![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jay razon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I have concerns over the notability of the subject. Besides a primary source, it relies heavily only on one other source. Airplaneman ✈ 23:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The article has been edited since the nomination, remocing some of the references that were of concern noted in the nomination. The coverage int eh Philipine News Today articles listed in this version don't focus on the subject. I'm not finding any other coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the subject is notable for it has a back-up of articles cited in very pretigious Filipino newspaper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimmy318 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC) — Kimmy318 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The main claim to notability seems to me to be the sports centre, which is still in the fund-raising and planning stages. WP:CRYSTAL applies to that. The newspaper reports don't seem to indicate any great note - the first one focussing on the security measures against possible fraud in the fund-raising. Peridon (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The sources seem, at best, weak. A forum post, some press releases, and news articles from a news source that is both limited in scope and whose stories contain large numbers of errors. Problems with the sources aside, I don't see how Mr. Razon is notable. Lots of people raise funds for lots of good causes. No significant coverage from reliable sources. No actual argument for notability. Also: Some CoI seems to be cropping up in both the article and the AfD. » scoops “ŧäłķ„ 00:39, 29 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kestrin Pantera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable musician. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Recreated shortly after last AfD and has not been worked on since. Brad 22:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable actress, model, and musician. I am an inclusionist, and proud of it. I especially like to support musicians who play music that is not on the pop charts (Blues, folk, Classical, jazz, etc.). I am also partial to cellists, since I used to play the cello myself. Assuming everything on it is true, her IMdB listing is pretty extensive. But I looked over her roles. They were all minor roles, generally in the "rest of cast listed alphabetically" section. Her role in "Expired" didn't even have a name - it was "Pregnant Woman." Similarly, in "Prometheus and the Butcher," she is credited as "Doo-Whop Girl." Likewise, in "Surviving Eden," she was "Reporter #1." In "IP" she was "Brunette", but she was also credited as "aka Susan." Her only real supporting role was in "Stars and Suns." Her "front cover" on the magazine was that of a model, not about her. I quite frankly, can't find any reliable sources about her music. When she makes it big, then we can have an article about her. But now, this is a puff piece that shows zero notability. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Oddly enough, the NY Times did this piece on her marriage. It looks like one of those lifestyle puff pieces. It is a reliable source, but tellingly, does not make any statement as to why she is notable. It appears that she and her husband had a suitable interesting story to eb the subject of a lifestyle article on weddings. Aside from that, I see no coverage about her or her work that would establish notability. The articel consists of a lot of name dropping, and makes an assertion that she is notable for her role in "Expired". That's an incredibly weak claim to notability when the role is "Pregnant woman" buried at teh back of the cast list. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment WP:PORNBIO has been tweaked and changed and argued over for months. And now, despite the continued (and now inappropriate) inclusion of the word "model" in its hearder, it is no longer applicable to Playboy Playmates. As currently incarnated, it stresses those involved in pornographic films and their various porn awards. I believe it is accepted that porn film stars do not usually get into Playboy, and conversely that Playboy playmates do not usually do porn films. This is now at odds with PORNBIO still stating that it addresses "Pornographic actors and models"... secially when all its sub-criteria now apply only toward persons actually involved in porn films... and no longer address individuals who are not. So the problem in using this section of BIO for these individuals is seen in that even though it still includes the word "model" in its header, it now only addresses notability of persons in some way involved in the making of porn films. So use of this particular guideline and its various sub-sets has become inapplicable to BLPs of persons NOT actually involved in porn films. It's like using a thermometer to measure gravity... the measuring device being used is just not correct for the task at hand. Heck... we might as well state that these women fail WP:ATH as well. Editors might perhaps look toward more applicable guidelines... and in this case we might better consider WP:GNG for determining if someone is worthy of note. With the Playboy appearance being an initial source toward notability, all we need do now is find enough other sources to show meeting WP:GNG and they become keepers. While WP:NTEMP is worth arguing, consensus has indeed declared that notability is indeed temporary. The safest course is to find the aditional few sources in addition to Playboy to support the notability once offered by being a playmate... and using guidelines other than the now inapplicable PORNBIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's a lovely essay and all, but this nomination isn't based on WP:PORNBIO, and there is indication anywhere that the subject of this AFD is in any way related to the pornography industry. -- Whpq (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ouch. Sorry. Lovely or not, it was meant for a differnt AFD alltogether. My bad. Have struck. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 16:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's a lovely essay and all, but this nomination isn't based on WP:PORNBIO, and there is indication anywhere that the subject of this AFD is in any way related to the pornography industry. -- Whpq (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Bearian.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2010 (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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Waterloo Music Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of how this company meets notability guidelines. Only a single reference provided to the Canadian Encyclopedia. Google News has zero hits on the title, Google books has some hits but all are to phonebook like directories which do little to establish the notability of the company. There are citations in Google scholar but all appear to be in the context of music published by this company. I'm having difficulty finding coverage of the recent acquisition even in local papers. Contested prod.RadioFan (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article has a reference in the Canadian Encyclopedia. I don't see the relevance of the proposer's "Only a single reference provided" as the article is short and there isn't anything else in there that might need referencing. I don't have time right now to check it out further, but the Can. En. cites several people whose works were published by the company, suggesting some degree of notability. The article was created by an editor with the creation of a couple of music-related DYK articles to his/her credit, so I take it for granted that an article created by this editor - and referenced in another encyclopedia - has some level of credibility.--Technopat (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. An entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia clearly establishes this article's notability.4meter4 (talk) 00:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. The Canadian Encyclopedia entry is sizable and clearly reflects material that can be incorporated into the article. Tabercil (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Is there any coverage beyond the encyclopedia? RadioFan (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The name is mentioned in several archival Google News hits - see the "news" link above. I don't have time right at the moment to read the sources in-depth, but at least one of them could be used for basic verification of the article. There's a primary source to verify the acquisition at [1]. --Darkwind (talk) 22:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unfortunately the link you mention is a primary source and does little to establish the notability of this company here. There are a number of hits from the news link above but they are largely biographies of people who worked there in the past or musicians and mention the company only in passing rather than articles which focus on the company in detail.--RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment Is there really any need for another reference?--Technopat (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on comment on comment WP:N does ask define "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Nothing in there about "unless in a published encyclopedia".--RadioFan (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A large part of the difficulty is that much of this company's work seems to have been before the digital age. If the Canadian Encyclopedia was able to find and verify enough information about the company to make an article, so can we. --Darkwind (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The company existed under that name until 2004. Companies that existed before the advent of the internet can be difficult to source but that does not appear to be the case with this one. Google News includes Ottawa Citizen, Montreal Gazette and Ottawa Times back to the mid 1800's, I would think that if this company had made a significant national impact, there would be some mention in these papers sometime during it's years of operation. Also, I am finding mentions of the company in magazines dated back to 1912, but they are just entries in a directory. Not coverage where the company is the subject of the article. The Waterloo Region Record has online archives going back to 1990 and I'm finding only 2 hits on the name there. Both of those articles include only single very brief mentions of the company (articles on the building's landlord and a biography on a former employee). This Wikipedia article makes no claim of notability beyond the fact that it exists and it's age. The Canadian Encyclopedia entry has a nice history on the business, but I'm not really seeing anything in the claiming notability either. --RadioFan (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the Canadian Encyclopedia article? An 83 year publishing history that includes published works by multiple notable Canadian composers ( Violet Archer, John Beckwith, Keith Bissell, Jean Coulthard, Samuel Dolin, Robert Fleming, Talivaldis Kenins, Walter MacNutt, Barbara Pentland, Godfrey Ridout, Eric Wild, and Healey Willan to name just a few) seems pretty notable to me.4meter4 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont doubt the notability of those composers but the lack of reliable sources with significant coverage of this company is still a problem. We have one, the Canadian Encyclopedia. If this company is notable, there should be more references available, I'm having trouble finding them.--RadioFan (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Canadian Encyclopedia is a major reference work and the article by itself is enough to establish this subject's notability in my opinion. As for the difficulty in finding sources, you might consider the fact that many potential sources for this company are probably written in French and not English. Also many sources are probably not available online without a subscription access to newspaper/journal databases. It's an obscure topic so referencing is going to be more challenging.4meter4 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- French sources would be fine in establishing notability, there is no restriction to English sources only, please add any you have.--RadioFan (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Canadian Encyclopedia is a major reference work and the article by itself is enough to establish this subject's notability in my opinion. As for the difficulty in finding sources, you might consider the fact that many potential sources for this company are probably written in French and not English. Also many sources are probably not available online without a subscription access to newspaper/journal databases. It's an obscure topic so referencing is going to be more challenging.4meter4 (talk) 13:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont doubt the notability of those composers but the lack of reliable sources with significant coverage of this company is still a problem. We have one, the Canadian Encyclopedia. If this company is notable, there should be more references available, I'm having trouble finding them.--RadioFan (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you even read the Canadian Encyclopedia article? An 83 year publishing history that includes published works by multiple notable Canadian composers ( Violet Archer, John Beckwith, Keith Bissell, Jean Coulthard, Samuel Dolin, Robert Fleming, Talivaldis Kenins, Walter MacNutt, Barbara Pentland, Godfrey Ridout, Eric Wild, and Healey Willan to name just a few) seems pretty notable to me.4meter4 (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The whole point of the notability guidelines is to provide a method of deciding whether the world outside of Wikipedia has taken enough note of a subject for an encyclopedia article to be written. If a print encyclopedia article has an article then that decision is made for us, so there's no need to go into any other criteria. We follow what the outside world does, rather than make our own subjective decisions by original research. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability guidelines offer no special status to any one reference it just calls for references in reliable sources. I dont doubt the reliability of this encyclopedia but there still have been no additional references where this company is the subject of the article uncovered in this AFD.--RadioFan (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please think about the spirit of the guidelines rather than the letter. The whole point of the guidelines is that they exist to make the decision about whether a subject is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, based on the outside, non-Wikipedia, world. That world has made the decision that this is an appropriate article for an encyclopedia. If you want to ignore this basic common sense and come to a decision based on lawyering then take a look through the 435 Google Books linked by your very own nomination above. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete. It might be worthwhile to discuss the possibility of merging into smoothie after any required improvements and the removal of non-neutral content. Sandstein 06:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Green smoothie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be promoting a specific brand-name product, rather than a genre; possibly could have been CSD as advert, but as it has survived PROD, I'm bringing it here. All info seems to stem from "annwigmore" and related, promotional sites; I don't see any general notability for the product, beyond primary sources. Maybe I'm wrong, and it can be salvaged to be a factual, neutral article about 'green smoothie' in general rather than promoting this one product? But as it stands, it is quite promotional. Not convinced that Victoria Boutenko is notable, either - this seems like spam in disguise. Chzz ► 22:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC
- Keep This is not a brand-name product - that would be Coca-Cola, Dr Pepper, Irn Bru and other junk-food drinks which all seem to have articles. A green smoothie is just a smoothie with lots of green stuff in - spinach, cress or whatever. There seem to be plenty of sources which discuss this concept in detail and so it's as notable as carrot juice, grass jelly, gazpacho and other vegetable concoctions. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like to make this as factual and informative as possible. When discussing the discovery or history of green smoothies, there are only two people involved, which makes it difficult to mention a variety of sources. I find it hard to justify calling this subject a product, when anyone can make it themselves. Green smoothies and the high nutritional value of greens are a creditable topic. Please offer more constructive criticism so this article can can be as useful as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msemeb (talk • contribs) 23:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article makes specific health claims without adequate justification—that isn't at all encyclopedic. Prose is not neutral in tone. The sourcing and relevance of most of the "History" section is frankly atrocious. It talks about chimpanzees, fallaciously implying that because of genetic similarities, this is relevant to the human diet—then whips out Answers in Genesis to cite a fact about biology. And worse, it makes dubious claims of efficacy and offers offline and self-published sources as references. (Primary sources are appropriate for referencing an undisputed fact or event, but not appropriate for drawing a conclusion. Use independent, reliable, secondary sources instead.) And even if all of that were corrected, what distinguishes this smoothie recipe from all others that enjoy some popularity? Even if sourced reliably, and written well, this would only rate a merge (to smoothie). TheFeds 01:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I concur that this is not a brand-name product. However, it appears to be an inappropriately reverential treatment of the product—which is still poor form for Wikipedia. TheFeds 01:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and redirect to Smoothie. Only one source is used that relates directly to the subject at hand, and that source is used to support POV claims. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a definition turned into an an article with POV claims about health. It seems it would be best to define the term in the main smoothie article. OccamzRazor (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And even there, someone might say a "green smoothie" is lime-flavoured, just like a "red smoothie" is probably strawberry-flavoured. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While there are some reliable sources mixed in, they don't appear to support the main coatrack spam point of the article. The bulk is supported entirely by primary sources, so it fails WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep From the information in the 'health components' section it is clear that the properties of leafy greens make a green smoothie different from a regular smoothie, 'lime smoothie' or 'red smoothie'. Due to using a raw ingredient made of chlorophyl this subject is as significant as wheatgrass, green drink and sprouting. The main point of the article is a beverage made with large amounts of blended greens. The nutritional values of greens is supported with secondary sources. msemeb (talk) 2:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Keep There are 2120 different videos that appear when searching "Green smoothie" on Youtube, made by many different users. Some of them have over 100,000 views. The green smoothie is definitely a notable phenomenon. More sources have now been added to the article. User:Viriditasblossoming 3:50 p.m., 29 April 2010
- This account is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See [2], Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for similar reasons to why I nominated Tacos al Pastor three years ago. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Drinking BLENDED greens with fruit to assimilate the nutrients in leafy greens stands as its own topic. You could have 'greens' on their own, however that becomes a much larger and slightly different subject, for example, greens is also an environmental term. Smoothie is a topic, but discussing the nutritional value of edible greens and why they need to be blended would not match the subject. The social prominence of the term 'green smoothies' also gives reason for these two topics to be combined.--msemeb(talk) 9:05, 28 April 2010
Keep The Green Smoothie has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Item includes significant references from reliable published sources such as Random House/North Atlantic Books, publishers of the "green smoothie revolution" book. Notability is evidenced by multiple websites and blogs dedicated entirely to the green smoothie, as well as several major recent books. Just a simple Google search makes it quite obvious, it's really beyond a recipe or group of recipes and actually a genre unto its own. Merging article into Smoothies would be somewhat akin to forcing Basketball be sequestered under Ball. Widespread notoriety, adoption and public discussion clearly warrants item's own entry. MrColombo (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This account is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See [3] Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment Notability of Victoria Boutenko is also hard to deny, as noted in the Random House-published bio of her latest cited book. MrColombo (talk) 03:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- This account is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See [4] Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The two edits above are the only edits on Wikipedia by this editor. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment: It's clear that the notability is not understood by the majority of contributors in this AfD - that's why I jumped in and started contributing. After spending many hours studying the Wikipedia guidelines, it's clear this article meets the terms of preservation as described in WP:IMPERFECT. My intention is to make a positive contribution by way of incorporating necessary balance as called for in WP:NPOV and fixing problems as outlined in WP:PRESERVE, which I've already begun through several new edits, and which will clearly improve with the contribution of others over time. As a newcomer, I seem to be experiencing the WP:BITE ...- This comment posted by MrColombo, who is a sockpuppet of Msemeb. See [5]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That the article is poorly written in terms of tone or pov is irrelevant, that can be fixed. There appear to be plenty of mainstream sources establishing notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Sounds horrific, but looking at Google News there are 13 stories about them in just the last month. Arguing that "Green smoothy" means the same as "a smoothy that is coloured green" is totally disingenuous and an abuse of language, they are a specified type of smoothy (and as has been pointed out do not need to be coloured green). The article might be poor, but we improve articles on notable topics, not delete them. As if the umpteen sources in the article aren't enough to demonstrate notability, here's a few articles:[6][7][8][9][10] At the very least this deserves a section in another article, which would lead to a merger rather than wholesale deletion. Fences&Windows 21:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RyTone Entertainment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Barely notable, unsourced, unedited for about a week. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unwikified, and no sources to prove notability - Jwoodger (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This article is pretty much in the same state as it was when it was previously speedily deleted. Although the OP claimed to be working to improve the notability issues, nothing has been done since that was stated.
- Redirect to Ryan Farish. I see no reason why this needs to be a standalone article. It's this guy's own self-created label. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. — Rankiri (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Valiantian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced essay, nothing found on Google or Google News except this page and mirrors. No references offered. Original research. Previous AfD tag on the page is for an article, since deleted, from where this was moved by creator. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article's original deletion discussion is here - result was delete. I'd have used db-g4 but was I can't check that the original deleted page was identical. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as cleanup from previous AfD. This article was moved during the AfD process and the closing administrator missed it and only deleted the redirect. Brad 22:31, 22 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WYTIWis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable term; references suggest this is a term developed and used by one person rather than a common term. Ckatzchatspy 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No indication that this term is in common usage. References indicate that the term is likely coming directly from a press release which doesn't indicate any notability here. RadioFan (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NEO. The sources all seem to use the acronym in a trivial manner. See [11]. — Rankiri (talk) 14:36, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2010 (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. Has no third-party coverage. Sandstein 06:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oealu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no evidence whatsoever this exists. It's possibly a hoax; if not it definitely appears non-notable. I42 (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Almost certainly 100% Original Research as evident by statement on talk page by article creator; "I am a beginner linguist and this is my first language to be put on the internet. So I dont have any sources. No books have been published and there were no article..." --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. WP:NFT. Google has no outside results for "Oealu" "Cameron White". — Rankiri (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete. There is a website that proves existence. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeboKunda (talk • contribs)
- Please take a look at WP:RS. It's not a reliable secondary source. — Rankiri (talk) 21:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To LeboKunda: I'm afraid deletion is inevitable, not because anybody dislikes your language, but because of the nature of Wikipedia itself: it's an encyclopedia, a thing that contains information about things that are encyclopedic. Its task is not to serve as free webspace or to promote new things. The content of every article should be verifiable and there should be proof of notability. That's why there can't be articles about projects that might become important in the future, but only about projects that are important already. It would indeed be a pity if the article gets deleted, but it's also obvious this is not the place for it. I'd suggest you to move it to http://wiki.frath.net/ and/or to http://conlang.wikia.com/ - both are wikis created especially for constructed languages, and your projet will be more than welcome there. Regards, —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 15:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, with sympathy to the author. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kalidonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established after a month. Hasn't released any recordings. Cannot find any reference of record company that isn't on the same self-published websites used as cites on article. Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No independent sources provided to indicate notability - Jwoodger (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources. No actual released music. Arguably could have been a speedy because there isn't a credible claim of notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- James Clayton (Actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
While his career does seem to be gathering steam with his role in Foodland (film), my own Googling does not reveal anything that might suggest he meets WP:BASIC or WP:ENT at this time. No reason why an article cannot be re-created at a later date, if appropriate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - obvious inept press-agentry for a bit actor who fails WP:ENTERTAINER; see also WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - almost there, but non-notable actor. Assuming everything on it is true, his IMdB listing looks good, and he does have a starring role in an about-to-be-released movie. But I conducted several searches online (and no, not just the easy ones, I made several searches like this one), and can't find any reliable sources about him. Bearian (talk) 15:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As lacking the required coverage; a link to a Google search results page is not enough to establish such coverage. Sandstein 06:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mu sigma chi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, as per WP:ORG NYCRuss ☎ 18:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Meets neither WP:ORG nor WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Sorry to disagree here, but I do believe it meets our requirements as shown by this coverage of the organization from – third party – reliable – creditable – independent sources [13]. In addition, it does claim the notability of Denison University first fraternity. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 20:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - Local chapters of national fraternities are usually not going to be notable. There are not enough references here to justify otherwise. The hits in google news seems to be a few random awards (intra-fraternity awards grow on trees) and some hazing coverage. There's nothing about the fraternity. Being notable within Denison University does not "notable" within Wikipedia make. Actually, this might be a case of flat out {{db-club}} or even {{db-spam}}.--GrapedApe (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG - insufficient reliable independent coverage. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete fails WP:ORG. Lacks the necessary reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment for above did you double review the article? Seems you looked twice here Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops, thanks for the heads up. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2010 (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. No arguments to delete besides nominator. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 18:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimmy Sanders (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Because he was solely a minor league figure during his career, he may not be notable enough for an article. He does have a couple things going for him in his favor, however: 1) the amount of time he played in the minors, and the statistical accomplishments he racked up (2,000+ hits and 350+ stolen bases is a lot, no matter what level you are playing at) and 2) he also managed for a fairly notable amount of time. You decide whether he stays or goes. Alex (talk) 18:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added some sources, one of which discusses the United States minor league champion award. Because of that and the other things he did, I feel that he meets notability standards. SilverserenC 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notability was attained by getting the 1934 award. When there were only 16 major league teams, minor league ball tended to get more coverage than it does now. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Silver.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per sources provided by Silverseren. --Cyclopiatalk 12:01, 29 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Before Dawn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to reach the threshold of notability. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Possible sources are in need of translation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will translate, but I need a few days. TBH, I can't help but think that cultural differences has clouded this AfD. Nothing against the nominators, of course. This is a Hong Kong show, which will mean nothing to anyone outside of the Asian community... Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The assist with translation is much appreciated. My thought is that notability to the Asian community in Hong Kong, should be notable enough for en.Wikipedia. Any unfortunate and unintended systemic bias, whether due to language or culture or location, is to be addressed whenever possible. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I will translate, but I need a few days. TBH, I can't help but think that cultural differences has clouded this AfD. Nothing against the nominators, of course. This is a Hong Kong show, which will mean nothing to anyone outside of the Asian community... Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 02:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:MichaelQSchmidt: There is no bias in this nomination and I resent your implication ("Any unfortunate and unintended systemic bias, whether due to language or culture or location, is to be addressed whenever possible") to the contrary. As far your assertion that "that notability to the Asian community in Hong Kong, should be notable enough for en.Wikipedia", that would be an opinion, not a guideline. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 11:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Rms125a@hotmail.com Agreed... the nomination does not reflect any personal bias, and nothing in my comment implied that it did. My comment was toward the recognized bias that unfortunately exists within the system, and one of the reasons WP:CSB was created. Even you might be able to grant that for editors not able to read Chinese, it would be impossible to determine if notability existed or not. And when all apparent available sources are in Chinese, it is reasonable to request translation, and I am glad that Kiteinthewind has above offered to assist. And if notability can be sourced in Asia and in non-English sources, that would indeed be notable enough for en.Wikipedia... and that is guideline.... and not personal opinion. So please do not assume bad faith when no insult is made nor intended. And note... I have not myself yet opined a keep or delete, as I do not read Chinese. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Relisting to allow some additional time for translation of potential sources. Shimeru (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find independent reliable sources to establish notability. Granted it's not easy with a title that is a pair of common words and sources may be available only in a foreign language, but authors of such stub articles should be prepared to back up notability claims with at least one solid reference, which is not the case here. Would retract if Kiteinthewind or anyone else provided translation of Chinese sources with suitable reliability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2010 (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 Clear consensus by participants in this AfD that these albums satisfy notability guidelines.Mike Cline (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio Disney's Pop Dreamers (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Also including:
- Radio Disney Holiday Jams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Radio Disney Holiday Jams 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Radio Disney: Kid Jams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete all Despite charting on minor Billboard album charts, none of these even made the Top 200 best-selling albums of any week. Also, per WP:NALBUMS, "articles on albums...must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." All I found on a search were Disney sites and retailers such as Amazon. Another album in the series was previously deleted for similar reasons (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio Disney Jams, Vol. 4) and these seem to be less notable that that. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - The nominator wants to ignore the guideline at WP:NALBUMS and delete these albums even though they have been nationally charted by Billboard Magazine (not a "minor" chart). Radio Disney: Kid Jams was a TOP 5 on Billboard's Kids Chart. This album was charted by Billboard for well over year (66 weeks on the Chart)!. Radio Disney's Pop Dreamers also charted, and was a TOP 20 on Billboard's Kids charts (#13). Most impressivley for a children's album, Radio Disney Holiday Jams was charted on three different Billboard charts: Top 5 on the Kids Chart (#4), Top 20 on the Catalog Albums charts (#19), Top 30 on the on the Holiday Albums chart (#24). These albums have perfomances on them by some of the biggest pop-starts of its day. the Albums have significant and extensive international distribution through one of the largest music distributors on the planet - Disney. And the Albums have been reviewed by intependent 3rd parties, including Allmusic Guide which has has published independent reviews for both Radio Disney: Kid Jams and Radio Disney Holiday Jams. These albums are clearly notable, and clearly their articles should be kept. Pooet (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how charting alone can be considered "significant coverage". On the other hand, you did find reviews for two of the albums on Allmusic. Although, I wouldn't call what was written as reviews, it is coverage. Regarding the charts, I was referring to them as minor as they pertain to Billboard. The main albums chart is the Billboard 200, all others are minor in comparison. I notice you make no mention of Holiday Jams 2 as either charting or reviewed. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:NALBUMS, Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts are notable. --Morenooso (talk) 05:09, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article up for AFD is about an album not a song. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's covered there too. You don't need to respond to every vote. Let other editors develop WP:CONSENSUS. --Morenooso (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When clarification or a correction is required, I will comment. Where does it say if an album has charted, it's notable? --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's covered there too. You don't need to respond to every vote. Let other editors develop WP:CONSENSUS. --Morenooso (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article up for AFD is about an album not a song. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just because these albums didn't chart on mainstream top 40 charts doesn't make them not notable. These albums still have charted. It's just they were on an Billboard chart targeted at a different demographic. Just because you or I don't pay attention to these charts doesn't make them not notable. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 19:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Double negatives aside, I still don't see how charting, and charting alone, counts as significant coverage. Just because a few thousand people bought the album doesn't make it notable (Determining notability does not necessarily depend on ... the popularity of a topic). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Pop Dreamers and Holiday Jams, Delete Kid Jams and Holiday Jams 2. The first two charted and have had fairly widespread coverage so appear to be notable per WP:NALBUMS and WP:GNG. The other two didn't chart and have little or no coverage so don't appear notable. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Paul Kadri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article on non-notable school superintendent, very similar to the case of Eric Ely that currently goes through its second AfD. In this case the reliable sources discussing the subject are even more limited, but there is a lot of noise on the web. One of the first Google hits is an attack website created by a student who started a court case against him. Looks like a WP:BLP1E case to me: There is simply not enough information available about the man for anything like a serious biography. The article is a WP:COATRACK for discussing one event. Hans Adler 18:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the above. Local squabbles seen in a thousand school districts, even the "event" that this WP:ONEEVENT article covers isn't notable. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this gives massively undue weight to a single event and there is no realistic chance of sources coming up to rectify that. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Event which constitutes the main body of the article has a much better article elsewhere. Little else of note (at present). Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a BLP1E, coatrack pseudo-biography -- and isn't even well-masked. Since it's been this way since day one, and the Hornstine v. Township of Moorestown 'coats' serve to disparage its subject -- and the coatrack fails the harm test, due to undue weight -- it may be an attack page. (The existing page consists primarily of content that disparages the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to.)
The sick thing is that there are two sides to this story, and only the side that serves to disparage Kadri is included. -- Rico 19:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot to mention SPA. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Hornstine v. Moorestown exists. It might be simplest to redirect the article under discussion there.--agr (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be even more of an attack page! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So then the proper response would be adding {{db-attack}} to the top of the page, and notifying the indef-banned creator of the coatrack? What would happen then? -- Rico 20:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to the event page is specifically what WP:BLP1E suggests. The article Hornstine v. Moorestown was originally titled Blair Hornstine and was changed to an event article based on BLP1E. Should we get rid of the Blair Hornstine redirect too? --agr (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a clear violation of WP:BLP1E. Maybe the incident itself deserves to be covered in an article, maybe it doesn't. But what is clear is that this is not, despite the title, a biography of Paul Kadri, but rather a coatrack whose real subject is a lawsuit regarding the rights of the disabled. *** Crotalus *** 19:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --JN466 21:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fascinating NPR article about viral culture and this valedictorian brouhaha [14], but definitely this article should be deleted as Kadri is not rendered notable by it.--Milowent (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Undue weight... material better placed elsewhere... coatrack article... all sums to delete ++Lar: t/c 21:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, which is what an elected official is, and also we have to remember this is a school administrator, not a position who by its virtue thrusts the person into the limelight. There are privacy concerns to respect here, a concern only exaggerated by the fact that hundreds of students can edit this article during school time. I can only imagine the BLP violations they'll come up with. Shadowjams (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 24 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ecranisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable term which is a dictionary definition at best. Lugnuts (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Film adaptation? Moswento (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I suppose a redirect could work, but I don't see that this made up word has really caught on as meaning for film adaptation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, usage, or jargon guide." This belongs on Wiktionary where it already exists: Wiktionary:ecranisation. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - It exists on Wiktionary because the same editor that created this article created the wiktionary entry. I'm not at all convinced it meets the criteria for wiktionary either but that's not for this dicussion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 29 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Declivity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete, or perhaps redirect somewhere. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Article does not even match definition at Wiktionary! Moswento (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a dictionary defintion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Darkwind (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:33, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Chao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
self-promotional vanity piece that reads like the subject's blog. no real notability, just a lot of little things cobbled together. probably a very interesting guy but ultimately NN Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. On one hand, due to similarly named persons, it was difficult to find any decent sources on him (see e.g., this search). On the other hand, he has written for National Geographic Explorer. I'm not sure that's enough for notability. Discuss. Bearian (talk) 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He has done a bit of stuff but still does not meet WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Wow - dozens of completely irrelevant citations. There might be one in there that does demonstrate notability, and indeed the SMH article [15] comes mighty close - he is mentioned in a single sentence, and almost gets a quote in there too. Probably just under the bar set by "more than trivial". He may indeed be able to demonstrate notability, but there's no way I'm trawling through all those ref to get to one. At any rate, none of them seem to be independent. In addition, the article is a self-promoting abomination. It would require a complete rewrite even if notability was demonstrated. Who can be bothered, really? If I had to choose, I'd say delete --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment - All these incredible achievements, and no newspaper articles reporting on them? I smell a rat. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I have the same concerns as User:Yeti Hunter above - one would think that someone with such a colourful CV would have a bit more coverage. As it is, there's nothing in reliable or independent sources as far as I can see, although he does seem to be quite skilled in the art of self-promotion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:25, 26 April 2010 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ulrika Ericsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Playmate stub BLP. She hasn't done anything besides being a playmate in 1996, which is no longer a valid criterion under PORNBIO. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of other playmates now pending). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- ----Milowent (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:HOTTIE REQUIRES A COLD SHOWER AFTER VIEWING HOTTIE (sorry about the levity). Seriously, gets ghits. --Morenooso (talk) 22:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You do know that neither of those address our inclusion guidelines, right? The WordsmithCommunicate 15:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 07:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails the GNG and WP:ENT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. The community has expressed a new view on playmates. That view should be honoured. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above - Unsourced BLP of a person who fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. EuroPride (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment unless the subject is actually involved in the making of pornographic films, PORNBIO is no longer an applicable guidleine. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If PORNBIO no longer applies, then this was a bad nomination. --Morenooso (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you think she satisfies the criteria of any other notability guidelines? EuroPride (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most definitely. She has mainstream credits in addition to being a playmate/model. These are WP:POINT nominations. --Morenooso (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really suggest you withdraw your assertion that I am being disruptive. PORNBIO still applies, since her biggest claim to fame is arguably in the area of softcore porn. It still applies and she fails it. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those "mainstream credits" amount to one appearance on a tv morning show and off-camera work as an accountant, 12 years apart. It's not really even clear that either credit actually relates to th article subject rather than a similarly named person. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most definitely. She has mainstream credits in addition to being a playmate/model. These are WP:POINT nominations. --Morenooso (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. These are not WP:POINT nominations. Wikipedia policies are applied retroactively. Aditya Ex Machina 17:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I get far more in the way of results on sources for a tennis player of the same name, even considering that she was in Playboy. Clearly fails WP:GNG. --Darkwind (talk) 08:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as discussed at the other nominations, the general community is of the opinion that every playmate of the month is notable ax such, this being a distinctive recogition in the industry. The recent change has no general consensus and Wikipedia is not bound by it.Nothing further than that need be asserted or demonstrated, though of course other verified material about her career is welcome. DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The article was tagged with {{BLP unsourced}} which i have removed, perhaps more than once. The article is not unsourced. It is obviously sourced by the two sources given in the article, an IMDB external link and a Playboy.com link. I am removing incorrect "BLP unsourced" tags (and "BLP unreferenced" which is a redirect) from many articles. There is some discussion about an alternative IMDB-specific tag at wt:URBLP. --doncram (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not being used as sources, they are external links. Sources should be cited inline making them appear in a "References" section. Dismas|(talk) 20:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are obviously the sources in this short article. I use inline citations all the time, i am perfectly well aware. But, the article is not unsourced. I removed the incorrect BLP unsourced tag again. Someone can tag it with "{{nofootnotes}} if they wish. But Wikipedia is under public scrutiny for having completely unsourced BLP articles. This should not be inflating the current count (around 35,000 now). --doncram (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Her date of birth. Where was it obtained from? The Playboy article does not mention it. IMDb is not a RS. Aditya Ex Machina 08:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They are obviously the sources in this short article. I use inline citations all the time, i am perfectly well aware. But, the article is not unsourced. I removed the incorrect BLP unsourced tag again. Someone can tag it with "{{nofootnotes}} if they wish. But Wikipedia is under public scrutiny for having completely unsourced BLP articles. This should not be inflating the current count (around 35,000 now). --doncram (talk) 22:18, 28 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nadine Chanz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP of a 1996 playmate. Hasn't done anything else notable, and being a playmate is no longer a valid reason to include per PORNBIO. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of other playmates now pending). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per WP:PORNSTAR and her four mainstream appearances on various TV series listed at IMDb. --Morenooso (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per mainstream appearances.[16] Epbr123 (talk) 07:08, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment PORNBIO has been made into a guideline that now applies only to those actually involved in the making of pornographic films. It seems PORNBIO is no longer an applicable guidleine for Playboy Playmates. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yea, since the Playmate line was the only criterion justifying the notability of Playmates. This would imply that the said article should be deleted, yes? Aditya Ex Machina 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. The implication is that the nomination was made using a deprecated and inapplicable criteria as a reason to delete... same as if it were asserted that did not meet WP:ATH or WP:PROF... two other also inapplicable guidelines. The (now removed) section was set to acknowledge the then-existing consensus toward the notability of playmates that had not actually performed in porn films... however, it is not the only criteria available to judge notability. So we can move back up the ladder to the parent WP:N to decide if her having been a Playboy Playmate is enough to make her "worthy of note". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Apparently that rewrite was a bad one as now Wikipedia is faced with all these AfDs which are a WP:POINT. Since the nomination cites WP:PORNBIO and the nominator mostly knew about the change, then this becomes non-WP:AGF nomination. Still, with a playmate with mainstream credits like these, the subcriterial of PORNBIO should apply. Morenooso (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What point do you think Wordsmith is trying to make? All guidelines are applied retroactively, including PORNBIO. The mainstream credits by themselves do not satisfy the notability criteria. Aditya Ex Machina 17:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I really suggest you withdraw your assertion that I am disruptively nominating articles. I have a good faith belief that the handful of articles I nominated (a half dozen) do not meet our inclusion criteria. Its not like I nominated all of the 500 non-notable playmates, just five (plus a computer game that stars one of them). To address the "mainstream appearances" bit, I submit that those appearances to not give indication of notability. If this were a non-playmate actress, those appearances wouldn't meet our criteria. She doesn't meet PORNBIO and she doesn't meet ENTERTAINER. The WordsmithCommunicate 16:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - per rationale above of mine concerning WP:PORNBIO. Morenooso (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)already !voted above The WordsmithCommunicate 17:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. These are not WP:POINT nominations. Wikipedia policies are applied retroactively. Aditya Ex Machina 17:55, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, Aditya is not a sockpuppet. If you believe otherwise, SPI is over here. The WordsmithCommunicate 03:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Playboy Playmate is a notable modeling appearance, whether specifically mentioned in "notability" or not. That plus mainstream appearances. Dekkappai (talk) 06:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Both past and current general consensus is that Playmate of the month is notable, as a most distinctive achievement with world-wide recognition. An attempot to obtain local consensus to change this should be rejected as not having general support. DGG ( talk ) 07:29, 26 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jessica Lee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
unsourced BLP. She is notable only for being a Playboy Playmate, but that criterion was cut from PORNBIO and is not currently a valid reason to include an article. Therefore, this BLP does not meet our current standards. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of other playmates now pending). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per her mainstream appearances.[17] Epbr123 (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PORNBIO is currently under discussion, but the article comes nowhere near satisfying the version which is current as I write, and which does not make the claim that being a "Playboy Playmate" automatically confers notability. The idea that notability is automatically conferred by one appearance as a "Playboy Playmate" is ridiculous, and totally out of keeping with the whole Wikipedia idea of notability. To argue in favour of a policy of including all on the ground that it is "easier to administer" is an interesting one. If we are to apply that logic then we need have no more AfD discussions ever, because it will certainbly be "easier to administer" a Wikipedia-wide policy that notability is not required: anything can have an article. Or is there something special about "Playboy Playmates" that makes the effort of deciding notability less worth while than it is in the case of other articles? Judged by normal Wikipedia standards (as seen in, for example, the general notability guideline and the notability guideline for people) she is nowhere near notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete JamesBWatson is correct. Per the recent revision to PORNBIO, playmates are not inherently notable. Her mainstream appearances are not significant enough to justify inclusion. Aditya Ex Machina 17:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Mainstream credits satisfy criteria 4 of PORNBIO. Google News hits [18] satisfies GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Playboy Playmate-- a notable modeling appearance whether recognized by WP today or not-- plus mainstream appearances, plus passes GNG. Dekkappai (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The achievement is notable, and the removal from the guideline was without adequate consensus. It's getting much more attention here, and the general community view is fairly obvious. DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 26 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Riana Rouge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable game developed by a non-notable publisher. Stars a barely notable Playmate whom I have also put up for deletion. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep—A search of google books returns 30 valid hits; more than enough to meet Wikipedia notability requirements with proper citation. The game is also reviewed on multiple reputable computer game web sites.—RJH (talk) 20:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of other playmates now pending). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Has enough coverage to meet GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Beside reliable online citations, this game is also covered by PC Gamer Issue #114 (Sep. 2003). Certainly seems to be an article-worthy topic. -Thibbs (talk) 15:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep. Passes WP:N but needs refs badly. — H3llkn0wz ▎talk 15:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Gillian Bonner, since most coverage relates to its association with her, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above WP:GNG mentions. Dismas|(talk) 08:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I Guess This is Goodbye (Desperate Housewives) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:CRYSTAL - episode isn't even going to air for another month. This is one of a couple recent Desperate Housewives articles created where the episode has not yet aired. ALI nom nom 17:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops! Nevermind, nomination withdrawn. ALI nom nom 17:54, 22 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gillian Bonner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Barely notable stub BLP. She was in a non-notable video game from a non-notable publisher, and was alleged to be in an Everlast song, but Everlast's article makes no mention of it. Since the PORNBIO criteria "has been a Playboy Playmate" was voided, I believe that the article does not meet our inclusion criteria. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of other playmates now pending). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Google News search reveals coverage by multiple reliable sources satisfying the GNG for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per WP:PORNSTAR and WP:DEFINITE HOTTIE. IMDb shows an acting and directing credit. --Morenooso (talk) 22:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per coverage found on Google News. Epbr123 (talk) 07:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Epbr, and Morbid. Dismas|(talk) 14:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Morbidthoughts. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. General news coverage satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in accord with the longstanding consensus that this is a significant award. DGG ( talk ) 07:40, 26 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Priscilla Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Barely notable and poorly referenced BLP. Since the PORNBIO criteria of being a Playmate of the Month was deprecated, I feel that this article no longer meets our guidelines. She also acted in a teen sitcom which was not all that successful, and for which most of the other stars are redlinks. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination started by Off2riorob and now apparently expanded by The Wordsmith, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of other playmates now pending). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. The fact that WP:PORNBIO was recently amended doesn't change the past precedent. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per her mainstream appearances.[19] Epbr123 (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:PORNBIO was changed recently, playmates are no longer notable. Her mainstream appearances do not justify notability as they are not significant. I also reject Milowent's argument that giving every playmate an article will be easier to administer. That does not make sense. Aditya Ex Machina 17:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Playboy Playmate appearance is notable, whether specifically acknowledged by WP's home-made definitions or not. Besides that, has made mainstream appearances. Dekkappai (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You couldn't be more wrong, Dekkapai. Playboy Playmate appearances are now explicitly not notable by themselves, going by the removal of that line from the guidelines. Other than that, her 'mainstream appearances' as you call them, consists of roles like 'Bathing Suit Girl' , 'Towel Girl' and 'Blonde Actress Needing Reading' in one episode of each show. I hate being the one to tell you this, but your knowledge of policy and practise is much below what I'd expect from someone participating in AfDs. Aditya Ex Machina 06:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written nearly 600 articles and managed never to have a single one deleted yet. Without requesting them, I was given Autoreview rights by an Admin I'd never encountered before, merely because he'd been impressed with my work. So, Aditya, I don't give a fat rat's ass what your opinion of my knowledge of policy is. And more importantly, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Personally, I believe that if you don't know that an appearance as a Playboy Playmate is notable, then you are too ignorant of US popular culture to make a valid argument here. But I wouldn't make such a personal statement had you not made yours. What is relevant is WP:CCC. This decision on Playmates was made recently, by a small group of editors who frequent rule-making boards. This decision is being tested at AfDs by editors who actually have some experience and knowledge in the subject area. I would ask, and WP policy asks, that you be respectful to those opinions even if you disagree with them. Dekkappai (talk)
- Ooo, brutal. I've written exactly 0 articles, and I don't have autoreviewer rights either. Congrats on your rights though. I was extremely inspired. If you're so concerned about PORNBIO, then you should have participated in that discussion. Consensus can change, in this case, it did. Playmates are no longer inherently notable, and this does not depend on the number of articles you have written, or whether you have autoreviewer rights. Way to go ignoring policy, though. Aditya Ex Machina 08:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Dekkappai comment's were entirely appropriate and based on deep editing experience. I believe your response is petty.--Milowent (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps so. I'd attribute it to frustration though. Some people (you're included) don't participate in policy discussions when they're taking place, and then whine about it later. If you have issues with the policy, take it up on the policy page, not on individual AfDs. And if you want to change the policy, talk about it there. There's enough going on out here without you guys messing everything up. Aditya Ex Machina 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're not "messing" anything up. Its already clear to me these AfDs are pretty worthless, because in the RFC and elsewhere it was discussed without apparent objection that any deleted article content was going to end up in a Playmates of 20XX article. I didn't participate in the RFC because I had idea it existed. Precedents occurs, to the extent they exist, in AfDs.--Milowent (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps so. I'd attribute it to frustration though. Some people (you're included) don't participate in policy discussions when they're taking place, and then whine about it later. If you have issues with the policy, take it up on the policy page, not on individual AfDs. And if you want to change the policy, talk about it there. There's enough going on out here without you guys messing everything up. Aditya Ex Machina 14:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe Dekkappai comment's were entirely appropriate and based on deep editing experience. I believe your response is petty.--Milowent (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooo, brutal. I've written exactly 0 articles, and I don't have autoreviewer rights either. Congrats on your rights though. I was extremely inspired. If you're so concerned about PORNBIO, then you should have participated in that discussion. Consensus can change, in this case, it did. Playmates are no longer inherently notable, and this does not depend on the number of articles you have written, or whether you have autoreviewer rights. Way to go ignoring policy, though. Aditya Ex Machina 08:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've written nearly 600 articles and managed never to have a single one deleted yet. Without requesting them, I was given Autoreview rights by an Admin I'd never encountered before, merely because he'd been impressed with my work. So, Aditya, I don't give a fat rat's ass what your opinion of my knowledge of policy is. And more importantly, it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Personally, I believe that if you don't know that an appearance as a Playboy Playmate is notable, then you are too ignorant of US popular culture to make a valid argument here. But I wouldn't make such a personal statement had you not made yours. What is relevant is WP:CCC. This decision on Playmates was made recently, by a small group of editors who frequent rule-making boards. This decision is being tested at AfDs by editors who actually have some experience and knowledge in the subject area. I would ask, and WP policy asks, that you be respectful to those opinions even if you disagree with them. Dekkappai (talk)
- You couldn't be more wrong, Dekkapai. Playboy Playmate appearances are now explicitly not notable by themselves, going by the removal of that line from the guidelines. Other than that, her 'mainstream appearances' as you call them, consists of roles like 'Bathing Suit Girl' , 'Towel Girl' and 'Blonde Actress Needing Reading' in one episode of each show. I hate being the one to tell you this, but your knowledge of policy and practise is much below what I'd expect from someone participating in AfDs. Aditya Ex Machina 06:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The number of GNews hits [20] convinces me that she satisfies the GNG. Plus her mainstream appearances satisfy PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete or merge based on this discussion. Merge discussions can continue of the appropriate talk pages. Sandstein 06:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bishop Hill (blog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It appears this article might not be notable enough. However a merge is being discussed, one with a book article The Hockey Stick Illusion I believe however merging an article about a book and a blog would detract from the book. The other option is merging to Andrew Montford A lot of the stuff from this article is already within the montford article, i propose this article be deleted if consensus says it is not notable enough. And the other two articles are not be merged as both are highly notable and should have their own articles mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC) mark nutley (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is merged we will get accusations about Wikipedia:Coatracking, violation of WP:BLP and what sources that's ok to use is different for a bio than for a blog (only slightly, but it's present, see Wikipedia:Notability (web) vs. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)). This will minimize the information about this blog, and is a highly controversial move that has no consensus per discussion below. Nsaa (talk) 16:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I`m a keep btw :-) mark nutley (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an article about the blog and no merging. No merging to the article about the man, and merging it into the book article is not an opinion as far as I can see. What is the similarities between a book about the Hockey stick controversy and a long running blog? The Andrew Montford work as a main article and the book and the blog is both explained in more details in each of the articles Bishop Hill (blog) and The Hockey Stick Illusion Nsaa (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I outlined here, the blog fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB, and where there is coverage (for example, Delingpole's blog posts) the person (Montford) and the blog (Bishop Hill) are conflated. The blog has no notability that is independent of Montford. Guettarda (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I took the time to review this on the Factiva news database. It found only one mention this blog, in the context of an article that cited Andrew Montford's role. As Guettarda says, the person and the blog are inextricably linked in terms of notability, and neither has any notability independent of the other. I should add that I'm also uncertain of whether Montford himself is particularly notable, as Factiva found only three mentions of him - one of them in an op-ed column that Montford himself wrote. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete / Merge as MN is aware, there is an active discussion of a merge at Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Merge suggestion. This AFD is probably pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 20:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're advocating another article be merged into this, while simultaneously calling for this one to be deleted? Fell Gleaming(talk) 02:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I'm suggesting that any valuable content here be merged elsewhere William M. Connolley (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge Andrew Montford to here and The Hockey Stick Illusion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See: Talk:The Hockey_Stick Illusion#Merge proposal William M. Connolley (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the subject of this article has attracted considerable attention. Fell Gleaming(talk) 02:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge. Marginally notable, and content could easily be handled in the articles Andrew Montford or The Hockey Stick Illusion. Yilloslime TC 04:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Merge to The Hockey Stick Illusion. The blog is barely notable, as is Andrew Montford - what sparse reliable sources there is, are all intermixed with each other, so that at least one of the 3 articles may have enough to be notable. The book seems to be the one that has the most chances of being such. The blog's content is intermixed with the book's so it doesn't seem strange to describe both the blog and the author there. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all to Andrew Montford (though most of the good stuff is there already). No reason to split this into LPUs. Thepisky (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Well cited and informative, article stands well alone without merging with a book. Off2riorob (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the references? All are exceptionally weak. They mention the existence of the blog, but they are the ultimate in "trivial". Guettarda (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, mark the text that's not properly sourced then. As far as I see the article is well documented and your suggestion about trivial coverage should results in an article with two sentences. Nsaa (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm? Yes. Following our content rules and policies - that would result in an article with around 2 sentences. This is because of weak sourcing (most mentions are a glancing sentence or two in articles that are otherwise about something totally different), there are no notable 2ndry sources that address the blog by itself. Normally that would mean that such an article isn't notable enough - but it seems that most people !voted with a "it should be here" rather than from an encyclopedic viewpoint, or simply haven't bothered checking the references. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, mark the text that's not properly sourced then. As far as I see the article is well documented and your suggestion about trivial coverage should results in an article with two sentences. Nsaa (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As an exercise, I've gone through the article and removed all the blog-sourced content (not reliably sourced), trivial passing mentions (undue weight), unsourced assertions and so on. There is almost no content left after this exercise, showing clearly how thin the article really is.[21] Specific issues include the following (with reference to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bishop_Hill_(blog)&oldid=357992969 this version):
- Para 2, "Andrew Orlowski, writing ..." - passing mention only; not about the blog itself;
- Para 3, "A post on the blog ..." - probably the only substantive fact in the entire article;
- Para 4, "Paul Dennis, a scientist ..." - passing mention only; not about the blog itself;
- Para 5, "Dr Judith Curry in an interview ..." - entirely comprised of blog comments (non-RS); focuses on things written by Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself;
- Para 6, "Anthony Watts wrote ..." - solely blog-sourced (non-RS); about Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself;
- Para 7, "Steve McIntyre on his blog ..." - solely blog-sourced (non-RS); about an article written by Andrew Montford, not about the blog itself.
- In short, the article lacks any substantive commentary about the blog itself, as opposed to its proprietor or specific things that he has written; 9 of 17 sources are other blogs; of the remaining sources, only one (the Spectator article) has anything other than a passing mention of the blog. The article as originally written is basically one big coatrack, puffing Andrew Montford or his writings but saying very little about its ostensible subject, the Bishop Hill blog. WP:WEB sets out the criteria: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Such multiple non-published works simply don't appear to exist. This article fails notability by a very wide margin. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; as I said earlier, it fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The remaining content, once the coatracking and blog-sourced content was removed, there really nothing left. There's really nothing to merge - the relevant information is already in the Andrew Montford article and doesn't appear to have been copied from this one, so deletion shouldn't be a problem. Guettarda (talk) 23:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge in Andrew Montford. No reason for a separate article, we can keep information in a more structured manner. --Cyclopiatalk 10:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the article content has been blanked so there is nothing left to merge. Off2riorob (talk) 22:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All the unrelated content has removed. But I agree, there never was anything real to merge. Guettarda (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mergeto Andrew Montford. Reliably sourced and meets guidelines for inclusion. I don't know that it needs a separate article though. Electroshoxcure (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep Revising to keep. The numerous citations of this blog in reliable sources establishes that it's notable and worth including as a stand-alone article. The removal of this cited content by ChrisO while the AfD is underway is very troubling. Electroshoxcure (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it seems that you haven't checked the actual sources. It is quite common under an AfD that an article is a moving target. In most cases though, it consists of improving the article with content that actually is about the topic... And not a puffing up of a rather unnotable subject (it seems) with a number of sources that aren't really about the topic, and just mention it in passing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The blog barely, but does, qualify as notable, based on the mentions in the BBC, The Times, The Guardian, and The Register, all major sources, which shows that this blog is starting to have a signficant influence on the global warming debate. I'm disappointed that a couple of editors were removing [22] [23] reliably sourced material during the AfD. Cla68 (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every tangentially related factoid that can be reliably sourced necessarily belongs in an article. Only those that are relevant belong.Yilloslime TC 04:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just readded several more reliable sources, including The Spectator, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Telegraph that had been removed from the article during this AfD discussion. Not good. Cla68 (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every tangentially related factoid that can be reliably sourced necessarily belongs in an article. Only those that are relevant belong.Yilloslime TC 04:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The blog is sourced regarding the climate debates on many reliable sources. Traxs7 (Talk) 04:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Coverage of the blog has been in enough reliable sources to warrant its own article. If the chief editor of Nauture resigned over something said on the blog then they sure have influence. Obvious keep. Weakopedia (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on removal of text and reliable sourcing. Someone just blanked most of the article, including removing most of the reliable sourcing from the article. The same person voted above to "redirect" the article. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is discussed under my lengthy comment above. The bottom line is that the article is/was stuffed full of trivial passing mentions and other bloggers' comments which either don't actually tell us anything about the blog itself or aren't reliably sourced. The fact that there's almost nothing left when the fluff is removed shows that the article shouldn't have been created in the first place. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is that the person is only notable (if at all) as a result of her death in the Abd Rabbo family incident. The deletion is therefore without prejudice against a redirect to that article or the undeletion of content for incorporation in that article, if there is editorial consensus for doing so. Sandstein 06:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Samar Abed Rabbo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Clearly tragic, but a case of WP:BLP1E, fails WP:N outside of her unfortunate death, and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Khoikhoi 16:38, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and as not verifiable; see this analysis. Bearian (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Tragic and heartrending, but so are cases of Israeli children being killed, and Macedonian, Serbian, Czech, Afghani, Somalian, etc. The world is full of pain and suffering, sadly, but wikipedia is not meant to be a memorial to all such. We focus on notability, and per WP:BLP1E, this article is not appropriate for this particular project. Avi (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Those reasons are sufficient. Also per Avi. Stellarkid (talk) 04:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Not notable and the details of this story are highly inconsistent. Breein1007 (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. While tragic, it does not meet the standards of notability. HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all those above me. Broccoli (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per khoi-should wikipedia have articles on everyone who died unfortunate death? And if so, what about those civilians who died in Jihadist terror attacks?--Gilisa (talk) 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or better yet Merge to Abd Rabbo family incident. The nominator, and many of those voting to delete, do not seem to have read the arrticle very closely. Samar Abed Rabbo did not die in the incident, her sisters did; she was shot in the spine and survived. Coverage of her (cited in the article and more available online) is not only devoted to the actual incident itself, but also to the subsequent fallout, which includes war crimes accusations against the Israeli army. Clearly, the argument of NOTMEMORIAL does not apply here and WP:N is easily met. The coverage is not simply confined to the one event, but to the repurcussions that followed that event, and span more than a year, with accusations of war crimes emanating from multiple human rights agencies. This story is not yet over. Deletion nom is premature and the rationales cited do not apply. Bearian's statement that the story is unverifiable is simply false (and the source cited, a pro-Israel advocacy group, is hardly a reliable source for anything other than its opinion). Breein1007's concern regarding inconsistencies in the accounts surrounding what happened, should be dealt with by discussing differing viewpoints in the article, per NPOV. A valid rationale for deletion has yet to be made here. Tiamuttalk 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nominator is correct: a fairly obvious case of WP:BLP1E, fails WP:N and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL Tzu Zha Men (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legacy of Kain timeline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N, WP:V - there is no significant coverage of this topic, and the official source provided is 'unofficial' by its own admission. Shiva Indis (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: re-hash of plot that's already covered in the series article. Plus, no independent reliable sources for this topic to stand by itself. Arskwad (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:08, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delta Alpha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines as per WP:ORG NYCRuss ☎ 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The claims of notability are so flimsy here that I just about support speedy deletion under criterion A7. —C.Fred (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. Lacks the necessary reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Florida Alpha Omega (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet WP:ORG NYCRuss ☎ 15:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independent source to back up claim of being the state's oldest fraternity. At the underlying level, this is just another article about a chapter of a wider organization, and there's nothing to make this chapter notable per WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. Lacks the necessary reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of University of Nottingham Students' Union societies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
both as a group and individually, these societies are completely non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable directory entry. Anything mergeable can go to University of Nottingham or perhaps University of Nottingham Students' Union. Hairhorn (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete un verified listings, seemingly non notable. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable. Johnlp (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable. Harrias talk 19:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blaženka Arnič-Lemež (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Slovenian composer. Eleassar my talk 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 39 hits, but most were passing references, for instance people playing her work, at least as far as I could tell from the 'translated' versions of the pages. For a composer, she seems to get reasonable numbers of performances/references, but almost all local to Slovenia, and ?none? in a significant secondary independent source. Personally, I'd love to see someone prove her notable, but I don't see it at the moment. David V Houston (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Agree with David. There is little to claim notability with this one. Even the Slovenian wiki article doesn't claim notability and just says where she graduated. A valid nomination. Dr. Blofeld White cat 10:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel Eatock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article clearly fails WP:CREATIVE, in that this person is solely notable for designing one particular logo. Being nominated for an award, and working for a particular design consultancy, are not in themselves claims to notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 09:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This article meets WP:GNG. This artist has received Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as demonstrated by close to 50 hits on Google News. Article should be expanded with referenced information, not deleted. Pooet (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does it meet the notability guideline for artists and creative professionals? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - being the creator of a logo used in a televised game show is insufficient for WP:CREATIVE (and it's not even worth the redirect to the article on the show). Much more needs to be demonstrated to meet WP:BIO. B.Wind (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment: This is an award
winningnominated artist. The "Big Brother" eye is not his only accomplishement. Per WP:GNG it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article if the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources. A google news search alone shows close to 50 hits for this person, and there are many more websites that carry independent and significant coverage to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Pooet (talk) 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Is he an award-winning artist? Can you back that claim up with a reliable source, and you yourself add several more to the article to bring it up to the required standard? ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It took me all of one minute to find dozens of websites to verify that this artist was short-listed for the Design of the year award. Here's links to five of those sites (you can look up the rest yourself):
- Design Museum in London shortlist for Design of the Year
- Brit Insurance Design Awards 2009 - Shortlist Announcement
- Brit Insurance Designs of the Year 2009 now on View at the Design Museum
- Design awards announce shortlist
- Most Comprehensive Design Awards in the World Announces Shortlist Pooet (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have taken me all of one minute as well. But he was not an award-winner as you falsely claimed so those links are irrelevant. The relevant guideline requires him to be a winner, as one threshold of notability. Can you not see the difference? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those links are relevant in that he is an artist who has been nominated for the Design Award. The "threshold is met per WP:GNG (I am repeating myself so it must be true) - "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources".. Now that we have both made our points (repeatly), I suggest that we allow other editors to have their say. Pooet (talk) 02:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would have taken me all of one minute as well. But he was not an award-winner as you falsely claimed so those links are irrelevant. The relevant guideline requires him to be a winner, as one threshold of notability. Can you not see the difference? ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 17:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO, WP:BLP1E. Concerning the above sources, I really don't think that "Daniel Eatock, Big Brother Logo" constitutes significant coverage. [24] is a press release. — Rankiri (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (weak). One of the sources talks about Terminal 5 as his work, too, as I read it. So, it's not BLP1E. I think he's clearly near the threshold (nominated for a major prize, but didn't win it, in particular), but I don't think he's over it yet. David V Houston (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misread it. The shortlist says "Bartle Bogle Heagarty, BA Terminal 5 “Live” Adverts". — Rankiri (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see what exactly about him doesn't meet notability standards. He created the new Big Brother logo, he's one of the founders of Foundation 33, he was nominated for a major Design Award, and there is significant coverage about him. He seems perfectly fine to me. SilverserenC 20:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't see what doesn't meet notability standards? This is the standard—which numbered-point does he meet? ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have to meet those points to be notable. As the Additional Criteria says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." However, he does meet the GNG, which is what is primarily necessary for him to be notable. SilverserenC 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. The source that discusses Foundation 33 only contains one trivial mention that says that "[t]he design studio was formed in March 2000 by Daniel Eatock, a graphic designer and Sam Solhaug, an architect". Secondly, the design award was issued by a British insurance company, so I wouldn't exactly call it "major". The category had about twenty other nominees, and the subject, who was only nominated because of the logo, didn't win. 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 an article on them. — Rankiri (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't have to meet those points to be notable. As the Additional Criteria says "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." However, he does meet the GNG, which is what is primarily necessary for him to be notable. SilverserenC 21:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Many sources appear to exist, but none of them provide significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Acoustic 1993 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N - I am unable to find significant coverage for this bootleg. I considered suggesting merge to Midnight Oil discography but there appears to have been a deliberate decision on that article to not include bootlegs. Note that Acoustic 1993 is also the name of a release by Roxette. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale for second relisting: No comments during first relist period. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Bootlegs are generally not notable per WP:NALBUM unless they meet WP:GNG. Although a Google search turns up a couple of hits, most of them are torrent sites, album directories, etc. with no significant coverage in reliable sources necessary to satisfy GNG. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a bootleg, no demonstrated coverage. Did it need to be relisted twice? David V Houston (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Finnish Vietnamese Friendship Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ORG. nothing for English name in gnews [25]. 1 hit in Finnish [26]. google mainly reveals directory listings. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - sourcing in the article is not independent or reliable, and I cannot find any such sources myself either. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rationale for second relisting: No comments during first relist period. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (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. Could also have been speedied as pure advertising. Sandstein 05:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I AM ENGLAND Campaign (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Campaign with no assertion of notability. The only reference is a Youtube video, for which this article seems to be an ad. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Google returns only two hits, but both of them are from the Parliament of England website. This would confer a free pass at notability, except that part of that website is a blog, so I don't know. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This campaign doesn't seem to have generated any press coverage at all. I'm not sure if Blanchardb thought that englishparliament.net was a government website, but in fact it's associated with with the Campaign for an English Parliament, a pressure group. (There is currently no devolved English parliament.) EALacey (talk) 17:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was aware that, though the United Kingdom has a parliament representing the whole country, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland enjoy some autonomy from one another. I wasn't clear on how this autonomy is exerted. Thanks for setting me straight. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:31, 23 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 05:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- American City University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This insitutution fails WP:N (WP:ORG) and WP:RS. I can find no independent sources covering it other than in passing. I already proded the article and it was deleted. It was undeleted earlier today and two sources added (one a link to its parent company, the other a link to a non-notable group it is affiliated with), so I am bringing it here. Novaseminary (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The editor who undeleted the article did add a news story that mentioned the institution. But the story only mentions this school in passing and confirms that it is a diploma mill. Novaseminary (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non notable. andy (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Orlady (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Last summer after this article was created, Orangemike and I discussed it on our talk pages, and at the time I was inclined toward deletion. I didn't see the recent PROD for the article (it wasn't on my watchlist and apparently wasn't posted on the "Schools" delsort list). However, after belatedly noticing the PROD and looking into the topic, I believe that the article is a keeper. As a result of my edits today, the article now cites 7 different news media reports, plus several other sources, demonstrating plenty of independent published attention to American City University. The school was one of several that have received attention over time in connection with ongoing controversy over education law and diploma mills in Wyoming. Each of the individual unaccredited schools that used to operate in Wyoming has its own unique story -- some are completely defunct, and others have arisen in new locations (this appears to be one of the latter). Given ACU's interesting (and reasonably well-documented) history, the fact that it is still in business and advertising itself to prospective students (and, in fact, looks pretty good on its website), and its documented connections with Honolulu University and American Central University, I think the article is a worthwhile one for the encyclopedia to include -- and I expect that the article will expand over time. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - for the reasons outlined in the excellent summary by Orlady. Outfits like this are notable even if not noble, and we need articles here on them every bit as the Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - None of the seven news pieces covers this institution significantly. This one (call it #1) only places the school on a list of unaccredited schools licensed in WY and makes no other mention. This one (call it #2) only mentions the school in passing ("Nearby, American City University occupies a couple of rooms in a building that once housed a brothel.") in an article focusing on another school. Number 3 is actually about the Victorian building formerly home to the school and notes only "Lately it was home to the Tivoli coffee shop on the first floor and American City University, an unaccredited distance-learning school, on the second floor." Number 4 also mentions the institution on a list of ten other unaccredited school in WY in an article actually about another school. Similarly, Number 5 only mentions the school as one of several diploma mills in an article about another school. Number 6 is about a law passed in WY, and merely lists the school as one of several unaccredited school operating in the state.
- The only article that gives the school anything more than passing mention is Number 7. The article is about how WY became a haven for diploma mills. Here is the extent of the mention of this school: "He said American City University, based in Wyoming, once cooperated with the Singapore Management Training Center to offer an MBA program in Vietnam. Students lost thousands of dollars, according to Ashwill."
- Taken together I do not think six fleeting mentions and one minor passage combine to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. None of the coverage focuses on the school, so I do not think the school (as shown so far or as could reasonably be expected to materialize) "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." Interesting (and troubling), yes; Notable, no.
- Perhaps this school could be mentioned in an article about diploma mills in WY (though they probably do not merit a mention in Unaccredited institutions of higher learning per WP:UNDUE and the other schools could be incorporated into that an redirected or added to this AfD.
- Novaseminary (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, none of those sources is an in-depth article focused on this outfit, but Wikipedia:Org#Primary_criteria also states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability," and I contend that the "multiple independent sources" test has been met. --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is close. I would agree if most of the seven actually had blurbs (not even substantial discussion or as a main subject, just blurbs) rather than just entry on a list. That is, if there were four or five like Number 7 (preferably covering different aspects of the school), I would agree. The sentence after that which you just quoted is "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Multiple independent sources only trivially mentioning the subject alone don't get the subject there. Novaseminary (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Admittedly, none of those sources is an in-depth article focused on this outfit, but Wikipedia:Org#Primary_criteria also states "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability," and I contend that the "multiple independent sources" test has been met. --Orlady (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Here is an independent source covering it in focus, rather than just in passing. [27] Cheyenne Herald, February 27, 2006. It also mentions this is a truly international university, with branches in 14 countries. Surely a university with branches in 14 countries is notable. :-) --GRuban (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, GRuban. I've added that source to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, I'm not being (completely) facetious with the 14 countries bit. Here is a happy graduate of the branch in Dubai, and here is a (less happy) student with acquaintance with the Ukraine branch. I added a (Vietnamese) article about the Vietnam branch to the article directly, since it's substantial coverage, but really, this organization had an impact on resumes through a wide swathe of the world. That should be notable. --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, GRuban. I've added that source to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The actual intrinsic quality of the place is irrelevant to notability, and we have always tried to cover unaccredited colleges fin appropriate fullness, and to cover them fairly. If not covering them would cause them to disappear, i might feel differently, but we need to report on the world as it is, not as it ought to be. There's no point in pretending they;re not notable because we wish that was the case, and that is not a NPOV approach. DGG ( talk ) 07:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It meets the notability criteria for inclusion, as others have argued above. Just because it is not accredited does not mean that it is not notable. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Based on the newly found sources directly discussing this instiution in particular, I now think it meets WP:ORG. Novaseminary (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems ths OrLady doesn't have any evidence to support American City University was same as former American City University from Wyoming. There's not supporting document on this issue. Consci360 — Consci360 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- It should be noted that after posting the above accusation, Consci360 vandalized the article extensively. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the most extensive vandalism by Consci360 was done just before posting the accusation. But the point is valid. --Orlady (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that after posting the above accusation, Consci360 vandalized the article extensively. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG after having all those sources added. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phi Beta Kappa, Alpha of Connecticut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A one sentence content for three years, other than a list that is redundant to the main entry for this organization NYCRuss ☎ 14:05, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. As noted above, the content is minimal. There's nothing here to meet either WP:GNG or WP:ORG. —C.Fred (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per C.Fred. Not notable and minimal content. -DJSasso (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. (Delete, I think) Don't we have a policy that local chapters like this need to prove their notability to have their own page, which clearly hasn't been done. David V Houston (talk) 16:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ORG as lacking sufficient independent sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per C.Fred. Enigmamsg 15:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator with no votes to delete --Polaron | Talk 15:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Claire's Corner Copia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable restaurant. Press references are from the Yale campus newspaper, since this restaurant is near the Yale campus. No significant coverage can be found. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It looks like this local restaurant is enough of an institution to support an article under current standards. Its vegetarian menu and institutional durability have gotten it coverage in reliable sources that are both actually about this restaurant, and fairly in-depth. The stories go back a decade and a half, and are in general interest publications.[28] This would appear to meet the business notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think there is significant coverage:
- Cookbook described by the Vegetarian Times in 1995,
- MSN picked up Gayot's review,
- Won the National Restaurant Association’s 2003 Restaurant Neighbor Awards, and was congratulated by the infamous Senator Lieberman on his website.
- Supposedly won Best Vegetarian Restaurant in the State by the readers of Connecticut Magazine in 2009, but that's a paper source to which I do not have access.
- Got a favorable review from PETA.
- Hope this helps. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn -- clearly my searches were not as effective as others'. (The original author is urged to bolster the article with the references found here.) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:01, 22 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ENTABLADO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Prod contested by author. Advertisement for a non-notable organization without any third-party sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG. Brad 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• Speak! 05:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ditto--group is notable at the university only, as is evident from the content and the references. Drmies (talk) 14:15, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phi Delta Theta Ohio Iota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
doesn't meet the notability requirements of wikipedia NYCRuss ☎ 13:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete. Local chapters of (inter)national organizations should not have their own articles, per WP:ORG. There is nothing in this article that demonstrates an exception should be made. —C.Fred (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Local chapers are not notable. This article fails WP:ORG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above two. Unless someone produces evidence of specific notability. David V Houston (talk) 16:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Dont wish to pile on, but same idea, needs some kinda thing that makes it stand out as notable on its own. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. Lacks the necessary reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Enigmamsg 22:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2010 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lucian Gavriluţă (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Footballer who has never played a fully professional match, and as such fails WP:ATHLETE. The lack of sigificant coverage means he aslo fails WP:GNG Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I had PRODed the article and the creator removed it without explanation. It's clear that he hasn't played in a fully-pro league and there is no evidence the article can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to point out that the person who contested the PROD did explain why they did so, even if their reasoning was wrong. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a look at this article. The player plays for a top division Romanian team and is mentioned on UEFA.com as having played in the Europa League. Therefore he is notable. BabyJonas (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies - a reason was given. The problem is that I have looked at many sites and found zero evidence that this person has ever played in the Romanian top division (or the Europa league). UEFA.com has no mentions of him that I can find. If you have links which show he played in either competition, I'll happily add them to the article and withdraw my delete vote. Jogurney (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I left a note on the article's talk page giving my reasons because the earlier notice didn't have a link to where I could give my reasons. Here's the url profile on UEFA.com. It shows that he was called up to the Europa League squad, even though he didn't get substituted in. The wikipedia article for the club he plays for FC_Timişoara indicates they are a top flight club and were reached 2nd place last year which led to Europa League qualification. It's not easy to get more information on him because I believe he is still classified as a youth player, and the Romanian top flight doesn't get much attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyJonas (talk • contribs) 15:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE requires that a player actually play for a professional team. Gavriluta may be part of the FC Timişoara squad, but as far as I can tell he has never actually played a game for them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I had a look at this article. The player plays for a top division Romanian team and is mentioned on UEFA.com as having played in the Europa League. Therefore he is notable. BabyJonas (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Userfy (give back to the author until this guy plays professionally). David V Houston (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrei Dăruială (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about a player who has never played professionally and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. There is insufficient significant coverage for this article to pass WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Plays in non-notable clubs. Minimac (talk) 13:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's clear that he hasn't played in a fully-pro league and there is no evidence the article can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrei Cobliş (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Footballer whose caps are all for FC Timişoara II who are not a fully pro team. He therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I had PRODed the article and the creator removed it without explanation. It's clear that he hasn't played in a fully-pro league and there is no evidence the article can pass the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 24 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vega Monsters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Like Saucer Beasts, this does not appear to have been the subject of reliable third-party coverage, the article itself is unreferenced and appears to be simply a random collection of in-universe information. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This information was gathered in the actual show itself and translated into English, no different than the Mechanical Beasts and Warrior Beasts from Mazinger Z and Great Mazinger, respectively. The only difference is that someone collected this information now as opposed to back then. It should be also noted that unlike the Mechanical Beasts and Warrior Beasts articles this one has external links. It should be also noted that I have found a reliable source with the exact names and referenced it by following the guidelines set.--Yapool Seijin (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. Whether or not other articles exist that might be equally or less notable is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not this subject has been covered by reliable independent sources per Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did manage to find a reliable source that does cover this subject, the reference that was recently added does have the all of the names in chronological order. Yapool Seijin (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An Italian fansite is not a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did manage to find a reliable source that does cover this subject, the reference that was recently added does have the all of the names in chronological order. Yapool Seijin (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. Whether or not other articles exist that might be equally or less notable is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not this subject has been covered by reliable independent sources per Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These are literally monsters of the week and are incidental to the storyline. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Excessive fan trivia and plot summary that does not appear to be covered in reliable secondary sources. Reyk YO! 08:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete same as above... could not find a good source.. Traxs7 (Talk) 05:24, 29 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saucer Beasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This subject does not appear to have been the subject of reliable third-party coverage, the article itself is unreferenced and appears to be simply a random collection of in-universe information. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This information was gathered in the actual show itself and translated into English, no different than the Mechanical Beasts and Warrior Beasts from Mazinger Z and Great Mazinger, respectively. The only difference is that someone collected this information now as opposed to back then. It should be also noted that unlike the Mechanical Beasts and Warrior Beasts articles this one has external links. It should be also noted that I have found a reliable source with the exact names and referenced it by following the guidelines set.--Yapool Seijin (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. Whether or not other articles exist that might be equally or less notable is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not this subject has been covered by reliable independent sources per Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did manage to find a reliable source that does cover this subject, the reference that was recently added does have the all of the names in chronological order. Yapool Seijin (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An Italian fansite is not a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did manage to find a reliable source that does cover this subject, the reference that was recently added does have the all of the names in chronological order. Yapool Seijin (talk) 14:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia isn't a random collection of information. Whether or not other articles exist that might be equally or less notable is irrelevant; what is relevant is whether or not this subject has been covered by reliable independent sources per Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete These are literally monsters of the week and are incidental to the storyline. —Farix (t | c) 20:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Monsters of the week are one time characters with only around 3 to 5 mins appearance for each one in a series with +50 episodes of 24 mins. That's something like 0.41% of the global showtime per monster at the best. Additionally the story isn't centered around them like in Pokemon. --KrebMarkt 15:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Farix, and KrebMarkt. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:40, 29 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thrideye International Commercial Business Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
absolutely no claim to notability. Google, for example, produces two hits - both us. Ironholds (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence of notability, either in the article or found by searching. This is spam, written by a single purpose account producing only articles about Thrideye. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Searching for this operation is hampered by the misspellings found in certain occult and such sites. After appending a number of minuses, I managed to find a few references to Thrideye - but all unsuitable for establishing anything more than existence, and barely that. As always, I am willing to be convinced otherwise if someone finds what I didn't. Peridon (talk) 11:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article is also unambiguously advertising: ...one of the extreme few business search directory that serves in an international level.... providing business solutions to the regions and has open up worldwide business opportunities and partnership programs. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:51, 22 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 05:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of acronyms used in arts and crafts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is no evidence for why the topic is encyclopedic. The subject of the article (the list of acronyms used in arts and crafts) fails WP:N since it hasn't received significant commentary from reliable, third-party sources. Perhaps some of the contents are individually notable, but the collection of them isn't. ThemFromSpace 09:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and for any reason anyone can think of. really. this is just useless. any of these acronyms with any usage can go in the acronym disambigs for them. these are not notable as "arts and crafts" acronyms. Great, OOAK is being used on WP as if its a standard english acronym, which its not. since when did arts and crafts devolve into doll repainting? I think that article needs to be afd'd as well.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wiktionary... they can break it out into individual entries. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:07, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Koreans in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No journalists or scholars have written non-trivially about this group, so it is impossible to write an encyclopedia article about them. Tagged for {{notability}} since December 2009. The fact that Pakistan has ~500 Korean expatriates living there is already noted at Korean diaspora, and there's no other sourced content to merge.
Google searches in both English (e.g. korean * karachi, and Korean (e.g. Pakistan Koreans, Pakistan compatriots, etc.) fail to bring up any useful results.
Keywords searches restricted to specific newspapers don't bring any useful results either (e.g. searching for "Koreans" on Dawn [29], or "Pakistan" [30] on Overseas Korean Newspaper). cab (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 08:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is nothing more than an article built around a couple of statistics (i.e., there are either 529 or 445 Koreans among the 169,000,000 residents of Pakistan). Mandsford (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I created this article but did not able to find out sources to expand it further. --Saki talk 05:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In that there have been no other edits except by the article creator, who requests deletion, this now qualifies as a WP:SPEEDY under G7. Mandsford (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2010 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Team Lay-Cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable team. Together, the team has done nothing but have two small storylines. Wrestlers by themselves are notable, but teams have their own notability issues. Unreferened as well.--WillC 06:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —WillC 06:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable team plus the article is complete content forking.--Steam Iron 06:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wouldn't necessarily delete it right now. In terms of feuds with divas, Lay-Cool's feud with Mickie James has been prominent in the WWE up until it ended. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 17:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's well written, and has plenty of information on it to keep it's own article. Not to mention it has a great chance of growing. Keep for now. --User:Final Flash
- Delete, notability not established as a team. Information is already available in the two women's individual articles. Nikki♥311 01:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The team had controversial feuds and they will be around for a long time. And other teams, like Vince's Devils have an own article and they were around like 2 months. Keep for now. --User:amare135
- Comment, please see WP:CRYSTAL. They need to be notable now to have an article now. Vince's Devils is notable because it was mentioned in numerous reliable third party sources, including at least one book Wrestling's Sinking Ship: What Happens to an Industry Without Competition. Can the same be said about Team Lay-Cool? If so, the article should stay. If not, then it fails WP:GNG. Nikki♥311 20:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Θakster 08:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless WWE establishes Diva Tag Titles, there is no diva tag division, thus there are no diva teams. The Bellas get a pass due to being twin sisters. Vjmlhds 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Individuals are notable, but the team isn't. Feedback ☎ 05:22, 28 April 2010 (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.
- Delete Only on the grounds that this may be redundant or unnecessary since there is a "Lay Cool" Wikipedia page that may be referring to the same group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Q12 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 May 2011 (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 Speedy Delete G3 - Vandalism (blatant and obvious hoax). Every player who's played in the NHL has a bio on the Hockey Hall of Fame website and entries on sites like hockeydb. Resolute 15:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Justin pruchard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references to independent reliable sources provided to substantiate this. Given URL does not appear to provide any relevant info. Googling failed to find anything relevant: see this search. PROD notices repeatedly removed, so listing here. The Anome (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There seems to be a verifiability issue here. If the contents of the article are true, then he would appear to satisfy WP:ATHLETE, but my searching turned up nothing to support the text. I checked the German Ice Hockey Hall of Fame, and no one by this name has been inducted. Google searching his name with the various teams he's supposedly played with also turns up no meaningful results. I'm willing to change my mind if someone can verify something in this article that demonstrates that this person satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Best case scenario: I'm really missing something or the name is spelled incorrectly. Worst case scenario: this is a hoax. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It should be noted that there is a possible COI issue here, as User:Jusztin94 created this article and removed the PROD template (twice, although the second PROD was invalid). P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook Talk to me! 16:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources. Heck, no "unreliable sources" for that matter. Is it "original research" ???--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jon Smith (Invisible Children) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable individual lacking GHit and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete what's written there I'd call an A7 speedy duffbeerforme (talk) 10:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A great guy, to be sure, but unless he's recognized in widespread coverage by independent and reliable sources, he's not notable enough for his own article. Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2010 (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 Nothing much has changed policywise from previous AfD and overwhelming consensus by most participants in the AfD despite eloquent and civil attempts by nom to sway them. Mike Cline (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Leroy Jethro Gibbs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am nominating a number of articles here, all of which are NCIS characters. These articles consist entirely of fancruft, and are nothing more than very, very lengthy plot summaries. The articles all fail two key policies; the first is simply WP:Notability; the policy states that, in order to qualify for an article, a topic must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". All but a very few references are first-party publications clearly not independent of the subject, and thus cannot be used to establish notability. Also, WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) states: "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established". None of these articles contain any development or reception that establishes any real world significance for the subjects. None of these articles "describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world", but only from the perspective of the fictional world they inhabit, making them essentially fancruft. Some of these articles were nominated for deletion before and kept, however, upon perusing these debates, it is clear that no reasoning for keeping rooted in policy was ever given. The main argument given for keeping is that they are major characters in a major series, but it should be noted that this has never been, and is not now, a criterion or policy that can be used to establish the notability of an article.
- Anthony DiNozzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Abby Sciuto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Timothy McGee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Caitlin Todd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 05:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki all NCIS is one of my favorite shows, and although I imagine that there will be a flood of keep !votes on this, Wikipedia isn't the TV show fan site that it was a few years ago. Such articles now migrate over to entertainment wikis (in this case [ncis.wikia.com] the NCIS Database), where such contributions are welcomed with a "good work" rather than a slap to the back of the head. At most, the team should have an article about the NCIS characters. Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedure. After deletion here, I'd be happy to provide the deleted copy to a wiki that didn't have standards for references or notability. Or did you mean that you were offereing to do the transwiki move of these topics? -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — — MrDolomite • Talk 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all with appropriate editing into a List of NCIS characters. Jclemens (t alk) 15:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- sources supplied meet GNG. If it needs pruning, prune it. constantly bringing them up for deletion doesn't change that. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you be more specific? Which sources make these articles meet the GNG guide? Where are there a good amount of reliable sources independent of the subject? Anything from the network the characters come from does not count as independent of the subject. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and by the way, opening a deletion debate two years after the last one is NOT repeatedly bringing something up for debate. Quite frankly, the community has cracked down on fictional elements that do not have references or real-world content as of late. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction The last nomination for Leroy Jethro Gibbs was December 2008, only 16 months ago, far less than 2 years. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - and by the way, opening a deletion debate two years after the last one is NOT repeatedly bringing something up for debate. Quite frankly, the community has cracked down on fictional elements that do not have references or real-world content as of late. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - GNG = Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. — MrDolomite • Talk 16:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Sources exist.[31] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Search engine tests "Hit count numbers alone can only rarely "prove" anything about notability". Perusing the sources on that page reveals none that provide none that "address the subject directly in detail" per the general notability guide. Majority of sources merely mention the characters existence in relation to the show, and notability is not inherited because sources cover the show. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Arrived here because just today I was helping a young student with his school project and we saw the deletion notice on Caitlin Todd's article. Not earth shattering but mighty convenient to have found that article and would have been disappointed were it not on WP. hydnjo (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is useful is not a valid keep argument. The issue here is whether the articles are notable and meet guidelines. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 01:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by default To me, the ultimate question is whether this material be appropriate at NCIS (TV series) or List of NCIS characters. If so, it seems to me these are justifiable as splitting a long article. Combining all of these would result in a massive article that would just need to be split again. Moreover, these articles have been nominated before. However, I won't even get into that because the onus is on the nominator to establish what has changed since the last time this was up for deletion or what he or she is arguing that wasn't argued the last time. Since nothing like that is presented here, and it is unfair to expect everyone to read through all the previous discussions, I'm going to have to assume that there is in fact nothing new and that the previous consensus to keep should remain intact. -Rrius (talk) 01:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - You are right, nothing is new; these articles did not provide references establishing there notability then, and they do not now. Over two years, consensus can change. Arguing that the articles will be long otherwise is not a valid keep concern. The majority of these articles are inappropriate fancruft right now anyway, and the relevant information is already at the character list. I am arguing for deletion, not a merger. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. These are non-notable, as demonstrated by the fact that no substantial references have been provided for such a long time. Unreferenced and speculative material keeps growing back even after efforts to prune the content. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Lack of references in the articles does not demonstrate that the subjects are non-notable, only that references have not been added to the articles. Contributors at previous AfDs have identified references that support notability. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment lack of references sufficient to mee the guidlines may here just highlight insufficiently flexible guidelines. Some topics simply cannot be references sufficiently given the current guidelines, because copyright problems do not allow such sources to exist. Alternatively, ther emay be nobody with an interest in creating them, as is likely the case here. Thus, strictly applying the guidlines is nonsensical. HMallison (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - If you believe the current policy is not adequate, then bring it up on the relevant talk pages. However, pages must be argued to be kept or deleted based on current policy. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what are you reading about 'keeping' or 'deleting' into my comment? HMallison (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct of course, strictly applying the guidelines is nonsensical, and that's why we have WP:IAR. Unfortunately too many editors seem to ignore its existence. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge All with appropriate trimming and edits, into List of NCIS Characters. As an example, the Leroy Jethro Gibbs article contains a full listing of "Gibbs' Rules," which factor into the show frequently but are not necessary to an understanding of the character or the show. Similar interesting but unnecessary details exist on all of the character pages, and they are really nothing more than trivia. Further, such details are not encyclopedic in nature. In summary, these pages contain much more information than what is needed, and would be more appropriate at an NCIS wiki, as mentioned by Mandsford above. TheBigFish (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Trim and merge all into List of NCIS characters. All fail WP:GNG. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 02:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep with perhaps a little trimming. The reason not to merge ts that for this sort of subject it inevitably results in excessive trimming. To take an example above, if the Gibbs Rles are significant the article on the character is a good place to discuss them. I would only support a merge for this is the entire content were retained , except for the parts that necesarily duplicate each other--some shortening this way is certainly possible. As we currently have no way to control such things, the only practical course is to keep the articles separate and work on them individually.
- I urge you to see WP:PLOT. Why must all of this fancruft be kept? What it amounts to is an overly detailed, indiscriminate plot summary. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 07:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, I encourage you to provide some examples of the fancruft. We should be working at improving articles, not just criticising them. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the articles? They contain paragraphs and pargraphs discussing every aspect of the character within the confines of the show. This is the definition of fancruft. It will give a very specific example: "In the episode "Blowback", Gibbs reveals that he is a Virgo". This sentence appeals only to fans of the show, and only to die hard fans at that. A good deal of article content here is minutiae, and I stress again that Wikipedia is not a plot summary, and that is all these articles are, summaries of the characters within the confines of plot and fiction. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, I was arguing that merging content against policy was not a desirable outcome. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the articles? They contain paragraphs and pargraphs discussing every aspect of the character within the confines of the show. This is the definition of fancruft. It will give a very specific example: "In the episode "Blowback", Gibbs reveals that he is a Virgo". This sentence appeals only to fans of the show, and only to die hard fans at that. A good deal of article content here is minutiae, and I stress again that Wikipedia is not a plot summary, and that is all these articles are, summaries of the characters within the confines of plot and fiction. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 08:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, I encourage you to provide some examples of the fancruft. We should be working at improving articles, not just criticising them. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have indeed read the articles. However, you have claimed that the articles "consist entirely of fancruft", so it's up to you to demonstrate that. Are you arguing that there is nothing in the articles that is relevant? If not, then your nomination is not completely accurate. Either way, you should be able to provide examples of what can be deleted, starting with Leroy Jethro Gibbs. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did provide an example, an exact quotation in fact. This type of content plagues articles like these, which are kept despite having no real-world content. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I'd agree with that, but that's just one example and to put it in some context, it's only 0.5% of the article, or 0.1% of all of the content you are seeking to destroy. I'm not arguing that there's no fancruft, as there clearly is some. As a matter of fact I've removed some today.[32] This had actually been previously discussed.[33][34] A third opinion posted here[35] seemed sufficient justification to remove the content that we had already been considering removing. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did provide an example, an exact quotation in fact. This type of content plagues articles like these, which are kept despite having no real-world content. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 09:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have indeed read the articles. However, you have claimed that the articles "consist entirely of fancruft", so it's up to you to demonstrate that. Are you arguing that there is nothing in the articles that is relevant? If not, then your nomination is not completely accurate. Either way, you should be able to provide examples of what can be deleted, starting with Leroy Jethro Gibbs. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep and clean up! - Far from "consist[ing] entirely of fancruft", as indicated by the nominator, these articles contain quite a lot of encyclopaedic, biographical information. If these articles were biographies of living persons, instead of "biographies of fictional persons" we'd be praising them because of the amount of information that they contain. All of the articles are about the lead characters of a highly rated television series that, to date, has been running for over 6.5 years and has aired 157 episodes in at least 39 countries. The characters are clearly notable from that alone. WP:WAF may say that when an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established but that's really irrelevant because we're well beyond that. The article has been created, kept as the result of an AfD, nominated again, kept as the result of another AfD,[36] redirected against consensus, (ironically by the same editor who removed the AfD notice)[37] was then the result of a massive redirect/unredirect edit war.[38] It was finally rebuilt and then worked on for well over a year before it was again redirected against consensus with questionable justification,[39] After reversion of that it was then nominated again and that's where we are now, well beyond the point where the WP:WAF statement was relevant.
Opponents of these articles have cited various policies but there's been a bit of cherry picking, with a few policies conveniently ignored. One of them says that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, you should ignore it. Does rigid application of the policies quoted by those suggesting deletion improve Wikipedia? Four hundred and sixty edits since February 2009 in Leroy Jethro Gibbs (1,665 in all of the articles) demonstrate that these articles are seen as important by a large number of editors, most of whom won't join the discussion here. Nevertheless, their voices can't be ignored. How does deleting the content created by these people (yes, I know some of it was vandalism) improve Wikipedia? The answer is, it doesn't.
I support Rrius' arguments.[40] If we delete these articles without merging then a lot of valuable content is lost. If we trim and merge to List of NCIS characters we're going to end up with an article that is starting to get too long and which WP:SIZERULE says we should look at splitting out into individual articles. The lead characters in the series warrant more space than repeat and minor characters. There's simply no way they can be trimmed to a few lines so we would instantly have to consider splitting List of NCIS characters. Anyone who thinks that we can maintain the article at a small size without splitting is not living in the real world. Despite efforts, the six articles have increased by about 33.5KB (combined) in the last 9.5 months alone. Size increase is going to happen whether we like it or not. People supporting deletion or merge just aren't looking at the big picture.
Scapler is correct in stating "these articles did not provide references establishing there [sic] notability then, and they do not now. However, I was recently reminded that Wikipedia is not working to a deadline. As indicated in that essay, we have articles that have been lacking references since 2001. That they are lacking references is regrettable and something should be done about it, but sometimes it just can't be avoided, as it was pointed out to me when I unsuccessfully nominated Jeff Bennett for deletion because it had been unreferenced for five years. Interestingly, WP:DEADLINE, admittedly only an essay and not a policy, makes (at least) two especially interesting suggestions about fancruft that are relevant here:
- If you come across fancruft, a kind approach is to assume that the article or topic can be improved.
- Instead of immediately listing a potential WP:NOT article for deletion, it may be better to prompt those interested in the article to improve the article.
This nomination does neither. Instead, it comes across more as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, especially when you look at the edit histories of the articles and their talkpages. A more constructive approach to the encyclopaedia would be to assist in removal of fancruft from these articles. There's only so much that the limited number of consistent editors of these articles can do. We aren't exempt from WP:3RR. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much for assuming good faith; I just love the notion of being dismissed over an assumption. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't bad faith, nor was an assumption. It was based on a critical examination of your edits at all of the articles, including the talk pages. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While this AfD is about a very narrow family of articles, IMHO, it is really about the larger treatment of fictional items on WP. These articles are actively edited, improving, may contain some crufty details (like most things on WP), and very likely to be recreated based on the popularity (which may or may not be equal to notability) of this TV show. While none of these four items are specifically terms in a WP policy, in my view of common sense, I am being WP:BOLD and stating they are all reasons to keep and improve the content. Otherwise this will be a whack-a-mole game for these articles going forward and you know that someone will use this AfD to start deleting fiction all over WP, even though one AfD is not "supposed" to be used as a precedent for another. All the WP:WIKILAWYERING gets old very quickly and and while I agree that there is plenty of cruft throughout WP, this AfD is not the appropriate forum for its debate. Bump it up to an RFC or other larger audience and work towards changing the policy towards fiction. Are these decent articles in need of improving? Yes. So then keep them, improve them, and move along. — MrDolomite • Talk 13:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Other than the some of the rationales given by AussieLegend, most of these arguments remind me of those that kept an article on every Pokémon for so long. Things like, where will all of this information go? and isn't it useful to have all this information on a character? The fact still remains: these articles are nothing but long plot summaries, and this amount of detailed information is not necessary to understand the work as a whole, and becomes less encyclopedic and more fansite with each addition. The article only contains an in-universe perspective, and as such does not analyze the subject in a manner befit an encyclopedia. I see a lot of keep votes here that seem like a rallying cry to save an article that people edited or have enjoyed reading, but do not address my deletion rationale; in fact, the majority of keep votes (with the notable exception of AussieLegend, who though I disagree with, is at least arguing with some policy involved) do not give any reasoning based in policy or anything but unsubstantiated personal opinion. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are correct that there is not a reasonable analysis of the subjects, but there will be no analysis if the articles are deleted. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Gibbs article has been viewed more than 21000 times so far this month. Also, Timothy McGee - 12000 views, Anthony DiNozzo - 22000 views and Caitlin Todd 10000 views so far this month. hydnjo (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles much cruftier than the NCIS character articles. I agree the nomination appears to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Aussie is also correct in stating there will be no analysis of these articles if they are simply removed. TristaBella (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid keep argument. Also, would someone like to SUBSTANTIATE the claim that I am nominating these just because I don't like them? I cite policy in my rationale, so everyone start assume good faith, because throwing around minor personal attacks (like insinuating that my edits are meant to be malicious without any evidence) looks more like you simply don't like my nomination, rather than that I don't like the articles. かんぱい! Scapler (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, while WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an exclusive reason to keep, it his, however, a fact of life on Wikipedia. Every article, list, category, compiliation of Category:Video game characters by game, Category:Harry Potter characters, Category:Science fiction television characters by series, etc, can probably be successfully argued that they do not have any real world notability. As a result, it can be further argued that every one of those could be redirected to the main article in question. But that has not happened before and it is not going to happen now. Should that kind of wide ranging change be made as a result of the policies on fictional notability as it stands? Possibly, but is not going to happen on this little AfD. — MrDolomite • Talk 15:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. No evidence of notability for any of them. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of NCIS characters. They probably aren't notable enough to justify individual articles, but some of the information and in a few cases sources could be incorporated into the list. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delta Sigma Phi – Alpha Delta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Single chapter of a fraternity. Per WP:ORG, local chapters of (inter)national organizations are not generally notable, and there's nothing in this article to suggest that this chapter is an exception. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion has been listed at WP:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities. —C.Fred (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Single chapters of fraternaties are not notable and fail WP:ORG. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. NYCRuss ☎ 15:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:ORG issue. Needs something that states why its notable on its own. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. Lacks the necessary reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:44, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Enigmamsg 22:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technologically Adaptive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism. Alternatively, people might use the phrase, but it was not coined by this particular person, and does not require an article explaining it. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 02:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:N - I was unable to find significant coverage for this neologism. May also be caught by WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The term Technologically Adaptive was thought of by Canadian Student Matthew Brine (Aka Nekomaster on many websites) from Ontario, Canada. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep - Withdrawn - The article is vastly improved and is no longer a copyvio. No issues regarding notability. After Midnight 0001 10:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When the Lights Go Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete or Major content slash - Article appears to be a complete copyvio, not sure that it is salvageable other than the first sentence. After Midnight 0001 02:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've butchered the cruft
and see no evidence of notability.duffbeerforme (talk) 10:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you use the word 'butchered'? Bloody hell, bit unhinged. I personally think the works of an eminent critic like Pauline Kael merit articles, and a list of the movies reviewed is useful. Certainly 'salvageable', - why all the over the top language? They are notable works of film criticism, the volumes of film criticism of Pauline Kael, I don't think philistine butchery is the best thing. Sayerslle (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a notable book by a notable critic... a book that has itself been both praised and panned in reliable sources for years [41], thus assuring its own independent notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Obviously meets inclusion guidelines. See (for example) news hits from near its release, demonstrating that it was reviewed by the LA Times, the NY Times, the Christian Science Monitor, and the Chicago Tribune. 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
- 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Woolf (ice hockey b. 1970) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable athlete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. He has never competed at the fully professional level of a sport. Only reference found is to a non-reliable stats site for hockey. The leagues that he has played in (both for hockey and lacrosse) are low level minor leagues. 23 games in the AHL minor leagues doesn’t cut it, and all the other leagues he has played in are of even a lower level Pooet (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep First off the reference has been declared a reliable source at FAC numerous times. Secondly they played in the highest level professional roller hockey league Roller Hockey International which meets WP:ATHLETE. Secondly they played in a number of hockey leagues that are fully professional (aka not semi-pro). He has also played for three top level national league in Europe which also meets WP:ATHLETE. There currently is no number of games requirement in WP:ATHLETE. All it takes is a single game to meet it. -DJSasso (talk) 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the article's creator you may be too close to the subject to be objective. Roller Hockey International is not the the highest level professional roller hockey league. It is a low level minor league that plays at a level well below that of the National Lacrosse League. It may be true that it only takes one hockey game played in a the Major Leagues (read NHL, WHA or KHL), Olympics or World Cup, but this player falls well short of that standard. The highest league he ever played in was the AHL, and that was for only 23 games over three years! Certainly that does not qualify as playing at a fully professional level. This person fails WP:Athlete and unless you can show he meets WP:GNP the article should be deleted. Pooet (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would help if you actually knew the sport you were talking about. Roller Hockey is not Lacrosse they are two completely different sports. Secondly WP:ATHLETE does not require it to be the top level league. Only that the league is fully-professional and not semi-pro. (ie they are all paid). It makes no distinction between major leagues or minor leagues. -DJSasso (talk) 03:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and not only did he play in the highest level professional roller hockey league, but he was also named to the All-Star team. This really is a slam dunk case of meeting WP:ATHLETE. -DJSasso (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And oh look he also represented Team Canada at the IIHF InLine Hockey World Championship and was captain of the team. Did you even try to look for sources for this player before putting it up for AFD like is required by WP:GD? -DJSasso (talk) 03:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DJSasso. Played in AHL and RHI... full pro... notable enough it seems to me. DMighton (talk) 04:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. National team gets it done as far as I'm concerned. The IIHF is a major governing body on the world stage, it's not just some minor tournament where club teams play in and pass themselves off as a national team from their home country.--Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If he's played at the highest level of roller hockey competition, he meets WP:ATHLETE, regardless of whether he's not as successful on the ice. Mandsford (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I will reverse my nomination for deletion if anyone can supply a reliable 3rd party reference to show that "Roller Hockey International" or MLRH competed at the highest level of its sport. Pooet (talk) 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the articles on either of those leagues? That is sort of like asking someone to proove the NHL is the top level league. You are just getting a bit pointy at this point. Not sources because I don't think I need to waste the time looking for some since he already meets the amateur part of ATH. But from the RHI article "Roller Hockey International was a professional inline hockey league that operated in North America from 1993 to 1999. It was the first major professional league for inline hockey." and "It is a North American professional sport, and is represented by the Professional Inline Hockey Association and Major League Roller Hockey at the highest level." from the roller hockey article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is nothing like asking a person to prove that the NHL is a top level league. A person could easily find hundreds of 3rd party references to support that the NHL is a top level league, but the same is not true for either of the roller hockey leagues. Just like you, all I can find are self-promoting statements about the leagues, and even those make it sound like a bush-league sport. If he is not notable under the general notability guidelines, then he should not be here. Pooet (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the hockey news covered the league in great detail at one point (especially during the strike), there may be additional details in sources from that period. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Games were also nationally televised. This wasn't some backwater league. It was a stumbling first attempt at a professional roller hockey league. Either way, he meets WP:ATHLETE through playing professionally in two sports and through playering in the World Championships in one. There really isn't much to argue about unless Pooet is just trying to make a point. -DJSasso (talk) 12:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the articles on either of those leagues? That is sort of like asking someone to proove the NHL is the top level league. You are just getting a bit pointy at this point. Not sources because I don't think I need to waste the time looking for some since he already meets the amateur part of ATH. But from the RHI article "Roller Hockey International was a professional inline hockey league that operated in North America from 1993 to 1999. It was the first major professional league for inline hockey." and "It is a North American professional sport, and is represented by the Professional Inline Hockey Association and Major League Roller Hockey at the highest level." from the roller hockey article. -DJSasso (talk) 15:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Professional player for the Boston Bruins. Come on. Arskwad (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - He was drafted by the Bruins, but never made it to the NHL, so he could not be officially classified as a Professional Player for the Bruins. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE as to the fact that he has played a fully professional league - primarily the ECHL and AHL. Subject probably is notable as well for his Roller Hockey career as well but I do not know much about that sport. However, WP:ATHLETE requirements are satisfied with his ECHL and AHL experience as both are fully professional. -Pparazorback (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Me thinks that it will soon start to SNOW around here... -Pparazorback (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Actually, he has played in a fully professional league. AHL and ECHL are both fully professional. I see no valid reason for deletion. Patken4 (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - So now the new standard for presummed notability is one game played in either the AHL or ECHL? With such a low standard you can now start to create thousands of new, one line, articles. Its a great day to be a hockey fan! Pooet (talk) 12:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though fully professional, the AHL and the ECHL are minor leagues and not inherently notable (and never will be). Generally, the WP:ATHLETE policy is further refined by the fans of the different sports leagues, who have the knowledge to separate the major leagues (players inherently notable) from minor leagues (some given inherent notability if they made a special achievement within the minor league. The only reason Woolf gets a bye is because, to the extent that, in the world of professional roller skates hockey, he played for one of its "major leagues". Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the hockey standard is five years and 100 games in a fully professional league, even if it is a "minor league". Woolf easily passes that. Patken4 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, a player credited with at least 1 game in the AHL or ECHL would make him notable as they are fully professional leagues. The guideline on the hockey standard recommends that no one create an article on those such players until they get to the 100 game / 5 year mark, however, WP:ATHLETE is technically satisfied by the first game played by that player. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One game in the American Hockey League as inherently notable? Sorry, I doubt that any ice hockey fan would go along with that. The AHL and the ECHL are nowhere close to being equal in quality to the NHL, so they wouldn't be afforded equal treatment when it comes to inherent notability, which is a good thing. Wikipedia gets criticized, and rightfully so, for being top-heavy on sports and TV articles. Being a brain surgeon isn't necessarily notable on Wikipedia, unless, of course, the brain surgeon happened to be a jock as well. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For better or for worse, both those leagues are fully professional, and it would satisfy WP:ATHLETE regardless based on how I read it. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I think he is just objecting to WP:ATH as a number of people do, but Pparazorback is correct, at the moment it is taken to mean that any player who plays in a league where everyone is paid meets it. Either way its not really relevant at this point because this particular player meets ATH for other reasons as well. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For better or for worse, both those leagues are fully professional, and it would satisfy WP:ATHLETE regardless based on how I read it. -Pparazorback (talk) 01:59, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One game in the American Hockey League as inherently notable? Sorry, I doubt that any ice hockey fan would go along with that. The AHL and the ECHL are nowhere close to being equal in quality to the NHL, so they wouldn't be afforded equal treatment when it comes to inherent notability, which is a good thing. Wikipedia gets criticized, and rightfully so, for being top-heavy on sports and TV articles. Being a brain surgeon isn't necessarily notable on Wikipedia, unless, of course, the brain surgeon happened to be a jock as well. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, a player credited with at least 1 game in the AHL or ECHL would make him notable as they are fully professional leagues. The guideline on the hockey standard recommends that no one create an article on those such players until they get to the 100 game / 5 year mark, however, WP:ATHLETE is technically satisfied by the first game played by that player. -Pparazorback (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the hockey standard is five years and 100 games in a fully professional league, even if it is a "minor league". Woolf easily passes that. Patken4 (talk) 03:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Though fully professional, the AHL and the ECHL are minor leagues and not inherently notable (and never will be). Generally, the WP:ATHLETE policy is further refined by the fans of the different sports leagues, who have the knowledge to separate the major leagues (players inherently notable) from minor leagues (some given inherent notability if they made a special achievement within the minor league. The only reason Woolf gets a bye is because, to the extent that, in the world of professional roller skates hockey, he played for one of its "major leagues". Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad that you found the interpretation used by the hockey fans. It would probably help if WP:ATHLETE had links to how each sport sets the boundaries for inherent notability. At first glance, five years and 100 games without ever playing a big league game is certainly more inclusive than most sports get. On the other hand, then NHL operated with only six teams until 1967, compared to 30 now. Hence, it's not unreasonable to afford some notability to persons who, historically, spent their time in the American Hockey League. Mandsford (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:NSPORT which is being developed for just that reason. -DJSasso (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Appears like a snow issue here. Inline hockey being the reason he satisfies ATHLETE. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep notability established, now brush up the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This is a pretty obvious keep, as the snow would suggest. Player has played at the highest level of roller hockey (both professionally and in international competition) and played in a fully professional ice hockey league. I think the fact that the nominator is having a hard time distinguishing the sports played in the National Lacrosse League and Roller Hockey International is telling enough. – Nurmsook! talk... 20:40, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did he play lacrosse? I didn't see that in the article. Mandsford (talk) 22:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He didn't play lacrosse. The nominator confused lacrosse with roller hockey. Two different sports. -DJSasso (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Farm Fresh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC Pooet (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets criteria 1, 6, 7, and 10 of WP:MUSIC. Has been written about numerous times in national music publications which meets #1. They were at the time of their existence considered the top of their local scene and the individual members have gone on to even more success separately and as parts of other ensembles which meets #6 & #7. And they have been the subject of national radio programs on the CBC which meets #10. -DJSasso (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the article's creator you may be to close to the subject to be objective. Stating that it is notable and meets WP:MUSIC is not enough. Please provide verifiable references to reliable multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself. Pooet (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Being the articles creator has no bearing on the matter. There are already some non-trivial sources on the page. I will add more. -DJSasso (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: In response to your points:
- 'Has been written about numerous times in national music publications' - Apart from exclaim.ca, can you give us some articles that discuss Farm Fresh (i.e. rather than the musicians)
- Exclaim! is a national music publication; why on earth would it not meet the criterion as written? Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'the individual members have gone on to even more success separately and as parts of other ensembles' - Actually, looking at the articles, Farm Fresh seems to be their best claim to notability
- mcenroe, not notable for anything else? Go ahead, pull the other one. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'And they have been the subject of national radio programs on the CBC which meets #10' - Do you mean the 'subject' of, or mentioned in a sentence on?
- Please address these concers. Moswento (talk) 07:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources, from more than one publication of repute, are already present in the article, so keep. Notability, when you get right down to it, isn't about anything more than the presence of valid sources. What exactly are you expecting, Wu Tang Clan levels of success from a Canadian hip hop band that was active in the 1990s? Srsly, do the clicky and learn something. Bearcat (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down - note that I have not voted yet. Moswento (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That was addressed to the original nominator, not to you. Bearcat (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Calm down - note that I have not voted yet. Moswento (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2010 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peanuts & Corn Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable record lable. Unreferenced since 2008 Pooet (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one of the largest hip hop labels in Canada. Article has references on it. -DJSasso (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the article's creator you may be to close to the subject to be objective. Making the bold statement that it is one of the largest hip hop labels in Canada is not enough. If your claim is true then it would not be difficult to find verifiable references to reliable sources to establish notability. Pooet (talk) 03:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean other than the sources that were on the page when you claimed it was unreferenced? -DJSasso (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I claimed it was unreferenced, it was unreferenced, look here. Pooet (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You claim its unreferenced in this AFD. It was referenced before you filed this AFD. That was the prod. -DJSasso (talk) 14:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When I claimed it was unreferenced, it was unreferenced, look here. Pooet (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean other than the sources that were on the page when you claimed it was unreferenced? -DJSasso (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep: Some sources. Maybe not enough to support an article. If no sources are added down the line, might support a delete or merge. Arskwad (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into what article? This article needs reliable 3rd party references to support a claim of notability, and there are none to be found. Pooet (talk) 11:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other than the reliable third party references that are already in the article, you mean? Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources, from more than one publication of repute and reliability, are already present in the article, so keep. And I trust DJSasso's judgement on a topic relating to Canadian music far sooner than I'd trust Pooet's. Bearcat (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as this nom was non well-intentioned as there are sources as DJSasso indicates. ArcAngel (talk) ) 20:07, 26 April 2010 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alana Soares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article iis an uncited stub Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Multiple mainstream appearances. Dekkappai (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates now pending, among others most by same nominator, I think). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Dekkappai. Dismas|(talk) 04:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per Milowent. My compliments to this editor for his memory on this issue. --Morenooso (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per mainstream appearances. Epbr123 (talk) 11:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Sourced, with multiple mainstream appearances. Arskwad (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:ENT, WP:PORNBIO (which really shouldn't apply), and WP:GNG. Despite the claims made here, she has no significant mainstream appearances -- the Beverly Hills Cop role is as one of more than a dozen Playboy models in a crowd scene at Hefner's mansion; the other role, "Twin in Car," is barely more than an extra's job. No evidence she's even had an onscreen line. GNews hits are almost all classified ads for car and boat shows. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by the general consensus for playmates of the month. DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 26 April 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Veronica Gamba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article ihas existed for four years and is an uncited stub Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "Veronica Gamba has appeared in several mainstream television series or movies to include Matt Houston, A Night in Heaven and Smokey and the Bandit Part 3." Dekkappai (talk) 03:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates now pending, among others most by same nominator, I think). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Google book search reveals appearances in several mainstream productions. Good enough for me in terms of PORNBIO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per Milowent. My compliments to this editor for his memory on this issue. --Morenooso (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per mainstream appearances. Epbr123 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- PORN BIO was discussed and the clause that plaboy playmates is notable was not supported and it was removed. I myself was involved in that discussion a couple of months ago. Off2riorob (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - maybe Wikipedia needs to revisit that topic as this series of AfD seems to indicate otherwise. --Morenooso (talk) 12:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The ludicrous thing is that if some of these are deleted, they will end up in a "Playmates of 19XX or 20XX" article with the exact same content.--Milowent (talk) 13:20, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Morbidthoughts and Epbr123. Dismas|(talk) 14:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by the general consensus for playmates of the month. It was not perhaps a wise idea to nominate so many at once rather than to test the water first. DGG ( talk ) 07:31, 26 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jolanda Egger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is an uncited stub Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG,nothing in the text that shows any Wikipedia:Notability (people) Off2riorob (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I realize this is part of a good faith mass nomination by Off2riorob, so I am posting basically the same comment on all of them. I understand that WP:PORNBIO was changed recently via Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2010#RFC:_Every_playmate_is_notable but I don't think that outcome necessarily reflected true consensus. The bright line rule of "every playmate gets an article" was much easier to administer and reduced editor overhead time, instead of us spending lots of time deciding that some (most?) playmates get articles and a few get shuffled off into some "playmates of 200x" article. I guess we'll see, if these articles get deleted, whether they get successively recreated. (see also AfDs of 2010 playmates now pending, among others most by same nominator, I think). I went back to see what the actual track record is here, and I don't see an AfD for a playmate that resulted in a delete since the summer of 2004 (and there's only one!) I guess WP:PORNBIO eventually was edited to say that playmates are considered notable to reflect what the AfDs were showing and thus avoid pointless debates. See:
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stephanie Heinrich (Aug 04 - appears it was a delete, article was recreated in July 05 and not been challenged since)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Audra Lynn (Oct. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Dalene Kurtis (Dec. 04 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella DeCesare (Feb 05 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison Waite (April 06 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Liz_Stewart (March 07 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marliece Andrada (Sept 07 keep) (Closer comment: "Absent stronger evidence, there is a longstanding consensus that all Playboy centerfolds are notable, given the fame of the publication both within and without its genre.")
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kimberly Evenson (May 08 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charlotte Kemp (Jan 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Carrington (Feb 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janet Pilgrim (model) (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margie Harrison (March 10 keep)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colleen Farrington (March 10 keep)
- --Milowent (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I haven't found significant coverage of her in reliable, third-party sources for her to meet WP:N. Notability is not inherited by being a playboy bunny, she still needs to meet the general notability guideline. These debates are not pointless when they center around living people only notable for one thing. ThemFromSpace 04:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - as per Milowent. My compliments to this editor for his memory on this issue. --Morenooso (talk) 04:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Actually I have no past history on this issue, I just searched the "everything" tab for all archived playmate AfDs, because I wanted to see what the past history was.--Milowent (talk) 05:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I worked on a couple of these nominated articles early (to include this one). Normally in an AfD, I like to state a policy. I will do so on my next vote. --Morenooso (talk) 05:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:PORNBIO per mainstream appearances.[42] Epbr123 (talk) 11:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Epbr123 along with significant coverage with [43] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Epbr123 and Morbidthoughts. Dismas|(talk) 14:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Mainstream appearances & first Playmate of the Year in Swiss edition. Thanks also for the laugh for the "Notability is not inherited" argument with regards to a notable position/award/appearance. Dekkappai (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep by the general consensus for playmates of the month. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The problems identified by the nominator and Rankiri (inaccessibel and/or poor references) have not been successfully addressed. The content can be userfied on request. Sandstein 06:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability of this subject is not at all clear from the article. Language is largely promotional and there are no solid claims to notability beyond a book of is poems being published and a vague mention of a biography written about the subject of this article but there are no verifiable references included.
There is a numbered section that appears to be an attempt at references but verifiability is not clear with most of them. The 2 that do include external links are to a message board and a simple reprint of a short poem. RadioFan (talk) 11:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've improved the formatting a little just to make it easier to follow, but it needs a lot more - I obviously won't fix up the formatting any further unless it survives this AfD -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note The author has responded on the article's Talk page, Talk:Mehr Lal Soni Zia Fatehabadi, which should be taken into account when closing - I've replied there and pointed him here -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Author's response is continuing at the article's talk page, says they're "not computer intelligent", so need to keep up with the discussion there before closing -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Provisional Keep I came late to this AfD, so I'd appreciate it if it could at least be rolled over for another week. The author has asked for help in improving the article, and I'd like to try to assist by searching for notability and sources, but I'm too busy right now to do so immediately -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Most of the references are inaccessible or even unverifiable: [44],[45]. The ones that are available online only seem to contain unclear trivial mentions: [46], [47]. Google returns very few results, mainly from unreliable blogs and Wikipedia mirrors. The article itself is a mess. It's incoherent, promotional in tone, and has a number of problems with NPOV, V, OR, ENGLISH, and NOT: "an astrologer of exceptional quality who had made several astounding predictions", "the inherent poet in Zia Fatehabadi surfaced quite prominently", "one hears his voice ringing loud and clear", "very few people are aware of his deep interest in the study of the Upanishads", etc. Questionable statements like "This book invited criticism from . . . his own college-mate whom he trusted immensely. He then felt very sad and lamented thus . . ." and "He was not a professional poet and also as already said he did not seek fame or recognition" make me doubt the truthfulness of the entire article. Even though it's possible that the subject can pass WP:AUTHOR, the article needs to be rewritten from scratch and followed by at least one verifiable WP:RS source. I recommend incubation or userfication. — Rankiri (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the article survives the AfD process with respect to WP:N and WP:RS (which I appreciate might be difficult, as I don't expect there to be many online English-language references for a deceased Urdu poet), I'm prepared to copy-edit it to bring it in line with WP:NPOV and WP:MOS, which I expect would shorten it quite a bit - though I don't really want to spend much time on it unless I can be reasonably confident of its survival first. Oh, and as was suggested on the article's Talk page, there is a tradition in India to write about admired historical figures in extremely reverential tones. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have watched this article develop as and when the author has gradually tried to remove the stated anamolies. There may not be sufficient material on the net to establish in toto i.e. in accordance with Wiki's requirement,the subject's notability but what is there can not be set aside simply because that which is there available in print is not easily accessible.It is for a researcher to take the cue from an encyclopedia to work on a particular hypothesis to construct a thesis relating to a note-worthy person or event, this is where Wiki assists.The importance of this subject is evident.The external links refered to by Mr.RadioFan are not unreliable, they establish the existence of the subject as someone note-worthy, moreover, two couplets written by the subject have been cited to explain the use and meaning of two Urdu words and now made part of a Lafz Archive/Urdu dictionary-see-http://www.bazm.urduanjuman.com/index.php?topic=615.0 http://www.urdupoetry.com/lafz/lafz115.html and http://www.urdupoetry.com/lafz/lafz303.html These references are not simple reprints of a small poem.The Afd tag ought to be re-looked.I am to request the editors to copy-edit this article if need be so that it can be kept on this page itself.Soni Ruchi (talk) 03:57, 28 April 2010 (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. Sandstein 06:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clare McLaren-Throckmorton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
She gets a few mentions here and there, but nothing substantial. Her article spends a fair amount of space covering her relationship with the Throckmorton Baronets, but notability is not inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. The person isn't notable, just because they had a relationship with someone else who is. RaaGgio (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- Where mansions were given to the National Trust it was (or is) the practice for the owner and his/her successors to be permitted to occupy the house. For various reasons, such occupation has not always continued, but this is a case where it has. I think this just about makes her notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable nobility. Emily Jensen (talk) 00:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (weak) Her descent doesn't look notable to me. The ancestor a few hundred years ago who tried to depose a monarch - now he might be notable, but this later descendant, hardly. OTOH, checking the news search, there are a fair number of articles that involve her as head of a couple of organizations, particularly the ancestral estate. So... Ja, keep. David V Houston (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Owup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I42 (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete don't see significant news coverage of the term, so I second the people above. David V Houston (talk) 01:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete even though I am definitley under paid yet over worked.--The Phantom In Church (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find no notable use of the term as described other than urban dictionary definitions, and Wikipedia isn't a dictionary -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's snowing!--Straw Man's Hat (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Words not in Wiktionary [49] do not make suitable encyclopedia articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Chitoka Webb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Providing care for the elderly or the disabled is a valuable contribution to society, and being on the board of trustees of a facility for 151 patients is surely an honor, but unfortunately the article lacks citations from reliable sources providing evidence that the subject of this article fulfills the general notability guideline. Her home page describes other commendable achievements, but they do not amount to encyclopedic notability either. This company home page doesn't seem to have information about the size of the company. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - verifiable but not notable. I can find no significant coverage about this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments. David V Houston (talk) 01:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Reliable references found, article tagged. (non-admin closure) moɳo 01:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Atomico (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. KzKrann (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This invertment firm has been covered in multiple reliable sources: Wall Street Journal, TMC, The Times. -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Additional coverage: [50], [51], [52](Google cache). — Rankiri (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2010 (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. I note that there is a substantial number of !votes from unregistered or new users, but even discounting those entirely the outcome would be at most no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tyson Apostol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is about a reality television show participant, who has participated on two seasons of Survivor. He finished in 8th and 15th place on the respective seasons, and does not appear to have done anything outside of appearing on the show to make him notable. Hence, all the salient information is already covered in the individual season articles. I believe this falls under WP:ONEEVENT. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 17:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just as "notable" as any other Survivor contestant. That notability, if it rests solely on the reality TV show on which the person participated, is nonexistent. Even though it hurts me to say it, he's probably just as notable as Brett Clouser—an article which was deleted a long time ago... —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 20:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Firstly, doesn't a survivor have to be worth noting if he or she reappears in a second season? Furthermore, I personally would have found it useful if this page had existed at the beginning of the Heroes vs. Villains season. It's much easier to click on one link that tells you about a particular survivor then to search threw their season's wikipedia page. When you have a page about a particular survivor, the information your looking for is right there. But on the survivor season page, you have to hunt for the information about that particular survivor because there's so much more information in it. Now of of course this wikipedia page isn't that useful yet, but with just a few additions (more details) this page will be one defiantly worth having having. Finally, just to make it clear and to sum this paragraph up, I find this page useful, I don't think it should be deleted, and I'd like one made for James and Randy too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.22 (talk) 05:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless there are reliable sources to cite the statements, this is just an article that has information already covered in individual season articles. Editors who want this article kept should have a look at WP:N and WP:RS to cite reliable sources and improve this article. Otherwise, this article will be deleted. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 00:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote delete. A few previously redirected Survivor articles of the current players have cropped back up, and I personally don't think that appearing for a second time is notable unless they win, or at very least make the final, or of course had valid claim to a page in the first place. Candice Woodcock, Danielle DiLorenzo and Courtney Yates would all be others to be considered in my opinion. :) (Kyleofark (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: A contestant from two seasons of a popular American game show. Should be notable enough for that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains is an All-Star-style season, and therefore will likely be one of the most lastingly famous seasons even after it is over. Keep; my opinion is that all twenty of this season's contestants deserve an article, since seventeen already have one. Tyson was blindsided both times he was eliminated, a notable point besides.Simplebutpowerful 14:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how being blindsided raises a contestant's notability. When Googling for "Tyson Apostol", the only links I found were related to Survivor in one way or another. Mr. Apostol is clearly only notable for being on Survivor, and thus he falls under WP:ONEEVENT—a guideline for whether to keep articles living persons who are only notable for one event. Delete or redirect to either Survivor: Tocantins or Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 21:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would have found extremely useful to have had this article before, because I myself was and am searching through Wikipedia pages trying to find out more about the Heroes vs. Villains survivors. As many of you have pointed out, I can go to the survivor season pages to get this information, however, season pages have two flaws: 1) Often times the season pages do not have enough information on them and do not cover the particular survivor I want to know about past when they were voted out. I normally want more information than that. Information that is clearly covered on particular survivor pages. 2) Often times season pages have the exact opposite of my last reason. Often the season pages have so much information that it is difficult to find the right bit of information that I want. This was the case with Tyson, because on the Tocantins page there is so much information that it is tiring to get exactly what I want about Tyson. On a particular survivor's page the information that I want is the only information there. Because of this, I don't have to worry about going thought paragraph after paragraph just to get the information I want. I'm not going to pretend like I know about all the rules on Wikipedia because I don't. However, what I do know is that an encyclopedia is meant to be useful in gathering information and Tyson's page helps me do just that easier than going though paragraph after paragraphs on the season pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.20 (talk) 04:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While some may debate the worthiness or otherwise of both the TV program and/or its genre, Apostol (and other Survivor contestants) are well-known (certainly by the millions of viewers). Deciding which of the contestants is more notable than another is surely subjective (POV?), so the better course of action would be to include all or none. Given that option, I would prefer ALL. (smjwalsh (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. The *entire* show is about the 18 or so people who appear on it. If the show is notable, it seems to me that each of the 18 are notable. I agree with smjwalsh and would prefer ALL be kept. (mantonino (talk) — mantonino (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Comment so by that logic, there is no such thing as WP:ONEEVENT? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One-event is a good overall policy, but my opinion is that this one event, namely the fact that this Survivor season is one of the more prominent ones, combined with the fact that each contestant performed pretty notably in their own previous season(s), merits all twenty of this particular season's contestants articles.Simplebutpowerful 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevertheless, Survivor is Survivor. Being on two seasons is still WP:ONEEVENT, in that the whole of Tyson's fame came from the single event of Survivor. —Untitledmind72 (let's talk + contribs) 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or just wait about two years and he will most likely be about as memorable as Brian Heidik. In my opinion, this is a case of recent notability, which will fade as time goes on. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 21:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One-event is a good overall policy, but my opinion is that this one event, namely the fact that this Survivor season is one of the more prominent ones, combined with the fact that each contestant performed pretty notably in their own previous season(s), merits all twenty of this particular season's contestants articles.Simplebutpowerful 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:ENT (or redirect to the show). We don't generally articles on obscure actors. Two appearances in the same TV show is obscure to me, and borders WP:BLP1E. I don't see much in the way of independent coverage either. The links are all to pages about the show, most hosted by companies that produced the show or are closely related to it. I see no in-depth coverage of him independent of that. Pcap ping 07:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A contestant from two seasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.29.76 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only was he a Survivor contestant, but he was also a professional athlete. Let's add more to his cycling information and have survivor as just something else on his resume. Kinda like Jean-Robert (from Survivor China)'s Wikipedia page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.241.74 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 April 2010
- Go right ahead, if you can find information backed up by a WP:RS, then please do add it. The problem is at the moment there is little more than a summary of what he did on Survivor, which is why his notability outside of the show is being challenged. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Their are wiki articles about othera minor survivor Hunter Ellis, Sonja Christopher, Jeff Varner etc.... If they get their own articles, why doesn't Tyson get one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifishark (talk • contribs) 21:50, 29 April 2010
- See WP:OTHERSTUFF. I don't think this is a question about who is "entitled" or "deserving", but if there is sufficient information beyond his appearance on the show. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:05, 29 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Salpeter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been speedied once before, nominated for speedy when it reappeared (that nomination was declined because a "credible assertion of significance"); prodded as an unreferenced BLP (at which point an earnest editor found the sole reference to the person's bio on their corporate website). So, we come to AFD. This is a biography of a graphic designer with no special claims to notability. Claims of awards won cannot be verified (the relevant websites make no mention of this person). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable. Unless the award claims can be verified.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find any reliable 3rd-party references. Can't find any mention of him at the American Institute of Graphic Arts, found him as a member at the Art Directors Club of New York (but can't find any mention of awards), no mention at the Type Directors Club that I can see, and I can't find anything about "Design International" in Paris - there's a Design International, but that doesn't appear to have a Paris office. The only reference given just repeats the award claims without providing any details or references -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:05, 22 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eoin Ó Conghaile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable player from county team. Only one local newspaper reference Dmol (talk) 09:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - he will probably be more notable as a forward when he scores some points.Red Hurley (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I think. WP:ATHLETE says fully professional. My knowledge of European football leagues is minimal, but it didn't LOOK like this counted... David V Houston (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Benjamin Wan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to verify the existence of the subject, and even if details of his life could be verified, I am not sure that this person would be notable.
Article states that subject has won awards in a major competition (Singapore Violin Challenge) of which I cannot verify the existence. I think this is his major point of notability.
Subject also has led his institution, a school, to win a national award at the Singapore Youth Festival. This festival exists but I was not able to verify the award, nor am I sure whether it makes subject notable.
Article is otherwise odd - subject described as a hero for battling condition caused by having one testicle. It has been edited by a lot of users with content added and removed, but it was not obvious to me that anything notable was ever written about this person in the deleted history. Blue Rasberry 14:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced BLP, probable attack content, blatantly fails WP:N, should have just been deleted instead of being relisted. Checked for reliable sources in English and Chinese, found none (see search). As far as I can tell, the real Benjamin Wan is a middle school student. cab (talk) 01:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. I can't verify his existence either; see this search giving 44 lame Ghits. Even if everything is true, he badly fails every factor in WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Samuel Ponnusamy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable scholar - fails WP:PROF. The society of which he is President does not appear to be notable itself. StAnselm (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Just an ordinary academic; fails WP:PROF. No hits on GB or GS. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I am unable to find coverage in reliable sources for this academic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:23, 22 April 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- JC Slammer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not clear how this meets notability guidelines. Only reference is to a video. The program may be notable but a dedicated article is not sustainable for each competitor. RadioFan (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The individual robots are not notable. I suggest also nominating the other articles in Category:BattleBots.Intelligentsium 02:06, 22 April 2010 (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.