Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 August 26
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WilyD 08:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thollem McDonas[edit]
- Thollem McDonas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This BLP makes some pretty big claims, such as comparing the subject's influence in the experimental music scene to people like John Cage. But the sources provided for this extensive profile of him are very weak, and do not seem to meet the basic requirements of reliability set down in WP:BIO. Steven Walling • talk 22:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with the "big claims" comment. I've removed the offending sentence. There is a significant article on McDonas in Signal to Noise (Spring 2011), titled "Gone Beyond Reason." that does compare the artist to Cecil Taylor and George Antheil. Signal to Noise, the Metro Newspaper (Metroactive) and San Francisco Classical Voice are serious publications with dedicated editorial staff that should meet the standards of reliability from WP:BIO and notability from WP:MUSIC. --Kmorris1077 (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probable keep The MetroActive and San Francisco Classical Voice articles are both good, in-depth coverage. I've not read the Signal to Noise article, but it's also a reliable source, and there's more coverage from local press in the article, as well as on Nexis: Megan Gloss, "concert preview Thollem's Everywhere Quintet", Telegraph Herald (Dubuque, IA), August 3, 2012 C, p. 9 2pp. This is a niche field but I think there's overall enough coverage to meet general notability guidelines. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Ryan (rugby union)[edit]
- Dave Ryan (rugby union) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet the criteria for notability, at best can be currently described as an amateur athlete. Sheodred (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see it differently. He is now on a professional contract with a team in the Pro 12. And he has been called into camp for the USA national team. Barryjjoyce (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has played for Munster first team and is on a professional contract. Obviously meets WP:ATHLETE. It can be debated if that is too wide a definition but it is the currently accepted one. noq (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:NRU, which is the specific criteria in this area. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep on second look Heineken Cup appears on the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability_criteria#List_of_fully_professional_leagues_since_1995. My mistake. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - meets WP:NRU having played for Munster in the Heineken Cup. Hack (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually he played in the Magners league rather than the Heineken but that is still a full professional league. noq (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jazzy Jordan[edit]
- Jazzy Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article not written from a NPOV, and seems non-notable Mdann52 (talk) 06:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - This person is the definition of non-notable. See my arguments on the VGMG talk page, but brief summary follows:
- All of Jordan's accomplishments are at and for his various record labels, with the exception that he started two failed enterprises: Jordan Music Group, and co-ownership of an Indy 500 car for one year (the car placed 12th).
- Most of the article reads like Jordan's résumé. What doesn't read like a résumé reads like a summary of what I did last summer.
- Unlike other heads of similar companies (e.g. Clive Davis, or L.A. Reid), Jordan has received no awards and done little outside of direct work. He is virtually unknown outside of his artists and their die-hard fans. In contrast, Clive Davis and L.A. Reid have each received multiple Grammies. Davis has been inducted into the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame, and Reid judges on "The X Factor."
- The article creator and primary editor, Hansomd, is a single-purpose editor who has written and taken ownership of this article. Jsharpminor (talk) 06:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the sources read like warmed-over press releases or are interview pieces. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). CtP (t • c) 21:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Perry Bhandal[edit]
- Perry Bhandal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTABILITY - this is WP:AUTOBIO of writer/director of a film that had a brief release (released in July for home video in August). Gnews finds one interview for him, in local paper where film was made. (Movie has zero reviews on RottenTomatoes.) Nat Gertler (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) Nominator switches stance to Keep - sufficient sources have been put forth that WP:GNG has been met. Article still faces tagged concerns, but need not be deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP
The article on the filmaker qualifies for inclusion under persons of note based on the below.
195.225.81.1 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC) There are many interviews with the Filmaker undertaken by independently verifiable news outlets. A number of these outlets like the Daily Mail and BBC are nationwide outlets. They are already referenced in the filmakers article. There are three groups. Online, Print and Radio. The Print ones are images of the articles from one of the film production companies.[reply]
Online
Bucks Free Press Newspaper - http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/9829203.Flackwell_Heath_director_releases_first_feature_film/
Bring the noise - http://www.bringthenoiseuk.com/201207/music/interviews/interview-perry-bhandal
Journal Live - has already been cited above
Express Series of Newspapers - http://www.sloughexpress.co.uk/Entertainment/Cinema/Film-News/Slough-director-releases-first-film-starring-Luke-Goss-27072012.htm
Frost Magazine - http://www.frostmagazine.com/2012/08/perry-bhandal-on-interview-with-a-hitman-film-interview/
Asian City Magazine - http://issuu.com/asiancity/docs/asian_city_issue_4?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222
Daily Mail Newspaper - http://kirlianpictures.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/daily-mail-20th-july.jpg
Bucks Free Press Newspaper - http://kirlianpictures.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/interview-with-a-hitman-bucks-free-press.jpg
Journal Live Newspaper - http://kirlianpictures.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/newcastle-journal-30-07-12.jpg
Asian City Magazine - http://kirlianpictures.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/asian-city-16-08-12.jpg
Radio
BBC 3 Counties - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00v698t
Below are number of Film reviews. Given the DVD is yet to be released one can expect more reviews and Interviews.
The article on the filmaker qualifies for inclusion under persons of note based on the below.
Film Reviews
Baz Bamigboye - Daily Mail - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2176192/Failing-Superstars-threat-Theatreland-The-reality-shows-effect-West-End.html#ixzz218eLOucZ
The Fan Carpet - Oliver Hayes - http://thefancarpet.com/reviews/interviewwithahitman/
Bring the Noise - Jade Turner - http://www.bringthenoiseuk.com/201208/films/film-review-interview-with-a-hitman
Frost Magazine - Catherine Balavage - http://www.frostmagazine.com/2012/08/interview-with-a-hitman-review/
Nuts Online - http://www.nuts.co.uk/503602d09c23d/interview-with-a-hitman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurosuper (talk • contribs) 15:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the filmaker qualifies for inclusion under persons of note based on the below.
The Filmaker is also referenced in a number of interviews and with the lead actor in the film he wrote, directed and executive produced:
Hey U Guys - http://www.heyuguys.co.uk/2012/07/20/interview-with-a-hitman-interview-luke-goss/
Female First - http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/movies/Luke+Goss-247639.html
Den of Geek - http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/22069/luke-goss-interview-interview-with-a-hitman-death-race-inferno-red-widow-and-inside
Aint it Cook news - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57125
BleedingCool - http://www.bleedingcool.com/2012/07/25/luke-goss-on-interview-with-a-hitman-his-love-of-film-and-future-projects/
The article on the filmaker qualifies for inclusion under persons of note based on the below.
The film has been released internationally. The following are links to either Theatrical or DVD release: The film will be continue to be released in other territories. This film is by no means a brief or small release
Theatres - Quatar - http://blog.marhaba.com.qa/2012/08/16/cinema-listings-for-16th-23rd-august/
Theatres - http://www.bahraincinema.com/MovieDetail.aspx?Id=1174
Theatres - http://webserver2.kncc.com/synopsis.php?mv=3816
The article on the filmaker qualifies for inclusion under persons of note based on the below.
The film by the filmaker has been promoted by Cinescape (Kuwait's National Cinema Company) alongside The Dark Knight Rises, Expendables 2 and Brave. The link to the promotional theatrical trailer is below:
Cinescape Promotional Theatrical Trailer - http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150998664827724&set=vb.84586906921&type=2&theater
Given the film has a worldwide release one can expect more release information, articles and reviews as the individual territories release the film
The following are official sites of the british film industry with links to the filmakers film
British Video Association - http://www.bva.org.uk/node/1888537
British Council Film - http://film.britishcouncil.org/interview-with-a-hitman
The following are domestic UK outlets that will be selling the film. It is by no means brief or small as mentioned above
HMV - http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?WT.mc_id=101689&sku=785969
PLAY - http://www.play.com/DVD/Blu-ray/4-/32260574/0/Interview-With-A-Hitman/ListingDetails.html
TESCO - http://www.tescoentertainment.com/store/blu-ray/interview-with-a-hitman/8%3A946009
BASE - http://www.base.com/buy/product/interview-with-a-hitman-blu-ray/dgc-kal8161.htm
TECH LODGE - http://www.thetechlodge.co.uk/KALEIDOSCOPE-Interview-Hitman-DVD-15/dp/B007VCQXYC?traffic_src=froogle
Advertising and promotion for the film extends to the trailer for the film appearing in the following high profile film related outlets.
Close Up Film - http://www.close-upfilm.com/2012/07/interview-with-a-hitman-trailer/
Total Film - http://www.totalfilm.com/video/interview-with-a-hitman-trailer-60T45jQF0MCO2
NME - http://www.nme.com/movies/video/id/1794454480001/search/movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurosuper (talk • contribs) 06:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Motion - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsyeyi_interview-with-a-hitman-trailer_shortfilms
MyMovies.net - http://www.mymovies.net/player/default.asp?t=Interview+With+A+Hitman+-+Trailer&trid=12098%7C8328&filmid=12098&s=2&n=2
Yahoo Movies - http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/video/trailers-1730502/the-oranges-trailer-30298765.html
Metro Online - http://www.metro.co.uk/video/1795437117001-interview-with-a-hitman-clip--kitchen-fight 195.225.81.1 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Added links to Filmaker and Film in articles of actors that are in the film Luke Goss, Rene Zagger, Stephen Marcus, Ray Panthaki, Philip Whitchurch, Branko Tomović to address 'orphan' concern raised in list of issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.81.1 (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurosuper (talk • contribs) 18:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Eurosuper (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Flackwell Heath director releases first feature film
- Interview: Director Perry Bhandal tells of his North East-filmed thriller
- Slough director releases first film starring Luke Goss
- Failing Superstar's threat to Theatreland: Concern over the reality show's effect on the West End (Just beyond passing mentions)
- —Northamerica1000(talk) 20:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heaven's Casino[edit]
- Heaven's Casino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to fail WP:NMUSIC. Does have a myspace page and a bebo page but I don't believe those are sufficient; no evidence of substantial coverage by independent sources. bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No coverage found; subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BAND. Gongshow Talk 15:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. There isn't even really a claim of notability so arguably a speedy. -- Whpq (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Civilization State[edit]
- Civilization State (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable topic. One writer's term for a state which is also a civilization, i.e. China, but not a widely used or broadly understood topic. Article does not explain what a civilization state is, apart from the above definition, so not enough for an article. Refs are to works by this writer except for one piece of propaganda which is not a reliable source. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 20:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The term doesn't appear in Google Scholar. It appears in a small handful of books referring to China, but still seems to be a WP:NEO. -- 202.124.75.158 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:NEO. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neologism. The term does not seem to have come into general use. Of the four references offered, three are from the same person, Martin Jacques, and the fourth seems to have a somewhat different understanding of the term from that presented in the article. --MelanieN (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don McIver[edit]
- Don McIver (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This poet does not appear to meet either WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. He has one self-published book and hosts a local radio show. I searched the Albuquerque Journal archives and found a few passing mentions in stories about the local slam scene (where he appears to be merely one participant among many) and a brief book-signing announcement. There is also a longer story about his non-ownership of a car, but this does not show any notability as a poet or otherwise per WP:MILL. No mentions at all outside of local media as far as I can tell. Camerafiend (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing at Google News other than a few trivial mentions. HueSatLum 20:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 04:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Football Tennis (Playground Game)[edit]
- Football Tennis (Playground Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This thing made up in school one day is completely non-notable. To avoid a colossal slog of false positives when Googling for reliable sources, I searched with the term "Football Tennis" jacob findell (the game as well as one of its purported inventors), which turned up nothing on Google Books, News, or News archives (exactly as I expected, given the nature of the subject). CtP (t • c) 20:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It even said (before somebody got embarrassed) it was invented by six primary school kids in 2009. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no claim nor sign of notability. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - no claim to notability in the article whatsoever, just some kids mucking about at breaktime -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable - and a version was played back in the 60's, if not earlier. - Arjayay (talk) 12:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deleted as garbage. DS (talk) 23:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Marioism[edit]
- Marioism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced. Googling returns nothing. Looks Dubious. --Anbu121 (talk me) 19:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article creator apparently attributed the creation of this alleged religion to a particular individual, then removed the individual's name. There is no evidence that this religion actually exists whether associated with the individual or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This almost meets speedy deletion criteria, as it's impossibly vague (A1. No context.). I find no evidence of notability. Google shows that the word is sometimes used to refer to Super Mario topics, but I'm not sure a redirect is merited. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not finding anything about this, even in unreliable sources. First Light (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- SNOW Delete, hoax or unverifiable, obviously non-notable. Possibly speedy as hoax or db-group. Hairhorn (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vegasite[edit]
- Vegasite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published first novel - no reviews or awards to indicate that it meets WP:NBOOK. Only assertion of notability from the article creator was that the book is listed for sale on Amazon. McGeddon (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication that this book meets the WP:NBOOK notability criteria; at best this would be WP:TOOSOON. AllyD (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:NBOOK and above. Theopolisme 21:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking the kinds of sources required by WP:NBOOK. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spencer Hendricks[edit]
- Spencer Hendricks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject is a non-notable MMA fighter. His first fight is coming up for a non-notable organization and the only sources are fight announcements. Two of the announcements say that this will be an amateur fight, making his debut even less notable. He fails WP:NSPORTS#Mixed martial arts and WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Papaursa (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 00:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete Appears to have had no MMA fights (amateur or professional). He certainly doesn't meet WP:MMANOT or any other notability criteria. Mdtemp (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking sources with evidence of meeting WP:MMANOT. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tuen Mun Swimming Pool[edit]
- Tuen Mun Swimming Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable and unreferenced. No reliable sources. No GNews or GBooks hits. GNews hits show only self-published sources or social media. Promotional. CSD for A7/G11 declined with reason that promotional language had been cleaned up (I disagree, but AGF) - no reason was given on declination for A7. GregJackP Boomer! 18:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the information are from official website from the Hong Kong government so it's reliable. if I would like to promote the swimming pool I should add words like "the best", "good" etc. This is a public swimming pool so I don't need to advertise it. The purpose of making the English version of this article is for the new comers of Hong Kong, especially for minorities who cannot read Chinese I would further expend the article to meet the standard of the wikipedia If it's not suitable for wikipedia then my same topic in Chinese Language should be deleted long time ago..... - Samchan212 (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, existence does not confer nobility. Seems like a NN pool with no sources. Just being in another wiki is not enough, see WP:INN. meshach (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. Even less sources in the native language version of the article. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Filuk Family Scholarship[edit]
- Filuk Family Scholarship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While I can find minor mentions in primary sources, I don't see any WP:RS indicating notability by our standards, for what I'm sure is a very helpful program. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I don't even see much of a claim to notability here, much less actual notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree, there is no notability here and I found nothing in the way of reliable sources. Ubelowme U Me 22:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Although its wonderful that somebody has provided this scholarship, there is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. If someone wants it undeleted for a merge, ask me. WilyD 08:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Top engineering colleges under ptu[edit]
- Top engineering colleges under ptu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Lugia2453 (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Either merge to Punjab Technical University or just delete. This should not be a separate article, but maybe this content might possibly belong in the article about the university, which is quite short. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if the creators area really attempting to improve coverage of these colleges, I suggest starting at List of colleges affiliated with Punjab Technical University and improving the coverage there. Many of these colleges are likely to be notable, random comparisons are not. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DOGMA (1994 film)[edit]
- DOGMA (1994 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
prod tag was removed by the creator. I still think this film does not pass the notability bar. I wasn't able to find any source for the claim about Burroughs and Phoenix. (nor for the claims that it was shown on US cable and in festivals) The author of the article claims that the bit about River Phoenix can be read on Amazon's free preview but I can only read half of the sentence. It seems really more of a passing mention and the author of the book didn't include this film in River Phoenix filmography. River Phoenix died in 93 so any remotely notable 1994 film that involved him in any way would have gotten huge exposure. In the case of DOGMA, I can't even find a review and it's not on the online databases such as IMDb. Pichpich (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Generally it would be unusual for a film that is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete possibly a hoax. Burroughs and River Poenix and no mentions anywhere? Yeah right.--GrapedApe (talk) 16:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is one of many potentially COI articles created to form a walled garden around the director. A search brings up no reliable and independent sources to show that this film is notable. Now even if River Phoenix were to star in the film, having a notable person in the film does not guarantee that the film will be notable. (Plus there's concerns over it being a hoax, although even if it's not one source is not enough to keep the article.) In any case, this just isn't notable in the slightest. It fails WP:NFILM by a mile.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a search on amazon and sure enough, it is mentioned. HOWEVER, it should be specified that Phoenix did not narrate for this movie. The book states "In 1994, underground artist/filmmaker, Keanu Clinger, wrote and directed the film Dogma. He gives River narration credit, although what is heard is River's recording of "Txai" from Milton Nascimento's recording. The movie is also dedicated to River in the closing credits." In other words, the director did not get Phoenix to narrate specifically for him, he used an audio clip of Phoenix reading something. That's not exactly the same thing. Even so, having a relation to a notable person is not enough to warrant an entry and the mention of this is so insanely brief that it would most likely be considered a trivial mention and certainly nothing that should be mentioned on Phoenix's page. After all, we don't list every time a film, song, or other recording uses a sound clip from somewhere or someone else.So it's not really a hoax, but neither is it exactly as it's mentioned in the article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Django Live OS[edit]
- Django Live OS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Linux distro; no hits for "Django Live OS" on Google Books, News, or News archives. CtP (t • c) 15:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: no coverage in reliable sources independent of subject. I wouldn't oppose redirecting it to Debian though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eldad Tarmu[edit]
- Eldad Tarmu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG. Of the two references, one is the subject's home page, and the other is only a trivial mention. IronGargoyle (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added 3 critical reviews to the references. These use phrases such as "strong reputation", "one of a small but active clutch of younger players ... who are carving out reputations on the vibraphone". AllyD (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve – Per WP:NRVE, topic notability is about the availability of significant coverage in reliable sources, and not based upon whether or not sources are present in articles. Also, sources are not required to be available online. See also WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. This person meets WP:BASIC per: [1], [2], [3]. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete requested by author. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kenta Nagata[edit]
- Kenta Nagata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable video game composer lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. This is the second nomination and if appears there are no changes in notability from the first AfD. reddogsix (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I choose to delete because there are no sources! 22dragon22burn (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. SarahStierch (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 God-Grilla. SarahStierch (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bespoke BBQ Company[edit]
- Bespoke BBQ Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Company built a giant barbecue. Delete. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Rename to God-Grilla: All of the sources are more about the BBQ than the company (and notability is not inherited). The article is more about the BBQ than the company. -- BenTels (talk) 17:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Renaming is congruent with WP:PRESERVE. Methinks deletion of the entire article per its current title is a little hasty. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to God-Grilla and rescope - the King of all BBQ Grills seems like it's attracted enough attention to pass WP:GNG, not the company (at least not yet), and notability is not inherited. And now I'm craving pulled pork. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:15, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve because the overall topic passes WP:GNG. Note the international news sources already present in the article for examples. Then rename if it's necessary to do so. Also, this nomination fails WP:DEL-REASON in entirety. No qualification for deletion whatsoever has been presented based upon Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Spin off God-Grilla and delete the rest: Does not appear to be notable apart from the God-Grilla pbp 15:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and just rename it to either God-Grilla or its official name. Being the world's largest barbeque device is something noteworthy, and it does give coverage for this. Dream Focus 20:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep God-Grilla is notable. AFD is not for renaming. CallawayRox (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Company built a giant barbecue. Warden (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename it God-Grilla. The company is not notable but the 'God-Grilla' is. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Note: I believe the notability is inherited in this case. What does the company do? They make BBQs, such as this really famous one... Also, the company is mentioned in every news piece, which meets the standard for SIGCOV. The Steve 06:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. If Joe Blow makes the world's largest fishing bobber, of course every news article on the bobber will say Joe Blow made it - but that doesn't make Joe Blow notable, just the bobber. In this case an article on the grill with a redirect from the company is appropriate. (Think of it as the corporate version of BLP1E.) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like to have a grain of common sense in my rules. For instance, if an author has a really famous book, then you should probably have an article on that author - they are to some extent inseparable. This is actually mentioned in the rule - if you bother to read it... Here, for instance, you should not have an article on God-grilla - the company is just a better place for it, that's all. And Joe Blow is famous - for making the worlds largest fishing bobber. That is his claim to fame. People are, after all, usually famous for something. In fact, it doesn't make sense to have a famous man-made thing without the man being famous. The Steve 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough - but in that case, WP:BLP1E would apply. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I like to have a grain of common sense in my rules. For instance, if an author has a really famous book, then you should probably have an article on that author - they are to some extent inseparable. This is actually mentioned in the rule - if you bother to read it... Here, for instance, you should not have an article on God-grilla - the company is just a better place for it, that's all. And Joe Blow is famous - for making the worlds largest fishing bobber. That is his claim to fame. People are, after all, usually famous for something. In fact, it doesn't make sense to have a famous man-made thing without the man being famous. The Steve 05:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. If Joe Blow makes the world's largest fishing bobber, of course every news article on the bobber will say Joe Blow made it - but that doesn't make Joe Blow notable, just the bobber. In this case an article on the grill with a redirect from the company is appropriate. (Think of it as the corporate version of BLP1E.) - The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Rename and recast Either would be acceptable to me. Perhaps the The Bushranger has the right idea. In any case, do not delete. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PSQ Analytics[edit]
- PSQ Analytics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Available sources do not seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH of WP:GNG. -- BenTels (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Metro Remittance (UK) Limited[edit]
- Metro Remittance (UK) Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Available sources seem insufficient to meet the requirements of WP:CORPDEPTH as an independent article or WP:GNG in general. Sources also do not seem sufficient to merge to Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company. -- BenTels (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eric B. Hughes[edit]
- Eric B. Hughes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Filmmaker of questionable notability. Google news search on "Eric B. Hughes" shows zero results. Standard search on the same shows a lot of social media and passing mentions in directories and the like, but no significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- He's an award winning film director with 3 projects in the can. Why delete? Google E.B. Hughes, there are links suitable for Wikipedia. No reason to delete.Bellatarr (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. MikeWazowski did Google the subject and found nothing suitable. If he'd turned up reliable sources, this discussion likely wouldn't have been started. —C.Fred (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice to re-creation later. This filmmaker does not appear to have achieved notability yet. If any of his upcoming films manage to get some kind of regular distribution, or he otherwise receives more media attention, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable independent third party sources. If the article is improve to include such sources, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WilyD 08:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimate Edition (operating system)[edit]
- Ultimate Edition (operating system) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This distribution failed to receive enough of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only piece of coverage is a Linux.com article, which implies lack of notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, there a lot more articles with less significance. --79.224.228.156 (talk) 19:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Although there are a lot more articles in worse situation, it is not an argument to keep this one. We are talking about this particular case. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 21:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge to Action[edit]
- Knowledge to Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be mainly advertising. Not notable. Media coverage not material. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lack of third-party coverage, promo material. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Hortapharm B.V.. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
David Paul Watson[edit]
- David Paul Watson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Apparently, this person fails the notability guideline. Ymblanter (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would this person fail the notability guideline he is the CEO of the most important legal cannabis producing companies in the world that has deals with bayer and other biopharmaceutical giants, he also wrote Hemp Diseases and Pests: Management and Biological Control : an Advanced Treatise (book)
1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources.
he is also known for creating a stain of cannabis that is the most used in the world called SKUNK and you might found this irrelevant but many people might find it interesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjiced (talk • contribs) 18:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSINTERESTING. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/merge to Hortapharm B.V.. His company appears to be more notable than he is. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The same appears to be true of his partner in the company, Robert Connell Clarke. Nominator might want to consider nominating that article for deletion or redirect/merge as well. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- keep (and don't merge to Hortapharm). He's notable as both a cannabis grower and also for his connection to mainstream pharma via Hortapharm. I fail to understand the nomination: the sourcing is there. Is this some moral stand against illegal cannabis? If so, why do we have Howard Marks? In this case he's also an important bridge between the illegal and legal manufacture of THC. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Hortapharm B.V., per WP:BASIC. I see he contributed to the book Marijuana and the Cannabinoids[4][5] but that doesn't add a great deal more IMO. -- Trevj (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mention in the single source is indeed trivial. WilyD 08:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Qusaayr Great Mosque[edit]
- Al-Qusaayr Great Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An individual building that is not notable. The fact it is damaged does not make it notable. JetBlast (talk) 13:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly an historic building. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why is the topic non-notable? Was this nomination for deletion based upon the suggested source searching per section D of WP:BEFORE? Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its just a building at the end of the day. Do we create an article for every building that has been damaged in the world? --JetBlast (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an historic building. It's not the fact that it's been damaged that makes it notable, but the fact that it's an historic mosque, as stated in the referenced document. And yes, we do create articles for historic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A brief trivial mention in a single source does not give enough weight to warrant an article. The article fails WP:GNG. This article's AfD is identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosque al-Herak, so that's the one I'll be watching; no need to say the same comment and have the same discussion across multiple pages. - SudoGhost 16:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Barring additional information regarding the building's historic or architectural notability, the information in the entry should simply be incorporated in to the entry for Al-Qusayr, Syria or The Battle of Al-Qusayr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pfp777 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cascal[edit]
- Cascal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Advertising. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems like an advert to me based on its sources - WP:ADVERT. It requires more sources that are neutral/reliable and content talking about other things other than the description of the product to avoid deletion. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral but a request Cascal is one of the primary synonyms for the Portuguese wine grape Terrantez and I've added such a dab note to the current article. However, if consensus of this AfD moves to delete would the closing admin kindly consider turning Cascal into a redirect to the Terrantez article? AgneCheese/Wine 19:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mosque of Idlib Sermin[edit]
- Mosque of Idlib Sermin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An individual building that is not notable. The fact it is damaged does not make it notable. JetBlast (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An historic Fatimid era (i.e. medieval) mosque. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why is the topic non-notable? Was this nomination for deletion based upon the suggested source searching per section D of WP:BEFORE? Northamerica1000(talk) 15:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Its just a building at the end of the day. Do we create an article for every building that has been damaged in the world? --JetBlast (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an historic building. It's not the fact that it's been damaged that makes it notable, but the fact that it's an historic mosque, as stated in the referenced document. And yes, we do create articles for historic buildings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A brief trivial mention in a single source does not give enough weight to warrant an article. The article fails WP:GNG. This article's AfD is identical to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosque al-Herak, so that's the one I'll be watching; no need to say the same comment and have the same discussion across multiple pages. - SudoGhost 16:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My confidence in the reliability of the current main source for the article is somewhat shaken by the author having, apparently unintentionally, listed the mosque twice under different descriptions. However, both the Daily Telegraph and Salon have mentioned the damage to the mosque, so we do have reliable sources. I have added these sources to the existing article on Sermin. As, so far as I can see, this article was created to justify including the mosque in List of heritage damaged during Syrian Civil War, I would suggest that should this article be deleted, the link on the relevant entry on that list should be redirected to the article on the town. PWilkinson (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 13:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably keep – The nomination is vague; there's no specific qualification based upon policies/guidelines why it's considered by the nom as non-notable, other than the building's more recent state of existence. I'm more impressed by User:PWilkinson's and User:Necrothesp's comments above, which seem congruent with retaining the article and allowing time for further improvements/merging/etc. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One of the references is an article called "Damage to the soul: Syria's cultural heritage in conflict" which mentions it. All buildings that are old and listed somewhere as notable, be it an official government register of historic sites, or by the media, are notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 20:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Fatimid Islamic Caliphate dates 909-1171. If Necrothesp (talk is correct that this mosque dates back to that time, it is an historic building, and the article should be kept. Perhaps the damage drew attention to it, but that is not a reason to doubt that the mosque is notable, and a stub article is justified. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Public swimming pools in Hong Kong#Public swimming pool monthly ticket scheme. Merged per consensus, author's consent, and fait accompli. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong)[edit]
- Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not Notable JetBlast (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added(Hong Kong)at the end of the topic in order to clarify the place of imposing this scheme. Please delete the page Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme only! -- Samchan212 (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the deletion is for the page Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme only, can I just remove the notice of deletion on Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong)? -- Samchan212 (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the nomination is for the article that now resides at Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong). That the page has been moved does not change that. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, i can't find the Articles for deletion/Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong) but the notice is still on the page Samchan212 (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong) Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article was moved from Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme to Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong) at the same time as the AfD nomination was being made. I have moved the AfD page and amended the links to reflect the correct locations. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article makes no claim to notability and there are no independent references. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Public Swimming Pools in Hong Kong (which needs to be retitled without unnecessary capitals). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as per above. (changed !vote) Stuartyeates (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The page Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong) has been merged to Public swimming pools in Hong Kong and Public Swimming Pools in Hong Kong has been retitled without unnecessary capitals - Samchan212 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- ....Per the Guide to Deletion: You must not modify or remove the AfD notice. [Also] You should not turn the article into a redirect. A functioning redirect will overwrite the AFD notice. It may also be interpreted as an attempt to "hide" the old content from scrutiny by the community.. Please allow AfDs to be closed and then merge in the future. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The page Public Swimming Pool Monthly Ticket Scheme (Hong Kong) has been merged to Public swimming pools in Hong Kong and Public Swimming Pools in Hong Kong has been retitled without unnecessary capitals - Samchan212 (talk) 09:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Romain Dutrieux[edit]
- Romain Dutrieux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:NFOOTBALL. He played one match for Mons, while they were still in the Belgian Second Division (which is NOT in the List of fully professional leagues). Pelotastalk|contribs 11:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Pelotastalk|contribs 11:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He fails WP:GNG and he has not played in fully pro league, meaning he fails WP:NSPORT as well. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article fails our notability guidelines. Jogurney (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails GNG and NFOOTY. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - perfect example of why we should wait with creating articles about footballers until they play a match in a fully pro league. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Owari no Chronicle[edit]
- Owari no Chronicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Back when this article was created last December, it was proded only to be contested. Since then, the article hasn't established notability, so I'm nominating it for deletion. I am also nominating the following articles because they were created by the same user at the same time, are similarly light novels under Dengeki Bunko, and all don't satisfy claims of notability:
- Iris on Rainy Days (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Idolising! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Akuma no Mikata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
--十八 10:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. A Google search shows lots of hits, but none of them are the reliable coverage needed to establish notability. Feel free to correct me however, as I can't read Japanese, and there may be sites I may have missed due to language issues. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete All - With the notable exception of Horizon in the Middle of Nowhere there is no genre crossover for much of Kawakami's light novel series into anime, never mind translation into EN. With the exception of Horizon, none of these series merits a stand-alone article in the absence of a serious biographical article in EN for Kawakami himself. His winning of the Dengeki Novel Prize in 1996 is notable [6] and he passes WP:ENT even with the scarcity of WP:RS on him due to sheer volume of his work and visibility of his light novels to JP readership, but this means he needs a biographical article, not low quality stub articles for different series he's written. Jun Kayama 19:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hassal Sharif[edit]
- Hassal Sharif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete as non-notable, I can find no mentions in Google Books, none in Google news, only mirrors of this wiki in normal searches. Appears to be mainly the work of one COI editor see Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hassal_Sharif Fayedizard (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreliable sources, conflict of interest, religious propaganda, spam. --ItemirusMessage me! 11:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did independent sweeps of US newspapers, world newspapers, India newspapers, Pakistan newspapers, and found no mentions, so this article fails WP:RS and the WP:GNG accordingly. I like to rescue articles that are on the chopping block (have saved quite a few); if good sources can be found, please alert me, but otherwise this one looks like it is beyond saving.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Hassal Sharif is situated 75 KM (one driving hour) south of Rawalpindi, Pakistan and Google maps 33°12′35″N 73°07′16″E / 33.209647°N 73.121151°E / 33.209647; 73.121151 confirms the Hassal Sharif name and location. So does hassalsharif.com However, there are no English sources mentioning Hassal Sharif. The Urs festival mentioned in the article is held in Eidgah Sharif,[7] not Hassal Sharif. The "presently famous Sufi scholar Syed Mehmood Shah Bukhari", "Spiritual Leader/Teacher who Lives in Hassal Sharif" mentioned in the article resides in Railway Colony behind the Cantt Railway Station,[8] but I was unable to determine whether Railway Colony was in Hassal Sharif. The topic might be notable via reliable sources published in Pakistan. However, Hassal Sharif seems like a small location and, until reliable source material comes forward, I'll have to side with does not meet WP:GNG. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wikipedia article having topics located near Hassal Sharif includes: Jatli, Bher Ahir, Boken, Pakistan, Manghot, Gulyana, Cheena, and Ghungrila. I'm linking them here so that someone may find this AfD and be able to create an article on Hassal Sharif using reliable source information. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to the closing admin: the page history for this article seems to have become separated through a series of moves and cutting-and-pasting. Most of the article's history is currently at User talk:Hassal Sharif and should be deleted with this article and/or history merged before deletion. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged it for histmerge. Monty845 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have history-merged User talk:Hassal Sharif to Hassal Sharif. (User account "Hassal Sharif" is not registered.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged it for histmerge. Monty845 21:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy deleted G3
Sangalore[edit]
- Sangalore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hoax article with no evidence that a place with a population of one million people actually exists, image doesnt relate and most of the infobox is false information. No references have been provided that show it exists. MilborneOne (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete under G3: This is a blatant hoax. Sangalore may be a dreamtown for girls (with 912 men for each woman -- yeah, right), but the cited source does not mention it at all, the website does not exist, GMaps has never heard of it -- and 1240 kilometers east of Bhopal is somewhere in western Bangladesh, not in India (and certainly not in Madhya Pradesh). Note to MilborneOne for future use: check out WP:CSD; you could have nominated this for speedy deletion without problems. -- BenTels (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just for info it was tagged as G3 but declined as not an obvious hoax! MilborneOne (talk) 12:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ah, I see. Well, I suggest that whichever admin notices this AfD debate first, speedy deletes it anyway. -- BenTels (talk) 14:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: i think its Bangalore's mispelled dream city. . I searched firston google to provide external links but all that mispelts of Bangalore. I agree for the deletion of this hoax city.
(Dr.AnasKhan (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, take your pick of WP:MADEUP, WP:HOAX, and/or complete failure of WP:V. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. SarahStierch (talk) 22:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFO Basic[edit]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- RFO Basic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of notability. Sources are either not independent or do not mention RFO basic. noq (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Concur with noq. Cited sources are all either primary or do not mention RFO Basic! at all. Searching on Google, GNews, Gscholar does not turn up anything better for sources at a glance. Seems to be a hobby project for Android which does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT or even WP:GNG for now -- although it seems to have gathered a little following, so maybe it will turn out to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Either way, does not seem like a keeper right now. -- BenTels (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Just another BASIC dialect. It would have to be something pretty stellar to make BASIC notable and this isn't it. Serious lack of independent sourcing too.Andy Dingley (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- retain Please let me start by stating that I am the author of the article in question; I do not wish to mislead anyone. Here is my position: RFO BASIC is a software product. Due to the rapid development environment of all software, notable and important software frequently does not have extensive mention on the internet. This, in and of itself, should not be considered a measure of notability; and hence, lack of extensive mention on the internet should not be used as a criteria for article deletion. However, it should be noted that a search for 'RFO Basic' on Google returned approximately 1,750,000 hits. Clearly it is not an invisible product.
I feel the use of the phrase 'seems to be a hobby project for Android...' is used in a dismissive sense - as if to imply that hobby projects are all unworthy of articles in Wikipedia. First, I disagree with the implication; I feel that even hobby projects, from quiltmaking to beekeeping, are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia if they meet Wikipedia criteria. But more importantly, it is an incorrect conclusion; RFO BASIC is not a hobby project. All programming languages are used for both personal and professional use, and RFO BASIC is no exception. Speaking as a professional programmer, I am satisfied that RFO BASIC has everything it takes to write extensive, industrial strength programs. The speed, stability, and flexibility are all present. It's a fast, tough, solid and flexible language. In terms of market penetration, Amazon.com marketplace has 'sold' (at no charge) 1,000 copies of RFO BASIC. Appslib.com has distributed more than 10,000 copies; and Google play store, the primary distributor, has distributed 30,000 copies. That totals 41,000 people (to date; the numbers go up every day) who were motivated enough by the promise of a free and useful programming language to actually download and install the software on their Android capable device. These are very high numbers; other programming languages available for Android struggle to reach 10% of these numbers. But even more importantly, the demand is trending upward; more copies were distributed in the second quarter of this year than in the first. As word spreads, more and more people are turning to RFO BASIC as their programming language of choice. Readers reviews on Google Play Store show 439 reviewers granting a rating of 4.7 out of 5. This is a higher rating than any other product I have checked, and is a reflection of how satisfied people are with the product. The comment "Just another Basic dialect" - again, this comment seems to suggest that there are many Basic dialects (correct) available for Android (incorrect). In fact, there is one other dialect of BASIC available for the Android operating system - Mintoris Basic, which is a commercial, for profit product. According to Google, it has sold between 1,000 and 5,000 copies. One of the things that makes RFO BASIC so notable and important is that, in the world of Android operated phones and tablets, RFO BASIC is the only BASIC programming language available for free. This has tremendous importance in the third world (where cellphones are commonly used instead of land lines, due to lack of land line infrastructure); in many areas of the third world, people live on less than $2 US dollars a month. To purchase a commercial language requires an expenditure of several months earnings. But that isn't true of RFO BASIC; it's free. It's also powerful, solid, fast and flexible. This is the kind of power that changes lives, and ultimately countries. For a gifted programmer to make this kind of power available at no cost to impoverished people around the globe is more than noble; it's notable. And we should take note. "It would have to be something pretty stellar to make BASIC notable and this isn't it." This comment seems to suggest that BASIC (the entire language, not just RFO BASIC) is unimportant. Clearly this does not represent the consensus of Wikipedians, for there is a Wikipedia article on Basic. Basic, as a language, is notable. That's why the Wikipedia page exists. I feel the comment also reflects a bias against the BASIC language in general. While different people have different preferences in programming languages, I have noted a common (and unfortunate) tendency among some individuals to denigrate particular languages; and BASIC is frequently a target. Because BASIC was designed as a teaching language, it is frequently the first language taught in introductory programming courses. This often inspires the belief that it is in some way a 'junior' or 'incomplete' or 'limited' or 'deficient' language. That is both unfortunate, and untrue. Personally, over 30 years I have programmed in IBM 360 Assembler, 6502 Assembler, CDC Basic, COBOL, FORTRAN, various iterations of Visual Basic, Borland C++, Visual C++, and probably several others that escape my recollection at the moment. This breadth of experience has provided me with the opportunity to recognize useful programming tools. The cost, speed, solidity, flexibility, and ease of use makes RFO BASIC such a tool. It should not be denigrated. To continue to address the comment: "...and this isn't it." Really? Why? To the best of my knowledge, RFO BASIC provides support for every single function and feature that exists on any Android powered cellphone or tablet, anywhere in the world. There is support for gravity sensors, proximity sensors, GPS receivers... the list is extensive. Supporting all these hardware capabilities in a software product is an extremely difficult feat; I would be surprised to discover many other languages that offer the extensive peripheral hardware support that RFO BASIC offers. I don't really know how one could make that achievement more stellar. "Serious lack of independent sourcing". Possibly; as a new wikipedian, I'm unsure as to the meaning of the comment. If you mean that there is a lack of complete footnoting or attributable sourcing for every statement, I will agree. This is my first Wikipedia article, and I am sure that it could be improved in many ways. But it should be improved, not deleted. We should not throw the baby out with the bathwater... or allow my inexperience in writing wiki-style articles to delete an entire topic for everyone. We should do better, not destroy. Here are the Wikipedia 'in a nutshell' guidelines for software articles: "Software articles should avoid promotional wording and establish significance. Consider the circumstances surrounding an article in relation to the type of sources used. Before nominating an unsourced article for deletion, make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations." "avoid promotional wording"... think I did that. "establish significance"... by discussing the notability (importance) of RFO BASIC (to both the Android platform and the world at large) in the first several lines of the first paragraph, I think I did that. "Consider the circumstances surrounding an article in relation to the type of sources used." Sorry, but I haven't a clue in the Universe as to what that sentence means. Perhaps I'm just exceptionally stupid. "make sure to verify that it is non-notable, not just missing citations." Whether the article is Notable or not is a subjective assessment that is arrived at by each reader. For example, an article on a 15 year old starting up a rock band in his basement is probably not notable; but an article on a major political figure probably is. However, there's a broad and fuzzy spectrum in between, and this is where most articles - including RFO BASIC - probably lay. I feel that because a) this language is a traditional dialect of BASIC, which is very easy for new and non-programmers to learn; and b) the language runs on the Android operating system, which is the most prevalent operating system in the cell phone and tablet arenas today; and c) the language is very fast (programs run quickly); and d) stable (programs don't crash); and e) the language is flexible (there is support for every hardware function found on any phone or tablet in the world, so anything you want to do, you can do); and f) the language is currently used by 41,000 people around the world with more joining every day, and the demand is trending up; and g) it is available for free, which has tremendous sociological implications in the third world, and tremendous benefit to impoverished people everywhere; and so, for all of these reasons... I feel RFO BASIC is a notable product, and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Let me close by saying that in attempting to address the objections of various Wikipedians to this article, I may have inadvertently hurt some feelings. If so, I sincerely apologize. You should all know that I greatly appreciate the time and effort required to make every submission; and that I feel your efforts will help me write better articles in the future. I appreciate it, and I thank you. Sincerely, Charles Worton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieworton (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — Charlieworton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Holy WP:TLDR, Batman. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am afraid you have not established WP:notability in the sense that Wikpedia uses the term. That requires significant coverage in independent WP:reliable sources - which you said at the beginning is difficult to do. To address your points above,
- a) not relevant to notability or specific to this version of Basic,
- b) not relevant to notability, many thousands of Android apps exist - that does not make them notable,
- c) most definitely not relevant to notability and quite subjective, useful when marketing it but nothing to do with notability.
- d) again, does not make it notable, stability is not one of the notability criteria
- e) still nothing to see here notability wise, it runs on Android and can do things Android lets it do.
- f) not proven and not really relevant - even if 41,000 unique people downloaded it it does not mean they use it,
- g) free or paid for makes no difference to notability. None of these arguments show it as being notable. noq (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet I am afraid you don't get the point. He has established WP:notability because the topic may have an article. In fact: many people work on it and contribute to it to date. Its forum has over 400 members, and it implements most of the solutions a programmer may need to create an application.
- a) name an application that had no changes made to it whatsoever
- b) relevant to notability, if a number of other apps get wikipedia erticles, BASIC! deserver one too
- c) most definitely relevant to notability and quite objective in the sense that it contains no information that may change by one's perspective.
- d) "again, does not make it notable, stability is not one of the notability criteria" <- this comment is not notable, as it does not serve any purpose other than making the list longer to create an impression of you making more good points.
- e) while you are true, doing things on android that the [ADK] lets you with compiling an application on a PC is the whole point of BASIC! (and you also don't need a period at the end of that line)
- f) It is quite obvious that people use it by the 101 topics posted in the forum thread "Shared BASIC! programs", and the many applications distributed standalone on the android market.
- g) free or paid makes a difference. (Would you download a 2x2 white picture for 1$?) These "arguments" make it look like it is notable. Pluto isn't notable because there are millions of known planets and it isn't a planet.
Point: YOU ARE WRONG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.61.35.207 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC) — 109.61.35.207 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'm afraid you have no idea how notability works. WP:ITEXISTS is not enough, and the existiance or not of WP:OTHERSTUFF has no bearing. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The above entry appears to be in response to a forum post calling for people to help keep the article (I cannot post a link as it triggers a spam protection filter, you can google for rfo freeforums to find it). If you came here because of that forum post, please read this first
- Delete - Zero evidence of notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gentlemen (and ladies): please allow me to introduce a note of perspective. The typical cost for a 3 terabyte hard drive (3,000,000,000,000 bytes of information) is $150.00 USD as of August 2012. That works out to a cost of 0.000000005 cents per byte. The article in question consumes a space of 8,192 bytes. This means that at current hard drive storage prices it will cost 0.00004096 cents to store this article. That is approximately one twentyfive thousandth of one cent. If no one reads the article, then it will consume no resources beyond its original storage cost. If it is widely read, then it was probably worth retaining. I have heard of much ado about nothing; but this discussion is not that. This discussion is about saving Wikipedia one twentyfive thousandth of one cent. But if you will now excuse me, I must go; I've been asked to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic. Compared to this, that is a very important job.
- Comment: It has nothing to do with cost. And number of readers is not relevant. -- BenTels (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I strongly move to retain this informative article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.103.208.226 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. WP:SNOW The Bushranger One ping only 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ideology of the SS[edit]
- Ideology of the SS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was nominated over a year ago due to the topic being very subjective, possessing original research, and relying on a single source. It was agreed to give the article a chance, perhaps find additional sources, and expand the material in a meaningful direction. In the past 14+ months, there has been little done with this article except some minor grammar and typo corrections. The article really has no place to go and the material covered here is effectively already discussed at SS. This article should be deleted and any useful material sent back to the main SS article OberRanks (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a serious, well-sourced article on an important subject. The consensus last year was "keep" and the article is better than before. the allegations about so-called "subjectivity" and "original research" have never been supported by evidence. The article is based on numerous scholarly books and articles, none of which are fringe. Rjensen (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since this is a legit content fork from the SS article and is a sufficiently notable topic in its own right, I don't see a valid reason to delete it. The ideology of the SS seems an essential aspect, in terms of understanding the historical motivations and behavior of this organization. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The nominator is incorrect in asserting a continued lack of multiple sources and (as far as I can tell) presence of original research. Subjectivity of the article seems contradicted by the presence of inline citations, whereas subjectivity of the sources is in the nature of historical texts; that is not grounds for deletion (although the nominator should of course feel free to add opposing views to the article and juxtapose them with the existing text). In addition, I personally see no basis for a merge as proposed by the nominator -- this article is too long and well-detailed to merge into a parent article without problems. -- BenTels (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I do not think that the notability of the topic can be seriously questioned. The problems seem mostly concerned with complexity of the topic - whether it better to think of a single shared ideology or as a set of ideologies, it what ways was it distinct from that of the Nazi party (insofar as that can be said to have had a single coherent policy through the relevant period), did the ideology change from foundation to the last desperate days of 1945, etc. Those argue for expansion, and against merger, and it is not that the material will not be out there. We do not delete on the grounds that an article is incomplete. --AJHingston (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – The article has no warning templates and no discussion of the concerns on the talk page. Hence one can hardly expect these supposed concerns to be addressed. None of the reasons listed for deletion can be found at WP:DEL-REASON. I'm concerned that this is simply a case of WP:ITBOTHERSME. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. One could argue Wikipedia:CFORK here. As to the article itself, it still relies too heavily on two historians views and opinions (one quite dated). I did a few edits last year, however, as I said before, it still needs rewrite with additional sources; like a lot of things, it is a matter of time; I, myself, have been working on other articles (like most of us), as well. Kierzek (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No Consensus. No prejudice against further discussions of a possible merge/redirect. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
East River Monster[edit]
- East River Monster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No enduring coverage at all, we're not simply a news site. This isn't really a case of a real example of cryptozoology, it's a dog that got a short puff of coverage and then was totally forgotten. There's a reason we try to wait and not jump on every possible topic to create an article on. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsurprisingly the article rescue squadron have arrived and voted without significantly improving the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- True. But I would say that it is just blatant sarcasm and not a violent personal attack. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsurprisingly the article rescue squadron have arrived and voted without significantly improving the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But you cannot deny that it does have coverage, from reputable, reliable and third-party sources like Telegraph, Animal, etc. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NTEMP and WP:GNG. This topic has received international coverage in reliable sources. Examples: [9], [10]. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources are from a small (less than week) period of time. Do we have anything to suggestion this isn't just isn't slow news day coverage? What sources do we have from this month? I also doubt the reliability of these sources, with such statements as "just what is the Parks Department hiding? Is Wilbur a mutant?", where are the sources required for WP:FRINGE to reflect scientific viewpoints, if it is notable? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The Telegraph and New York Magazine are definitely reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let's follow what the telegraph says about the New York magazine: "The New York's magazine's Daily Intel blog has cranked up the conspiracy with a blog post entitled: "We're Supposed to Believe the New East River Monster Is Just a Pig?"". Do you think the New yorks magazine which "cranked up the conspiracy" sounds reliable in this case? On a separate note, the news reports, as few as they were, died off after July 31st. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples presented in my !vote above are just that, examples. Other sources are readily available... Northamerica1000(talk) 14:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Do they do anything to establish notability of this... let's say event? Or are they all along the lines of the sources already cited in the article and here? -- BenTels (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't find any from this month instead of last month, can you show what you have found. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The examples presented in my !vote above are just that, examples. Other sources are readily available... Northamerica1000(talk) 14:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, let's follow what the telegraph says about the New York magazine: "The New York's magazine's Daily Intel blog has cranked up the conspiracy with a blog post entitled: "We're Supposed to Believe the New East River Monster Is Just a Pig?"". Do you think the New yorks magazine which "cranked up the conspiracy" sounds reliable in this case? On a separate note, the news reports, as few as they were, died off after July 31st. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All the sources are from a small (less than week) period of time. Do we have anything to suggestion this isn't just isn't slow news day coverage? What sources do we have from this month? I also doubt the reliability of these sources, with such statements as "just what is the Parks Department hiding? Is Wilbur a mutant?", where are the sources required for WP:FRINGE to reflect scientific viewpoints, if it is notable? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: WP:FRINGE, WP:SENSATION, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, take your pick. I'm really sorry, but are you kidding me? Sources talking about government conspiracies and coverups, rat armies, secret labs? People who cannot tell the difference between a pig, a dog, a rat, a raccoon and what have you? And "reporters" jumping on the blogosphere bandwagon, with the Telegraph reporting that they're doing it? And that's supposed to be reliable sourcing? No. -- BenTels (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: The East River Monster looks like a dead, partially roasted pig from my judgment of the sources thus far. What exactly is it? Bwah hah hah! Northamerica1000(talk) 13:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah. It's just like Roswell. Officials trying to cover things up. It's an Alien Pig-like Martian!!!!! But seriously?! If it was a pig, it probably win the "World's Ugliest Pig" and "World's Freakiest Pig" contests. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Sources abound, but they're all from July and, as notability is not temporary and the East River Pig or whatever it is has not generated any more "widespread coverage", I'd say it's not notable. dci | TALK 19:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NTEMP is PRECISELY why we should keep this page. This is as there IS enough generated coverage on the monster pig or whatever freak thing it is (or was). Muahaa. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep People will talk about it like they do other such monsters, it sure to be included in nature shows about such things and books like the other such things are. And it does get ample coverage, just not always by this name. [11] Dream Focus 20:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brooklyn Bridge 'Monster' May Be Distant Relative Of Long Island ... www.huffingtonpost.com/.../brooklyn-bridge-monster-montauk-mon... Jul 26, 2012 – When news spread around New York City this week about the discovery of a grisly-looking, bloated, unidentified animal under the Brooklyn ...
Dead East River 'monster' confounds New Yorkers, animal experts ... articles.nydailynews.com/2012.../32853147_1_pig-east-river-corpse Jul 25, 2012 – A bloated, pig-like carcass spotted beneath the Brooklyn Bridge over the ... has spooked New Yorkers buzzing about mutant river “monsters.
East River Monster Pictures - Business Insider www.businessinsider.com/east-river-monster-picture-2012-7?op=1 What The Heck Is This Terrifying Creature Found Under The Brooklyn Bridge? Dina Spector | Jul. 25, 2012, 3:13 PM | 395,104 | 80 ...
'Beast of Brooklyn' washed up in New York | Fox News - private www.foxnews.com/scitech/.../beast-brooklyn-washed-up-in-new-yor... Jul 26, 2012 – Mystery surrounds the discovery of a hideous creature washed up under the Brooklyn Bridge in New York. Dubbed the "Manhattan monster," its ...
What The Heck Is This Terrifying Creature Found Under The Brooklyn - private www.pakalertpress.com/.../what-the-heck-is-this-terrifying-creature-f... Jul 26, 2012 – A photo posted by Gothamist's Jen Carlson on Monday of a scary-looking carcass found along the East River had everyone rehashing ...
East River 'Monster' - The Blaze - private www.theblaze.com/.../east-river-monster-grotesque-carcass-washes-u... Jul 25, 2012 – We found the dead creature lying on the strip of sand beside the East River, on the Manhattan side, directly beneath the Brooklyn Bridge.
Giant Rat Monster Found Under Brooklyn Bridge! | TeddyHilton.com - private teddyhilton.com › Disgusting! Jul 26, 2012 – Yep...it was good knowing you folks...the world is over and overlords will soon be giant rat mutant monsters that live under the Brooklyn Bridge.
Bloated 'Rat Monster' Found Under New York City Bridge - PawNation - private www.pawnation.com/.../bloated-rat-monster-found-under-new-york-... Jul 24, 2012 – According to Gothamist, a woman discovered this deceased creature laid out under the Brooklyn Bridge on the Manhattan side of New York ... East River Monster Washes Up Below Brooklyn Bridge - YouTube - private
That's just the first page of Google results. Some of those are major news sources I recognize, the rest I'm not sure. Doesn't matter though, there are plenty of notable places covering it. Not sure if it got broadcast on national news or not, but it did some coverage on television as well. Ample coverage. Dream Focus 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All these sources are from a 2-3 day period. Fully consistent with it being passing news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG has been met. Reliable sources address the subject directly in detail. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are ignoring that it's just slow news day coverage which dropped off almost immediately. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And you are ignoring GNG. All requirements have been met to prove the subject notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This is something interesting, so it was put in the news. It doesn't matter if the news coverage were all just within the first week or not. Dream Focus 15:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You are ignoring that it's just slow news day coverage which dropped off almost immediately. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:30, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG has been met. Reliable sources address the subject directly in detail. Dream Focus 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- All these sources are from a 2-3 day period. Fully consistent with it being passing news coverage. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. and the other things listed there, clearly are about something else. This wasn't anything like that. This was the discovery of a new unknown species which still has not be identified, which makes it notable. We're not mentioning what famous person was seen where, that a traffic accident happened, or a bird pooped on someone's windshield. Totally different situation. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the discovery of a new unknown species.[citation needed] WP:EXCEPTIONAL. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Then lets not make it exceptional. Lets say that it was the discovery of a new mysterious carcass. Prob solved. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the discovery of a new unknown species.[citation needed] WP:EXCEPTIONAL. IRWolfie- (talk) 18:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's an interesting topic and it seemed likely that there would be more articles of this sort and so it proved. Our article globster links to several other articles about mysterious carcasses and so, per our editing policy, it makes sense to retain another well-documented case to help this topic area, *ahem*, ripen. Warden (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, and, therefore, is not applicable to a deletion debate. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INTERESTING. Also, your argument about what globster links to has little bearing on this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The globster article is quite relevant, being much the same general topic. We see from that existing work that we have articles such as Stronsay Beast — another mysterious carcass which is still being written about 200 years later. The contention that such topics are therefore just news with no lasting notability is thereby shown to be false and so not an adequate reason to delete. As for being interesting, that's just an aside. The policy which I specified here is WP:PRESERVE which indicates that we should not delete such well-sourced material if we can find a good home for it. And clearly, we can. Q.E.D. Warden (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every dead animal that washes up or is found somewhere isn't notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is when it gets news coverage for having five digits on each hand and foot, and other characteristics that make it not anything currently known to exist. Dream Focus 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest counting the number of digits on your hand and feet. Five digits is the norm for mammals. [1]IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: Hahahahahahhahh!!! Nice joke you have there, wolfie. You're a way better clown than me. When it comes to telling jokes.(But I bet you cant juggle atomic bombs as well as me!!!!) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note 2: Great sarcasm. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But, one thing to note when saying that. Don't assume one has five digits on each hand and each feet. Some have more, some have less. Hm. Some are not even humans, so they do not have five digits. (On the internet, no one knows if you are a dog...) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But that aside, I think what Dream Focus was trying to say was that its one of the first pigs (if it was one) to have five digits and such unusual feet, right? Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But, one thing to note when saying that. Don't assume one has five digits on each hand and each feet. Some have more, some have less. Hm. Some are not even humans, so they do not have five digits. (On the internet, no one knows if you are a dog...) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note 2: Great sarcasm. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Side note: Hahahahahahhahh!!! Nice joke you have there, wolfie. You're a way better clown than me. When it comes to telling jokes.(But I bet you cant juggle atomic bombs as well as me!!!!) Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest counting the number of digits on your hand and feet. Five digits is the norm for mammals. [1]IRWolfie- (talk) 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is when it gets news coverage for having five digits on each hand and foot, and other characteristics that make it not anything currently known to exist. Dream Focus 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Every dead animal that washes up or is found somewhere isn't notable. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:INTERESTING. Also, your argument about what globster links to has little bearing on this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. All the coverage is in roughly a 5 day window, indicating that the topic has no lasting notability or persistence ("Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle"). The Event has had no effect ("An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable. ")since it featured in newspapers at the end of July. The depth of coverage is insufficient, with most repeating the same claims; there is no source that goes particular in depth, rather they just repeat the same quotes from the interested parties, the telegraph for example, is just a rehash of the other websites. The diversity of coverage isn't great either, with most just repeating the material of each other. It fails every measure of events notability Wikipedia:Notability_(events).
- As summed up by WP:N(E): "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance." IRWolfie- (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep meets WP:GNG. At a minimum can be merged to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases so deletion is unsupportable. CallawayRox (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One more example for the List of cryptids. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't keep, i.e. merge and redirect to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, which is a suitable target. Having reviewed the many articles available I can't see anything more than a sensationalistic news burst that died out very quickly. All articles were written around July 26-30 (the latest I saw was this, from August 4, but it's just the original history, so it'd seem they were late to pick it up), and their content is mere speculation and, well, sensationalism. One month later and there isn't any follow-up to be found from those same sources. I couldn't find anything about the one found on Northville except for the initial reports, and that one was a year ago, so I'm not convinced that this is bound to generate in-depth coverage in the future. Lastly, Montauk Monster is not that large that it would be hindered by including this information, and it provides a context in which this particular event can be better understood, so I believe the reader would benefit for having this event presented within that context, rather than being forced to access another article, which in turn doesn't have any substantive content to expand on what was said at the parent article — Frankie (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would like to add that, in my opinion, the outcome of this debate lies on how one wants to perceive this case. On one hand, one might argue WP:GNG, WP:NTEMP, and WP:PRESERVE, plus the fact that there is ample sources and the subject being unusual in the sense to say that it is no usual animal. General notability seems to be met. But on the other end, naysayers might resort to arguing with the backup of Wikipedia policies like WP:FRINGE, WP:SENSATION, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:PRESERVE is an editing policy, not a deletion policy, and is, therefore, not relevant to a deletion debate. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although, I am more opposed to a Keep as this case is not the norm and it is unusual and it would be unjust to delete it as it is a well sourced, thorough, descriptive and unique case. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots and lots and lots (and lots) of good sources can be found by simply googling new york city east river monster. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, one might consider a redirect to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, but the relevancy between that and the alien pig is not there. (Unless if you talk about its place of discovery (a shore) , etc.) The East River monster stands out on its own. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those hits are not about the topic of this article. I suggest checking "east river monster" instead. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ. Searching this and THAT give you roughly the same thing: Lots and lots of reliable and trustworthy and accurate sources. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Lots and lots and lots (and lots) of good sources can be found by simply googling new york city east river monster. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- A-ha! Look at Kitchenuhmaykoosib monster. Its referencing is worse... All from May 21/22 only. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but that is irrelevant to the current discussion. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Montauk_Monster#Similar_cases, per WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. At a glance, I didn't see any mention of the carcass still existing for further verification. If this is the case, there is unlikely to be WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:EFFECT connected with this story. -- Trevj (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GNG, but no opposition to a merge and redirect as suggested above. Cavarrone (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
references[edit]
- ^ Galis, Frietson (2001). "Why five fingers? Evolutionary constraints on digit numbers". Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 16 (11): 637–646. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(01)02289-3. ISSN 0169-5347.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stephen Moles[edit]
- Stephen Moles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod cancelled by single-purpose account editor, and article probably deserves full AFD anyway. The strengthened claim to notability seems to be that this poet won a local newspaper poetry competition. Offline sources cited here were not considered sufficient at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Annus Horribilis Project, most of the article remains uncited analysis of the writer's work, most references are to blogs. TheGrappler (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did a search and ultimately there's just no notability here. There really isn't any in-depth and substantial coverage of him and/or his work in any reliable and independent sources. His works seem to have predominantly been posted in various non-notable blogs, but even if it wasn't none of his work seem to fit any of the guidelines for WP:CREATIVE. He's not an important figure in the poetry world and he isn't widely cited. He hasn't made a new concept, theory, or technique that's considered notable. None of his works are particularly notable, nor has any of it been made into a notable film. None of his work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, nor has his work made it into several notable galleries or museums. As for the award, a poetry award for the Chelmsford Weekly News does not seem to be big or notable enough to warrant a keep. There's claims that he acted in various things and that he co-wrote a film that screened at a festival, but it all pretty much boils down to the fact that there isn't anything out there in reliable sources to show that he's ultimately notable and passes WP:CREATIVE, let alone WP:GNG.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The strengthened claim to notability is based on mentions of further achievements in writing, music and film. None are particularly celebrated, but their inclusion fleshes out the claim to notability based on the development of a new technique (tragicomic physical metaphors). An edit of the article to reflect this focus (on the style rather than the subject) is perhaps a minimum requirement. Further sources would also be welcome, but the existing ones can't be described as completely non-notable (Pif Magazine is one of the oldest, continually published literary webzines, for example).1meme2 —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with Tokyogirl79; there are a few scraps of notability here but nothing that adds up to meeting the WP:GNG. Ubelowme U Me 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Levógiro[edit]
- Levógiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources at all reliable verifiable durable nor otherwise, obviously fails BAND and also does not meet the GNG based on my research, the article is furthermore poorly and amateurishly developed and appears to be a novice's work likely the band itself or a promoter based on the content and flow which breaks some other rules and for these and other insofar unmentioned but likely just as meritorious reasons etc etc we should delete this one. LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. Couldn't find anything but myspace and the band's blog — Frankie (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Though I imagine that a skillful merger to Arab citizens of Israel would satisfy most contributors. Sandstein 06:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of Arab citizens of Israel[edit]
- List of Arab citizens of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There appears to be no purpose to this list, and I'm not clear what benefits it provides, particularly as there is already Category:Arab citizens of Israel. I'll also cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Number 57 08:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or re-title I think that the title would cover tens of thousands of people. Might this "List of prominent Arab citizens of Israel"? North8000 (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It works better as a category, which already exists. Any relevant prose is already at Arab citizens of Israel, where it belongs. The list is redundant. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or partially merge into Arab citizens of Israel — The category will suffice as a respository for identifying notable Arab Israelis, but I still feel it may be worthwhile mentioning some of the listed individuals in the main article. Kurtis (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If there is a category, there should normally be a list. the argument that"it works better as a category:" is irrelevant They serve complementary purposes. As for covering too many people, one is constructed more or less automatically, one can give some indication of the relevant field of interest. it of course only covers the ones who are notable enough to have articles here, as usual for such lists. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, or (much less preferably, because of size) merge to Arab citizens of Israel. There is no need for a re-name, and indeed names with "notable" or "prominent" are discouraged because it is assumed that a list will be made up of notable people. Per WP:CLN, there is no problem with having both a list and a category, and this list allows us to organize in ways we might not be able to with just the category. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems to meet WP:LISTN quite easily. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 05:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I am not the hugest fan of lists but this one has academic usefulness and is notable.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gayle Laakmann McDowell[edit]
- Gayle Laakmann McDowell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Was dePRODED by creator without addressing the issue(s). Concern was: Non-notable author. The only thing that comes close to notability is being picked by CreateSpace as a poster-child for their new service (which doesn't appear to be mentioned outside of press releases). Since the company hasn't achieved notability, there's not even notability to not inherit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I PROD'd this in New Page Patrol, and it this person hasn't got more notable since. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her notability stems from her books which are bestsellers and have generally received good reviews. Her books are notable per criteria 1 and 4 of WP:BKCRIT. This obviously makes her notable too. As for CreateSpace, only one of her (bestselling) books was published by CreateSpace, the other (bestselling) book was published by Wiley. Vintelok (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for a book to be notable as a best seller, we would need a independent refs suppporting that. Currently there are a bunch of press releases which just claim it's a "best seller" and an interview which suggests it didn't make it into the top 250 books. That doesn't sound notable to me. The real question is what it's peak position on the NYTimes list (or notable independent list) was. See WP:NOTINHERITED for comphrensive discussion as to why any notability from the book would not translate to notability to the author. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The New York Times Bestseller List (and other similar lists) almost never include technical/programming books, so you shouldn't expect her books to be found on those lists. However certain sources do claim that her books are bestsellers, and the article does link to them. Moreover, her books unequivocally meet criterion no 4 of WP:BKCRIT: The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. There are plenty of sources which prove this claim to be true for her books. Per WP:BKCRIT, meeting only one of those criteria is sufficient for notability. And if her books become notable, she becomes notable too. Vintelok (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for a book to be notable as a best seller, we would need a independent refs suppporting that. Currently there are a bunch of press releases which just claim it's a "best seller" and an interview which suggests it didn't make it into the top 250 books. That doesn't sound notable to me. The real question is what it's peak position on the NYTimes list (or notable independent list) was. See WP:NOTINHERITED for comphrensive discussion as to why any notability from the book would not translate to notability to the author. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The New York Times Bestseller List (and other similar lists) almost never include technical/programming books" perhaps because so few of them are notable? "There are plenty of sources which prove this claim to be true" I'm not seeing any support for this claim in any of the references currently in the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- delete per nom. On "Her notability stems from her books"; yes, per WP:NOTINHERITED even if her books were notable it would not make her notable, though the article contains no evidence that she or the books are notable by the standards of Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Egyptian Pharmaceutical Students' Federation[edit]
- Egyptian Pharmaceutical Students' Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable, no GNews hits, GHits are all self-published or social media. GregJackP Boomer! 03:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Importance of the EPSF page - EPSF is the largest association includes all pharmacy students in Egypt and the EPSF has a lot of achievements in Egypt Helping a lot of students participating in different voluntary works and the page it is its beginning and I will add and Improve the article as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedaali2 (talk • contribs) 03:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep As a national level organization the article's subject seems to be notable enough for inclusion in the English language Wikipedia. I plan on looking for sources to support claims made in the article, but as I found it today it seems to have the potential to be redeemed as an encyclopedic article. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 07:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC) ::Hesistant, Merge relevant information with International Pharmaceutical Students' Federation and move the full article to a userspace draft for further sourcing and development. Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline so I can see this article staying. It is going to take some digging to find sources to establish notability in English independent of the larger IPSF. I could also see this article being moved into a larger IPSF national organizations article with some basic information on each national organization. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 04:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC) Keep Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or at the very least merge - significant coverage online from WP:RS a search for "الاتحاد المصري لطلاب الصيدلة" returns coverage in many mainstream Arabic news sources [12], including Al-Ahram, Al-masry Al-youm, Youm7 and Elkhamis . Lone boatman (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This topic appears to meet WP:GNG. Source examples include: [13], [14], [15]. Other sources are available. I'm not fluent in Arabic, hence the "appears to meet" in the initial wording of this !vote. I used the translation function of Google when evaluating these sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Deryck C. 15:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of the Most Populous metropolitan areas in Peru[edit]
- List of the Most Populous metropolitan areas in Peru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Original research Cmonzonc (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and improve – per WP:DEL-REASON. This nomination is too vague, and has no qualification for its basis. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced by unreliable material and he makes an original research with primary sources, in the source of population do not talk about metropolitan areas, and the user make a sum to his understanding, has several errors. This is an original research, It does not have enough references, and in fact there are unreliable, even one of them is a blog. With regard to the "population" of the same this is not verifiable, about the same article in other languages, all were created by the same IP, there seems to be making a claim that information like true or trustworthy. The same article has been deleted in the Spanish Wikipedia for be an original research, because the only reference reliable has populations by districts, and not by metropolitan areas.
From the population by districts are recreating the metropolitan population, which is not correct because the metropolitan areas are not defined by a conglomeration of districts, the metropolitan areas in Peru are actually a cluster of developments or neighborhood. In conclusion, it is using a primary source to recreate information incorrectly. This article can be replaced by an article that talks about the populations of districts or provinces.--Cmonzonc (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep and improve. It´s clearly seen that most of the sources used are government planning documents of municipalities of the cities and official census estimates of peruvian government. The user seems to make use about official documentation for the article. This is useful information but It is recommended to make an improve.--Antodeabout (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.The goverment statitics talk about districts, provinces, and do not talk about "metropolitan areas", that population was calculated for the editor of the article. In almost cases, the districts are not completely include in the metropolitan area and that population is a simple calculation done with a wrong approach. For that reason Wikipedia is not a primary source.In this case are using a primary source, census results. He is doing research, a shoddy investigation, with erroneous criteria to generate metropolitan populations based on census data (a primary source).
Wikipedia:No original research: Further examples of primary sources include archeological artifacts, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, investigative reports, trial/litigation in any country
--Cmonzonc (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Cmonzonc, it seems you're wrong; the user is not making an original research, it seems he's presenting the information of estimated population given officially by peruvian government and he uses official documents of plannings of cities for metropolitan areas. It seems he's using the same methodology as peruvian government for metropolitan areas as it can be seen here in the next table of the reference about Lima metropolitan population given by peruvian government that is considering all population of the districts that form Lima metropolitan area, on the contrary that you say. Do We believe to you or to the peruvian government?--Antodeabout (talk) 14:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Is not the same methodology, in Lima INEI provide a different population in 2012 of the calculate with that "methodology" (original research),in the cases of Arequipa, the original research or methodology, is based in erroneous criteria. ¿The user can not suppose a methodology or applying a methodology when you have the information by neighborhoods? like you see, the populations of this original research differ from the only secondary source, that actually figure only in the case of Lima. Conclusion, if one use a methodology has a different population in the Lima case, in the case of Trujillo and Arequipa no exists secondary source for contrast if the original research, differ from the applied methodology.
- Well, it causes me curiosity and I searched for information in articles of cities and It's clearly seen that is the same methodology that in reference, the user only presents the information at year 2012. According to official documents of Trujillo the methodology for metropolitan population is the same see page 35 and 36 in reference in the table "EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POBLACIÓN POR GRANDES GRUPOS DE EDAD TRUJILLO METROPOLITANO". And according with official documents of Arequipa the methology for mertopolitan population is the same as Lima and Trujillo see page 62 in reference the table "CRECIMIENTO DISTRITAL DE AREQUIPA METROPOLITANA". So Cmonzonc it seems you haven't cheked the official documents of Peruvian cities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antodeabout (talk • contribs) 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't remember at first that I had commented on the first AFD for this, by the same nominator. He never responded there to my suggestion for fixing it according to his criticism, so I'll repeat it here: "So convert this to Metropolitan areas of Peru to explain the classification and describe the three MAs; remove everything that's not officially a metropolitan area; and create a List of distritos of Peru with a sortable population column. Would that work?" postdlf (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Ok, your propose is good idea, because only exists officialy three metropolitan areas unfortunatly no exist a official population in Arequipa and Trujillo, and in the case of the population INEI don't provide a population, only provide population by districts, cities, and indirectly the population of Lima Metropolitana (Lima+Callao), the only official reference in 2012 is this, according that reference the Metropolitan Area of Lima has a population of 9 450 585 inhabitants, the rest are only primary source, and this is not the same of the sum of all district of Lima o Callao. According the primary source used in Arequipa and Trujillo, in the Arequipa case, exists districts that have a non-metropolitan population ¿How calculate the population, if one don't know what percent of people of one district are inside the metropolitan or not?. I suggest create the list of districts, other list of provinces, delete this and create and article for each of the metropolitan areas. And only provide a total population of a metropolitan area if exist a secondary source --Cmonzonc (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it causes me curiosity and I searched for information in articles of cities and It's clearly seen that is the same methodology that in reference, the user only presents the information at year 2012. According to official documents of Trujillo the methodology for metropolitan population is the same see page 35 and 36 in reference in the table "EVOLUCIÓN DE LA POBLACIÓN POR GRANDES GRUPOS DE EDAD TRUJILLO METROPOLITANO". And according with official documents of Arequipa the methology for mertopolitan population is the same as Lima and Trujillo see page 62 in reference the table "CRECIMIENTO DISTRITAL DE AREQUIPA METROPOLITANA". So Cmonzonc it seems you haven't cheked the official documents of Peruvian cities. On the other hand, where is your source to say in the Arequipa case, exists districts that have a non-metropolitan population?, you never sourced that. The population you mention "9'450,585" coincides with the population in the article. That source you say reference is not the only one official reference, these references of the article are also official references. Do you intend to ignore or disown a document of the municipality of Chiclayo city? see page 6 in reference Área metropolitana de Chiclayo 2010. Are you an expert to ignore that?. --Antodeabout (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The references don't talk about the 2012 population, can be official source but are only pimary sources and are not fully verifiable because in these non exist any page with 2012 population. Your exposed that the methodology is applied in Lima, but only in that case we have an official source in the article, if really use that "methodology" in Lima, we have two different 2012 populations (considering this, ¿why used the expossed methodology?), the rest are only primary source. And yes, i'm expert but my afirmations are based on secondary sources, I have in my hands the new development plan of Arequipa (the replace of the plan 2002-2015), in the page 123 says that Yura in the year 2011 has a metropolitan category but only have a 92% of metropolitan population, and 8% of non-metropolitan population, a district can have a "metropolitan category" but all the population of the district could not be inside the metropolis. In other case, Cerro Colorado have a 99,5% of metropolitan population and a 0,5% of non-metropolitan population, and this happen in Socabaya, in Tiabaya, in Sabandia, etc, etc. In the page 116 say, that the 98% of population of the province of Arequipa in 2011 lives in the metropolitan area (That is a secondary source, Wikipedia is based in secondary source made by experts in the field and not an original research made for a user of Wikipedia). Really, the methodology exposed in the article is evidently an original research, done by a novice in the field, who believed that the metropolitan population figure was a mere sum of districts and that is obviously incorrect.--Cmonzonc (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but at least me, I can't believe you're an expert unless you show a certification. Anybody can say that but to believe it's true must show a certification. And It can be seen you're not speaking the truth in every argumentation you do that is very bad you lie when you say in these non exist any page with 2012 population see this Lima, estimated population 2012 that source presents information from years 2012 to 2015, so it demonstrates you don't speak with truth. All you say about Yura and other districts and new development plan of Arequipa we can't verify it you must post it here the new document to verify that you say it's true, certainly till now you haven't referenced anything of your argumentation. Do we must believe in your word when it's been shown that you lie?.. and in the case you were an expert thing that you haven't demonstrated, the documents of municipalities speak by themselves and your word has nothing to do there. And when you say Your exposed that the methodology is applied in Lima, but only in that case we have an official source in the article, if really use that "methodology" in Lima, we have two different 2012 populations ... According to the information It can be seen there's no different populations for 2012 for Lima Metropolitana, in all cases is 9`450,585. Are you trying to lie again?, if there's two different populations, what are those?, can you put them here?. --Antodeabout (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cmonzonc, by saying "your propose is good idea" are you willing to withdraw the nomination? There are no delete !votes and the first AfD (May 2012) received no comments after the first relist. Maybe the article could be moved if necessary, after discussing on the talk page. -- Trevj (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Consensus to keep following relisting. The Bushranger One ping only 00:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Center for Progressive Christianity[edit]
- Center for Progressive Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and considering that this is a religious group, I assumed I was going to find very little with search results and yes, I ended with zero reliable third-party sources. The links I found were either irrelevant to the group itself or not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It seems the article has never contained information appropriate for an encyclopedia and may never will, judging by the lack of notability. SwisterTwister talk 03:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't know about "never will", but there certainly doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:ORG right now. And the presumption of WP:GNG seems out of reach as well.-- BenTels (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Weak keep Just about enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG: abc.net.au, Chicago Tribune, The Gazette (Colorado Springs) and Christian Science Monitor. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In addition to the news sources mentioned above, there are quite a few more along that line, and several references in books on alternative Christianity.[16][17][18] The last book listed, by Ian Bradley, calls the group "Almost certainly the most significant" theological liberal Christian group. First Light (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's taking some digging, but I'm finding sources. As of the AfD listing this article I would agree had unclear notability per WP:FAILN. Looking at it finding sources to fulfill WP:GNG seems reasonable as well as finding sources to justify a neutral non-advertorial tone. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 15:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per First Light and Tom Morris — meets GNG. I additionally add that in my opinion including religious umbrella groups such as this on a "low bar" basis is desirable, in the same way that maintaining a low bar for political parties is desirable. This is the sort of information that should be in encyclopedias. The article needs to be brought up to norms of style at some point, but that is an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Okay, work by others has yielded convincing results. -- BenTels (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Trae. Deryck C. 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm from Texas[edit]
- I'm from Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Desired recommendation would be to redirect to artist and protect, due to lack of established notability. Article creator removed PROD and continues to revert redirect without communication. In essence, all articles on singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unreleased material is only notable if it has significant independent coverage in reliable sources. This song is only released on iTunes. Sources include iTunes and a blog. The article as created stated it would be released on the album Street Life (Trae album), date unknown. Now the article states it will be released on a future mixtape, Tha Blackprint or Street Life (Trae album), date unknown. Simply WP:TOOSOON; see WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 03:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree, Merge ALH (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Nothing properly sourced to merge. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to where? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Trae. duffbeerforme (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or merge to where? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Trae or Tha Blackprint (redlink), per WP:NALBUMS. No reliable sources in article to warrant merge. I found two sources,[19][20] which aren't sufficient to establish notability. -- Trevj (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Timbaland. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Shock Value III[edit]
- Shock Value III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
After cleaning up the gunk and fancruft there isn't actually enough information to make this page notable. Apart from a released single which was nearly a year ago and a second un-notable single there isn't any sufficent information which warrants a page. There isn't even confirmation of a release date. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 00:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate This is sort of like WP:CRYSTALBALL. It would be best if we wait for more information. The article looks like its gonna be released soon judging by the number of singles it has spawned so far. We shouldn't delete all this information here yet.Bleubeatle (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- comment two singles in the space of a year is no indication that the album will "soon be released". IMO there's not enough information to warrant incubation. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 17:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply to comment I guess you're right. But I still don't think that all of this information should be deleted. It seems like its got enough to expand once it has been released so I'd vote Redirect instead.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Timbaland. The "2010–present" section of his main article is better written/sourced than this page, and I don't believe this yet qualifies under the "few special cases" for unreleased material described in WP:NALBUMS. That said, I'm not opposed to WP:INCUBATION. Gongshow Talk 08:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- reply to comment yeah I guess so. I just don't think that it should be deleted yet.Bleubeatle (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above. Lacks coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nen Sothearoth[edit]
- Nen Sothearoth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by an IP without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 10:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - article is about a footballer that hasn't played in fully pro league or represented his country at senior level, which means that it fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG as there isn't enough coverage about the footballer. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honorable cnote[edit]
- Honorable cnote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Promotional article for a record producer of questionable notability. A Google news search on "Honorable cnote" shows only 9 results, with no significant coverage from reliable sources - primarily passing mentions. Standard search shows a lot of social media and YouTube, little significant coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article has been copied to userspace at User:Cakeupboy1/sandbox without attribution. The userspace version needs to have its attribution fixed consistent with the outcome of this discussion. (templated, histmerged, or deleted) Monty845 16:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:18, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Zero cites, has some bare external links listed as "references". Upon quick review, none appear suitable for wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete This seems like decent coverage to me. He also seems to be mentioned in this book, but in what capacity I am not sure. I don't think this is sufficient by itself. I couldn't find anything else, but if someone else can, or has access to the book, please let me know. I am open to changing my mind. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 05:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the nomination.--Juristicweb (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moral dilemma (Band)[edit]
- Moral dilemma (Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Band of questionable notability - Google news search on "Moral dilemma" hardcore band shows 33 results, but only one appears to relate to the band with a passing mention. Standard search on the same shows a lot of social media mentions, but little (if any) significant media coverage from independent reliable sources. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication of wp:notability. Zero references. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Brief mention in this German source, but this doesn't amount to significant coverage. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails most of WP:Band. No notable work released.Bleubeatle (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
League of rebels[edit]
- League of rebels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable yet. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser TSU 00:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Some brief mentions of the company on page sources, but nothing really amounting to significant coverage of the company. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 04:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.