per Postdlf. This could easily be expanded far beyond a reasonable size without getting beyond a reasonable scope; splitting by topic would permit us to include all the fictional settlements that would deserve to be included. Nyttend (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNOTEXIST. If you cannot read between the lines, this is a textbook example of something that can and should be dealt with through categories. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and split. Sooner or longer this will in fact become far too long and there are already several valid sub-lists. De728631 (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Split. I would lean to delete myself, but the fact that this article appears to have moderate support among other editors means I would be wrong to say it isn't of interest/relevant. However, consider this article in a complete state (ie every fictional town listed), it would be a ridiculously long, and not very uesful article. I think at minimum split, otherwise delete and make it into a category instead. Millermk90 (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've pretty much split all the sections into sub-articles and trimmed this article down to 3 examples in each
articlesection with a {{main| tag on the top of each, at the very least this article should really never get much bigger than it is now. I'll try to stay on top of the sub-articles though, and weed out some not-quite-as-notable examples (I can already name a few at this point anyway) As long as they stay a manageable, and useful size, I can't really see a reason to delete them now. As I said before, I wanted to get a consensus /before/ I started pouring a lot of work into it (Because I've seen similar articles get deleted in the past) Ncboy2010 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) HurricaneFan25 00:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maya Vik[edit]
- Maya Vik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician; three paragraphs one time, even in the Dagbladet, does not constitute notability; and any obscure trash can be "sold via iTunes". Orange Mike | Talk 17:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So if i list 10-20 sources from the last ten years from all the major Norwegian newspapers, of her work with several bands that have toured all over Europe, plus major TV-appearances, would that help? I thought that Wikipedia wasn´t about bragging or promoting, so I just kept the basic facts. The reason I added the article now was because some of her projects are currently being launched in new territories such as Germany, Danmark, and more. Oyvindhb (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - are these articles about her, or about bands she was in? Many fine musicians never achieve enough fame to meet our standards (see: WP:BAND) on their own behalf. Do you have further coverage of Vik herself, not just as a band member? If not, maybe she's just another up-and-coming performer who may or may not "break out" on her own. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Enough coverage from a Google News search to indicate notability.--Michig (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As per Michig. A quick look at Maya Vik's official page shows a number of magazine articles (such as Eye Candy and VG Helg) which can probably be used to flesh the article out. Tabercil (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the criteria listed here, WP:BAND, she qualifies for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 (not 9). I will start listing more sources as soon as possible. Oyvindhb (talk) 19:21, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added more sources and some more facts to make her seem more notable. So, is the issue settled? Oyvindhb (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Oyvindhb, articles listed for deletion typically stay open for discussion for one week before they are closed. The best way to "settle" it at the end of that time is to use the best Reliable sources you can find. In this case, that would likely be from mainstream Norwegian news and other publications (not tabloids, and not online blogs and music fan sites). First Light (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Plenty of coverage in Norwegian language notable sources, just from a Google news search. First Light (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pimki[edit]
- Pimki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability for this wiki/PIM/mind-mapping software, which seems to have been maintained from 2004 to 2008. Yaron K. (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found zero significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is clear. (WP:SNOW) -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Human Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines Labeled for Use in Dogs[edit]
- Human Exposure to Thimerosal from Vaccines Labeled for Use in Dogs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopedic, non-notable subject, contains little if anything worth merging. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not an encyclopedia entry; it is a research paper. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for original research/synthesis like this. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Really way too detailed info on a minor subject. Veterinarians should be aware of this, but WP is not the right vehicle to get the info to them. BigJim707 (talk) 18:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Original research. WP:OR. SL93 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR/Synth, as above. An article designed to make a single point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOT PAPERS and WP:OR. HurricaneFan25 18:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - pure WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 20:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:OR. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it snowing yet? --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yes... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious OR, non-encyclopedic subject. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a shame that such a nicely-written and well-(original-)researched article must be deleted, but it's not an appropriate topic for a general encyclopedia. Zad68 (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2011 (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 1992 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Orlene. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Orlene (1992)[edit]
- Hurricane Orlene (1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
With the recent debates about getting rid of low-quality articles in WP:WPTC, I am listing a more controversial case. Hurricane Orlene was a Category 4 hurricane and took a long track. It then made landfall in Hawaii as a tropical depression, a rare occurrence, but it had been expressed before by other members that notability is not inherited. In addition, the article is quite bad, rated start class. While I do feel it can be expanded, it may still be comparable to the average WP stub/start class article (WPTC articles tend to be shorter than most articles). Hurricane Eugene (1993) also exists and is similar to this one, but the article is better. It is debatable. YE Pacific Hurricane 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC) YE Pacific Hurricane 15:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 1992 Pacific hurricane season#Hurricane Orlene. Flash flooding, especially in the CPAC areas, isn't all that uncommon. The rain might seem heavy to some people, but since there was no impact, and although it was an intense storm, the impacts were minimal/none overall. HurricaneFan25 15:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't necessarily agree with the nominator's rationale, but it is barely notable and relies solely on NHC sources. Auree ★ 15:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. There was no point for the AFD, since it could easily be handled as a merge. The article only has sources that are close to the event (NHC and CPHC both issuing advisories). The only thing it did was drop rainfall. That is too minimal to warrant having an article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mmm, I'd rather merge it than delete it. If I miss the article and there will be no history. Why do deleted and moved pages don't show history? I hate both merging and deleting, but just to say, merging is better than just delete it. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 21:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- YE, you're nomination articles for deletion for no reason now. There was no reason to send this through the AfD process. -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --I certainly agree with TropicalAnalystwx13. No reason to delete. Jeffrey Gu (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not understand the relevance of notability not being inherited--if at any point in its course the storm was notable , it remains so. How to arrange the material may be a different matter., as always. DGG ( talk ) 06:11, 5 December 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Long Dong Silver[edit]
- Long Dong Silver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fials GNG & PORNBIO. JoshyDinda (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per discussions in first and second AfD, per the already included sources and per other sources provided in these previous discussions. --Cavarrone (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The only reason the 640 sources I found in a Google news search aren't being used is that someone, I really don't know who and don't care to check, had this article previously be an attack against Clarence Thomas, which was later removed. While the Clarence Thomas speech controversy is important to the subject, it has to be properly worded and used and not given too much WP:UNDUE weight in the article. I'm thinking two sentences or so should be fine. Nonetheless, this porn actor is notable. The usual awards requirements don't really apply, as his major films that he acted in were before award ceremonies like AVN existed. So it makes things rather different. But, as the sources and other things show, this performer is notable. SilverserenC 18:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the sound arguments at the prior AFD. That said, the complete removal of Thomas-related content was inappropriate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep(Quoting my comment from the previous 2 AFDs:) This subject has sufficient reliablly sourced information for a stand-alone article. I demonstrated in the first AFD that WP:N is easily satisfied, to wit: 'Verified by its discussion in reference to the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings. CNN's [21] "Bill Press: The return of Long Dong Silver"(2001) says that Anita Hill testified that Thomas harassed female workers in part by describing porn videos he had watched "including the now-famous 'Long Dong Silver.'" If CNN says it is famous, that goes a long way toward establishing notability. Google News archive has many other articles discussing the film. See Google News archive (less Wikipedia-related results), particularly Pioneer Press (St. Paul Pioneer Press, Dec. 28, 1991, page 10B "Who's in, who's out on the In list:... Long Dong Silver") [22]. Washington Post [23] called Silver "a well known performer." Rocky Mountain News [24] says Silver was well known even before the Thomas hearings. Time magazine(1998) [25] called Silver "a household name." ' The article was censored by well intentioned editors to prevent it being a "coat rack" attacking Thomas, but some mention of "Long Dong's" role in the Thomas confirmation hearings is appropriate and encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Deletion nominations such as this, in their third go-round no less, make a mockery of Wikipedia. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep clearly satisfies WP:N. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:58, 30 November 2011 (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. NYT source not reliable. SI source is passing reference. Let me know if you want the text to merge portions into University of Connecticut. Dcoetzee 07:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
UConn Alumni Association[edit]
- UConn Alumni Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. All but two of the sources cited are published either by or for the university. The one of the other two sources, by Sports Illustrated, does not even mention the alumni association by name. The other from the New York Times, is in reference to an obituary that mentions the association in passing. TM 12:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: As stated in the lede, the AA is a branch of University governance, it is a noteworthy part of the University. Further, the article is more than adequately sourced. The NY Times source points out the (minor) notability of a service award that's been given for over 20 years, as the Sports Illustrated article is for the sport of Oozeball, which originated at UConn and would probably not exist without the organization of the AA. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Every university has some sort of an alumni association that is part of university governance. Perhaps you could merge some of the more notable aspects into a section at University of Connecticut. As far as a standalone article, this fails WP:GNG without multiple, independent, reliable sources covering the subject in detail. If you can find such sources, by all means, add and improve the article. As it stands now, it is a run of the mill alumni association.--TM 17:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple reliable sources indicating notability.Delete - per belowFalcon8765 (TALK) 21:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources are substantive and independent?--TM 21:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Case in point: The New York Times article which might in fact have helped this article passes GNG is a paid obituary and says simply that RICH, FRANK D., JR. receuved "the University Service Award from the UConn Alumni Association in 1986", so that obviously provides no in-depth coverage. I have removed the NBC Connecticut link which was previously on the page because it made no mention whatsoever of the alumni association. The sports illustrated article also makes no mention whatsoever of the alumni association. If we ignore these spurious links, we are left with exactly 0 articles which cover the association with any depth and are intellectually independent of the university or alumni association.--TM 15:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete First, there is no evidence in the article that it has any connection with the university government--very few do. And very few are notable , The GNG is not met-- the sources are either totally trivial mentions, or not 3rd party. DGG ( talk ) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (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 per WP:SNOWCONE. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow cone[edit]
- Snow cone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article appears to be about a vaguely determined regional variety of the shaved ice dessert, rather than any sort of factual separate knowledge about what constitutes the "snow cone" dessert. All of the imagery comes from shaved ice, and much of the article relies on knowledge of the latter rather than providing any sort of information on its own. I was going to redirect it myself, but I'm split on the amount of information (or possibly puffery) on the regional variation that much of the article has come to be about. I do not think Wikipedia really needs an article on such a minor variation on the shaved ice, and much of the content (and imagery) is already on the other article.—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There doesn't seem to be a clear reason to delete in the nomination - just some musing about the article's deficiencies. AFD is not cleanup - see our editing policy. Warden (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I thought it was interesting enough to read some of it. I seem to hear about shaved ice all the time, but by different names in different countries. I think it could be expanded/improved. If this is the limit, then maybe it will come up again in the future.IBDShank 16:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcshank (talk • contribs)
- Keep Wikipedia is encyclopedia where we share our knowledge with the world. "Snow Cone" is is an interesting read plus it is the popular term by which the "shaved ice" is known in the Southwestern region of the US. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep If any article is worthy of a 'snow keep', this one's it. Notability established by many verifiable, 3rd party references over many years. Longstanding form of dessert/snack under both names mentioned in the article ("snow cone" and "snowball").Geoff Who, me? 23:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Speedy Keep Antonio Speedball Martin (kiss my...:), nah, just tell me!) 06:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite Keep. This article is notable, snow cones are real, and I presonally have never heard of "shaved ice", only "snow cones" (i am from Canada, and they are always called snow cones here), so I think it is important. Millermk90 (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Baker (martial artist)[edit]
- Robert Baker (martial artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article had previously contained unsourced info about baker. all of it seems to have come from a book by Tom Bleecker, which may not be a reliable source, and the book in the references now, where the google books preview excludes his mention. internet search shows lots of mirrors to us. even the find a grave link[26] seems to be either a mirror, or an unreliable source for our article, as there is no actual gravesite, only a "memorial" to him by a self proclaimed heir to Mathew B. Brady & Robert Capa. So, we are left with an actor who had 1 minor role, and 1 fight scene, with Lee. Is that enough for an article? this can all be summarized at the movie article easily. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria for actors or martial artists. The two references mention him because he was a student of Bruce Lee, but notability is not inherited. Astudent0 (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete following all the comments above. From a brief search for sources, the subject does not appear to be notable. Janggeom (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too little, unless someone can find reliable sources to prove otherwise. Pundit|utter 17:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cadmus (Journal)[edit]
- Cadmus (Journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relatively new journal that has not (yet?) had time to become notable. No independent sources, not included in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:GNG. Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reason to think notable. The sponsorship of the journal seems a good indication to confirm that. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 09:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The journal clearly has ambitions but no independent 3rd party references are yet visible so an article is at best premature. AllyD (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2011 (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
HELIOSPHERA[edit]
- HELIOSPHERA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've already nominated this for deletion and it was deleted, I do not see the reason for it to be made again. -Vaarsivius (And that's the art of the dress!~) 12:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article needs work, but the company is notable. Ample sources found with Google News and the company is pushing $500 million around like chump change. JORGENEV 12:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - These two sources seem to establish it as notable: Pv Tech, Hellenic Network --Madison-chan (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC) Madison-chan[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Advertising for a non-notable business. Routine announcements that a business plans to expand or manufacture something do not establish notability. The second offered source is self-published. (Our mission is to lower the cost of clean energy....) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Notable as per Madison-chan refs now added to article. --Kvng (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2011 (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. No outstanding delete !votes (non-admin closure) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shopbell & Company[edit]
- Shopbell & Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Completely incoherent original research. "collection at Ball State" reference supports foundation circa 1916, but there is at least one entry dated 1913 -- and the "google book" reference supports foundation in 1897. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing per http://www.vanderburghgov.org/index.aspx?page=2391 showing that all mentioned companies are connected.
- Keep. There's a notable topic here, of an architectural firm that designed many buildings that are listed on the National Register. If you have specific factual questions or suggestions, that is for Talk page discussion, not an AFD. --doncram 06:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's such a confused mess I don't even know where to start asking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A firm that designed a number of NRHP-listed buildings, which they verifiably did, is notable per se. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it's plainly notable, and has the needed citations. There, I've tidied it up a bit. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I'm exhausted. Have checked text and citations, added a whole lot more. Also inquired about permission to use historic photo but 1919 must be PD surely? Will see if I get a reply, if not will try Fair Usage. Hope you feel article is a bit better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Much clearer now. If you can find a ref that says that Harris & Shopbell became Clifford Shopbell & Co., I'll withdraw the nomination so we can speedy keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, I'm exhausted. Have checked text and citations, added a whole lot more. Also inquired about permission to use historic photo but 1919 must be PD surely? Will see if I get a reply, if not will try Fair Usage. Hope you feel article is a bit better now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with Chiswick Chap's additions. I'd like to suggest that if the article had been written in a clearer form at the start, with proper references, this discussion could have been avoided. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 28 November 2011 (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 speedied G12 by Fastily (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.slideshare.net/peterbuck/opengles-and-sgl-2d3d-graphics-accelerating-technologies#text-version). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SIRD Graphics Libary[edit]
- SIRD Graphics Libary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason NuclearWizard (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC) This looks way too much like an advertisement. Not only that, but it really isn't in an encyclopedic format or anything. I'm not really a veteran Wikipedian, but it generally doesn't look right, and it seems very unused, unreferenced, etc.[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 28. Snotbot t • c » 05:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I have tagged this article for speedy deletion under criterion G12 as a copyright violation of http://www.slideshare.net/peterbuck/opengles-and-sgl-2d3d-graphics-accelerating-technologies#text-version. Logan Talk Contributions 05:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2011 (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. Uncontested reasonable justifications. Dcoetzee 07:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
October 3, 1954 – August 27, 1990[edit]
- October 3, 1954 – August 27, 1990 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If this is indeed a promotional CD, that's all it is. No references are given, and I can't find any that suggest this is notable per our standards. Drmies (talk) 05:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, agreed to reason given. The article, Stevie Ray Vaughan, does not mention the compilation whatsoever. JC Talk to me My contributions 05:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Not a notable album per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. Mattg82 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2011 (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 speedied G12 by Nyttend (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://padres.msrg.toronto.edu/Padres/). Housekeeping closure. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PADRES (Publish Subscribe)[edit]
- PADRES (Publish Subscribe) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is unreferenced, unreliable and possibly written as an advertisement. The current page ratings may just be from the creator of the article. There seems to be little to no importance about the subject. Also, only a disambiguation page links to this page. There is no need for an article like this. JC Talk to me My contributions 04:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another Note: This possibly meets CSD A7. JC Talk to me My contributions 04:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it meets A7. It does however handily meet G12 as an unambiguous copyright violation. So tagged. --NellieBly (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2011 (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. Favonian (talk) 09:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Repoulis[edit]
- Michael Repoulis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Composer who does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Existence of works can be verified, but there is no indication that the individual or his works have received third-party coverage in WP:RS to warrant an article. I find music repositories, sites at which his sheet music can be purchased, etc., but nothing that suggests notability. Article also appears to be an autobiography; only source provided is a primary source and does not provide information about other possible sources. Kinu t/c 03:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My web searches confirm nominator's assessment. Happy to look again if substantial secondary coverage from WP:RS sources can be found. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is an autobiography; reliable sources are extremely unlikely to be forthcoming. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I've already speedied this once Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, author is blocked for repeatedly installing his name as a red link, did not respond or react to advice and warnings, s. his talk and the history of (for example) List of composers by name. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can find no evidence of coverage anywhere other than self-promotion, so he would appear to be non notable. (RT) (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete AUTOBIO; subject fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. These concerns were explained to the article's creator--since blocked for spamming--along with the suggestion that they construct the article in their user space first. None of this was acknowledged or heeded, so what's left is an autobiography without reliable sources. JNW (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2011 (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. JIP | Talk 06:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
REV (film)[edit]
- REV (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Homemade film with no coverage whatsoever in secondary sources. Fails the notability and verifiability criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy A7 - Non-notable self publishing and advertising. Canterbury Tail talk 02:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy - As Spam, if not, certainly fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alls im saying is i dont see why it being there is so wrong. If people dont want to see it then they dont need to look it up. i bet it will have plenty more likes on fb. the page was made yesterday. give it time. Do high school papers count as secondary sources? When i say it isnt doing harm i mean that it being up doesnt change anything on the website. I dont see a reason for its deletion other than it isnt a hollywood film. just because it isnt doesnt mean people dont care about it.--Chris1321 (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not here for you (or anyone) to get free advertising. If you want to promote your film, open your wallet and pay for advertising like every other filmmaker does. If your film becomes notable somebody else will write the article for you. --NellieBly (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as unambiguous spam. So tagged. --NellieBly (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was here for me. I dont get why everyone is so against it. It doesnt effect any of you. It shouldnt be deleted just because it isnt famous. It is something that exists. Not everyone knows about it but how can they when people like you shut it down in a matter of seconds? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris1321 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 28 November 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DJ Many[edit]
- DJ Many (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 19. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not subject to enough attention by RS to pass muster. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as followup to my comment at DRV that the CSD rationale was valid to start with. I'm unprejudiced to new material being presented showing it meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Delete I'm one of the three deleters of this article. There's nothing there that I can see that indicates notability. If something drastic emerges and appears in the article, let me know, please. If it doesn't, then it's too soon for the subject to have an article. Some day, maybe... Peridon (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No WP:RS, no notability. Not much better than the previously speedied versions. --Kinu t/c 23:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Adeel Ahmed[edit]
- Adeel Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:NACTOR Night of the Big Wind talk 11:37, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:NACTOR for the following reasons:
- 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
- He had a handful of mostly uncredited appearances in US television shows and an apparently recurring role in a Pakistani mini-series which I've never heard of, and can't find evidence of a significant following for.
- 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
- Cannot find a single posmen (positive mention) anywhere.
- 3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
- I do not believe his performances as Riot Starter and Wedding Guest were particularly prolific or innovative.
—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 19:10, 28 November 2011 (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. per consensus and per CSD G3. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moonwalk (musician)[edit]
- Moonwalk (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WPBIO and WP:MUSIC. reddogsix (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The article violates WP:BLP policy --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - It's a hoax, check the references none of them are about this subject. Looks like the article is copy and tweak vandalism. Yes it's based on Benga (musician). Canterbury Tail talk 02:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as vandalism, and block Lalacentral2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for attempting to perpetrate this hoax. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 03:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources do not support claims, likely hoax/vandalism. --Jerebin (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bidyut Khan[edit]
- Bidyut Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find sufficient RS support on this person to indicate notability. Tagged for notability for three and a half years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Huge WP:BLP concerns Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:Notability. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shahab Zuberi[edit]
- Shahab Zuberi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find sufficient RF coverage to satisfy our wp notability guidelines. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for notability for over two years. Epeefleche (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Has a lack of coverage and I also agree with Stuartyeates. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bruce William Smith[edit]
- Bruce William Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable dentist. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaning toward delete on grounds of WP:BIO. There are severe problems with the sources provided. Reference #1 is self-referential, #6 is a dead link, and reference #2 appears to be a circular reference to the Wikipedia article itself - which was apparently written by two students based on an interview with Smith himself, so again not independent. However, references #4 and 5 are mainstream articles from 1987 about him treating AIDS patients. Unfortunately they are not linked and can't be found at Google News, so I can't evaluate them, but they sound like they are significantly about him or his practice. Those articles might be considered as evidence of notability or simply as WP:ONEEVENT. Nothing found at Google Scholar. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- The article has WP:BLP concerns Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not a notable person. Kurdo777 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2011 (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 Messianic Bible translations. per WP:ATD (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Jewish Bible[edit]
- Complete Jewish Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable Bible. Igetome (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC) — Igetome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - This is not a mainstream used translation. --Messasss (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepMerge to Messianic Bible translations - Wikipedia's book notability guideline includes: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria: ... 3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a ... religious movement." A quick Google shows this book in use at many self-identified groups of "Messianic Judaism", a religious movement that is the the book's stated target audience. And a search at Amazon shows that this book and its companion commentaries hold the #1 through #5 sales rank positions in the category "Best Sellers in Messianic Judaism". I think that's enough to push it into 'notable' territory. Zad68 (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- UPDATED VOTE to Merge, after reading what other wrote I now think the sources I was using to justify notability are not good enough. This work does not have the real, independent, reliable sources that demonstrate a "significant contribution to a ... religious movement" but I think there is enough there to support entry in a list, which has a lower threshold for inclusion. Zad68 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is about an edition, rather than a book, unless Dr. David H. Stern wrote the whole thing from scratch (which needs to be emphasized in the article, if true). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article already says
- The Complete Jewish Bible (CJB) is an English translation of the Bible by Dr. David H. Stern. It consists of both Stern's revised translation of the Old Testament plus his original "Jewish New Testament" translation in one book. The Old Testament translation is a paraphrase of the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version. The New Testament is Stern's original translation from the ancient Greek
- Doesn't "his original ... translation" indicate the Greek translation is his own work? What would need to be said to make it clearer? Zad68 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article already says
- This article is about an edition, rather than a book, unless Dr. David H. Stern wrote the whole thing from scratch (which needs to be emphasized in the article, if true). Stuartyeates (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to the CJB's introduction, the JNT was the first translation of its kind and (much later) the CJB also the first of its kind. Having a Bible translation of your own certainly makes a significant impact on any religious movement and being the first seem to qualify as "notable." I included this information in my 'keep' vote below -Soren.
- Comment - Once again something related to a Jewish Jesus group is being targeted for deletion. Just like Zola Levitt, List of Messianic Jewish organizations, Michael L. Brown, etc. have all been recent targets for deletion. Often this is done with brand new accounts like Red-necked_Grebe and the one who submitted this article Igetome. They are usually single purpose accounts. Basileias (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that whether or not the delete was prompted by an SPA, that in and of itself is not justification for rejecting the AFD. Zad68 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I never said it should be rejected. Nor did I even vote. What I am pointing out it is a movement to remove articles that I think, a perspective some want to suppress. Basileias (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. Remember, assume good faith, don't bite the newcomers. If you suspect these new users are sockpuppets of each other, you can request an investigation at WP:SPI. However I took a quick look at the editors and articles you brought up: The AfD for Zola Levitt was brought by user:JzG, who has been editing since January 2006 on a wide variety of topics, this is certainly not a SPA. As it happens, I brought the AfD for List of Messianic Jewish organizations, which was declined. I am not a sock puppet of these other accounts. user:Red-necked Grebe, who brought the AFD for Michael L. Brown, is a new account, and you voted in that AfD, but realize that SIX other editors all voted to delete, and an independent third-party administrator makes the final call. I think you're rushing far too quickly to a conclusion that sound like you believe articles concerning this subject matter are 'under attack' by a co-ordinated group of SPAs. Zad68 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Response I never said it should be rejected. Nor did I even vote. What I am pointing out it is a movement to remove articles that I think, a perspective some want to suppress. Basileias (talk) 03:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that whether or not the delete was prompted by an SPA, that in and of itself is not justification for rejecting the AFD. Zad68 (talk) 01:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any published Bible translation is probably notable by Wikipedia's criteria. It may not capture a lot of market share, but a distinctive translation such as this is very notable. I find no reason to delete this, and many reasons to keep it. Pete unseth (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if a weak keep. I agree with Pete unseth above that distinctive translations qualify as notable. This particular MJ translation may, reasonably, get little coverage outside of the MJ community, which has comparatively little press, but that is a separate matter. However, if the article is kept, however, and notability is not fairly quickly established, a merge to the article on the author might not be a bad idea. John Carter (talk) 01:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The only thing I would want is at least 2 independent reviews to be used as references and to help build the article, then I would say Keep. --BSTemple (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- merge to Messianic Bible translations as lacking significant coverage in multiple independent third party sources. Feel free to ping my talk page if these are added to the page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. Fringe sources. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It is a generic term. Lots of what I researched with the name "Complete Jewish Bible" is not connected to this book. There seem to be no reliable 3rd party references to show why this book is notable. All the mentions do not show notability.
--TiberiasTiberias (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sources are not provided to show the notability of this edition of the Bible. Having said that, honesty compels me to agree that WP is indeed heavily censored to keep out information that some people "don't like." I am 100% pro-Jewish and pro-Israel as well, just to let you know. However I think that truth is always the best weapon against ignorance. Thanks for letting me vent. I feel better now. :-) Also adding that the book sounds interesting and useful. Many people, especially in the USA, are familiar with Jewish culture and something like this could be helpful in understanding what the Bible is talking about. -BigJim707 (talk) 18:44, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi BigJim707, please note that even though the author chose to name this book "Complete Jewish Bible", this particular work is not used by any follower of Judaism. Instead it is for followers of the misleadingly-named religious movement that calls itself "Messianic Judaism", and which is actually a form of Christianity and not Judaism. If you are interested in Jewish culture, including what texts followers of actual Judaism use, take a look at Torah_database. Zad68 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are probably 1000's of various bible editions/translations/versions/updates, etc that exist. Using the original Hebrew names like Eliyahu for "Elijah", Sha'ul for "Saul" does not make it notable. PS All bibles use Hebrew words, for example hallelujah and amen. --Saladacaesar (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Jewish Bible is called the Torah not the Bible [[27]] I realize my point seems semantic and simplistic but it is not. Calling the Torah the Bible is like calling an apple an orange, though they are both fruits they are very different and a knowledgeable author would realize the difference.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 07:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, this differentiation is deliberately undermined by the author of the edition in question. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By author I believe you are referring to the original author of the book not the Wiki article author. As I am reading your comment that reference would be a (edit) original source for the material and fall outside the Wiki guidelines concerning WP: PSTS.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting off-topic, but trying to clarify: The complete Jewish bible is actually called the Tanakh, and the 5 books of Torah are only the first of 3 parts of it. The author of this book discussed in this AfD, David Stern, has chosen to call his work "The Complete Jewish Bible". As the phrase "The Complete Jewish Bible" is not trademarked, he can call whatever collection of books he wants by that name, even though his work is unacceptable for use by followers of Judaism. For that matter, I can take a collection of nursery rhymes and publish it under the name "The Complete Islam Quran" or whatever. Zad68 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is possible that you have made my point in a better way then I did with this statement ................... "even though his work is unacceptable for use by followers of Judaism" nor do I believe that it would have been well received if were called the "The Complete Jewish Quran". I do not consider myself a scholar on the subject nor is one needed.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 20:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is getting off-topic, but trying to clarify: The complete Jewish bible is actually called the Tanakh, and the 5 books of Torah are only the first of 3 parts of it. The author of this book discussed in this AfD, David Stern, has chosen to call his work "The Complete Jewish Bible". As the phrase "The Complete Jewish Bible" is not trademarked, he can call whatever collection of books he wants by that name, even though his work is unacceptable for use by followers of Judaism. For that matter, I can take a collection of nursery rhymes and publish it under the name "The Complete Islam Quran" or whatever. Zad68 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By author I believe you are referring to the original author of the book not the Wiki article author. As I am reading your comment that reference would be a (edit) original source for the material and fall outside the Wiki guidelines concerning WP: PSTS.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, this differentiation is deliberately undermined by the author of the edition in question. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Messianic Bible translations, where it already has a paragraph but could stand a little (and I do only mean a little) expansion. Any published Bible edition probably deserves a place on a list somewhere on Wikipedia, possibly even one that is described as a "paraphrase" of an existing one and is not published by a mainstream publisher. The article is starkly void of any clear claim of notability and I don't see any independent references on it either. The "findsources" links demonstrate that there are some independent references that could be used but a quick skim of them found only passing mentions or list entries (as well as a lot of completely irrelevant hits) with nothing more substantial jumping out. These would help improve verifiability but I see nothing making this notable enough for its own article. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is not complete and is not Jewish. Seems like it is looking to fool people into thinking this is something when it is not. Does not seem to be Encyclopedic to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 6000Mir (talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand such criticisms but this doesn't make it an unencyclopaedic topic. A book can be a total fraud (not saying this one is) and still be notable (although I very much doubt this one is). Having an article about something is not the same as endorsing it. We need to be objective and look at this based on the inclusion criteria and avoid letting our personal like or dislike of a thing influence us. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I came across this Bible translation (Old Testament paraphrase, New Testament original translation to English) in the Ocean Beach branch of the San Diego Public Library System. As a Christian Science Sunday School teacher, I had been looking for ways to help my students dig into the Bible and had always wondered whether a Bible existed that used more context-aware names than Peter, Paul, and Mary, etc. This New Testament translation is not just a replacement of names (a Hebrew Names Version/background is also available) but a significant, original translation that takes into account a Jewish perspective. I am not familiar with Messianic Jewish theology, but I teach my students regularly about the Jewish context of the Bible and am looking forward to using this book in my classes. When I went to order it just now from my local bookstore, Wikipedia was the only page that quickly came up in a search that wasn't trying to sell me a copy (wikipedia also helped me find the publisher's web site). I am not an expert on the relevance of Bible translations, but I have used a number in my work as both an elected Reader and Sunday School teacher in my Christian Science church. The Complete Jewish Bible is included by mainstream bible resources like BibleStudyTools.com. I believe that this work (and its ISBN number(s)) definitely deserve mention somewhere on wikipedia. If it were to be merged with anything, one page could explain Stern's original translation of the New Testament: "Jewish New Testament" and how it led to the creation of the Complete Jewish Bible. According to the Complete Jewish Bible's Introduction, it exists in large part to deliver Stern's Jewish New Testament along with a paraphrase/revision of a previous Old Testament translation which together provide Messianic Jews with a single, complete (meaning old and new testaments) book in a consistent (modern) style. The introduction also indicates that the JNT was the first translation of its kind and the CJB also the first of its kind. I think that qualifies this book as having made "a significant contribution to a ... religious movement." -Soren (5 Dec 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.206.237 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Soren, you wrote:
- When I went to order it just now from my local bookstore, Wikipedia was the only page that quickly came up in a search that wasn't trying to sell me a copy
- For exactly this reason that you stated yourself, this book fails the Wikipedia criteria of notability for books and therefore should not have its own Wikipedia article. Zad68 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Adding Stern to the search for Complete Jewish Bible helps focus the results considerably, and it's clear that Stern's bible has been the subject of third-party coverage.[28][29] — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:00, 6 December 2011 (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 Caesars Palace. (non-admin closure) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pure Nightclub[edit]
- Pure Nightclub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable. Not much coverage outside of the negligible sources linked to already. No real claim of notability. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are lots of media references to celebrities performing, partying, or hosting parties at this nightclub. [30] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Caesars Palace. Or delete for the same reasons that Metropolitan offered as reasons to keep. That's exactly what I found at Google News - some references to celebrities partying or performing there. Nothing at all about the club itself (although there were a few stories about the closing of a similarly-named nightclub in the UK). Passing mentions in a story about something else do not qualify the club as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- It can make sense Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2011 (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. Nominator withdrew. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rome Sweet Rome[edit]
- Rome Sweet Rome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NFF. Although if things work out this eventually will have an article, so maybe incubation isn't a terrible idea, although I have no idea how to propose that. Yaksar (let's chat) 00:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Not notable idea. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I am the creator, so I suppose my vote counts less, but I have two reaons. 1) it is not just a film, it is also a short story. Since it is also a short story, then I think the NFF rules are not the only criteria, and it should fall under general notability. The short story has received a ton of coverage, in a wide variety of sources (see the references I have included already, plus a TON I did not include because they were largely redundant in terms of content). Gaijin42 (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect.(struck. see my keep below) I propose a compromise and have alerted the nominator and above editors of my option on their talk pages. The way I see it, as a article about a planned film, this one is far too premature. Considering the vagaries surrounding film production and the fact that as this one was only recently optioned by Warner Bros, we'd have a looooong time to wait for principle filming to begin, if ever. But the article led me to the online story itself and to the numerous articles which deal directly and in detail about the short story and to those offering insightful commentary and critique of the story itself and its concept. As a film article, it fails WP:NFF and does not merit being an exception... but in looking for alternatives, I considered that policy allows that discussion of a future event might be worth including somewhere, even if not in its own article. To that end, and as the short story has the coverage to meet the general notability guide and criteria for writing about fiction, I took it upon myself to write a different article... one that instead deals directly with the short story that is A) receiving coverage, and B) receiving critical anaysis and commentary im reliable secondary sources. I then included a short section dealing with the story's film prospects that could then be used as a redirect target. Please visit User:MichaelQSchmidt/Rome, Sweet Rome (short story) and see how a change of focus addresses the NFF issue and yet still presents the project with a neutral, well-sourced, and encyclopdic topic. The film may never be made, but the short story already exists, is not a crystal topic, and is being covered in sources. I think moving my article to mainspace and using that one section as a redirect target, might save a lot of drama. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]- comment My article is not specifically about the film, but also about the short story, so all the arguments about why your new proposed article would be acceptable apply to the original as well. I do think that you have some good additional content that can be added into the existing article though. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- comment I have now merged over most of the content reccomended by MichaelQSchmidt, which places more emphasis on the short story, therefore I think the NFF criteria no longer applies. Gaijin42 (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Working with a consideration toward my option first offered above, and in collaboration with opriginal author User:Gaijin42, the article formerly seen as failing NFF, has now changed its focus to NOT be about a film, but instead and taking advantage of the many sources offering critical commentary and review about military historian James Erwin's fiction story by, in instead concentrates on the well covered story. While information about a possible film adaptation is included, it is done so per policy and is in a subsection set in context to the topic. If and or when a film is made from the story, we can give consideration to creating an article specifically about the film. I wish to NOTE for a closer that the article now is not the same artcle as first commented on by the nominator Yaksar and editor Mohamed Aden Ighe, and they have both been invited back to this discussion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note from nominator Given MichaelQSchmidt's changes (and thanks for alerting me of them, I found them very impressive) this article should no longer be deleted. That being said, it does somewhat trouble me that all of the sources except one seem to concern the proposed film, not just the story. I think it would probably make sense, once the film does meet NFF, to have the article at this title for both, rather than one for the story and one for the film if most of the story's sourcing is film related. But with all that being said, I withdraw my nomination and feel this is a keep.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you much. It was my finding the extremely incisive storyline analysis by the Roman history expert as offered by Popular Mechanics, that did it for me. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The short story meets requirements by coverage in reliable sources. Some of the sources though need publisher information.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
Agreed and I'll get to it shortly.I did include proper publisher info in my rewrite. The current verison of the original is a result of a merge of portions of mine to that of his by the author. Was easy enough to address. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
- Comment For closing admin, see Note from nominator above: "this article should no longer be deleted". So I guess this discussion could be safely closed. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus is that WP:GNG overrides WP:ATH in this instance. Dcoetzee 06:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ashlee Nelson[edit]
- Ashlee Nelson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete — The subject of the article does not seem to meet our notability criteria for athletes (all her achievements have been at the junior and youth levels, not senior). — Fly by Night (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agreed with Fly by Night. —>εϻαdιν ΤαΙk Ͼδητrιβμτιoης 16:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As per above, until she has any senior achievements, she is not notable enough for an article. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, duh. Eta-theta (autographs) 19:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, hardly 'duh' at all. Meets WP:GNG by a mile,
- James Cracknell. "Ashlee Nelson puts Olympics before fun". The Telegraph, 17 Aug 2007.
- Gareth A Davies. "Ashlee Nelson hopes to run gauntlet of first Olympic Games in Beijing". The Telegraph, 11 Aug 2008.
- "Stars of 2009: Alex and Ashlee Nelson". BBC, 20 February 2009.
- "Stoke's Nelson wins sprint silver". BBC, 9 July 2008.
- Mike Rowbottom. "Athletics: Philip and Nelson hold British baton". The Independent, 23 July 2007.
- Ryan Bangs. "Ashlee Nelson lands World Junior silver". More Than The Games, 14 July 2008.
- Ryan Bangs. "Ashlee Nelson wants one more shot at junior glory". More Than The Games, 4 February 2010.
- "Nelson in Medal Hunt". Sporting Life,.
- "Ashlee Nelson Interview..". Women's Fitness magazine, 29 June 2010.
- Sophie Calvert. "Ashlee Nelson". BBC Stoke & Staffordshire, 9/28/2009.
- Just a light sampling of the hundred or so good references found with Google News ([31]). JORGENEV 10:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. Relisting so that JORGENEV's sources can be evaluated. Also "duh" is not a deletion rationale. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Not notable article Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obviously notable given her achievements and the coverage of her.--Michig (talk) 08:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Jorganev has amply shown, Nelson clearly passes the general notability guideline. Therefore that she doesn't meet WP:ATH is irrelevant. Also worth noting that some of the above deletion rationales are extremely weak. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Evidently notable. Warden (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable as sources above show. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hijab protest in Azerbaijan[edit]
- Hijab protest in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
First of all, this article written in catastrophic English, the second fact that this article goes beyond its title and covers information already mentioned in "2011 Azerbaijani protests" (thus qualifying for WP:FORK), while citing POV sources like Islamnews and Panorama.am to claim there that have been large anti-Mardanov hijab protests in Azerbaijan and outside it. NovaSkola (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rescue - I think the article needs to be dramatically improved, but the actual event seems notable. There is widespread coverage which establishes notability, it just needs refining and rewriting. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even according to the sources provided the event does not qualify as a protest, and much of it actually has to do with the opposition protests that took place in Baku, Azerbaijan in the spring of 2011. The hijab issue was merely one of the many demands the opposition members voiced during their march. Parishan (talk) 05:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- It's good, but I suggest a little improvement is needed. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per significant coverage in reliable sources: [32], [33], [34], [35]. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Discussion at this point is about whether to move/rename/merge, not whether to delete. Continue at Talk:Type H Sword. Dcoetzee 06:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Type H Sword[edit]
- Type H Sword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Sources of questionable credibility, although at least one editor thinks the book sources are reliable. No Google scholar hits on this topic; the 4 hits on "Type H Sword" are all for a 9th century Viking sword. (I think history is a "Society" topic, rather than "Science and Technology", but I could be wrong.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that a book published by Franz Steiner Verlag and Storia e Letteratura might not be reliable sources? Here is a better Google Scholar search than the one linked above. I have to point out that the nominator appears to have taken an irrational dislike to this article rather than look it objectively, as he edit-warred back the {{page numbers needed}} and {{hoax}} templates that I removed, even though both were blatantly obviously incorrect. We should be able to expect better from an administrator. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Because coverage of the topic doesn't necessarily include that precise phrase. For example, the Shalev source in the article uses the phrase "Type H of the Aegean Late Bronze Age swords" and the Benzi source "Type H short sword". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, the name of the article is clearly wrong. For what it's worth, I first noticed it because it was created by an editor with no sense of reliable sources, who created a number of articles on clearly hoax concepts. Or perhaps it should be merged (without redirect; i.e., move without redirect to Aegean Late Bronze Age swords of type H, and then merged) into Aegean Late Bronze Age swords, along with B, Q, Z, and all the other types. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (after edit conflict with S Marshall below) Now, at last, we've got this discussion on track, without the blatantly incorrect assertions that you have been making about the article, the sources and the topic. An article on Aegean Late Bronze Age swords would seem to be the best way to go here. Unless and until we have an article about the more notable Viking type H sword then there is no reason not to have a redirect, and when that happens we should have a disambiguation page. In any case this article's content should be preserved somewhere, and the title (at least without the capitalised "Sword") should not be a red link. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Type H, or any other type+letter combination with reference to swords, usually refers to the Petersen typology. A Type H sword is one with a pommel shape called a "cocked hat" that was popular with 10th Century Vikings. (The Petersen typology is rather old and has since been replaced by the more comprehensive Oakeshott typology.) I've never heard of a bronze age sword called a Type H. If we decide that the sources in this current version of the article are reliable, then we will need to disambiguate. Otherwise, the verdict should be "delete". I don't mind which.—S Marshall T/C 19:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why there is any argument about the existence of the article. Salimbeti's very extensive website is referenced, which shows the typology clearly enough (there are questions on the citation in the article but he is published in this field, though not an academic). A disambiguation to avoid confusion with the Petersen sword typology may be in order but there is a lack of a decent Viking Sword article detailing the Petersen typology (it isn't even mentioned in Viking sword), so such a disambiguation could be considered pre-emptive and in breach of wikipedia policies. I'd vote for keep but with a clearer title Monstrelet (talk) 14:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary; it's clear from the references that "Type H Sword" is not used to refer to this concept. Even if everything you say as to the typology is accurate, the article should be moved without redirect to Aegean Late Bronze Age swords of type H with a possible redirect from Type H swords of the Aegean Late Bronze Age (or some other capitalization or reordering of the words). It's not a "pre-emptive disambiguation", it's a clear note that Peterson typology is the primary use of Type H Sword, so the article should not be at Type H Sword. The "primary use" guideline does not mean "primary use within Wikipedia". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2013 Presidents Cup[edit]
- 2013 Presidents Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A bit premature for this to be created Yankeesrule3 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per nom. 2013 event, no content.North8000 (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the customary application of WP:CRYSTAL #1, which says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" and lists the next presidential election and the next Olympics as events that are appropriate for articles. 2013 is the next Presidents Cup, it has a definite location and date, and there is already something additional to be said about it, including that the selection was received as a tribute to Jack Nicklaus, who designed the course and who has said his involvement in the tournament "probably will be my last involvement in anything significant in the game of golf"[36]; and that Muirfield will become "the first club in the world to host . . . The Presidents Cup, Ryder Cup and Solheim Cup" team competitions.[37] --Arxiloxos (talk) 20:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Arxiloxos's comment. Although this is a future event, it does indeed have notability. PwilliamQ99 (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Great Coverage. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2011 (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. It's a pretty firm rule that reader reviews and personal testionials do not count towards notability. If anything, that an article relies on it proves the intent is promotional, and that seems also to be admtted in the afd discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stillpower[edit]
- Stillpower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability; while I find a reasonable number of blog mentions, I'm not finding the sort of significant mentions that would meet WP:NBOOK; the only two gnews hits were press releases. Nat Gertler (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The book is noteworthy due to its subject matter, an alternative to the conventional method for preparing mentally for participation in sporting events. Sports are a significant aspect of our society, physical and mental preparation is an essential part of success in any sporting event, it therefore creates considerable interest and discussion. The external notoriety of this book centers around it’s author and the repeated requests he receives to discuss it’s concepts on national sports talk shows. As a sports consultant and published author Garret Kramer is often asked to comment on sports stories that relate to the mental preparedness of athletes. Publications such as Sports Illustrated,[1] The Wall Street Journal,[2] and New York Times[3] have referenced his opinions on sports psychology. Kramer is a featured and frequent contributor to sports talk radio and television shows on WFAN in New York, ESPN Radio, WOR (AM),[4] CBS Radio Network,[5] FOX and CTV Television Network. Steveswei 04:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)
- You seem to be making the argument that the book is notable because its author is notable, If you review WP:NBOOK, you'll find that the only ways that qualifies in the criteria is if the "author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes." That seems unlikely in this case. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, hopefully I understand. The page has been edited to give a brief description of the book, written in my own words, that expresses the uniqueness of its content and how it differs from conventional athletic coaching techniques. In addition references are given to reviews by notable athletes and authors (all with Wikipedia Pages) that have commented on the uniqueness and successes of the approach outlined in the book. Thank you for working with me on this matter.Steveswei 21:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)
- I appreciate you trying to address this. However, off the references you added, only the first would appear to carry any weight in regards to notability. Of the remaining three, one is from the book's introduction, and the other two appear not to be from published reviews but are simply blurbs, the sort of thing that are meant to advertise the book. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is all that I have got. I understand what you are saying but there must also be some consideration to that rule. All I was trying to do was share the information about a book that has changed the lives of thousands of people. I know the difference that form of thinking has made in my life and I think others could benefit from it as well. If that is not deemed noteworthy, then I guess it will probably go away. I can’t think of any other way to amend it. Thanks. Steveswei 15:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswei (talk • contribs)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I use Wikipedia frequently and decided I want to participate for the first time when I saw this page was noted for deletion. This book along with it's concepts has made a significant shift in my life and I would recommend it to others, I would like to see the page remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahgarris (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC) Just saw this link in the serps and wanted to weigh in if you are considering deleting this, please reconsider. I consider the content in this book vital information for parents and coaches by offering a revolutionary approach for athletes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.156.172 (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dcoetzee 06:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Clearly we haven't yet found the reviews in national newspapers that would answer this AfD instantly. What we do have is a set of reviews written by independent individuals - including WP readers-who've-never-edited - who much admire Stillpower, and in some cases write that their lives have been changed by the book. It is obvious that the rules say No Blogs, Only the Biggest and Best Newspapers, WP:N, WP:GNG, etc etc. Only, my alarm bells are ringing here. "Be Bold". "Ignore all Rules". We have decent ordinary people who have a) found this book transformative, and b) taken the time to write about it on their own websites. Words to Run By; Running, Loving, Living; Forward Foot Strides. This book is of genuine encyclopedic interest. It has been genuinely well reviewed by ordinary folk. We are entirely at liberty to keep it in Wikipedia. We should. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we start accepting everything that at least three people have blogged about, there is little on this earth that will not be considered "encyclopedic". And we have cautions about giving weight to the input of never-before-editing users in deletion discussions with good reason. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Added to note: the sites you link to are not random people who have read the book and were moved to write about it - they are people who the author selected and sent review copies to in order to get a review. This is not the sign of some popular backing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Osanobua[edit]
- Osanobua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary expressly says not to have articles like this, which tells us the meaning of one word in one language. BigJim707 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Already appears in Names of God, no need for a separate article for a name in a rather obscure language — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marjaliisa (talk • contribs) 11:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This article currently being in the style of a dictionary entry is an issue that can be fixed by editing, without requiring deletion. The notability of Osanobua as a cultural and religious concept, as opposed to the word "Osanobua", is clear from the results of the Google Books search linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Possible keep or merge Checking out the books references shows that there are notable religious beliefs around Osanobua. It is not just their name for God the Creator as understood by Christianity and Islam. Is there an article on Edo religion? If so the article could maybe be merged there. If the article is kept it should be about Osanobua as understood by the people, not about the meaning of the word in general terms. Borock (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's quite possible to have valid articles about individual words; many entries in Category:Interjections are fine examples of valid articles about single words. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But these words are notable as words in English speaking cultures. BigJim707 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the opening sentence of the article is: "Osanobua is the name for God Almighty in Edo language." God Almighty redirects to El Shaddai. BigJim707 (talk) 10:46, 29 November 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cellarscape[edit]
- Cellarscape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
In all the sources provided there is no significant subject from a reliable third-party source, so I think that this fails WP:GNG Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to say that this is a contested PROD. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Huge WP:BLP concerns for the article. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete complete lack of reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2011 (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. Extensive searches by discussants failed to identify evidence of notability. Dcoetzee 06:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henry Fraser[edit]
- Henry Fraser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:GNG. I can find no sources for this man other than the one cited, which is a comprehensive list of all officers in the Indian Civil Service & therefore does not itself infer notability. The award of CB (Order of the Bath) is actually unsourced, and his roles in the British Raj do not meet the notability criteria for judges etc. Sitush (talk) 11:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Acted as Inspector-General of Police for the Central Provinces (i.e. police commander for the whole province), which is certainly notable (although it was for such a brief period that this may be borderline). As is the CB if it can be confirmed. However, I can find no sources for him (not even a brief obituary in The Times or an entry in Who's Who, which would be normal for someone with a CB at that time) and the article is so poorly written that deleting without prejudice for recreation if sources can be found would probably be a viable option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) I think that the article creator has misinterpreted the inspector-general thing. He was acting inspector-general (ie: during a hiatus in the incumbency). And, boy, was it brief. Not to worry, though, we end up with the same conclusion re: sources etc. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, although the officer who acts as head of an organisation during a hiatus is usually the permanent deputy head, which is still notable for an organisation as big as the Central Provinces Police. But again, no proof that Fraser did hold this post. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible that this is our man in 1890, since the date ties in with the sole source for the article. Maybe we can hook into the Madras Cavalry reference somewhere? It doesn't refer to him being CB. There is another possible here, which would mark the end of his life - but that neither mentions the CB nor the regiment of which he was a member. So, these are pretty speculative. I'll do some digging using the Madras point. - Sitush (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly the promotion to Colonel - here, 1884. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Major to Lieu-Col., 1878. I know this involves synth etc, but let's see where it all leads. - Sitush (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Lieut to Captain, 1862. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Auction of a portrait here gives d.o.b. of 21 Jul 1835, death 1901 (but no source is given for that info, & I am surprised that Christie's do not mention the CB if he did have the thing). Possible marriage is here in 1869, which if true wld make him son of a General. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Capt to Major, 1876 - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just trying to find anything of note his wife gets a mention in the Times FRASER On the 22 Jan 1901 at Menaggio, Lake of Como, Catherine Mary (Kate) wife of Colonel Henry Fraser, Madras Cavalry. MilborneOne (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2011 (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. TheIceking argued some sources were reliable, but later consensus specifically rejected this. Dcoetzee 06:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zombie Pandemic[edit]
- Zombie Pandemic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was multiple created (see log1 and log2) and sadly it was accepted in the WP:AFC reviewing process last week. The problem is again that all sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources (e.g. best-strategygamesonline.com). mabdul 12:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- I have no connection with previous attempts at creating a Zombie Pandemic article. Also, almost two years have gone by since the last submission attempt. Notability is not a static thing.
- Primary sources are used strictly to corroborate updated content in the article. It is quite impossible for a third party publication to supply updated information on the current game version or number of players. However, if this is a major issue I can simply remove said information and related sources from the article altogether.
- Contains at least two independent, credible sources of information regarding the article (onrpg and microsoft). games.blog.com has blog on the name, true, but it contains 5 editors and is directly associated with the official AOL games pages. So it's not a "one man and his blog" operation.
- Other articles on games with equivalent characteristics and notability are already presente in wikipedia, for example ([urban dead]).
- Is relevant/present in 6 other wikipedia lists.
TheIceking (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: two years? 15 February 2010 and 27 September 2011 are not two years.
- Not being orphan is no argument
- onrpg doesn't even has any 'site notice' nor an author of the review
- read WP:ALLORNOTHING ('urban dead' related) mabdul 22:04, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and the 'Microsoft Case Study' seem to be made by 'Pixel Pandemic' (the developers) (download the PDF)mabdul 22:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: - I did not notice the september 2011 attempt to add Zombie Pandemic to wiki. In any case, since there's no way to see how well/poorly previous articles have been written/referenced I can only speak for my own attempt at it.
- The Onrpg article was written by Mitch Baylosis-Benesa, clearly referenced on the article itself and on my own reference links information. I also have no idea what you mean by "site notice", I couldn't find such a thing at gamespot or microsoft either.
- The Microsoft case study is on the microsoft website. It is an independent, third party, reliable source that contains information relevant to the zombie pandemic wikipedia article. If you wish do dispute the veracity of the information present at the microsoft site or have a debate on the reliability of statements/information present on third party sources I am not the right person to talk to. I sought simply to reference my article information as best as possible.
TheIceking (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If you click at http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/ at the bottom on Terms of Use you get to a disclaimer with the section 'What happens if you upload copyrighted materials to one of our websites without permission?' <-- that is useruploaded material!
- The onrpg material still seems for me usergenerated. And even if not usergenerated: that would be only 1 reliable sourcemabdul 12:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I cannot find any appropriate coverage in reliable sources, so the game does not seem to meet the notability requirements Chzz ► 23:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - (a) The article provides no evidence of notability (none of the sources are reliable, as discussed above). (b) My searches have been unable to uncover reliable sources discussing the game. (c) 500,000 accounts is actually not a big deal in the context of a free browser game - it's not as if it's hits per day or concurrent players, it's just the total number of people who have ever tried the game - so in all likelihood the game is NOT notable and we shouldn't be surprised to find no coverage. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:29, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Still no notability has been shown. SL93 (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2011 (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. Reliable sources are plentiful, but haven't been incorporated into article yet. Dcoetzee 06:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Philippine Advertising Congress[edit]
- Philippine Advertising Congress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It does not tell what is Philippine Advertising Congress,it just tells that it is an annual gathering.It has no references,too. That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 13:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Content is one sentence that says the meeting exists, so there is nothing to be lost by deletion. Zero references = zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 160 possible references you can use. –HTD 15:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I agree with the nominator actually. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:BEFORE and HTD. Bearian (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2011 (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. Identical argument to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanna Mergies. Dcoetzee 06:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Angélique Vialard[edit]
- Angélique Vialard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article is only notable for one event. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 13:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: BLP1E isn't applicable. Professional achievements are not "news events" in that sub-guideline's sense (even if they happen to be reported in the news). BLP1E exists to prevent articles from being written about, say, someone who was briefly in the news for having been in a drunk driving accident that killed an entire family, or being one of the many victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It's not an excuse to nuke articles on professional athletes early in their careers. :-) What is applicable is WP:ATHLETE, as well as WP:N generally. Since multiple, independent reliable sources reported on the IBSF World Snooker Championship and its progress, including hers, the GNG would seem to be satisfied, albeit marginally. I'd be surprised if at least one major snooker site doesn't have an interview, profile or other content on her more specifically, and there may be Belarussian sources on her that we're not seeing because of the whole systemic bias effect, but it's 1 a.m. and I don't have the wakefulness to go looking. We're a bit indeterminate on WP:N, then, but with presumption in favor of the subject, clearly, because of non-trivial coverage of the event and its players. WP:ATHLETE's only applicable requirement is "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", which is clearly satisfied, since the IBSF World event is the top event in amateur snooker. Personally I have long thought that "participation" should not be enough to qualify for athletic notability (some world championships, in quite number of sports, can have many hundreds of one-timer participants); more like at least making it into the quarter-finals. But she did. So even my overly-strict wishes are satisfied. I don't see any way around the clear wording of WP:ATHLETE; we do have highest-level event participation. That said, it's a miserable little stub and needs some attention. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As mentioned above, competition in global sporting events isn't covered by the one event provision, and can confer notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:58, 28 November 2011 (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. There is agreement that BLP1E reasoning is inapplicable here. Note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angélique Vialard features an identical argument. Dcoetzee 06:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hanna Mergies[edit]
- Hanna Mergies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject of the article is only notable for one event. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The source cited in the article covers much more than just one event. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: BLP1E isn't applicable. Professional achievements are not "news events" in that sub-guideline's sense (even if they happen to be reported in the news). BLP1E exists to prevent articles from being written about, say, someone who was briefly in the news for having been in a drunk driving accident that killed an entire family, or being one of the many victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. It's not an excuse to nuke articles on professional athletes early in their careers. :-) What is applicable is WP:ATHLETE, as well as WP:N generally. Since multiple, independent reliable sources reported on the IBSF World Snooker Championship and its progress, including hers, the GNG would seem to be satisfied, albeit marginally. I'd be surprised if at least one major snooker site doesn't have an interview, profile or other content on her more specifically, and there may be Polish sources on her that we're not seeing because of the whole systemic bias effect, but it's 1 a.m. and I don't have the wakefulness to go looking. We're a bit indeterminate on WP:N, then, but with presumption in favor of the subject, clearly, because of non-trivial coverage of the event and its players. WP:ATHLETE's only applicable requirement is "have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", which is clearly satisfied, since the IBSF World event is the top event in amateur snooker. Personally I have long thought that "participation" should not be enough to qualify for athletic notability (some world championships, in quite number of sports, can have many hundreds of one-timer participants); more like at least making it into the quarter-finals. But she did. So even my overly-strict wishes are satisfied. I don't see any way around the clear wording of WP:ATHLETE; we do have highest-level event participation. That said, it's a miserable little stub and needs some attention. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As mentioned above, competition in global sporting events isn't covered by the one event provision, and can confer notability. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eric Cormier[edit]
- Eric Cormier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No significant notability as anything. Only minor mentions as a society figure. DGG ( talk ) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Fails notability --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Links provided in article all seem to be dead or non-applicable. Gnews hits find other people, not this guy. General ghits are social media, directory listings, and PR of a fairly shameless variety. Fails WP:N, fails WP:NOTPROMO. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I declined the speedy deletion initially. While I am able to find some coverage, such as this promotional item and this brief mention, I'm not seeing the depth of coverage needed for WP:N notability. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:09, 29 November 2011 (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. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Essentia[edit]
- Essentia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod partially restored via WP:REFUND. This is supposedly the less spammy version, but I don't care for this one either. The only sentence I see that might show notability were it well sourced is, "Essentia is the first company in the world to create an "All-Natural sleeping surface".[3]" which amazingly is both meaningless (all-natural is just a marketing term with no well-defined meaning) and obviously false (what did people sleep on before unnatural chemicals and plastics? straw? feathers? dirt?).
I searched Google, but was unable to find any reliable, independent coverage upon which to base a decent article. Kilopi (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete -- Great coverage but missing information from sources. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Current article is unambiguous advertising: among the leaders of the healthy sleep movement. Google News for Essentia + mattress finds mostly routine announcements, PR sites, and litigation reports.[38] - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:31, 28 November 2011 (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Narek Beglaryan[edit]
- Narek Beglaryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fais WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by author without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that he plays and still plays in a fully pro league. Look at his reference. Look at how many games and goals (these are not updated). - User:Hovhannesk
- Provide a source that shows the Armenian Premier League is fully pro and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Without it, the number of games and goals is not relevant to notability. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 12:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails with the football biography. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 18:19, 30 November 2011 (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.
- ^ http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/hockey/nhl/09/16/athletes.emotional.problems.treatment/index.html#ixzz1YbqWkUXZ
- ^ http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053551039526156.html
- ^ http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE6DF1539F933A15751C1A96F9C8B63&scp=1&sq=parise%20stays%20on%20even&st=cse
- ^ http://www.wor710.com/topic/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4021959
- ^ http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2011/11/10/sports-crisis-consultant-examines-psu-scandal/