Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 18
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bacely YoroBi (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)
Social media spam. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. OSborn arfcontribs. 22:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy DeleteDelete. Autobio. Non-notable. -- Alexf(talk) 00:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Delete Speedy isn't an option as notability is asserted - however, he fails GNG Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just blocked creator. Daniel Case (talk) 18:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Creator has attempted to fulfill WP:BLP requirements by belatedly adding references, but they are all from media sites and not therefore admissible. article is a non-notable autobiography, albeit with notability asserted. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 13:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Lacks any coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- UnDelete - I add reliable sources to establish notability.I think is a good article to Ivorian stub remymcfour (talk)12:12, 22 August 2013 (GMT)
- Delete Google has hits for every social networking site out there, but that's pretty much it. Google news, google news archives, etc all have nothing at all. Nowhere close to passing GNG. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- House of Secrets (2013 Novel) (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)
Recently (April 2013) released book without any sources given. Beside the booksellers and review sites not too many websites writing about the book. Looks like bookpromo. The Banner talk 22:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep coverage isn't massive but probably enough to justify an article. USA Today, The Guardian. It helps that both the authors are notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found substantial coverage for the book and fleshed it out accordingly. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 06:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Due to the quality of the sources I am not convinced. A source like this has info about the writers but hardly about the book. The Banner talk 13:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources are still predominantly about the book. There are one or two that are trivial, such as the ones in the movie section, but other than that the sources focus on the book as the subject of the article. You're not going to find one that won't mention the authors' other work in some form or fashion. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 01:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The sourcing added to the article since the nomination (thanks Tokyogirl79) is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of sources. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was deletion. Most of the commenters are unconvinced that the investigation of the disappearance of McAndrew is a notable subject. Failing to establish a convincing case for EFFECT, the coverage of this missing person falls under the purview of BLP1E. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Disappearance of Kimberly McAndrew (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 article has been deleted at least 5 times under other names, and was protected against creation previously. (Under name of Kimberly Ann McAndrew) No evidence of notability. Standard missing person case, with the only references being typical news report, standard police notices, and one cop's reminisces of the case. All standard fare for any of the hundreds of thousands of missing people around the world. The original editor has repeatedly created this, and added it (sometimes anonymously) to lists of missing people or those with the same first/family name.--Dmol (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - not that the conduct of the editor is really relevant but this wasn't created 5 times and deleted as the result of an AFD. It was deleted 5 times in only 3 days, all of them speedy deletion and three of those were A7. It's pretty clear that the creator was new and was struggling to work out what he had to do to create and properly source the article. He wasn't trying to spam WP - he was legitimately trying (and failing) to create an article in good faith. When he couldn't work it out, he asked me (we had worked together on another article). He's quite obviously new and has sought the assistance of fellow editors. Perhaps having a chat to him about your concerns or at least tagging the article and giving him a chance to respond would have been a more reasonable course of action.
- On the article itself - it was originally created as an article about the person (the editor unaware of WP:BLP1E and the like - the full discussion is on his talk page). I moved it and then cleaned it up a bit. I was under the impression that both significant coverage and effect had been established; the sources substantiating an EFFECT were removed when the nom listed this for deletion. I don't think this is a particularly good faith nomination and it strikes me as at least a little bit bitey. Stalwart111 00:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As the nom says, a standard missing person case. Unfortunately, "all standard fare" is indeed the expression to use here. As for being bitey, it may be helpful to also look at the talk page history of the article creator, who really seems to have issues with following WPs policies and guidelines. (Not that this is relevant here, all an AfD needs to be concerned about is notability). --Randykitty (talk) 10:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he did and sought assistance, including from editors like me who had "voted against" his article at the AFD you started. That's the sort of thing we should be encouraging. But anyway, notability... Stalwart111 12:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]
- Yeah, I'll be honest, I'm not sure whether hundreds of mistaken sightings is irregular or not, nor whether the establishment of a special task force is more than would ordinarily be established in such cases. What I think makes it unusual is that it remains an active and open case and police from the task force have searched specific properties as recently as this year. I suppose that's their job if they have new information but it seems like a long time to maintain an active investigation. The available sources reflect that - from news sources then and now through to television specials. Stalwart111 12:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It takes a lot more than routine local media coverage to make a missing persons case notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia — and that hasn't been established here, with only one non-local source and several invalid primary sources (including, of all things, her father's obituary on the website of the funeral home that held his funeral, which is an absolutely unacceptable source no matter how you slice it.) Delete; if lasting significance is later established, then an article can certainly be recreated at that time, but as of right now what's written here fails to demonstrate any. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Routine coverage of, what is unfortunately, far to routine type of disappearance, news yes, not however suitable encyclopaedic content. Fails WP:NOTNEWS without demonstrated lasting significance. LGA talkedits 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This is far from a routine missing person case and has been covered by several NATIONAL media outlets in magazines and TV not just a local story.(CTV News August 12, 2009, Reader Digest April 2004, National, Global-2006-10-02) Even today when media talks about missing people her name is featured even 20 years later. [[1]]Her story and case have become part of our culture and a story that is retold endlessly and is part of our Canadian history. This story fits with other missing person bios listed in List_of_people_who_disappeared_mysteriously that have less references and many without any articles other then references being typical news report, standard police notices.For example: Tara_Calico Disappearance_of_Fryderyk_Frontier Kirsa_Jensen_case..if you go through the list you will see many bios of General Missing Persons which are not as famous as Kimberley. I have spent a lot of time researching and reading missing person bios to make sure this fits in Wikipedia, but it seems my efforts have made me a target for some editors.jbignell (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Jbignell, if you would spend half the time you devote to wailing about editors "targeting" you to familiarizing yourself with the way things are being done here, your life would get a whole lot easier. Face it, there's a community here and there are certain policies, guidelines, and standards that we have to follow. We may not like on or another of those policies and disagree with them, but we have to abide by them anyway. If you want to change the whole WP culture single-handedly, you'll probably end up fighting windmills... --Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The way I see it, she "almost" meets notability standards a few times when you read the newspaper stories and go through the links.Bluenoser78 (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is significant coverage online to establish this articles importance.Novadelta (talk) 05:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SUSPECTED SOCKPUPPETS. Users Bluenoser78 and Novadelta are both new accounts that have been set up only to support the keep vote on this article. IP address 24.224.137.164 (Bluenoser78) also has the same type of edit history as user Jbignell regarding ambulance services in Canada.--Dmol (talk) 05:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IP address 24.224.137.164 - is the host server of [| EMC] which is owned by the Nova Scotia ambulance service, basically the paramedic station computers. I sent out an email to my peers and asked them if this article was important and significant and how to set up a log in. These two accounts are part of a team of research paramedics that will be writing and researching EMS articles this fall at the Nova Scotia Archive, in September we hope to have ten accounts under that IP address. I wish you could spend as much time helping better the article as you do in finding faults in my efforts.jbignell (talk) 07:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree something needs to be looked into here. See SPI. LGA talkedits 09:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How does one respond to this? Do I delete them? Do I ask them to sign up at home and not at work? I really wish this page focused on the article and not the goal of attacking me! bitey jbignell (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not a "vote"; you can't "game" the system by getting other people who haven't ever contributed to Wikipedia before to come say keep. Rather, it's a consensus discussion of established users with reputations as regular contributors, who have more familiarity with Wikipedia's actual policies and procedures and with the kinds of things that we typically include or exclude. The input of outsiders can actually be entirely excluded in the process of summing up the final consensus at closure, if they don't actually add anything useful to the discussion besides "keep because I said so" — a discussion with 98 "keeps" and just two "deletes" can, for example, be closed as a delete consensus if the keeps are all coming from new SPA accounts and the deletes both come from established users who are citing real policy.
- What you can do if you really want to save the article is to (a) read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before you try using that argument again, (b) start citing more substantive, policy-based reasons why it might be keepable, and/or (c) improve its sourcing (the funeral home announcement really, truly has to go, for starters) to make its notability more readily apparent (i.e. a broader array of national or international coverage.) Getting coworkers who aren't otherwise Wikipedia contributors to come be "strength in numbers" backup, however, really isn't on your list of options. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My goal wasn't to create strength and stack the odds, but to notify others of ongoing discussions, with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation.WP:CANVASjbignell (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That may have been your goal, but it's not what your invitees actually did. We can't read your mind as to the nobility of your intentions — we can only judge these things on the basis of what actually happens when your invitees show up, and what actually happened was SPA sockpuppetry by people who added nothing to the discussion but "keep because I said so". Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per nom - no indication that this is anything other than a standard missing person case. StuartDouglas (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- What is a non-standard missing person case. When I read all missing person cases they all seem standard? What makes Kimberley different is WP:LASTING 20 years later we are still talking about her in the press. WP:EFFECT Her case was a catalyst for the Halifax police department to set up a major crime unit and a special group to deal with missing persons. WP:INDEPH This story has had In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, her case has featured length articles in major news magazines, TV and Books. (Readers Digest, CTV National, The Toronto Star, etc.) Her story has been talked about whenever someone goes missing, WP:PERSISTENCEthe press use her case to see if currently public reaction is the same and are police doing what needs to be done. This article isn't about Kimberley it's about her disappearance and the lasting effect it has had on the region.jbignell (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom, also, having read the page, I would say it's also poorly written for an encyclopedia. For example, the "Disappearance" section reads like the intro to a television show about it - and is certainly not encyclopedic language. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 06:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom, no indication of this being a notable event outside the local area, also some sections are COPYVIO. As for Jbignell read WP:OTHERSTUFF as pointed above. Caffeyw (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. My condolences to her family and friends, but WP is not a true crime catalog of perps and victims... Carrite (talk) 17:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy close, no result. There's a speedy deletion criterion, WP:G5, that applies to articles created by banned users. Without deciding whether these a worthy of G5 or not, this is not the forum for determining whether some article or another is subject to G5. Bring it up on WP:SPI or something, I don't even know. Other than that, if any of these deserve to be deleted for substantive reason, please nominate them individually. A group nom like this is utterly unhelpful. -- Y not? 15:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Minera Autlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Bolsa Nacional Agropecuaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Indice General de la Bolsa de Valores de Colombia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Even (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Votorantim Novos Negócios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Atacocha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Banco Votorantim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ufaneftekhim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Banco Venezolano de Crédito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- OPIN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- M.video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Russian Grids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Nitro Química (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Milpo (Mining company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Intergroup Financial Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ferreyros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Oro Blanco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- El Brocal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Buenaventura (mining company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Coporación Aceros Arequipa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Austral Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Andahuasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article and the other articles I will be listing were created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. The master and their socks have created over 50 articles that have been deleted. I'm looking through all of the articles they have created for those that (1) have not been significantly edited by editors other than socks and sock IPs, (2) either have no references or lack references that establish notability, and (3) for which I have found no reliable sources indicating notability. Some are listed on international stock exchanges, however WP:LISTED is not, by itself, considered to be sufficient for notability. I am not confident that I can determine if these companies are regionally notable, so it may be some of them can be rescued. In any case, because these socks have produced so many non-notable articles, they require scrutiny by the community. I am One of Many (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have added a Part 2 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SIDERPERU and a Part 3 here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minera S.A..--I am One of Many (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for the Minera Autlan article. A cursory search of Google News produced a wealth of recent Spanish-language articles from a variety of independent sources. I personally cannot read Spanish, so perhaps it would be best if we had someone who is fluent look this one over to double check, but the company appears to easily meet WP:GNG.NewAccount4Me (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some other articles for which I vote keep and a few relevant citations. Again, someone who speaks Spanish would be very useful in this AfD convo, since most of the media covering these South American companies is written in Spanish. Banco Votorantim is covered on several international news sites here and here for example. Atacocha, with perhaps a move to rename the article Compania Minera Atacocha, they are covered in international news multiple times here and here for example. Others I have a Strong delete for, such as Ufaneftekhim, which may be some sort of scam front article because the actual refinery belongs to Bashneft which isn't even mentioned in the article. Honestly, maybe these should be broken up into separate AfDs since there are so many and they all aren't clear deletes? NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have an idea which ones might be notable? I'll break them up into two groups. The trouble is I don't speak the relevant languages.I am One of Many (talk) 03:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Here are some other articles for which I vote keep and a few relevant citations. Again, someone who speaks Spanish would be very useful in this AfD convo, since most of the media covering these South American companies is written in Spanish. Banco Votorantim is covered on several international news sites here and here for example. Atacocha, with perhaps a move to rename the article Compania Minera Atacocha, they are covered in international news multiple times here and here for example. Others I have a Strong delete for, such as Ufaneftekhim, which may be some sort of scam front article because the actual refinery belongs to Bashneft which isn't even mentioned in the article. Honestly, maybe these should be broken up into separate AfDs since there are so many and they all aren't clear deletes? NewAccount4Me (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. NewAccount4Me (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. NewAccount4Me (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. NewAccount4Me (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Panama-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. WP:SOFTDELETE however. Secret account 03:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GJ 1279 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem to meet WP:NASTRO. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It is worthwhile to have the information, and there are a lot of references that include this star. Perhaps Debris disks near Earth or debris disks is a target. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The star is significant within Wikipedia as the destination of links from other pages and is itself significant as (1) the Star is within 50 light years of earth making it part of the stellar local area, and (2) at an apparent magnitude of +8 is on the edge of the visibility horizon. Making it a significant feature in the night sky. I also echo Graemes comment regarding retaining information that has been entered into wikipedia, it is not like it is taking up page space. DARC 12345
- Your figure of 50 light years appears to be an arbitrary personal criteria. I'm not clear why that should be used as a reason to keep an article. Nor does being on the edge of visibility make it notable. Praemonitus (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NASTRO. Despite what the above users say, this star is too far and too dim to be independently notable without in-depth sources (publications, not just database entries) that cover it specifically. These sources do not seem to exist, and WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a compelling argument for keeping. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable; it fails to satisfy WP:GNG. Praemonitus (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Clayton Zelin (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 and WP:NFOOTBALL. There's no evidence that he appeared in a match for Phoenix FC. – Michael (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Only reference to him on Phoenix FC website I can find is as an apparently unused sub here. Even if he played, seems a clear GNG failure. Fenix down (talk) 11:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not a notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and SALT. Not notable....William 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Radiotrece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I found no notability for this internet radio station. Fails WP:WEB. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found absolutely no coverage in a Google News search. Unreferenced since 2008. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cumulative effect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I really don't know what to do with this article, so I thought I'd bring it here to find out if someone has a better idea than to just delete it. I figured I might rename it to something else, but I really can't make out the topic. "Cumulative effects in the ecology of Alberta"? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable term. I don't think it even has a real definition, but was used in several reports or complaints or something. Ansh666 21:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm having a really hard time seeing how this rises, or can ever really rise, beyond the level of pure WP:DICDEF for what happens the dictionary definition of "cumulative" and the dictionary definition of "effect" are combined. The notion that it's a Canada-specific topic with no international application is also rather mystifying, because there can be "cumulative effects" in all kinds of domains besides Canadian environmental law: the cumulative effects of a long term medication regimen, for just one example. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is a dictionary definition with an example. -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Virtuous Pedophiles (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)
Disputed notability. The Zarembo reference contains neither of the the words "virtuous" nor "web" only a passing mention. Please debate the notability, not the subject matter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, it does. It's on page two.— James Cantor (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. So it does, briefly. That's hardly "significant coverage". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Zarembo reference doesn't have to provide significant coverage. The topic merely has to have significant coverage somewhere, as per WP:NWEB, such as the Salon article gives. There is no policy saying that every reference has to provide significant coverage. The Zarembo reference provides only tangential mention, and it receives only tangential mention on the page, which is just as it should be.— James Cantor (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone reading will notice that I make no claim that every reference has to include significant coverage. Which sources, other than Salon, do you assert meet the requirement for significant coverage in multiple sources? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/fsp/equilibrio/60623-portador-de-desvio-socialmente-inaceitavel-pedofilo-teme-sair-do-armario-e-pedir-ajuda.shtml
- http://www.information.dk/321800
- http://www.mp.go.gov.br/portalweb/8/noticia/55575b7287ae362783d402333ced71f7.html&titulo=Grupos%20querem%20prevenir%20abuso%20sexual%20tratando%20pedófilos
- http://www.auriverde.am.br/site/noticias/ler/grupos-querem-prevenir-abuso-sexual-tratando-pedofilos
- http://www.sexologytoday.org/2013/07/happy-birthday-virtuous-pedophiles.html
- — James Cantor (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which are in the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to adding them; I just didn't think they added to the article when I first wrote it. They just seemed like more cites saying the same thing. But if it is the consensus that the article needs it to justify its notability, as I say, I have no objection. Shall I just add them?— James Cantor (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- None of which are in the article? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone reading will notice that I make no claim that every reference has to include significant coverage. Which sources, other than Salon, do you assert meet the requirement for significant coverage in multiple sources? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Zarembo reference doesn't have to provide significant coverage. The topic merely has to have significant coverage somewhere, as per WP:NWEB, such as the Salon article gives. There is no policy saying that every reference has to provide significant coverage. The Zarembo reference provides only tangential mention, and it receives only tangential mention on the page, which is just as it should be.— James Cantor (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. So it does, briefly. That's hardly "significant coverage". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not notable topic, a pro-pedophile rant in its current form, not NPOV and I dont think, looking at the article, that we can make it NPOV and have any bit of the article left. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Hardly a rant. NPOV is established by reflecting what is in the RS's, not by balancing what we ourselves think of as the good/bad sides. What in the article is any more "pro-" than the RS's? Are there any major "anti-" RS's that are missing?— James Cantor (talk)
- This is such a fringe group I would be surprised if there are any/many critical RS's available, but that is not a reason to have an article that appears to only have pro RS's given how fringe the group and its beliefs actually are. We need a neutral article if we are going to have one at all (I will only edit the article myself if and when it survives this afd). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That view mistakes "neutral" in the RW sense from "neutral" in the WP sense. That you or I or anyone else thinks there should by more RSs expressing one or another side is irrelevant. As already noted, there are several thousand google hits, and when (and if) other RSs come about expressing other views, then we most certainly should expand the article to include them. We cannot, however, second guess the RS's. I can only caution readers to be very sure how much of the collective opinion is really about following WP policies (which say to keep the page) and how much is about feeling squeamish about the topic and about our own instead of WP's idea of what neutral means.— James Cantor (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of any squeamishness here so far, seems like a red herring, at the moment. If I were squeamish I would afd NAMBLA etc not this article. I dont believe this article fits our definition of notability and I think there are RS issues due to the fringe nature of the topic, there are many fringe subjects with similar issues of which this just happens to be one. As an experienced WP editor I have a good understanding of what WP means by "neutral" and/or "notable", hence my use of the term fringe, while the initiator of the afd, Pigs on the Wing, is certainly even more experienced than I am on this project so I dont believe misreading of policies is an issue here either. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Folks using phrases such as "uck," "pro-pedophilia rant" and so on do indeed suggest squeamishness (at least, to me). I've already posted our definition of notability (WP:NWEB), and no one has contested the RSs that fulfill it. So, acknowledging that the topic only just makes it over the line, it is indeed demonstrably over the line.— James Cantor (talk) 18:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The person who said "uck" rejected the term while my pro pedophile rant comment is in no way based on squeamishness (in another afd I might have said "pro-GMOs rant" or whatever), and I stick by what I said based on my initial reading of the article before I re-directed it yesterday, it was a comment on neutrality and fringe and not based on squeamishness, I have been around similar WP articles too much to be squeamish in 2013 re this topic. We are here on this afd to see whether the article is over the line or not, we cant actually say it is or it isnt until the afd is closed in a few days time. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- People seem to have read the first few words in my comment and not the entire statement. I said my initial response was, "Uck!" but on reflection, I think it's important to keep it but only after rewriting the article and ensuring there are no direct links to the website. Liz Let's Talk 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs) [reply]
- I am wondering if Liz and Squeak understand that the group is for pedophiles who think their thoughts towards children are abnormal and support each other in their goal to live a life without acting on their perversions. The site is geared to preventing child abuse. The site/group is the opposite of pro-paedophilia - if anything it is an anti-paedophilia site run by paedophiles. I don't understand why it is being described as a pro-paedophilia group that should not be linked to etc and I am thinking that maybe you both have not properly read the wiki article properly?--MrADHD | T@1k? 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the article just fine, thanks. Opposing pedophiles acting on their desires is not anti-pedophilia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fringe POV promoted by this article is that there exist solutions to pedophilia problems other than indefinite imprisonment, indefinite psychiatric hospitalization, or castration by physical or chemical means. The mainstream POV is that only such forcible measures are actually effective. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is being somewhat simplistic but govt solutions tend towards authoritarianism and punishment even for victimless crimes, which sexualizing minors isnt. What has your comment really got to do with the afd, though?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should be deleted because it is promoting the fringe POV previously described, in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- David, regarding your comment prior to this one I don't think the article is saying that at all but anyway. Yes, of course any individual judged to being an ongoing risk to children (high risk and predatory pedophiles and sociopaths etc) should be held indefinitely in prison - few would argue against that and laws exist regarding that. Obviously given the heinous crime of child abuse this topic is going to provoke strong views.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This article should be deleted because it is promoting the fringe POV previously described, in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:GNG. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that is being somewhat simplistic but govt solutions tend towards authoritarianism and punishment even for victimless crimes, which sexualizing minors isnt. What has your comment really got to do with the afd, though?. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fringe POV promoted by this article is that there exist solutions to pedophilia problems other than indefinite imprisonment, indefinite psychiatric hospitalization, or castration by physical or chemical means. The mainstream POV is that only such forcible measures are actually effective. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I read the article just fine, thanks. Opposing pedophiles acting on their desires is not anti-pedophilia. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am wondering if Liz and Squeak understand that the group is for pedophiles who think their thoughts towards children are abnormal and support each other in their goal to live a life without acting on their perversions. The site is geared to preventing child abuse. The site/group is the opposite of pro-paedophilia - if anything it is an anti-paedophilia site run by paedophiles. I don't understand why it is being described as a pro-paedophilia group that should not be linked to etc and I am thinking that maybe you both have not properly read the wiki article properly?--MrADHD | T@1k? 17:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- People seem to have read the first few words in my comment and not the entire statement. I said my initial response was, "Uck!" but on reflection, I think it's important to keep it but only after rewriting the article and ensuring there are no direct links to the website. Liz Let's Talk 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newjerseyliz (talk • contribs) [reply]
- The person who said "uck" rejected the term while my pro pedophile rant comment is in no way based on squeamishness (in another afd I might have said "pro-GMOs rant" or whatever), and I stick by what I said based on my initial reading of the article before I re-directed it yesterday, it was a comment on neutrality and fringe and not based on squeamishness, I have been around similar WP articles too much to be squeamish in 2013 re this topic. We are here on this afd to see whether the article is over the line or not, we cant actually say it is or it isnt until the afd is closed in a few days time. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no evidence of any squeamishness here so far, seems like a red herring, at the moment. If I were squeamish I would afd NAMBLA etc not this article. I dont believe this article fits our definition of notability and I think there are RS issues due to the fringe nature of the topic, there are many fringe subjects with similar issues of which this just happens to be one. As an experienced WP editor I have a good understanding of what WP means by "neutral" and/or "notable", hence my use of the term fringe, while the initiator of the afd, Pigs on the Wing, is certainly even more experienced than I am on this project so I dont believe misreading of policies is an issue here either. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is such a fringe group I would be surprised if there are any/many critical RS's available, but that is not a reason to have an article that appears to only have pro RS's given how fringe the group and its beliefs actually are. We need a neutral article if we are going to have one at all (I will only edit the article myself if and when it survives this afd). Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I removed the POV statement/sources, so now it's just reporting on the web site, but I don't think it passes WP:GNG. Ansh666 21:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite At first, I thought, uck! Bad! Delete this garbage. But now I think from a purely information basis, it is factually interesting to know this group exists. Better to know than not to know, I think. But the entry should be rewritten so it isn't so supportive and there should never be any direct links to this group elsewhere on web. I'd put it on my watchlist to make sure this doesn't happen. NewJerseyLiz Let's Talk 21:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't address WP:N - WP:INTERESTING isn't a reason to keep. Ansh666 21:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The relevant WP policy is WP:NWEB: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." The Slate article and other available RS's (including my own, but I did not cite myself as part of avoiding COI) establish that. Multiple, very notable experts have commented on the group, and googling it gives several thousand hits.— James Cantor (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per James Cantor.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, I believe that the WP:NWEB argument is stronger than the arguments put forward for deletion. Additionally as this site/group is only a year old I believe it is likely that in the coming months and years further reliable sources will come to be available.--MrADHD | T@1k? 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think there's enough RS coverage here to meet NWEB. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per James Cantor. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very minor passing coverage in RS. Addiitonally, the main editor to defend the page here is quoted for about half the page itself, which doesn't fill me with confidence StuartDouglas (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Although there are sources providing only passing coverage, the Slate article and the links listed above all provide dedicated coverage. That there exist RSs providing only passing coverage doesn't cancel the presence of articles providing full coverage. Secondly, I wrote the article without making any quotes to references to myself; they were added by others after this AfD was filed.— James Cantor (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Little notability, most hits would not be considered RS. Caffeyw (talk) 08:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. "Little" notability is not the issue, many WP articles have only little notability. Enough notability is set by WP:NWEB, which this topic meets (multiple RSs providing more than passing mention). Having other hits are not RS's does not take away from the number of sources that are RS's. NWEB pertains to the total number of locatable sources, not the proportion of hits that are RS's.— James Cantor (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS DELETE Toxic and injurious to our reputation that we give any credence to this non-notable nonsense. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Its being "nonsense" is not relevant. Wikipedia has numerous articles about movements, ideas, or groups that could fairly be considered "nonsense." FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sheila Bilyeu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I see no basis to find this individual notable. The only information about her in the few lines of this article is that she has unsuccessfully run for office several times, and has sued the government for allegedly planting devices in her head. bd2412 T 18:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A perennial failed political candidate who does not meet our Notability guideline for politicians. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable politician who was never elected. SL93 (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Highbeam turns up mentions in various articles, about various campaigns, but nothing that meets WP:POLITICIAN. AllyD (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2004 Green National Convention. She is already mentioned on that page. Not notable enough for bio, per above comments.--Cjv110ma (talk) 19:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect would be fine with me. It is highly unlikely that there will be more information of encyclopedic merit than that. bd2412 T 19:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per cjv110.--Green4liberty (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Richard Pezzullo (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 individual. Most known for being a failed political candidate. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Does not meet WP:GNG despite receiving some press mentions, since the coverage does not go deep enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails our Notability guideline for politicians. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stine Richard (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)
Biography is not of a notable subject.
I have searched Google for other sources, but have failed to find any beyond the active links cited in the article. I cannot find any article mentioning Stine Richard in the Crawley Observer, in The Birmingham Mail, or on Yahoo News, though there are irrelevant or dead citations that point to these domains.
With that in mind, I will compare the article to the necessary criteria listed in Wikipedia's guidelines.
The subject of the article fails to meet the necessary criteria for a musician (WP:BAND)[1]
The page only mentions trivial appearances in unreliable sources, citations 15 (http://www.contactmusic.com/single-review/stine-richard-silver-girl-feat-n-deyex09x06x09) and 11 (http://thehearingaid.blogspot.co.uk/2007/09/peeping-at-nme.html). The latter is unverifiable as it comes from an unreliable source, and the former does not in itself constitute enough notability.
The only remaining relevant citation points to a Flickr photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/guildofstudents/575165664/), which I think would be deemed below par under 'articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar).'
Additionally, I feel that as the remainder of the information under 'music hobby' is very detailed but lacks any citations, it must have been written from a personal perspective, meaning it may fall under WP:PROMOTION.
The subject himself is not an academic, creative professional, or any other category of biography, and so must meet the the basic criteria and criteria for 'any biography'.
There is not a substantial depth of coverage to prove notability, nor are there multiple independent sources available that could be combined to demonstrate notability.
There are no primary sources linked to the article, beyond the link to Holla@Me, which is an unverifiable source.
The subject has not received a well known or significant award or honor, nor has he been nominated once or many times.
The person has not made any widely recognized contribution in any field.
The article may also violate the following guidelines:
WP:NOTADVERTISING - Though not blatant, some of the only few citations that correctly link to external sources point to the person's own product.
WP:GNG - The only reliable secondary source is (the one that comments how bad Stine's music is.) I would argue that this is not enough coverage to constitute a standalone page, and it is not verifiable.
WP:NRVE - There is no verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability.
WP:PROMOTION - The article contains too much personal information that could not likely be known to people beyond themselves and close acquaintances, e.g quote from graduation speech, details of music hobby without citations, details of early years with no citations.
WP:NOTTEMPORARY - The source produced only one verifiable song, and no more have been released. The article points out that no more are likely to be released, though the fact is unverifiable as there are no citations: > In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual.
The subject has an interview with VentureGiant which counts as a primary source to prove that he is the founder of Holla@Me. However, as Holla@Me has no notable characteristics beyond that it has received funding, I would assert this falls under the conditions of Basic Criteria. The criteria prefers secondary sources. A single primary source would not count as enough coverage, and does not provide much information as it is primarily quoting the subject himself. Other citations in the same contexts are either dead, irrelevant, or point to the subject's own website.
More notes regarding status as a musician.
I have used search engines and searched article cited websites for details.
Cannot find any evidence of Stine Richard having a single or album in any country's national music chart. The article that existed for one of his songs (has now been speedily deleted as it failed verification) was not listed in any charts, and I cannot find any other sources for his music beyond videos on YouTube.
Cannot find any evidence that he has a record certified gold or higher in any countries.
Cannot find any evidence of non-trivial coverage of a national or international concert tour.
Article does not list any complete albums, and there is no evidence of any complete albums.
Artist is not an ensemble, or a member of two or more notable ensembles.
Is not a prominent representative of a notable style.
Has not won or been nominated for a major music award.
No evidence of winning or placing in a major music competition. Article claims artist auditioned at Emergenza in 2006, but he is not mentioned on the Emergenze page as a winner or at all (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergenza#2006), nor can I find any reference of his relation to the competition through search engines.
Has not performed works that have appeared in notable media or performance. Works are not included in any notable compilation album, though article mentions collaboration with other artists. Perhaps that information should be moved to other artists page, if there is one (e.g feat lexy).
No evidence found of being placed in rotation on any major radio or music television network. I checked Google, and searched MTV, but found nothing.
Has not been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment on national radio. Cannot find anything on this. Bibblybobbly (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are either dead links, irrelevant , trivial or primary and thus unsuitable. Googling turned up nothing useful. Additionally, I note that the previous AfD result was delete for the same reasons and that the article appears to be the work of one or more SPAs. Msnicki (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - None of the article's sources are enough to establish notability, and I've been unable to find anything that would. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 11:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - That's probably the most thorough nomination I've seen to date at AFD. I'll also add that even the dead links would seem to indicate that indpendent coverage is lacking. Looking at the URL of teh Houston Chronicle dead link : http://www.chron.com/business/press-releases//business/press-releases/article/Holla-Me-A-New-Social-Networking-Experience-3789316.php shows "press release" in the path indicating this is a press release and not an actual article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Looks thoroughly NN to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was wrong forum. This is a redirect and should be discussed at WP:RFD. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chickapedia (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)
vandalism - thewolfchild 16:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 18. Snotbot t • c » 16:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Oops. Guess I missed something. Thanks for fixing it. - thewolfchild 17:40, 18 August 2013 (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 Legends of the Hidden Temple. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Kirk Fogg (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 notability of people (WP:BIO). The only two references cited (which are, by the way, not ideal as reliable sources) primarily refer to Fogg's work on Legends of the Hidden Temple. Under the guidelines of WP:BIO1E, Mr. Fogg should only have an article if he has a large role in the production of Legends of the Hidden Temple, which is not the case (see the sources on Legends of the Hidden Temple as examples of the coverage the show has received). Additionally, WP:BLP1E may be applicable to the extent that Mr. Fogg remains a low-profile individual after Legends notwithstanding his attempts to make an acting/directing career. Finally, if Mr. Fogg is deemed not to be notable for an article on Wikipedia, the page should be changed to a redirect to Legends of the Hidden Temple, or the page should be deleted and recreated with such a redirect. (To my knowledge, there is no significant content currently in Legends of the Hidden Temple merged from any of the previous iterations of the Kirk Fogg article. RJaguar3 | u | t 16:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Legends of the Hidden Temple per nom. If redirect continues to be undone, consider page protection. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as per above - subject to date has not achieved notability independent of Legends of the Hidden Temple. Gong show 21:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (Howard) Aaron Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NHOOPS. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not meet GNG as a college player. Leagues he has played in (Spain 2nd division, Italy 2nd division, Cyprus) do not convey notability. Rikster2 (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment if this is deleted, then Howard Aaron Johnson the redirect that points to this page, should be repointed to Aaron Johnson (musician) as a typo redirect, as that page is also Aaron Howard Johnson -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Playing Division 1 college basketball is not enough to show notability on its own.204.126.132.231 (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Luscious Lopez (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 PORNBIO and the GNG, only one qualifying nom not scene-related, no reliably sourced bio content. All GNews and GNews hits are trivial or spurious (phrase "the luscious Lopez" regularly applied to J-Lo). Claim she "starred" in a mainstream film is phony, at most, she was essentially an extra (unbilled role as "female inmate") Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nominator's assessment is correct. Lacks non-trivial RS coverage for GNG. Urban Spice nomination is minor. Other nominations not sufficient for PORNBIO. Minor mainstream role not sufficient to pass PORNBIO or WP:NACTOR. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Seems to be notable in the Spanish countries from the GNews hits. I believe she satisfies the general notability guidelines. Spanish language press frequently cite her as being one of the most popular latin porn stars. [2][3][4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nominator's analysis. Finnegas (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree with Morbidthoughts, there is more to a pornographic actor's notability than awards and/or nominations. Some porn stars, such as Luscious Lopez, might not pass WP:PORNBIO but do pass WP:GNG. Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable porn star. As above only "acting" was as an extra. Caffeyw (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zesty Health Ltd (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 company appears to be non-notable. Appears to fail WP:NCORP. There are two decent sources, but a quick google search doesn't really inspire confidence in notability. The article is also promotional, but that can be fixed. Notability can't. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The notification of the primary author was delayed until 20:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC). Please defer closing until 7 days after this time.[reply]
- you don't have to delay closing, notifying author is optional.LibStar (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete blatantly fails WP:CORP. no significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The company was only started as recently as May 2013, and has not done anything truly notable in that short timespan. Might pass WP:NCORP at a later date, but currently this article seems to be for only promotional purposes. Delete per nominator. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This effectively rests on the reliance placed on the recent article in The Economist. I would say it is a piece describing a startup proposition, which may or may not sustain, and as such falls short of attained notability at this time. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per my WP:PROD rationale, which was contested: "Despite a couple of presumably-independent bits of press coverage, a "Google" search did not inspire confidence in this company's meeting Wikipedia's notability critieria." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per notability concern of nomination. Lesion (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- AB 2062 (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 bill has since been defeated and its number reused. "2062" is not unique to this issue and creates confusion. Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The fact that a bill does not have a unique designation is not a relevant consideration because we have disambiguation pages and hatnotes. This line of reasoning would be like arguing that we can't have an article on a person called John Smith because there are other people who share his name. James500 (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that a bill has been defeated does not necessarily mean that it is not notable. James500 (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct on both points, but there have been no substantive edits to the article since 2009 and a search of the title brings up other bills that have used the name number since which creates confusion. Notable articles are updated and maintained. Furthermore, to your point, there are no other legislative articles on WP (California or otherwise) that use the same number so your Disam page comment is not relevant. This is not national legislation nor did it successfully become law. Per the discussion of bills which have similar histories, it should be deleted. By the way, the user that created the article has been indefinitely blocked and this article was their only effort on WP. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject of an article is notable if it is "worthy of notice" per WP:N. Whether the article is updated and maintained has nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of its subject. There is no WP:DEADLINE for improvements.
- If the bill is described in sufficient detail in the article, there will be no potential for confusing it with any other bill, which is not a grounds for deletion anyway unless the article is so vague that its subject cannot be identified, which does not appear to be the case here.
- The argument that this bill should be deleted because it was not national is absurd because California is much larger than many Sovereign nations. Nations vary enormously in size and this kind of argument is not objective. In my opinion, California is a very significant jurisdiction on account of its population, geographical extent and wealth.
- What happened in previous AfD debates is not relevant because stare decisis does not apply to AfD. James500 (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One of hundreds of bills introduced in 2008; did not receive unusual coverage and did not become law. Absolutely no reason to have an article about it. --MelanieN (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst coverage of a topic normally needs to be significant, it does not need to be unusual. Wikipedia is not confined to the bizarre.
- The number of bills is not relevant. Wikipedia is not paper. James500 (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, Wikipedia is not confined to the bizarre, but it is confined to the notable. This bill is not (and never was) notable, as judged by the requirement for significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. Of the two references provided, one is a dead link and the other does not mention the bill. In the case of a one-shot thing like this bill, we also require it to have had ONGOING coverage or lasting significance, which this failed bill does not have. In fact it looks to me as if this article was created only to serve as a POV coatrack for the unreferenced claim that some unspecified people might challenge it in court if it passed. The authors completely lost interest in the article when the bill died in the Senate. --MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a deadlink, all the information is still there (lots of it), but for some reason I don't understand, the website of the California Senate forces you to go through this search page:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html
Just search for "2062" in session 2007-8.
I don't agree with the proposition that an extant literary work can be a one shot thing. James500 (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about the newspaper coverage that shows up in Google News? James500 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - That this bill's number has since been reused is not relevant to notability. However, the bill received the usual routine news coverage in 2008 when it was introduced. But there has been no sustained coverage of it, nor evidence of lasting impact. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, sustained coverage is not necessary if copies or abstracts of the bill are still extant. A failed bill is not a historical event that is over and done with. It is a piece of literature that can be evaluated as such. James500 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except nobody has continued to evaluate this failed bill. I.e, no notice is being taken of it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that should preclude notability in the case of a creative work that one can still read, look at or listen to. James500 (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC) If someone wants to read an evaluation of a creative work, I doubt that he would be bothered that it was published contemporaneously, particularly when such evaluations usually are. James500 (talk) 23:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Except nobody has continued to evaluate this failed bill. I.e, no notice is being taken of it. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, sustained coverage is not necessary if copies or abstracts of the bill are still extant. A failed bill is not a historical event that is over and done with. It is a piece of literature that can be evaluated as such. James500 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While the material seems to me to be encyclopedic, the context matters. Within a larger debate, these paragraphs would be unexceptionable. I would be looking to merge them pro tem somewhere: a section-anchored redirect would be fine. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just added a paragraph about this bill to the page of its legislative sponsor, Kevin de León. There is now absolutely no reason to maintain this article, and a redirect would be inappropriate because the title is not unique. --MelanieN (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ambiguity is not, by itself, grounds for avoiding a redirect. That is what we have disambiguation hatnotes for. To give an example, "libel" presently redirects to "defamation" despite the fact that it means something completely different in admiralty law, Scots law and obscene libel.
- Why not discuss the Bill in the context of the regulation of ammunition sales. Don't we have an article for that? James500 (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is perfect justification for deleting the article, thank you. At best, mention of the failed bill would be a footnote in such an article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote can justify a redirect. And daughter articles can be spun off. You could potentially get down to a history of ammunition sale regulation in California over some relatively short interval of time depending on how much information is available. James500 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All kinds of things can justify a redirect, but a separate article on the history of ammunition sale regulation in California would be a POV fork which is contrary to WP policy. Content of this nature could be referenced in the Gun laws in California article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a POV fork would be something like an article titled "Gun laws in California - The Real Truth" written specifically from the POV of the NRA. By your logic, "Gun laws in California" is a POV fork of Gun laws, which is itself a POV fork of Law, which is itself a POV fork of Information. James500 (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is distinction that is difficult to grasp, but the creation of an article on a topic as specific as "Ammunition laws in California" just to justify the existence of an article such as this one (AB 2062) is very much a POV fork. And that's what you are suggesting. If enough information had been published on the topic and there was sufficient interest, the article would already exist. Your example of POV forks makes no sense, those are legitimate daughter articles. You might want to review this... POV fork. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I said "depending on the amount of information available". You must have missed that important qualification. I wasn't suggesting that such an article should be written if it was soley or chiefly about this one bill. That said the present non-existence of an article on a subject doesn't prove it isn't notable. The encyclopedia presently omits many subjects that easily satisfy GNG. We haven't even got all the people in the ODNB yet. James500 (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, a POV fork would be something like an article titled "Gun laws in California - The Real Truth" written specifically from the POV of the NRA. By your logic, "Gun laws in California" is a POV fork of Gun laws, which is itself a POV fork of Law, which is itself a POV fork of Information. James500 (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All kinds of things can justify a redirect, but a separate article on the history of ammunition sale regulation in California would be a POV fork which is contrary to WP policy. Content of this nature could be referenced in the Gun laws in California article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A footnote can justify a redirect. And daughter articles can be spun off. You could potentially get down to a history of ammunition sale regulation in California over some relatively short interval of time depending on how much information is available. James500 (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:53, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarat Datta Gupta (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. I'm afraid that this is just another pointless article about a non-notable person created by B de2002 (talk · contribs), who seems to have been attempting to memorialise various family members and acquaintances - eg: see this and this. Only sources at GBooks and GSearch seem to be mirrors. Sitush (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that the article did claim him to have been Accountant General. Such posts do still exist at state level in India but I've not been able to verify the claim. I guess that there might be an argument for inherent notability if it can be verified, although the article will be a singe-sentence stub. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - google search [6] gives me following information :- GUPTA, Sarat Kumar Dutta, M.A., M.B.E., late Indian Finance Dept. (b. 17th June, 1881). — Retd., June, 1936* ; re-empld. in dept. of war transport, govt, of India... The India Office and Burma Office List - Page 209..1945 - Snippet view. Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.245.175.245 (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming this is the same person, which it may not be, why is a mention in the India List an indication of notability? It was a directory of people serving in various capacities in the British administration of India and was pretty indiscriminate. I've recently discovered that one of my relatives is mentioned in it but he is not notable - he was a fourth-grade civil servant. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Neo-Nazism in Thailand (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)
personal essay on the history of Thailand's relationship to Japan during WWII. Conflates neo-Nazism with Fascism. External sources are not reliable sources (one blog, the other is the Daily Mail). Coffeepusher (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article is unsourced, not on the topic of the title, and so poorly written we have to guess what meaning is intended. The topics of the relationship of Thailand with Imperial Japan and of fascist-like tendencies within Thai culture and politics should be covered in more expansive articles, but neither is really about "Neo-Nazism." BayShrimp (talk) 19:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the nominator and the above comment. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- There is a difference between Nazism (with its genocidal tendency) and Fascism. I am sure that we need an article on the position of Thailand in WWII; perhaps we already have one. However this is not it. The alliance between Germany and Japan does not make Japan of WWII either Nazi or neo-Nazi. The alliance of Japan and Thailand cannot make Thailand neo-Nazi either. The alliances largely consisted of being at war with US and UK: there was little opportunity for mutual assistance between the European and Asian axis powers, becasue theri opponents controlls the sea. This article is all about POV-pushing. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The fact that people in Thailand relate differently towards Nazi German symbols is not Neo-Nazism. (On a side topic, there have been Western expat neo-nazis that have settled down in Thailand, but hardly notable feature enough for an article) --Soman (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- HexChat (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 software. No GNews hits. GHits consists of blogs and forum hits. All refs are SPS or download sites. GregJackP Boomer! 14:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume with GNews hits you mean Google News, where it get 2 hits, the same as for instance XChat, which also has a Wikipedia page. Given that there were a number of deadlinks on other pages to an non existing HexChat page this fills a gap and was certainly in demand. The refs are primary sources, where better to get the information on an open source project than on the developer pages themselves. Wardinary (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— Wardinary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- The fact that WP:OSE is not relevant to to the discussion on whether this software is notable. You may also want to check out WP police on reliable sources - the use of primary sources should be extremely limited, and it is secondary sources that are used to establish notability. GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. I can't find any reliable sources for this. Insulam Simia (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So those advocating deletion would rather have deadlinks or links to external pages in the connecting articles than have this page on wikipedia? Or are you advocating that HexChat be removed from those pages as well, or even delete the pages themselves? Wardinary (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please do thorough research before suggesting deletion. Linux distributors are already deprecating Xchat in favor of Hexchat (https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=460038), because Xchat is not actively developed anymore (last release is from 28. August 2010) and has unresolved security issues (https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2011-5129). So you either remove both sites or none of them. -- Hasufell (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— Hasufell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete with both XChat. This is not http://software.wikia.com The IRC protocol is notable. Not a random client that is popular for a short period of time in the free software community. Both software lack unique features and notability outside the Open Source sphere completely. Matthias M. (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are mailing lists posts for distributions regarding the change, plus posts showing that the software does, in fact, exist. With active development more visible since the move to GitHub, and being the most feature-complete GTK+ IRC-client available, I would certainly say notability is present. Even more-so if you assume XChat to have notability. --Nitrolinken (talk) 16:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— Nitrolinken (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment - no one doubts that HexChat exists. My dog and cat exist too, but they aren't notable enough for a page on Wikipedia. You have to show that it is notable, which thus far hasn't been done. GregJackP Boomer! 20:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then you are ignoring the previous comments. Inclusion in big linux distributions (in the case of Gentoo it actually replaces Xchat) is a major indicator for the popularity of an application in the community. It's the most advanced fork. Again: do thorough research not just quick google-hits. 77.8.46.108 (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)— 77.8.46.108 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- No, I'm saying that nothing in those references meet Wikipedia standards for establishing notability. Self-published sources or sources that are not independent of the subject do not serve to establish notability. Neither do blogs, forums, chats, social media, or primary sources. Only when the subject is covered by reliable secondary sources which are verifiable and have written about the subject is notability established. You may want to look at the notability guideline for software - it covers what I have mentioned here. GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - The key here seems to be verifiable notability, which I believe exists for HexChat, here are some examples:
- HexChat on Softpedia with a rating of 4.8 out of 5 and over 10,000 download of the current version
- HexChat on CNet with over 1,000 downloads for the current version
- HexChat added to Ubuntu Launchpad
- Youtube video tutorials with thousands of views
- HexChat tutorials in popular BNC software's wiki
- HexChat package being added to Debian
- HexChat tutorial on Freenode.net, the world's largest IRC network
- Article on HexChet on ubuntugeek
- HexChat added to Gentoo
- HexChat on ComputerBase.de, an independant german IT magazine with over 2 million readers montly
So my question is, how much verifiable notability does there need to be? This seems to be a grey area where any arbitrary determination can be made. In the case of HexChat there is quite a lot of notability among Linux users and also in the open source GTK+ community for Linux and Windows and those who frequent IRC, as displayed by the links above. I think in this case we should not jump to a deletion simply because it is not mainstream enough for some. The comparison with XChat doesn't fall under the "other stuff exists" viewpoint, since HexChat is a continuation of XChat, not just something similar. The fact that HexChat is included in many Linux distros and that it is one of the few multi-platform clients that is active makes it notable also. Wardinary (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's go through them one by one.
- Softpedia is not a RS (see WP:RSN), any user can post reviews, a download site.
- CNet is the publisher's description (self-published), not a RS, a download site.
- Launchpad is not a RS, any user can post reviews.
- Youtube is not a RS.
- Wiki.znc is a wiki, user edited, not a RS.
- Debian.org is user edited, not a RS.
- Freenode.net is user edited, not a RS.
- Ubuntugee.org is user edited, not a RS.
- Gentoo.com is user edited, not a RS, download site.
- Computerbase.de, like CNet, download portion of the website, user edited, not a RS.
- XChat is not relevant. First WP:OSE covers this, and second, there are at least two RS listed as refs on the XChat article. I looked at nominating it for deletion also, but did not want to take the time to look for other RS. If I get time, I'll go back and do that. Whether it is included in Linux packages does not make it notable. Again, look at WP:NSOFT for notability requirements for software. GregJackP Boomer! 22:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is the first time you reference WP:NSOFT in your argument, but even that essay clearly states "The way the software is distributed. It is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown.". It even goes as far in the references to refer to usenet posts as acceptable sources. Once again this is all a matter of degrees, when things only exist in the virtual world like with open source software projects, the criteria just aren't defined precisely enough to make a decision to just delete everything. Wardinary (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Second time. It was referenced above - the blue "software" link. Besides, Wikipedia is not Google. GregJackP Boomer! 02:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Article on HexChat on Italian Linux Freedom, would this qualify as RS? It's a news site, not user generated. Wardinary (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There is no significant independent coverage. SL93 (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep orMerge to XChat: successor to Xchat, coverage will gradually improve, as people and RS notice the transition. This deletion aggro is getting really old. We're not dealing with falsification, or misleading or unskilled in the subject area sources, so the dismissal of sources is too severe in the service of extremism, in my considered opinion. Merge with Xchat would be an acceptable alternative to deletion. --Lexein (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. As noted above, probably the most notable successor to/fork of Xchat. I don't really agree with merging because it would imply writing about Hexchat on the Xchat article, which seems off topic and is liable to be removed by editors for that reason. CodeCat (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (multiple ec !!!) Well, lots of open source and free software morphs over time. If one sw is a fork for maintenance and is not a major revamp, then its maintainers should be proud that it is part of the historical heritage of the original software, in my opinion. We build on the shoulders of those who have gone before, and we don't grind their ashes into the dirt under bootheel. Yes, sometimes there's bad blood between successive teams, but the sw, whatever name, shares too much commonality to be claimed to be unique by any definition, especially if independent reliable sources don't WP:N fully justify the separate article for the fork at the moment. Hence my sense that a merge is fair. I don't mean 'merge' as in 'swallow up and diminish', I mean join the articles as a historical succession. --Lexein (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @GregJackP "Gentoo.com is user edited, not a RS, download site." <- That is wrong information. That is the third time I have to tell you to do thorough research. "Gentoo.com" is not even related to the above posts and is not a "gentoo foundation" hosted website. Further, the linked sites are not really user edited (which include bug-tracker, developer mailing list and package definition database). They contain information on Gentoo developers decision to ship Hexchat instead of Xchat, because of various reasons already mentioned including popularity. So again: I won't argue with you if you remove both Hexchat and Xchat since I can understand that in a way. But only removing one is inconsistent and wrong. Hasufell (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't drag down two articles because one may temporarily fail notability. It's petulant and beneath us as editors.
Also, who's "you"? For fuck's sake, indent or @Editor, so people know who you're talking about or to..(sorry)--Lexein (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't drag down two articles because one may temporarily fail notability. It's petulant and beneath us as editors.
- Who said something about "temporarily"? Both pieces are "random software" as described by someone earlier. It's difficult to prove that there is a big difference in popularity these days. Historically, both pieces have to be mentioned together if someone asks about popular gtk+ IRC clients. You might also mind your language. Hasufell (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As you may or may not know, I make a sporadic habit of sourcing the hell out of IRC articles. Sorry, deletionists, happy hunting somewhere else. Further, Xchat (not random at all, by the way) meets WP:N - I made sure of that. Hexchat cannot at this second meet formal WP:N. It will make its way into Linux-oriented mag and webmag reviews and books on Linux; it will meet N then. Until then, I think I'm right about merging, since it's verifiable, just not standalone-N yet. --Lexein (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So when are you going to add reliable sources? It hasn't been done yet - and I looked before I proposed deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So read my comments. I just said . . . oh just read what I already wrote. Just added two book sources for Xchat, which is still discussed in a few 2012 books, interestingly. All of this attention to Xchat will gradually shift to Hexchat, as Linux reviewers and authors catch up to the distros. Then Hexchat could move to its own article, though I will likely then still think it should stay merged. --Lexein (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words, it is WP:TOOSOON for its own article. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO it is so painfully close to N per RS, that it feels too soon to delete it(!), when book or journal sources could show up in a matter of days or weeks. IMHO it's either worth waiting for sources, or worth merging. This is plainly real, supported, and approved by the Linux distro community. I'm currently vetting some of the bloggy sources for author expertise & citations by others. It's taking some time. --Lexein (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words, it is WP:TOOSOON for its own article. GregJackP Boomer! 18:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So read my comments. I just said . . . oh just read what I already wrote. Just added two book sources for Xchat, which is still discussed in a few 2012 books, interestingly. All of this attention to Xchat will gradually shift to Hexchat, as Linux reviewers and authors catch up to the distros. Then Hexchat could move to its own article, though I will likely then still think it should stay merged. --Lexein (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So when are you going to add reliable sources? It hasn't been done yet - and I looked before I proposed deletion. GregJackP Boomer! 13:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As you may or may not know, I make a sporadic habit of sourcing the hell out of IRC articles. Sorry, deletionists, happy hunting somewhere else. Further, Xchat (not random at all, by the way) meets WP:N - I made sure of that. Hexchat cannot at this second meet formal WP:N. It will make its way into Linux-oriented mag and webmag reviews and books on Linux; it will meet N then. Until then, I think I'm right about merging, since it's verifiable, just not standalone-N yet. --Lexein (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said something about "temporarily"? Both pieces are "random software" as described by someone earlier. It's difficult to prove that there is a big difference in popularity these days. Historically, both pieces have to be mentioned together if someone asks about popular gtk+ IRC clients. You might also mind your language. Hasufell (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable, it might be at some point, but WP:CRYSTAL would apply. Also am I the only one noticing all the single purpose accounts voting to "Keep"? It might be nothing, but it comes across as odd. Caffeyw (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain why you're against merging? --Lexein (talk) 12:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC), a non-SPA account[reply]
- I would note that although I have made few edits, they have been across a much more wide timespan and topical area than you could classify as "single purpose account". In other words: very few edits, yes. Single purpose account: not at all. Nitrolinken (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have 13 edits. The initial ones in 2006 were to your own page. Two of them, a good while back were to the Norway bombing and ADC software. All of your recent edits are to this subject. It looks like a SPA to me, and all it does is flag it for the admin to look at. GregJackP Boomer! 02:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop assuming bad faith. Stop needling editors. Your personal definition of WP:SPA goes against community consensus. NitroLinken seems to be advocating currently on a single issue, but that does not define a Single Purpose Account. People can have strong opinions, and jump in at times which are inconvenient to you. We don't swivel our turrets onto editors who may be acting in good faith. --Lexein (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, assuming bad faith? Where? The question of the SPA tags came up and I explained them and pointed out that the tag itself does not have a negative connotation but is a flag to allow the closing admin to properly evaluate the arguments. This use is completely in line with consensus and with prior ArbCom decisions [7]. I would say that you have more of a negative view on SPAs than I do, since you seem to believe that it is some form of attack, which is definitely not within consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 13:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Lexein - to answer your edit summary, no, I won't "STFU". I don't believe that the article is notable and have repeatedly stated that here. That's why I'm against merging. If there are absolutely no reliable sources to support it here, why would we add that information to another article? As for the other, I've explained it. Take a chill pill. It's a deletion discussion, not especially significant in the grand scheme of things. GregJackP Boomer! 14:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't asking you, blah blah blah, don't care. --Lexein (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, assuming bad faith? Where? The question of the SPA tags came up and I explained them and pointed out that the tag itself does not have a negative connotation but is a flag to allow the closing admin to properly evaluate the arguments. This use is completely in line with consensus and with prior ArbCom decisions [7]. I would say that you have more of a negative view on SPAs than I do, since you seem to believe that it is some form of attack, which is definitely not within consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 13:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop assuming bad faith. Stop needling editors. Your personal definition of WP:SPA goes against community consensus. NitroLinken seems to be advocating currently on a single issue, but that does not define a Single Purpose Account. People can have strong opinions, and jump in at times which are inconvenient to you. We don't swivel our turrets onto editors who may be acting in good faith. --Lexein (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You have 13 edits. The initial ones in 2006 were to your own page. Two of them, a good while back were to the Norway bombing and ADC software. All of your recent edits are to this subject. It looks like a SPA to me, and all it does is flag it for the admin to look at. GregJackP Boomer! 02:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. This is yet another pointy nomination aimed at User:Jogurney. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Siraj Al-Tall (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)
None of the 3 leagues that the player participated is professional, 1 is non-professional (Australian) the Indonesian doesnt even exist to the list, and about the Amman, no information that the player ever played there. Argento1985 12:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - passes the first criteria in WP:NFOOTY, as Al-Tall has represented Jordan at senior level. Mentoz86 (talk) 14:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete, unsourced BLP, I am really surprised how it managed to survived for over a month.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Liaquat Ali Qadri (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 evidence of notability. Mar4d (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; no WP:RS back this one up. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 17:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- KTM Class 93 (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. User:Surfer43 09:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - From the article, "It is yet unknown how it does looks like." indicates it fails WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not exactly sure what this is right now. No indication of notability through web searches. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Ansh666 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. SL93 (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Re-create when more information has been released and it has been covered in reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 13:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedied A7. Peridon (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- MyDailyLeaks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am not convinced that this website is actually notable - claims by the initial creator about the amount of Twitter and Facebook support are fake, and a lot of the other references don't actually mention the site at all... Mike1901 (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article text has been copied from Mashable. AllyD (talk) 09:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete probably speedy A7. Someone copies a page from a successful venture, including all its references. Once that is removed, there is not a lot left, other than basic evidence of existence. AllyD (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep (nomination withdrawn, no outstanding delete !votes; non admin closure). StAnselm (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Zbečník stream (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, OR User:Surfer43 09:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No delete - Что есть на стати столько плохого, чтобы ю было нужно удалить. Энциклопедичная значимость можно не большая но статья уже нет никакая заготовка, это полноценная статья. Правда, перевод сделал Google переводчик, но во всем остальном статья хорошая. Я сделал всё что было в моих силах но перевод пусть улучшить кто нибудь другой.--Toмa646 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google translate (from Russian): "What on earth would have so much wrong with that u had to be removed. Encyclopedic significance can not large but the article is no longer any storage, it's a full article. However, the transfer did a Google translator, but otherwise good article. I did everything that was in my power to improve but the translation let somebody else." Ansh666 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Статья удержалась на русской и чешской википедии. Этот достаточное доказательство энциклопедической значимости.--Toмa646 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google translate: "Article hold onto the Russian and Czech Wikipedia. This is sufficient proof encyclopedic significance." Можете ли вы использовать английский язык? Не многие люди понимают русский здесь. Я использую Google Translate. Ansh666 21:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Статья удержалась на русской и чешской википедии. Этот достаточное доказательство энциклопедической значимости.--Toмa646 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Google translate (from Russian): "What on earth would have so much wrong with that u had to be removed. Encyclopedic significance can not large but the article is no longer any storage, it's a full article. However, the transfer did a Google translator, but otherwise good article. I did everything that was in my power to improve but the translation let somebody else." Ansh666 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Query - on what basis is this creek notable? Stalwart111 10:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, Vejvančický's answer is probably sufficient enough for me. Weak keep, then. Stalwart111 07:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This has an unsourced article in Czech, but nothing to me indicates that this is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill stream... Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking !vote to reconsider per Ansh below. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Per WP:NGEO, "Named natural features [which includes streams] are often notable, provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist." I can't judge if it meets this (it claims to be a tributary of Metuje, but isn't listed on the sole source given there). Ansh666 19:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, per below, keep, I guess. Ansh666 06:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, valid and verifiable geographical information. The stream is also called Maternice or Maternička, see [8], [9], [10], [11]. The village of Zbečník was founded over the valley of Zbečník stream in the 14th or 15th century [12]. The information could be possibly merged and redirected to the main article about the village, but deletion would be a bad and counterproductive solution, unhepful to this encyclopedic project and its readers. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. Surfer43_¿qué_pasa? 13:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've withdrawn the nomination then? Stalwart111 13:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NGEO and info by Vejvančický. --Oakshade (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to close - nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. Stalwart111 05:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Col Muhammad Khalid Khan (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 person. Article created after probably a declined AFC request. SMS Talk 08:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. SMS Talk 08:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable. APerson (talk!) 20:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Society of International Poetry is related to Poetry.com, the "best poet" is probably a vanity prize. Don't see any other sign of notability. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Conch Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A street from SpongeBob SquarePants, no third-party references. Possibly copied from SpongeBob SquarePants wiki. Delete as a non-notable element from a TV cartoon series. (Proposed deletion removed by creator.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is ridiculous! DELETE! Mediran (t • c) 11:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The start of the school year cannot come soon enough so the Nick crufters have to do actual things like homework. Poorly written, and there's entire Wikias where SpongeBob crufters would lap up this information. Here though it really isn't needed. Nate • (chatter) 15:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable, lack of significant coverage in RS, and way too WP:IN-UNIVERSE. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 19:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is pure cruft. All of the "sources" are cited to Wikia. TCN7JM 21:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of songs recorded by Udit Narayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
- List of songs recorded by Alka Yagnik (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of songs recorded by Kishore Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Telugu songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of songs recorded by Anuradha Paudwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of songs recorded by Kumar Sanu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of songs by Lata Mangeshkar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Per a similar AfD that just closed as delete and two others, these lists are of non-notable items. This fails WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia), WP:NOTDIR and every entry fails WP:NSONG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: All article creators weren't informed until now about this AfD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 10:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing! I am just a fool who likes to do all the non-sense stuff. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve I don't know about the others, but Lata Mangeshkar and Kishore Kumar are some of Asia's most famous singers and are extremely notable in India and a comprehensive list of their songs by year, while ambitious, is certainly well within guidelines. The Mangeshkar list I started is utter crap at the moment, agreed, I saved it from a user who was about to delete it in their user space. It needs full expansion not deletion. A tabled list with information isn't a directory, and many of the songs are on the soundtrack to many major films in Hindi cinematic history and are certainly notable to Indians.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The films the songs appeared in may well be notable, but these lists and the songs contained within them, are not. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think you understand songs in Bollywood films in Indian culture. Some of the songs have received more acclaim than the films themselves, and certain films are associated with given songs. Given that Bollywood films are generally essentially musically driven and a big thing is made about the songs in them, songs are generally more important in Bollywood cinema than any other. I agree that the lists look like trash which should be obliterated asap, but with Lata and Kumar at least, I think you'd be surprised how decent a list which could be produced for their songs, using a lot of reliable sources, and how many site visitors would find such lists useful.. That Kumar's list of songs got 50,000 hits already this month illustrates that a lot of people are coming here looking for a general overview and information on them. Lata has had even entire books written about her songs. An extract from a book "Lata Mangeshkar has dominated playback singing in Indian films for over fifty years, outlasting generations of actors. Her piping voice has brought to life the songs of countless young screen heroines." A tabled list of the more notable songs in chrono order with numerous book and newspaper sources is perfectly within guidelines and arguably very valuable to anybody researching Hindi cinema. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I first created the article List of songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal and it achieved brilliant success in terms of popularity among the music related articles. But due to its length, it was advised to fragment the article. That is why, I created two separate aricles: List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal and List of Telugu songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal. If any problem arises, then I can again move the information in the two articles back to their source page. But I fail to understand why such problems arise. Such articles attract a large viewership. And moreover, Shreya Ghoshal is one of the leading playback singers in Bollywood. People would like to see her contribution to Indian music. As a whole, I do not support deletion of the two articles. Bubaikumar (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Kumar's list has had 50,000 hits in the past month. Yagnik's 23,000.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. This AFD is based on a misapprehension, that these are stand-alone lists (that is, lists without a parent page, such as Deaths in 2011 or List of shipwrecks), where there is indeed a policy that all entries need to be themselves notable (to prevent people flooding lists with cruft). As a list of works is a sub-page to the article on the performers, the applicable policy is WP:WORKS, which explicitly states that "The individual items in the list do not have to be sufficiently notable to merit their own separate articles. Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged". – iridescent 12:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How do these WP:LISTCRUFT directories meet WP:GNG? They don't. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete--This is a list of no notable items. This fails WP:SAL. Delete all this kind of article, except article split due to WP:TOOLONG---- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 15:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain how is List of Bengali songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal and List of Telugu songs recorded by Shreya Ghoshal fails WP:SAL and WP:TOOLONG. The other articles needs to follow the convention of the Shreya Ghoshal article and we need articles for individual songs of the Shreya Ghoshal article. SL7968 17:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi please read WP:SAL Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia, means each song should be notable entry. Any one can add this songs entry in Shreya Ghoshal article. but remember wikipedia is WP:NOTCATALOG--- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 07:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read the below comments why the individual songs are notable. And again the WP:SAL is not a policy. The two lists does not look like catalog at all. SL7968 08:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No notability has been established (yet) for any of those songs. Jayanta Nath is quite correct here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes you are correct that not all songs meet notability criteria. But that is not a problem. WP:SAL lists as one of the criteria "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". SO, most songs not being notable is not a reason for deleting the list. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep All Per User:Dr. Blofeld, User:Bubaikumar and User:Iridescent. The nominator should not have nominated these articles for deletion in first place since he/she shows complete unawareness of Bollywood songs. The Shreya Ghoshal article here is the most well sourced (thanks to User:Bubaikumar) and we need individual articles for MAXIMUM of them. This AFD is another waste of the community's time. SL7968 17:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. None of these lists show individual elements of notability in their own right. All the Shreya Ghoshal article proves is that the songs exist, not that they are notable. WP:NOTINHERITED clealy applies here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you please explain me why do you think they are not notable? From the first AFD you have said these are WP:LISTCRUFT directories of non notable items but never provided a valid rationale why they are non notable;. So hear my rationale why they are notable songs in their own right:
If an artist has won National Film Award for Best Male Playback Singer or Best Female Playback Singer or Best Lyrics or Best Choreography then the individual songs for which they won it are defacto notable. That said there are other awards like IIFA, FILMFARE for which also the individual songs are defacto notable.
I have repeatedly stated this rationale in another past AFD but you choose to overlook it and keep on saying that they are WP:LISTCRUFT directories of non notable items. I am asking you why do you feel they are non notable? SL7968 17:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Read the opening bit. Y'know, the bit that lists my rationale. Plus the bit above were I've pointed out your !VOTE keep flaws. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The opening bit reads:
- This fails WP:SAL (Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia), WP:NOTDIR and every entry fails WP:NSONG}}.
My rough estimate is more than 50% of the Shreya Ghoshal songs are NOTABLEINTHEIROWNRIGHT. You have repeatedly said they are Nonnotable items and still have not explained why they are non notable. Repeatedly asserting non notability without explanation is considered WP:DISRUPTIVE. If you cannot be bothered to give explanations do not take notable articles to AFD in first place. SL7968 17:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess you have problems reading. I've already listed many reasons why these lists should be deleted (WP:SAL, NOTDIR, LISTCRUFT, all the songs fail WP:NSONG, etc). Citing WP:DISRUPTIVE when my nom clearly isn't reeks of someone who knows these lists all fail the notabilty requirements, but wont admit it. Which of the songs on the Alka Yagnik list have won National Film Award for Best Male Playback Singer or Best Female Playback Singer or Best Lyrics or Best Choreography? Back to you, professor. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See the templates right below the Alka Yagnik article which should make it clear. As noted here the Shreya Ghoshal lists are the most well maintained of these listed here and other articles needs to follow the convention. SL7968 17:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Being well maintained isn't a valid reason to keep. Putting lots of non-notable information into a nice little table doesn't make it anymore notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you please stop your Wikilawyering? Over half or more of the listed articles on the Shreya Ghoshal page merit their own articles. The other artist lists here are more prolific but each of them contains a good number of songs that merit individual articles. In the last edit itself you have said lots of non-notable information without explaining why they are not notable in a insulting tone. Please stop it. SL7968 18:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikilawyering?! Please stop proving you wrong? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Will you please stop your Wikilawyering? Over half or more of the listed articles on the Shreya Ghoshal page merit their own articles. The other artist lists here are more prolific but each of them contains a good number of songs that merit individual articles. In the last edit itself you have said lots of non-notable information without explaining why they are not notable in a insulting tone. Please stop it. SL7968 18:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep IMO, this is an instance of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, as DrBlofeld has suggested. Of course, some of these list articles are poorly organized (notable exception being Shreya Ghoshal articles). And please don't cite the essay WP:OSE when I give the examples of articles such as List of songs recorded by Aaliyah or List of songs recorded by Magnapop, and say that those songs listed appear notable because those are heard in the Western countries and, more importantly, discussed in published material. As in many non-Western countries (and especially for older songs), published online material are hard to come by. Even then , I don't know how many songs by, say, Magnapop, wil lbe notable. If those lists exist easily, why do cherry-pick these lists?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have already said keep above. Now, I read the Common Selecetion crietria in WP:SAL. I did not read that part well before. That part clearly states, one of the selection crietria is "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". I want to apply this criterion for these lists. The songs in the list do not meet notability criteria. So, they are listed in the list.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if a singer has an article, then a song list is pretty well inevitable and unchallengeable. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that before and its note likewise. But i hope you know that saying that again and again to almost every editor who comes here is actually hounding. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Not only hounding but also disruptive. SL7968 06:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop with your Wikilawyering. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED applies here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - A Sep 26, 2012 Times of India article on Lata Mangeshkar says, "After more than 65 years of singing you continue to be our national treasure. What summits remain for you to conquer?" Let's not make that summit the question of WP:BIAS on our site. We have 249 Lists of songs by recording artists at the moment. A "national treasure" with a career of 65 years and numerous movie tracks, who has never, ever sung a "notable" song? Somebody has to be kidding. Djembayz (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me how any of the songs meet WP:NSONG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I wont insult your intelligence by explaining it to you. SL7968 08:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me how any of the songs meet WP:NSONG. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - These follow lists of songs by other artists. Dwaipayan's logic is solid.Pectoretalk 01:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Dwaipayan, and per Category:Lists of songs by recording artists. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 10:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and these lists fail all of the notability guidelines. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Lugnuts: Please stop repeatedly quoting wiki policies here. I have seen your arguments, but i do not agree with them - as simple as that. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heaven forbid a decission is made on the basis of a policy! That's great you don't agree. Well done you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! Heavens forbid we apply a wrong wiki policy to delete articles. I must say that I find your conduct at this AfD quite confrontational, and it disturbs me. You have replied (and multipe times) at almost every oppose. Is this your usual behavior at AfDs? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you'll have no concerns - as the correct wiki policies are being applied here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you reply just to make a point? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well you'll have no concerns - as the correct wiki policies are being applied here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly! Heavens forbid we apply a wrong wiki policy to delete articles. I must say that I find your conduct at this AfD quite confrontational, and it disturbs me. You have replied (and multipe times) at almost every oppose. Is this your usual behavior at AfDs? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heaven forbid a decission is made on the basis of a policy! That's great you don't agree. Well done you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Lugnuts: Please stop repeatedly quoting wiki policies here. I have seen your arguments, but i do not agree with them - as simple as that. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and these lists fail all of the notability guidelines. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not. WP:AFD (linking to another policy - sorry about that) clearly states "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." All I'm doing is discussing the deletion. It's quite straightforward. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are hounding editors who oppose you. I had seen all the reasons everyone had put forward here before forming my opinion. After I post my opinion, I do not need to be reminded again and again about your own opinion on the matter. I have already seen it once. You certainly do not need to remind your opinion on this matter to every editor who has voted against you in this discussion.
- WP:AGF. Have a read of that too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but I cannot AGF for your actions now - not anymore, after 5 comments from you to my comment. I do find your conduct here troublesome. And I am sure you will have another pointless reply to this too. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like he doesn't get it when said once and hence thinks it applies for all. Lugnuts, how about considering that all editors have read your opinion once but as they do not agree with it, they are still commenting against that opinion? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've considered it. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like he doesn't get it when said once and hence thinks it applies for all. Lugnuts, how about considering that all editors have read your opinion once but as they do not agree with it, they are still commenting against that opinion? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sorry but I cannot AGF for your actions now - not anymore, after 5 comments from you to my comment. I do find your conduct here troublesome. And I am sure you will have another pointless reply to this too. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF. Have a read of that too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are hounding editors who oppose you. I had seen all the reasons everyone had put forward here before forming my opinion. After I post my opinion, I do not need to be reminded again and again about your own opinion on the matter. I have already seen it once. You certainly do not need to remind your opinion on this matter to every editor who has voted against you in this discussion.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the individual is notable, but the songs are not (WP:NSONG, WP:NOTINHERITED). There's no "systemic bias" here. If a bunch of non-notable items are not-notable, then they are not-notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've said that before. Which part exactly of WP:CSC, criterion #2, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles", do you not understand? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've answered your own question there with "most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Hence the lack of notability for a list of non-notable items. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. You make it clear that you don't understand any part of it. That is a criterion for list creation, not for list deletion. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They go hand-in-hand. It's clear you don't understand that. If it doesn't meet the criterion for list creation, then it shouldn't exist. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've answered your own question there with "most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles". Hence the lack of notability for a list of non-notable items. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you've said that before. Which part exactly of WP:CSC, criterion #2, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles", do you not understand? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the individual is notable, but the songs are not (WP:NSONG, WP:NOTINHERITED). There's no "systemic bias" here. If a bunch of non-notable items are not-notable, then they are not-notable. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ":Congrats! You did it again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ":Thanks buddy - now get barnstar building. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- LoL!! Hey Lugnuts, probably you are lost in the jungle of words. The reason for creating some lists is that the items in that list are not notable and not worthey of their own articles, and a list of such non-notable things is ok to keep. That's what the WP:CSC, criterion #2 says.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ":Thanks buddy - now get barnstar building. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ":Congrats! You did it again. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This is part of encyclopedia related to Music in India. (Gokulchandola (talk) 04:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete - Non-notable. Agree with Lugnuts a list of non-notables is non-notable. Caffeyw (talk) 10:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nope, Caffeyw , a list of non-notables is not always non-notable. Criterion 2 of WP:CSC says that noatble lists include one in which "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles" So, you are getting fundamentally wrong.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Dr.Blofeld and Dwaipayan. Songs in Indian movies are indeed sometimes more important than the movies themselves. Also, this list clearly satisfies WP:CSC#2. WP:LISTCRUFT says In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article. which is clearly the case here. (Also note that listcruft is an essay, not a policy.) Per WP:NSONG, Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject[1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label. This means that most of the songs in the Lata list are probably notable (not having references does not make them non-notable, it just means the list needs work.) Also note per WP:DELETE, If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. which clearly applies.--Siddhartha Ghai (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep --Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why? Just out of interest... Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Hinduism in Pakistan and Religious discrimination in Pakistan. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline of Hinduism in Pakistan (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)
Fork of Anti-Hindu#Pakistan and Persecution of Hindus. And I am not finding sources which discuss this as a specific phenomena outside of the usual persecution that minority groups suffer from, so perhaps a redirect to Persecution of Hindus would be the best solution Darkness Shines (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:07, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an unnecessary article, and it also fits the definition of WP:FORK in case of already existing articles, namely Anti-Hindu and Persecution of Hindus. A summary of the content can also go into Hinduism in Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Hinduism in Pakistan. The topic does seem notable, in my view; the BBC and OneIndia sources seem to give the topic significant coverage. At the same time, it probably meets WP:FORK due to the existence of the more general article; this "decline" article could become a section of the main one. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 19:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An unneeded content fork of other articles. This can be merged, but I would need verification that someone would actually merge it before I change my position. I have seen too many articles stay around after a merge result. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]- I would gladly do the merge as soon as this discussion closes. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright. Consider this !vote a Merge. SL93 (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I would gladly do the merge as soon as this discussion closes. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Hinduism in Pakistan. or perhaps create a new article on Persecution of minorities in Pakistan which is a notable topic deserving of a stand alone article.[13]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on that already exists, see Religious discrimination in Pakistan. I'll redirect "Persecution of minorities in Pakistan" to there. Mar4d (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanx. I see it. then perhaps a merge to Religious discrimination in Pakistan. Article could have a separate section for Shia's, Ahmadiyya's, Hindu's, Sikhs and Christians.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article (Hinduism in Pakistan or Religious discrimination in Pakistan should we merge this into? Both? The comments above seem to differ on this. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think useful info could be added to both these articles. Right now the religious discrimination article is not well developed at all.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good. I think I'll make the redirect from the article in question to Hinduism in Pakistan, but will add the same amounts of content to both the religious discrimination page and the Hinduism one. Whenever this is closed, I'll go ahead and do it. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 12:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think useful info could be added to both these articles. Right now the religious discrimination article is not well developed at all.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Which article (Hinduism in Pakistan or Religious discrimination in Pakistan should we merge this into? Both? The comments above seem to differ on this. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 22:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanx. I see it. then perhaps a merge to Religious discrimination in Pakistan. Article could have a separate section for Shia's, Ahmadiyya's, Hindu's, Sikhs and Christians.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on that already exists, see Religious discrimination in Pakistan. I'll redirect "Persecution of minorities in Pakistan" to there. Mar4d (talk) 14:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Jyotish Chandra De (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The only reference here is a deadlink; even if it were live and verified what was claimed, it wouldn't (by itself) be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Unless other sources can be provided to show that this person is notable, article should be deleted. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SL7968 08:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please explain why do you think the second Indian principal of the oldest medical college of asia is not enough for passing WP:GNG? SL7968 08:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of WP:NOTINHERITED. The notability given to the college in no way transfers over to the principals of that college. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a hike and read WP:PROF. By your definition every professor would be non notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. SL7968 08:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of WP:NOTINHERITED. The notability given to the college in no way transfers over to the principals of that college. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Nominator failed to check WP:BEFORE. Subject is Second Indian principal of the oldest medical college of Asia and is way above the notability mark. SL7968 08:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The source does not say that he was second Indian principal and even if he was, so what? I'd already found the archived version of the source using Wayback and it seems never to have mentioned anything other than his name. That is a passing mention. - Sitush (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume you are pointing to #6 of WP:PROF. You have read the general notes just below that, haven't you? In particular, It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject You are also misunderstanding Qwyrxian's point - your interpretation of the NOTINHERITED definition is misguided, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The nomination itself is misguided. Sitush posted on the talk page of Qwyrxian that Jyotish Chandra De is "nn, in my opinion" and within 13 minutes! Qwyrxian created this AFD page and reported it here. None of you bothered to check WP:BEFORE and WP:PROF. SL7968 13:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Note: Please consider reading WP:INDAFD which includes some points about WikiProject India AFDs. Those may or may not be applicable here. Tito
Dutta 06:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military and combat-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ABF much? Here's the searches: Google Web, Google News, and [14]. Redoing those searches and copying and pasting them took me under 4 minutes. Evaluating them is equally simple: The web search is Wikipedia, social networking, and sites that obviously aren't even about this person. The news search, even set in archive mode, has 0 results. The book search at first glance seems to turn up promising books with titles about Indian medicine...but those are published by LLC, which is just a paper Wikipedia mirror. So, I see no sources, and the article itself contains only one, which is a deadlink, verifying only 1 claim, and that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Let's turn to WP:PROF, which I admit I didn't look up, because I'm already pretty familiar with it. But I'll look it up now, and see if I've forgotten some subpart...as Sitush points out, the only one that may possibly apply is #6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." First, I must admit that I misread this, thinking that the term "principal" refered to the head of a high school or other equivalent secondary school, since that's what it always means in US and its "colonies". So, after looking at it now, I see that if we could verify that he held the post of Principal of CMC, then he meets WP:PROF. So, all we need now is verification of that. The only thing on the linked article is "JC De". For an encyclopedia article, of course, we need verification that this refers to Jyotish Chandra De, especially when we're resting the notability claims one hundred percent on this 2 year post. What is the evidence that this person with similar initials is in fact the person with the rest of the details described in the WP article? (I'd also add that, just like usual, I disagree with WP:PROF making such a broad, sweeping claim that one's job automatically grants notability to supersede WP:GNG, but I won't fight it if we can get verification). Finally, if we do somehow come to the consensus that we can reasonably believe it's the same person, that's fine, but I'll have to then go into the article and stub it down to a single sentence that states only the one position he held, as anything else would violate WP:V. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't assumed bad faith. However you cannot deny that this AFD is triggered by the "nn, in my opinion" comment of Sitush. And my arguments for keep were not based on PROF alone. The subject holded the position from 1939 to 1941 (height of WWII) so I will assume that he played a major role during Bengal famine of 1943. WP:V is definitely a problem here (the article creator seems to have sources) but it can be settled. SL7968 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "I didn't assume bad faith" - "Take a hike and read WP:PROF". Really? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not stalk my edits further. Your comments are in pure bad faith. SL7968 11:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Paranoid much? I suggest you retract your bad faith comments to me and Qwyrxian. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't assumed bad faith for Qwyrxian but assuming it for you. You jumped in this AFD from another deletion discussion. You have never participated in AFD discussion related to either PROF or MILHIST topics. So it is fine to assume you are here stalking my edits. SL7968 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I view all AfD discussions. And badfaith edits. Tick two for you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So can you explain me why do you think "Take a hike and read WP:PROF" is assuming bad faith? Not everyone (including admins and others) is supposed to know all notability thresholds of individual wikiprojects. Interestingly you made that comment 2 minutes after reverting me. SL7968 14:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't see why "Take a hike and read WP:PROF" isn't assuming bad faith?! I wont insult your intelligence by explaining it then. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Please can we drop this sideshow. It seems evident to me that there is a misunderstanding regarding the phrase "take a hike", which Solomon almost certainly intended in the sense of "please read" but Lugnuts is seeing in the sense of "go away". While the latter is the colloquial meaning, I'm pretty sure Solomon has simply not realised that. Cup, tea, storm in. - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I view all AfD discussions. And badfaith edits. Tick two for you. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:59, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't assumed bad faith for Qwyrxian but assuming it for you. You jumped in this AFD from another deletion discussion. You have never participated in AFD discussion related to either PROF or MILHIST topics. So it is fine to assume you are here stalking my edits. SL7968 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "I didn't assume bad faith" - "Take a hike and read WP:PROF". Really? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't assumed bad faith. However you cannot deny that this AFD is triggered by the "nn, in my opinion" comment of Sitush. And my arguments for keep were not based on PROF alone. The subject holded the position from 1939 to 1941 (height of WWII) so I will assume that he played a major role during Bengal famine of 1943. WP:V is definitely a problem here (the article creator seems to have sources) but it can be settled. SL7968 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ABF much? Here's the searches: Google Web, Google News, and [14]. Redoing those searches and copying and pasting them took me under 4 minutes. Evaluating them is equally simple: The web search is Wikipedia, social networking, and sites that obviously aren't even about this person. The news search, even set in archive mode, has 0 results. The book search at first glance seems to turn up promising books with titles about Indian medicine...but those are published by LLC, which is just a paper Wikipedia mirror. So, I see no sources, and the article itself contains only one, which is a deadlink, verifying only 1 claim, and that's not enough to meet WP:GNG. Let's turn to WP:PROF, which I admit I didn't look up, because I'm already pretty familiar with it. But I'll look it up now, and see if I've forgotten some subpart...as Sitush points out, the only one that may possibly apply is #6, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." First, I must admit that I misread this, thinking that the term "principal" refered to the head of a high school or other equivalent secondary school, since that's what it always means in US and its "colonies". So, after looking at it now, I see that if we could verify that he held the post of Principal of CMC, then he meets WP:PROF. So, all we need now is verification of that. The only thing on the linked article is "JC De". For an encyclopedia article, of course, we need verification that this refers to Jyotish Chandra De, especially when we're resting the notability claims one hundred percent on this 2 year post. What is the evidence that this person with similar initials is in fact the person with the rest of the details described in the WP article? (I'd also add that, just like usual, I disagree with WP:PROF making such a broad, sweeping claim that one's job automatically grants notability to supersede WP:GNG, but I won't fight it if we can get verification). Finally, if we do somehow come to the consensus that we can reasonably believe it's the same person, that's fine, but I'll have to then go into the article and stub it down to a single sentence that states only the one position he held, as anything else would violate WP:V. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Two sugars, please! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugnuts, welcome to WikiProject India! Glad to see you taking interest in the taskforce's articles or maybe just it's members! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unless... -- Not a living person, and not promotional, but the only source is not currently sufficient to establish notability, it only supports the content that the individual was principal of the college. If better sources can be found to establish notability then could be a sourcing issue rather than a true notability issue. Lesion (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:PROF? Again he was not just a ordinary principal of the college.(BTW, oldest medical college in Asia) In 1939 my guess is there were only 3 medical colleges (SSKM, NRC and this) in the whole Bengal Presidency (present Whole Bangladesh and West Bengal). So it is pretty clear he was notable. SL7968 15:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read WP:GNG, which over-rides PROF and which PROF more or less admits in the sentence that I quoted earlier? - Sitush (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I've read PROF, I don't think the one source we have meets this currently. Note that notability is not inherited. Individuals cannot generally be claimed to be notable just by affiliation with a particular faculty. Lesion (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Doesn't meet WP:PROF and WP:NOTINHERITED. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was expecting that. You have proven your incivility hasd no bounds. SL7968 18:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sol, that is ABF and you should retract. I would have asked you on your talk page but there is something odd going on there right now - you seem to have nomninated it for speedy deletion. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See the contrib of User:Lugnuts, he voted moments after I twice reverted his personal attack against User:Anir1uph. SL7968 18:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sol, that is ABF and you should retract. I would have asked you on your talk page but there is something odd going on there right now - you seem to have nomninated it for speedy deletion. - Sitush (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I was expecting that. You have proven your incivility hasd no bounds. SL7968 18:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Please stop Wikilawyering, Sol. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article creator is a relative of De but recent conversation with them has not been productive. I've tried searching under various permutations of his name - J. C. De etc. He is mentioned in "Naval And Military Appointments". British Medical Journal. 2 (2751): 263. 20 September 1913. JSTOR 25307179. as being admitted to the Indian Medical Service as a probationary Lieutenant on 26 July 1913. He had a M.B. at that time. It is possible that he rose in rank to Lieutenant-Colonel, per a snippet view in List of the Fellows, Members, Extra-licentiates and Licentiates of the Royal College of Physicians of London, and of Holders of the Diploma in Public Health, Granted Conjointly by the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. Royal College of Physicians. 1956. p. 393. and another snippet view suggests that in 1913 he may have been the first person to be awarded an honours degree in Sanskrit from Krishnagar College Majumdar, Nirmal Kanti (1950). History and Register of Krishnagar College, 1846-1945. Superintendent Government Print. p. 37.. That latter might also verify that by 1950 he had become a professor and had a degree from London University but Sanskrit in 1913 doesn't fit well with his age or medical career. There is nothing in the (very useful) customised GNews search facility that Tito Dutta designed and - surprisingly for IMS/Indian Civil Service - almost nothing in the London Gazette. The Gazette records merely the same appointment as mentioned in the BMJ and a promotion from captain to major on 26 January 1925.
The problem with the above is that there is no certainty that the sources are referring to the same person and the prolonged military involvement does not seem to fit well with his claimed academic career. I can find no medical papers published by him, nor any record of his professorship or time in London (it is possible that he took an external degree). Frankly, this person looks likely to be a medic-turned-administrator rather than an academic. The BMJ carries loads of obituaries and yet his death is not recorded even in that, nor is he mentioned in the India Lists so I'm afraid that this article seems to fail both WP:PROF and the wider WP:GNG unless someone can verify that he was a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians (they cannot - I emailed them). - Sitush (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as failing verifiability. Before we even get to discussing notability, there is a fundamental issue of verifiability. The lone source we have is so vague we cannot even be sure that this this the same person. Verifiability is no optional. I wouldn't object to userfication if somebody wants to work on it outside of article space. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily deleted (G7, author request) by Bishonen. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 23:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-admin closure reviewed and endorsed by bd2412 T 23:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Peter D Matthews (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 fringe author known for having recently proposed yet another hypothesis for the Shakespeare authorship question. No secondary sources, no signs of independent coverage. (When you search for sources, don't mistake him for another "Peter Matthews" who is a well-published literary critic.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not satisfy WP:BIO as there is no indication of independent significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The subject appears to have worked in a field unrelated to history ([15]) and the award mentioned in the article is not sufficient to establish notability. Johnuniq (talk) 07:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are 600 citations if you care to look at his book which is sold throughout the world through the most notable bookstores! The details about the author were taken directly from his bio as cited, therefore your assertions are proven false and malicious. He is a reputable doctor of philosophy and history. He is not a literary critic - you are completely mistaken. Try searching Dr Peter D Matthews in google and you will be surprised. Or search any one of his books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George134 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mr. Matthews has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (or even one, for that matter), so he does not meet WP:GNG. If/when his work receives more attention and discussion, an article would be perfectly appropriate. A side-note to the article creator: don't be offended by this; the article's subject just doesn't meet notability standards at this time. Please don't be discouraged, and keep up your work on WP. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - self-published author whose books have received no significant coverage. --NeilN talk to me 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've deleted a significant portion of the text as a copyvio. Monty845 21:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted the article. The creator has blanked it, and there are no other significant edits to it. I take this as a request for speedy deletion. Bishonen | talk 22:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 03:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Qualified specialist dyslexia teachers in Pakistan (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 example of original synthesis. The topic itself does not appear to be notable. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete Much of the content doesn't relate to the title, it covers multiple topics, and it's very messy. READyslexics (a Pakistani institute training teachers to work with dyslexics) gets a few hits[16][17][18] so it might be notable as an institution. But the list of American websites is irrelevant. It might be possible to rewrite and produce an encyclopedic article, since the topic of the care/education of dyslexics in Pakistan might be covered in reliable sources (if you know where to look), and READyslexics might be notable, but in its current form the article can't survive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Nominator withdrew; no delete !votes present. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 04:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Christian synonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure whether this topic really meets WP:GNG. It does not rely on multiple sources, which are "generally required"; and I would imagine such a topic would generally rely on original synthesis. Most of this content could probably be inserted into articles elsewhere. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC) My bad; see StAnselm's comment below. Nomination withdrawn. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This nomination falls far short of WP:BEFORE. I started the article a few minutes ago, and will be adding many more references. For example, the "Christians, Names of" article in the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology covers several pages. The concept is clearly notable as a list, and I respectfully suggest the nominator withdraws, and isn't so trigger-happy next time. StAnselm (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I explained my rationale on my user talk but have withdrawn this nom. No need for further discussion. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Amber MacArthur (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 has been around since 2004...and has been poorly sourced the entire time. The sources now are horrible. In order, they are:
- IMDB
- An article written by MacArthur
- Broken link that looks like it used to be MacArthur's blog
- The site for a podcast featuring her
- Archived profile on a site of a company she worked for
- A site that MacArthur is working for
- What probably used to be her resume but now doesn't work
- Another error that used to point to a video by Amber
- the same podcast as number 6
- Consists largely of an email by MacArthur
- Written by MacArthur
- Just lists a podcast by her, not even mentioning her name
- Links to Now magazine's front page. I found the article [19], and it's a trivial mention.
Also, GNews gets no hits. Howicus (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are you sure that GNews got no hits? I found several just by clicking the news button in your nomination. As I am unfamiliar with MacArthur, I am unable to judge which ones count as substantial coverage, but here seem to be some: 1 2. There were also some book mentions, like this section here: 3. I can't say "keep" for sure, because I don't know if any of these count as substantial. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for finding those...maybe I made a typo when I did my search. Howicus (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - clearly notable - hundreds of source out there just need to take the time to upgrade the refs -- Moxy (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sheer number of Google hits is not everything. I just searched through the first five pages of the GNews link at the top of this discussion, and I found no good sources. Most of the articles I found were just quoting MacArthur. Howicus (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- She has her own TV show and is a guess host on a few other shows. She is also a bestselling author with her opinions making the national news in Canada - what more can be said - people are clearly inquiring about the person as seen by the 4535 views in the last 90 days. There is also much info under the name Amber Mac -- Moxy (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A few minutes digging reveals many articles that focus on the subject such as this biographical one or this one profiling her 'celebrity' home. While digging, I also saw that MacArthur was the most followed Canadian on twitter in 2008 which must say something about her notability. Article may need work but subject clearly is notable.CooperDB (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2013 (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) 03:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Magoo (talk • contribs) 04:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We don't delete pages because they are poorly sources. We only delete if we do not believe that they can be properly sourced. We can't delete every page that needs to be improved. If the subject is notable, keep it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:00, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Alliance of Hope for Suicide Survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be notable -- only citation beyond its own website is from GreatNonprofits, which is basically Yelp but for nonprofits (i.e., not a reliable source). Couldn't find any reliable sources upon extensive searching, and the page's author has not responded to requests for more evidence of notability. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. While this organization undoubtedly does good work, it wouldn't be possible to create a verifiable article at this time. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 05:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I found no notability. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Adams Crossroads, Delaware (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 place incorrectly listed as an unincorporated community, but actually just a literal crossroads where two roads cross. Fails to meet notability by not having coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Only references given are a street map and GNIS, which has been decided time and again does not meet notability on its own, nor does the inclusion of the myriad of non-reliable sources that rely solely on GNIS information. Superman7515 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom; WP:GNG definitely applies. How this merits inclusion is beyond me. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per the five pillars, Wikipedia is a gazetteer, and all populated places are considered worthy of articles as part of that function; this notion has been upheld in countless AfDs in the past. The GNIS and the official Delaware transportation map claim that this is a populated place, not just a place where two roads meet, and I'm inclined to believe two reliable sources over the nominator on that point. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 09:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GNIS has been upheld countless times to not establish notability on its own. The map supplied does not establish it as a populated place. The title of the map is "Delaware Scenic and Historical Highways" and shows every road name and crossroads on there. The appendix lists "Index of Cities, Towns, and Places" so while it may be a "place" nothing on the map says that it is a populated place, and certainly not an unincorporated community, as it is listed. Even if we were to make that jump, simply having a name and people living there does not qualify an article to be kept, see the myriad of articles on trailer parks that have been deleted or the previous article on Abbotts Mill[[20]] that was forced to change from an unincorporated community article. While this isn't a mobile home park, it is also not a historic mill or other such NRHP site worth of inclusion, and it is well established that GNIS does not in itself meet the guidelines for setting an areas notability and that multiple reliable sources are still needed for these "places" to meet notability standards. Superman7515 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from trailer parks, which are a special case, the GNIS is generally considered to establish notability on its own, contrary to what you're suggesting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairview, Harford County, Maryland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapfinger, Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Intent, Pennsylvania, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrews Manor, Maryland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orestimba, California , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont for some examples; the only example to the contrary I could find was Abbotts Mill, which was a historic site and therefore a special case. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples given: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairview, Harford County, Maryland = makes no mention whatsoever of GNIS, let alone using that as the benchmark to set notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapfinger, Georgia = again, no mention of GNIS, or using GNIS to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Intent, Pennsylvania = first mention of GNIS, however, it still needed additional reliable sources to establish it's existence and notability, GNIS alone was not good enough. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrews Manor, Maryland = is a population center with reliable sources, such as the state of Maryland, calling it a planned community, and does not rely on GNIS as its sole source to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orestimba, California = A populated places with numerous reliable and independent sources, for example a a high school, where again GNIS alone was not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont = was shown to be a distinct population center with sources such as an NRHP link, a post office, etc. None of the examples given was able to establish notability based solely on GNIS and those unreliable sources, such as Hometown Locator etc, that use GNIS as their source. Without any historical evidence of it being a population center, no reliable sources currently establishing it as meeting notability, and WP:ENN as well as WP:NRVE, the article should be deleted. It is simply the crossroads of a road that takes you to the unincorporated community of Adams and the road that takes you to the town of Bridgeville. Superman7515 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two examples are to this day only cited to the GNIS, and the second discussion definitely does mention the GNIS. For the rest, the other sources were usually found during the AfD by people trying to improve the article, and shouldn't be taken as evidence that the place would have gotten deleted in the absence of those sources. Besides, all of them use the argument that verified populated places are notable, and when the GNIS is the only source doing the verifying, that's the same as saying that a GNIS entry is sufficient for notability. Adams Crossroads doesn't only rely on a GNIS entry, either - it also has the highway map, which indicates that it's a populated place (which is what a category of "Cities, Towns and Places" means). Satellite images of the area show a cluster of buildings at the place, so it appears to still be a population center. I still haven't seen any evidence that this is only a crossroads, as you claim. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples given: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairview, Harford County, Maryland = makes no mention whatsoever of GNIS, let alone using that as the benchmark to set notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapfinger, Georgia = again, no mention of GNIS, or using GNIS to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Intent, Pennsylvania = first mention of GNIS, however, it still needed additional reliable sources to establish it's existence and notability, GNIS alone was not good enough. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrews Manor, Maryland = is a population center with reliable sources, such as the state of Maryland, calling it a planned community, and does not rely on GNIS as its sole source to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orestimba, California = A populated places with numerous reliable and independent sources, for example a a high school, where again GNIS alone was not enough to establish notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont = was shown to be a distinct population center with sources such as an NRHP link, a post office, etc. None of the examples given was able to establish notability based solely on GNIS and those unreliable sources, such as Hometown Locator etc, that use GNIS as their source. Without any historical evidence of it being a population center, no reliable sources currently establishing it as meeting notability, and WP:ENN as well as WP:NRVE, the article should be deleted. It is simply the crossroads of a road that takes you to the unincorporated community of Adams and the road that takes you to the town of Bridgeville. Superman7515 (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Aside from trailer parks, which are a special case, the GNIS is generally considered to establish notability on its own, contrary to what you're suggesting. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairview, Harford County, Maryland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snapfinger, Georgia, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good Intent, Pennsylvania, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrews Manor, Maryland, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orestimba, California , and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Woodstock, Vermont for some examples; the only example to the contrary I could find was Abbotts Mill, which was a historic site and therefore a special case. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- GNIS has been upheld countless times to not establish notability on its own. The map supplied does not establish it as a populated place. The title of the map is "Delaware Scenic and Historical Highways" and shows every road name and crossroads on there. The appendix lists "Index of Cities, Towns, and Places" so while it may be a "place" nothing on the map says that it is a populated place, and certainly not an unincorporated community, as it is listed. Even if we were to make that jump, simply having a name and people living there does not qualify an article to be kept, see the myriad of articles on trailer parks that have been deleted or the previous article on Abbotts Mill[[20]] that was forced to change from an unincorporated community article. While this isn't a mobile home park, it is also not a historic mill or other such NRHP site worth of inclusion, and it is well established that GNIS does not in itself meet the guidelines for setting an areas notability and that multiple reliable sources are still needed for these "places" to meet notability standards. Superman7515 (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per The Catalyst31 comments. Wikipedia is a gazetteer. Thank you-RFD (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Saying "Wikipedia is a gazetteer" does not magically make every barren place where roads intersect a "community" or an "inhabited place" which needs to have an entry in encyclopedias. Having some anonymous person create a GNIS entry based on unknown references or standards does not confer some inherent notability on a mere intersection of latitude and longitude. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, the GNIS listing does have a reference for where they got the place name; it's from a USGS topographic map, which it says is the Hickman map elsewhere in the listing. I took a look at the Hickman topographic map, and Adams Crossroads is marked. And since the USGS is an agency of the federal government, and the GNIS is run by the USGS, I'd say it's a lot more reliable than "some anonymous person". TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 00:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'll disclose that I was invited to participate in the discussion. In looking at Google maps, I see that there are a few houses around the crossroads, where the Adamsville Highway intersects Seashore Drive in Sussex County, with no sign for "Adams Crossroads, Delaware". There's no indication that it is, or ever was, a "community". This is one of thousands of mass-produced stubs [21] that are created by different users and then dropped and never revisited. One term for these is "kittens". If it were in a published book, then I could accept the gazetteer argument. To me, though, this is squarely under WP:NOT-- "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed." Mandsford 18:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:NPLACE. It's labeled as a settlement on the USGS topographical map. It's specifically named as a settlement in this publication of the USGS. It's listed in this book. Deor (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NPLACE says that cities and villages are generally kept, neither of those apply here nor is anyone claiming it does. Larger neighborhoods are usually kept, but this would not fit as the supposed location of this community is the intersection of Seashore Highway and Adamsville Road, where there are only two houses in the immediate location and 7 houses/farms within 1 mile. And finally smaller suburbs are generally merged, but this isn't even a suburb since you're several miles from the nearest community, which would be Bridgeville. There's nothing in WP:NPLACE that would establish this as a notable unincorporated community, nor does WP:NPLACE guarantee that an unincorporated community is notable at face value.Superman7515 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In Delaware, major intersections were typically named but the roads were not. People living in rural Delaware still usually identify where they live by the nearest interesection (as opposed to the USPS zip system which uses nearest town). As Delaware get's developed, the names sometime live on like with Price's Corner Shopping Center or the housing developments in Churchman's Crossing. Other times, like with Sharp's Crossroads (intersection of Naaman's & Foulk) the reference becomes unused with development. This topic of Delaware named intersections probably deserves a (sourced) article of it's own. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It concerns me that good faith nomination says that this article is a "non-notable place incorrectly listed as an unincorporated community, but actually just a literal crossroads where two roads cross." That doesn't take into account the local convention where areas are named after intersections. It is like saying every city in California named after a mission or every town named after a port in Florida should be deleted because we don't like those naming conventions. There are currently 15 other Wikipedia articles on places named after intersections in rural Delaware. This article certainly needs some work and many of the others do too. But the issue is not with the underlying notability and I think this nomination would be a precedent for stripping article after article on rural Delaware. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are some communities that are "named" after the nearby intersection, as in the Price's Corner and Churchman's Crossing examples you mentioned or Hare's Corner, etc. but there is no community here. Historically, Adams Crossroads is the name of the intersection of the road that took you to Adamsville and the road that took you to Bridgeville before Delaware switched to road names as part of the enhanced 911 system in the early 2000's. The issue I brought up is that there is no proof of a current or historic community here, no existence of multiple reliable sources, and it fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NRVE, or WP:NPLACE. On a side note that has no bearing on the discussion, having lived in Delaware for my entire life, the phenomenon of naming areas after local intersections seems to be mainly focused in northern Delaware. For the first 30+ years of my life I lived downstate and if you asked someone where they were from, they said the nearest town. When I moved to New Castle County, it is completely different as people identify with their tiny communities and they even put your apartment complex or unincorporated community on your driver's license, which is something that is not done in Kent or Sussex Counties.Superman7515 (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It concerns me that good faith nomination says that this article is a "non-notable place incorrectly listed as an unincorporated community, but actually just a literal crossroads where two roads cross." That doesn't take into account the local convention where areas are named after intersections. It is like saying every city in California named after a mission or every town named after a port in Florida should be deleted because we don't like those naming conventions. There are currently 15 other Wikipedia articles on places named after intersections in rural Delaware. This article certainly needs some work and many of the others do too. But the issue is not with the underlying notability and I think this nomination would be a precedent for stripping article after article on rural Delaware. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename? I've always heard this area referred to as "Adams Corner". RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it's about time we started cleaning up these "gazetteer" permastubs and requiring substantial coverage, not a blurb on a map or in an atlas. This isn't even a real village, it's just a "populated place", which is a term so vague it gets used to, apparently, list every crossroads that a couple people live at and a map gives a name to. As nothing is "inherently notable", this clearly is not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 2013 Rockwell 690B crash (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)
Challenged PROD. This is a tragic, but ultimately non-notable general aviation accident. The general expression of consensus on this sort of incident, WP:AIRCRASH, is not met, and it fails the WP:GNG as well. This accident is already covered, appropriately, at Tweed New Haven Regional Airport#Incidents; a merge/redirect may be a possible alternative. The Bushranger One ping only 02:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Delete as failing WP:NOTNEWS policy as lacking any form of enduring significance, it was in the news because it was a news story. Not sold on the idea of a redirect as "2013 Rockwell 690B crash" is not a helpful search term. LGA talkedits 02:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, because WP:EVENT is ot met: The crash has not been th subject of any media coverage other than initial news bulletins.--FoxyOrange (talk) 06:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to meet the consensus standard WP:AIRCRASH and especially the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. This sort of accident is tragic, but a daily common occurrence in aviation worldwide. The accident has not resulted in any lasting effects, such as airworthiness directives service bulletins, changes in ATC or pilot operational or training procedures. - Ahunt (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge (with default redirect) per nom. Not notable, but worth a mention. Ansh666 19:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep 2 children dead on the ground, plane destroys two houses in a city -- this is not just an air crash of a small plane with people aboard getting dead. Notability requirements are not just those pertaining to air crashes, but to community involved as well, and it obviously transcends the destination airport's. --Mareklug talk 06:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well actually it is. The aircraft just happened to hit the houses, it was not a deliberate act! This accident does not rate a stand-alone page, but there is no reason why you can't add a paragraph into the East Haven, Connecticut article.--Petebutt (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How? Where is the WP:PERSISTENCE? Where is the case for notability beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE? Wikipedia is not a memorial. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Already amply covered at East Haven, Connecticut--Petebutt (talk) 08:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sad but not notable enough for a stand-alone article. MilborneOne (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wikipedia is a good place to note crashes with extensive media coverage. This appears to be part of a coordinated campaign on the part of few editors to purge all incidents with even the hint of a connection to terrorism, or accidents with heavy media coverage. The nominator appears to be just interested in aviation, but if you look at editing history of some others advocating deletion, you will find a number of articles on terrorist-style mass shootings being deleted without much notice, and one has to wonder why so many of these articles are being targeted and for what purpose. Redhanker (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, what? What, exactly, does this article have to do with terrorism at all? Also, one of the reasons this was nominated for deletion is because there is no heavy media coverage. And please remember to assume good faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This aircraft accident is connected to terrorism? What a bizarre claim! Where does any reliable source indicate that? - Ahunt (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Transcendence (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete' - none of the four people killed are notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia, therefore this accident is not notable enough to sustain an article either. Mjroots (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, notability isn't inherited... Ansh666 09:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it's been accepted as general consensus that a Wikinotable person being killed in an aircraft accident raises its notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there are plenty of airplane crash articles where no notable people were involved, although I must admit very few of those are light aircraft. Ansh666 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah - it's just one of the markers, and it's more heavily weighted for light aircraft (like, say, Payne Stewart's crash) than it is for scheduled airliners - any fatalities in a scheduled airline accident generally trip the "article" switch. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but there are plenty of airplane crash articles where no notable people were involved, although I must admit very few of those are light aircraft. Ansh666 18:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but it's been accepted as general consensus that a Wikinotable person being killed in an aircraft accident raises its notability. - The Bushranger One ping only 17:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, notability isn't inherited... Ansh666 09:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Secret account 03:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Associations of environment journalists (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)
Pure list cruft. Wikipedia is not a directory. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete the external links, and in time will add Wikipedia pages for the various national networks, but the page itself is valid Shandartowers (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see any evidence that any of these are notable. It therefore fails WP:L. If someone can prove that multiple associations of environment journalists are notable, I will of course reconsider. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Notable" is highly subjective and depends a lot on geography. In many of the countries where these associations have formed, there are serious environmental problems that threaten people lives and serious corruption that makes environmental journalism itself a deadly profession. For journalists in such settings the very existence of such a network can be transformative Shandartowers (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Pure listcruft. And Shandartowers in the comment just above seems to mix up notability in the WP sense with worthy, which are two very different things. --Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Put it this way - if Environmental journalism had a section on (notable!) associations in the field, forking that off into its own article (if the length merited it) would be perfectly acceptable. The trick here is that such associations are not actually mentioned as such at the Environmental journalism article - but that can be fixed easily with copyediting. This can be kept on that basis - failing that, this should be trimmed and merged over to Environmental journalism. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 12:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to a section in Environmental journalism: The nominated article was never a proper WP:Spinoff of "Environmental journalism" and the talk pages of both articles show no activity. Environmental journalism is one of the areas/beats that have been marked for development by Wikipedia:Wikiproject Journalism. While Environmental journalism may be list heavy at this point to justify a spinoff, the article itself is not significantly developed enough, and the reader who would probably want this information would look under the main article. This makes it all the more important for the articles to be merged until some future point when a spinoff is necessary. I'm basically in agreement with what User:Ultraexactzz (see above) is saying on this but on a different point on the timeline of development! As per User:Shandartowers, I agree and that is why a section in the main article in necessary. Both users who advocate for delete make a good point that this is too early for a standalone list and the nominated article/list does not explicitly state notability.Crtew (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- merge as suggested for exactly the reasons given by Crtew. Not really appropriate for a separate article DGG ( talk ) 04:16, 8 August 2013 (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) 17:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment.—The present version of the article mentions some associations of environmental journalists, especially associations in Africa, but they are shown as red links, because they have no corresponding articles. If those associations had Wikipedia articles, then this article would have a greater claim to notability.
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records. A selective merge will enable the dubious material to be filtered out, as well Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Russian inventions (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)
Declining PROD by User:RAF910 because one was already contested last year, bringing it to AfD. Concern was: "1...This article appears to be full of cold-war era Russian propaganda. 2...The factual accuracy is already in question. 3...The referenced sources also appear to be Soviet era propaganda and are also in question. 4...This article has been up for deletion in the past for the same issues. And, no attempt appears to have been made to correct the issues in question. 5...This article has received less than one click a day for the last 90 days. It is therefore not worth the time and energy to fix." I'll comment separately. Ansh666 23:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect or possibly selective merge: There's been questions about the veracity of much of the article; I can't tell because the majority of the sources are either in Russian or paper sources and many entries are unsourced (I'm not going to look through hundreds of articles to see whether they individually have sources for being put on here). User:Northamerica1000 mentioned the possibility of a merge to Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records when declining the previous PROD on the talk page, but I'm not convinced that much verifiable info can be merged in. Ansh666 23:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. for the reasons stated above...[reply]
1...This article appears to be full of cold-war era Russian propaganda. 2...The factual accuracy is already in question. 3...The referenced sources also appear to be Soviet era propaganda and are also in question. 4...This article has been up for deletion in the past for the same issues. And, no attempt appears to have been made to correct the issues in question. 5...This article has received less than one click a day for the last 90 days. It is therefore not worth the time and energy to fix.--RAF910 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)- Duplicate vote, so struck. This one is the same as the nomination/PROD statement, and the one below is a lot more detailed, so I'll leave that and get rid of this one. Ansh666 22:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nominator.selective merge: I have looked at an article's sources. I have also looked at the edit history of an article's creator. While the topic of this article might be useful for someone's research the information in the article itself is not due to many questionable claims with non-reliable (or permanently dead) supporting references... Which is not surprising considering that this article was created by a person with a very specific agenda here on English Wiki (but that should be discussed elsewhere). Plus there are very similar articles that already exist here, for example Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records - the information from both of these can be merged into one article, after discarding any questionable parts from both of these. Not to mention the fact that this article was given plenty of time to improve since latest deletion proposal discussions but noone bothered to do any coherent improvements except adding in more propaganda fluff with more unusable references. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have decided to go over it again and have deleted most of the dubious claims/propaganda, as well as irrelevant "penis measurement" sections like "records". Some of the information there is unquestionably useful, just needs more clean-up and a merge with more detailed Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records which already contains similar info as well as constant monitoring (and reversal) of future attempts of padding these articles with more propaganda fluff with useless Russian wiki links and highly questionable references. 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records. Similar topics, both marginally useful, Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records seems to be better Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no problem with this list, but the trend or consensus has been to merge such lists. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article has been much improved (and by that I mean a lot of random stuff was cut out) by the IP above. When it was nominated it was ridiculous. That said, much of what remains here is a duplicate of the timeline article. Ansh666 17:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unfortunately, this article was not created as an honest source of information listing the true accomplishments of Russian Inventors. But, as propaganda trying desperately to prove the superiority of the Soviet/Russian State. Even though it has been cleaned up. There is still a tremendous amount of questionable information. Much of it based on Soviet and Russian patents which are not worth the paper they are written on. Throughout the Cold War and even today, whenever anyone invents anything of note, the Russians are quick to produce a patent claiming that they invented it years if not decades earlier. Today, no country in the world accepts Russian patents, not even their friends and allies. In fact, the Russians can't even get their friends to make royalty payments for the AK-47 rifles that they make (which is clearly a Russian invention). Also, every single publisher in USSR/Russia was/is considered and instrument of the State and was/is part of the Russian Propaganda Machine with orders to prove the superiority of the Soviet/Russian State. As such, they write and rewrite history accordingly. They even airbrush people out of historical photographs or add them in as they see fit. As a result, every Russian book, newspaper and magazine is by definition a bias/questionable source. Even Cook Books are not immune and filled with propaganda touting the superiority of the Russian state farmer. So, if someone wants to claim that the Russians/USSR invented something we need and absolutely irrefutable English Language source.--RAF910 (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sound English sources are more preferable, but Russian sources could also be used.
- There are many nations and cultures (e.g. Chinese, Muslim etc) claiming a lot of technical achievements, with many such published invention claims being questionable, especially in the eyes of a typical educated Western reader. The issue is complicated by the difficulties in defining of what constitutes an invention and what constitutes a priority in inventing something (e.g. can we call an early prototype invention? should we list an invention that was forgotten and later re-invented by another nation? etc). The topic is complex to handle, and we should try to use some strict criteria to compose the list.
- Also, every single publisher in USSR/Russia was/is considered and instrument of the State and was/is part of the Russian Propaganda Machine with orders to prove the superiority of the Soviet/Russian State. In relation to the technical history there was indeed a brief post-WWII period of the "struggle for domestic priorities in science and technology" when Soviet authors propagandised a lot of priorities in science and technology. The period however ended long ago, though it introduced some recurring invention myths into circulation in Russia and post-Soviet space.
- Me too is unhappy with the present state of the article. I agree that it should be improved via better sorting of information, better formatting, better sourcing, and application of stricter criteria of what constitutes an invention. But there is absolutely no reason to delete the article. GreyHood Talk 21:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep not merge The list and the timeline better stay two different articles. These are two different formats, and it is better to have both a collection of inventions sorted by field and a chronological perspective of invention history related to Russia. The list needs more work to become a decent article, but what we have now is a good start. GreyHood Talk 21:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Your arguments are exactly the same arguments that saved this page from deletion the last time...Yes, the article is filled with propaganda, disinformation and outright lies, but we can fix it...Unfortunately, that did not happen. Every attempt to fix the problems was reverted. The only thing that happen was the addition of massive amounts of additional propaganda, disinformation and outright lies. This article cannot be fixed. There are simply too many people invested in the lies. If we allow this article to stand, then its only a matter of time before it will be up for deletion again, for exactly the same reasons.--RAF910 (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How about we delete this, move the timeline over, and make it into a table format so it can be sorted however people want it to be sorted? Then again, I'm not too good with tables on Wikipedia (or really anywhere), so I wouldn't trust myself to do it. Ansh666 21:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My concern is...if we merge this article with the Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records then we haven't really solved the problem, we just move it to another page. While I believe that the Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records is better than the List of Russian inventions it also suffers from many of the same problems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 23:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This article is quite a mess but the topic is notable and important to Russian culture. We can do a general summary/list in this article as well as the timeline in its own article, so I say keep both and discuss a merge someplace without a 7 day deadline. ThemFromSpace 02:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So far, everyone who has commented on this page agrees that this article is filled propaganda, disinformation and outright lies, even after user 173.68.110.16 took a machete to it. For any other article on Wikipedia this would be more than enough to justify deletion. It should be noted...that user 173.68.110.16 is the only editor who wants to keep or merge the article, who has actually made any effort to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- As GreyHood said above, if this article is not currently neutral it can be edited with reliable sources to be NPOV. Are there any specific points in the article that you contest? ThemFromSpace 15:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Because, this article changes the definition of invention for every entry, in order to award the "invention" to Russia.
- For example, in the "Ancient inventions section" we see Russia taking credit for inventions that were made thousands if not tens-of-thousands of years before Russia existed, by peoples and societies that no longer exist. Simply because, a 4000 year old artifact was dug-up in Russian soil.
- For example, in the "Developments leading to section" we see Russia taking credit for inventions created by others by claiming that a Russian came up with the idea first. See...stealth aircraft, just because a Russian mathematician wrote down some equations in the 1960s, the invention is awarded to Russia. All the while ignoring the fact that the Germans were flying aircraft with stealth characteristics during WW2 and the Americans flying prototype stealth aircraft in the 1950s. In fact the picture in the article is of American F-117 Stealth Fighter. But, because the Americans use some of those equations to make the F-117 we have to award the invention to Russia. Even, though the first operational modern stealth aircraft was the SR-71 in the 1960s and was design before the Russian mathematician wrote down his equations.
- For example, in the "Precursors section" we see Russia taking credit for the precursors inventions (whatever that suppose to mean). Such as the monorail, because a Russian made the first one in 1920. However, monorails were being made decades earlier by inventors all over Europe and America. And, the first patent was taken out a hundred years earlier in the UK. In this case the only thing that matters is the a Russian made the first one 1920 (not true but who cares). Where, above when it comes to stealth aircraft we have a different definition of invention...a Russian write down some equations we give the invention to Russia. However, if a British citizen gets a patent a hundred years earlier that doesn't count.
- For example, in the "Inventions by Russian emigrants section" we see Russia taking the credit for inventions created by anyone born in Russia. Even if they left Russia when they were children and developed and patented their inventions decades later in another country. I guess if an inventor is born Russian his invention belongs to Russia.
- For example, many of the entries have no references to back them up. And, when you go to the main page to review them, there is no mention that they are Russian inventions.
- I can go on, but I think I've made my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So far, everyone who has commented on this page agrees that this article is filled propaganda, disinformation and outright lies, even after user 173.68.110.16 took a machete to it. For any other article on Wikipedia this would be more than enough to justify deletion. It should be noted...that user 173.68.110.16 is the only editor who wants to keep or merge the article, who has actually made any effort to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RAF910 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:COATRACK. Many different things are mixed together in the list, with no clear definition of what invention is and even what should be attributed to Russia. I do not see how it possibly can be repaired.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:55, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Timeline of Russian inventions and technology records. Different formats is not a good enough reason to have separate articles. ~KvnG 14:59, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, but let's please all remember that AfD is not cleanup, per our deletion policy.--cyclopiaspeak! 10:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete borderline COATRACK, no clear criteria for inclusion. -Drdisque (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 03:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- TOPYX Social LMS (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 software. Lots of references, some to press releases from this company, some to dictionary definitions and some that don't mention this software at all. None provide the in depth independent coverage required by the GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Social LMS software is supported by notable references, including a peer reviewed journal article which is in accordance with the GNG. Updated sources supporting TOPYX social LMS are reliable according to GNG standards. Citations that were not independent of the subject have been removed. Caliandson (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - I looked over the sources that are remaining in the article, but could find no mention of TOPYX. I will gladly change my vote if I am mistaken. Otherwise, maybe an article should be written about "Social LMS software" instead, since there appears to be written sources about this. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the vote and feedback. An overcautious approach was taken to avoid reading like an advertisement. This process allows me to implement third party citations about the software with appropriate use. I have added the first third party comment pertaining directly to TOPYX under Mobile Learning.Caliandson (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 17:02, 3 August 2013 (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) 03:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I read the article and examined the references and even though some of them are commercials and related with the creator of this product, there are sufficient independent sources such as this paper. M. H. 12:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.haephrati (talk • contribs)
- Comment "Topyx" isn't mentioned in the link. Am I missing something? 02:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
- Delete — Citations 1–4 and 6–7 don't mention Topyx at all. That leaves a single citation that mentions the software, and that's not sufficient to meet the guidelines in WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional third party citations that prove the credibility of TOPYX as a premier Social Learning Management System have been included. Please note citations 1, 2, 5, and 10 respectably.Caliandson (talk) 09:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. postdlf (talk) 21:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Gilbert schema for Ulysses (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. May be worth transwikiing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:31, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:32, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:36, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See also related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linati schema for Ulysses. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Google Books shows numerous results for the Gilbert schema in reliable academic books. If the schema is best on Wikipedia, Wikisource or Wikibooks is an interesting question for the article talk page, but the Gilbert schema is clearly notable for AfD nom purposes. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per User:Green Cardamom. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus after four weeks of discussion, defaulting to keep. Michig (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Little Miss Barber (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)
Author Contested PROD : Non Notable advertising character, unable to find ANY reliable sources that cover this in any detail. LGA talkedits 12:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as author. Not only notable as the subject of a significant advertising campaign of past times, but also as a common ghost sign in its home region today. Additional sources undoubtedly exist, but are likely to be in local archives, not online. This is exactly the kind of stub that will grow into a good article in time, per WP:NODEADLINE. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, historic significance, with potential to grow, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - A Google search ' "Little Miss Barber" -Wikipedia ' found only a few hits such as blog or forum postings, ebay, facebook, etc., and the two sources listed in the article, a personal website and a user-contributed photo collection. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The character isn't notable. I couldn't find any sources whatsoever when I searched. You seem to be misinterpreting WP:NODEADLINE to mean that you can have articles on non-notable subjects in the mainspace so that they may one day become notable. Even if there were sources from online archives, they should have been added while the article was being created, not afterward. TCN7JM 01:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I attempted a search using google, google images and following links to the pages where images were hosted, news, and books, and it does not appear that there is much information about this character. As previously mentioned there are only a couple posts available including facebook, and a blog post re: ghostsigns. The character does not appear to be notable. An alternative place for "little miss barber" to be inserted into wikipedia might be with an addition to the article Sign painting as that article talks about how old painted signs are a thing of the past. Just a thought. Tattoodwaitress (talk) 02:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It seems that the character started out with Barber's Tea but was later dopted by other companies - perhaps because they acquired the brand. In any case,there are lot's of Little Miss Barber collectible's being bought and sold online and I would imagine there is a reference to the character in a book somewhere that is worth searching for. If the consensus is to delete, I would hope that userfication is allowed while references are sought. An opportunity to document the history of the character is enticing and it would be a pity to lose the information to history. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Secret account 03:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenGL Mathematics (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:N. The two "references" do not describe the article's topic at all. The sources I could find online are mostly forums, StackOverflow and a Wikibook. To be fair, the package is listed in a page about add-on libraries on opengl.org, but I wouldn't consider that enough for N. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge into GLSL, which in my opinion should be renamed OpenGL Shading Language. Not HOW TO so remove code (this is a pretty narrowly used package I think?). W Nowicki (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti*Let's talk!* 23:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - press "books" or "scholar" at the top of this page to find sources... Christian75 (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 01:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- delete Not mentioned in the standard OpenGL references. There is one good cite on google books; in my opinion, that's not sufficient for notability per WP:NSOFT. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep; withdraw nomination. I have learned that this tournament passes WP:GNG and is sufficiently notable for its own article. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Monday, August 19, 2013, 13:24 U.T.C.
Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions (2nd nomination)
- Jeopardy! Ultimate Tournament of Champions (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 article is a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as it comprises elevated amounts of fancruft, trivia, original research, and unverifiable information, in the form of tons of unsourced statistics which appear to be sourced from the J! Archive, which is a fansite and is thus an unreliable source of information. Any information that can't be sourced from the J! Archive, appears to have been mined from primary sources without citation. If this article deserves any fate, it has to be deletion. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Sunday, August 18, 2013, 01:11 U.T.C.
- Do you have any specific violations of WP policies that were not addressed in the previous nomination for deletion? Indeed, can you address any of the points made in the previous nomination? 271828182 (talk) 03:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The previous nomination addressed this tournament as non-notable and unworthy of inclusion. Although this tournament has been given multiple mentions in books and news articles as stated in Nomination 1, even these are not enough to support the existence of a separate article for this particular tournament, and yet, some of these news articles even require subscriptions to be displayed in their entirety. I feel that coverage of the Ultimate Tournament of Champions should be left to List of Jeopardy! tournaments and events#"All-time best" tournaments. Besides, there is no way that anyone is going to give reliable sourcing to all the statistics on this page, and Wikipedia is not a collection of statistics. —Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Sunday, August 18, 2013, 15:34 U.T.C.
- By your second sentence, you agree that the article meets notability. So why, exactly, should it be deleted? "I feel that" and "there is no way" are empty assertions of what you think, not actual facts or WP policies. 271828182 (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Very well, then. This tournament DOES pass the General Notability Guideline. The only problem is that editors have not given it responsible attention. I just realized that there is no need to actually order this article deleted! So I'm going to have this nomination withdrawn without further action, and then add independent sourcing to spare the article from further nominations for deletion. --Seth Allen (discussion/contributions), Monday, August 19, 2013, 12:25 U.T.C.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Skapetis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He has not played a professional senior game at club or international level. Article fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Also fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not that it will make much of a difference but I've tagged the article for BLP-PROD as a completely unsourced BLP. Subject fails both WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Most of the coverage available is from blogs or forums. There's a particularly telling article from Fox Sports that lists Australian players overseas but doesn't include the subject and someone has pointed this out in the comment section. Stalwart111 01:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not received significant coverage or played in a fully pro league, meaning the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -per nom, still a junior footballer. Fenix down (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 16:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the subject might be notable in the future, but so far he hasn't played a match in a fully pro league or for his country at senior level, which means he fails WP:NFOOTY. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources. No prejudice against recreation once one of the notability-criteria has been met. Mentoz86 (talk) 03:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:08, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Joseph Booton (actor) (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 person Kbabej (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 01:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TCN7JM 01:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:ENT. He may have played a significant role in mildly-notable films, but no reliable sources substantiate this, and he fails the other two WP:ENT criteria. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 02:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unless either one of the two films MILF (film) or The Newest Pledge is deemed non-notable (in which case, the non-notable film's article should be nominated for deletion first). I've added IMDb entries for the two films. For the purposes of who starred in a given film, the film's credits screen is reliable, and IMDb is both a reliable and a secondary source. Disclaimer: I am the AFC reviewer who accepted this submission. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think his role in either film is very significant. He is a supporting actor in both, and fails the other criteria in WP:ENT. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it boils down to how "significant" a role has to be in order to be "significant" by Wikipedia standards. Note that the standard is "significant" not "very significant." Supporting actor roles can be anything from a minor speaking role to one step away from being a main character. I haven't seen the two films and I don't know how "significant" this persons role was in either film. However, on the IMDb pages, he was listed as one of three "stars" in both movies, implying that he played at least the 3rd-most-important character in each one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't say I disagree with your rationale; I haven't seen either film myself. I still am not convinced the guy's notable, though, based on the lack of WP:RS coverage. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm willing to concede that this may be one of those rare cases where a person meets a more specific notability guideline and is therefore presumed to be notable, but upon closer examination he fails WP:N. Note to the closing admin: This should only be deleted if either he fails WP:ENT (I contend that he passes WP:ENT, but that's obviously open to interpretation and discussion) or if he passes WP:ENT and is therefore presumed to be notable, but someone takes the trouble to do a deep search for evidence of notability and comes up dry or mostly dry. I am requesting that if the article is deleted, the closing admin specify whether, in his opinion of the consensus, the person fails WP:ENT or, despite passing WP:ENT, has been shown to fail WP:N. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't say I disagree with your rationale; I haven't seen either film myself. I still am not convinced the guy's notable, though, based on the lack of WP:RS coverage. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it boils down to how "significant" a role has to be in order to be "significant" by Wikipedia standards. Note that the standard is "significant" not "very significant." Supporting actor roles can be anything from a minor speaking role to one step away from being a main character. I haven't seen the two films and I don't know how "significant" this persons role was in either film. However, on the IMDb pages, he was listed as one of three "stars" in both movies, implying that he played at least the 3rd-most-important character in each one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't really think his role in either film is very significant. He is a supporting actor in both, and fails the other criteria in WP:ENT. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 03:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This seems more like a personal resume. I don't think he is notable enough for Wikipedia. —kbabej 08:19, 18 August 2013
- Delete - Non-notable actor. IMDB is not a reliable site. Caffeyw (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.