![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/97/Treffpunkt.svg/48px-Treffpunkt.svg.png)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Can be restored if somebody really wants to transwiki it. Sandstein 07:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- C++ inverse matrix code (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is a good-faith contribution by a new user, but its only content is source code. It is therefore unencyclopedic. Rilak (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki wikibooks or wikiversity seem like a good idea. Wikiversity can use it in a math or programming topic. Wikibooks can use it in C++ programming. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 05:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - It's not really an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and do not transwiki – producing a good algorithm for matrix inversion (with high precision and good stability for ill-conditioned matrices) is a notoriously difficult problem. The code I see here gives me no reason for confidence. Good and thoroughly tested algorithms are freely available (see LAPACK++; use LUFactorizeIP followed by LaLUInverseIP); they are considerably more complex than what we have here. --Lambiam 00:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki to Wikibooks/Wikiversity. I compiled the code and it appears to work properly. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Sandstein 07:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- List of fictional salespeople (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm nominating this at AFD because the subject list of fictional salespeople is non-notable. I highly double you will find significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. As such it fails WP:GNG. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 23:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, it's just an index of notable fictional characters by their occupation; see Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation for others. This shouldn't be controversial. The "subject" "list of fictional salespeople" doesn't have to be notable for the list to be valid, because lists do not have to be notable as lists. As an occupation in fiction, sales is a common choice to depict mundane or desperate lives (e.g., Willy Loman in Death of a Salesman, Al Bundy in Married...with Children, any of the characters in Glengarry Glen Ross). Which some might characterize as an argument instead for some kind of salesmen in fiction article (maybe that should also exist), but as long as we have articles on notable fictional characters, indexing them by their depicted occupation is a perfectly reasonable use of lists, particularly for occupations that have been significant themes in fiction. postdlf (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (article creator). There has been a great deal of discussion of this in the past, most substantively on 3 Jan 2007, when lists of fictional psychiatrists, witches, doctors, British Prime Ministers, and postal employees were retained, though the List of fictional xenoarchaeologists was deleted. I know about [[OTHERSTUFF...]], but believe that the reasons advanced there apply here as well. I would also like to quote AndyJones:
- Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. And now that I've got to the bottom of this list, may I just add how downright angry I am that some <personal attack removed> could possibly look at the VAST amount of mostly good quality work done by literally hundreds of wikipedians in the articles covered by this mass nomination, then could demonstrate so much contempt for them, and for the project, that he or she would even think of attempting to destroy it all.
- Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. And now that I've got to the bottom of this list, may I just add how downright angry I am that some <personal attack removed> could possibly look at the VAST amount of mostly good quality work done by literally hundreds of wikipedians in the articles covered by this mass nomination, then could demonstrate so much contempt for them, and for the project, that he or she would even think of attempting to destroy it all.
- Matchups 16:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I too doubt that any 'List of xxx' will attract much in the way of ghits as such. It does depend on the notability of xxx. And as xxx = sales people here, it should stay. There are plenty more that can be found, and there's enough as it stands for a starter. Peridon (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Matchup (article creator), and whatever that Likely / Previous Outcomes page is called. Anarchangel (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Right. You are thinking of WP:Common outcomes, where it says "Lists and categories have different uses, and lists nominated for deletion because they have overlapping categories are often kept." and "Lists are generally kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction." --MelanieN (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, redundant to a self-maintaining category. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A category is infeasible here, as many of the salespeople on the list do not have their own articles. Not because they're not notable, but because their existence is so closely linked to the works of fiction in which they appear that there is no point in giving them independent articles. Matchups 14:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete too broad of a criteria for inclusion leads to sloppy and ill-defined lists, per WP:SALAT. Just because all of the characters on the list are notable doesn't mean that their intersection as fictional salespeople is notable. ThemFromSpace 03:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with WP:SALAT's statement that "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections." But that is an argument only for good management of the article, not for deletion. I appreciate your concern for its quality, but believe that with only thirteen entries, it is not yet ready for any form of subdivision. Matchups 14:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:SALAT is correct that lists that are too broad in scope lead to ill-defined lists and are a sign of an indiscriminate grouping, which is what wikipedia is not. Just for example, many sitcoms have storylines where a character undertakes to sell something in some sort of scheme. Should they be in this list? Lots of characters in movies, books, and television will interact with a salesperson where little more is known than their name and what they sell. Should they be in this list? It's too indiscriminate. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep There is absolutely no reason to delete this article, and I really don't understand people's arguments for doing so. It's an excellent companion to the several dozen similar articles found at "Category:Lists of fictional characters by occupation", and "salespeople" is no more "general or broad in scope" than any of the other occupations listed there. Although less than a week-old, this list is a good solid beginning, and many more names could be added to it (I just added two myself). --MelanieN (talk) 03:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Status (Rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reference given does not assert why the subject is significant. Very hard to find non-false positives with regards to other references but it seems likely from what I've had a look at that there is hardly any significant secondary source coverage. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 23:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The name makes it hard to filter sources, but I was able find this coverage in some press local to Denver where he is from but that is well short of what is needed to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NMG. Stifle (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn (nominator asked me per e-mail to speedy-close this AfD). Sandstein 07:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Banana equivalent dose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable and confused Johnfos (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused, yes... but that just means it needs a cleanup, right? Notability I'm not sure about, but the idea of comparing radiation exposure to bananas seems to be a growing meme, judging by Google News and Web searches for radioactive banana. It seems to be current because it is bandied about on a few blogs and discussion boards in relation to the Japanese nuclear power plant problem. But, perhaps it could be merged into Banana, or Ionizing radiation units? What's the usual thing to do for confusing memes that blur hard science and soft media? PeteSF (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, incoherent rationale, well-sourced article. Non-notable has no meaning here, since it meets the standards of sourcing and so on. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure it's well-sourced. The only source for the actual value of the "banana equivalent dose" of 0.1 μSv is a PDF from the University of Nevada Reno Environmental Health and Safety, which cites Bowes & Church's Food Values of Portions Commonly Used and Chart of the Nuclides, neither of which appear to be sources specifically on health physics, and they don't show how their result was derived from those sources. -- Afiler (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading back through the history (I'd read it several days ago and wondered at the changes) it appears to have progressively lost details, including derivation, and gained quibbles, caveats, and contentiousness in bold letters. I think we'd be better off with the version of around 15 March. -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please keep this article. As a former nuclear physicist, I often quote this article for people to put radioactivity levels into context they can relate to and understand. Danellicus (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep, quick web search turns up many notable uses of the phrase in the media: [1][2][3][4] As the last link indicates, it's not a very good unit of measure: not only is there no 'reference banana', but the actual effects are debatable, making it a squishy unit of measure. This doesn't mean it's not notable, though, as it appears to be talked about more than enough to make it notable. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, there seems to be plenty of evidence of notability. 'Confused' is hardly a criteria for deletion Bfigura (talk) 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I am not convinced it's more than borderline notable, but that's more than enough for such a useful little gem of an article that fills an important gap in the reference literature. Hans Adler 02:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. If it needs a rewrite it should be rewritten, but when it first started to be referenced it was fairly clear, with a nice straightforward example of how one works through the problem from a bequerel count to an absorption-normalized dose. A lot of the confusion has been added in recent days as weasel-words were added. No one expects a "banana equivalent dose" to become an SI unit, but it is a useful comparison, and within its limits it's well defined. It's also, as noted above, been used notably in a number of publications. Frankly, I have to wonder if the proposal to delete is not at heart an NPV violation -- is the motivation that the BED comparison is politically inconvenient for some parties? -- Charlie (Colorado) (talk) 02:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Should not have been nominated in the first place. WP:JNN Article is useful and informative. It was in great shape a few days ago but started to get mucked-up by people pursuing pro- or anti- nuclear agendas. It's pretty obvious it was made a candidate for deletion due to political purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Useful, informative. If all else fails revert to its state prior to recent edit warring.--Sommerfeld (talk) 03:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I wanted to know about the "Banana Equivalent Dose" and googled it and found this article, so I came here and read about the topic that interested me. That's what an article in an encyclopedia is for, right? Maybe the article could be improved, but it certainly should not be deleted. 03:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.67.102 (talk)
- keep Been using and referring to this page for while, as it refers to an easy way to understand exposure (which is especially relevant to current events) Ronabop (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I also don't understand why this was nominated - the basic idea was around at least 15 years ago, and it's a useful reference for people that are trying to frame radiation exposures in a context they can understand. TriMesh (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep I point people to here regularly and the concept is featured in news and other contents. Definitely notable. --27.130.69.51 (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G3, a hoax created by serial hoaxer -- combining bits and pieces from different trains to create this fictional one. —SpacemanSpiff 06:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chhapra Express via Bhopal Junction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable train service. bobrayner (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userfied to User:Ellen Ada Goldberg/Boué Soeurs until the copyright issue is resolved. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Boue souers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm finding it very hard to establish the subject of the article, as it's so poorly structured and a lot of it is written in bad French, but as far as notability is concerned, after a quick google search, I was unable to find any significant, secondary source coverage. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have contacted User:Haabet who might be able to help with notability. Richiez (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not know Boue souers. I think as some Franch will be able to cut the text down to understandable English.Haabet 11:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and correct the spelling of the title. Searching under the right spelling finds plenty of news and book sources showing that this was a notable fashion house: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Phil Bridger. Ample RS coverage is available for Boué Soeurs, the correct name. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Title has been corrected to Boué Soeurs at request of article's creator. Station1 (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Speedy delete without prejudice towards recreation but there is nothing worth keeping here, copyright violation as indicated in the first paragraph RadioFan (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vytool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't appear to be notable. Article states it is not ready to be used in production. Eeekster (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable independent sources writing about this in any significant way. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonnotable software. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Cannot see how this could possibly meet notability at this time. Maybe in the future things might be different but we do not operate on "might be's". - Sitush (talk) 21:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Salteens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references, just external links to profiles and their website. No secondary source, reliable, independent significant coverage found. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also note that there is at least one article concerning an album of theirs which appears to have had equally insignificant (if not even less) coverage, Grey Eyes. It will either need to be CSDed per A9 if the result of this discussion is delete, or sent to afd if the result of this is keep for its own discussion. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 22:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for reasons stated above. Bluefist talk 22:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No references or secondary sources, external links to profiles now deadlinks, just external link to their website. Doesn't comport with A9--Hokeman (talk) 03:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In addition to the coverage found on albums articles there is also Marchand, Francois (9 October 2010), "These pop tricks are not just for kids; Vancouver's Salteens take their 'evil' music back to a more innocent time", Vancouver Sun - Serba, John (4 November 2000), "Indie popsters have Canadian government approval The 'indie by design' Salteens have records for those who come hear them play", The Grand Rapids Press - Woolfenden, Tricia (4 June 2003), "Sweetly pop-oriented, Salteens' latest is fun stuff", The Grand Rapids Press - Cowan, James (11 June 2003), "Season with salteens: Vancouver indie favourites offer summer-perfect pop", National Post - Zuel, Bernard (28 December 2002), "Metropolitan - Enjoy the sunshine.", The Sydney Morning Herald. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've just added 11 citations to the article (including one from duffbeerforme): the National Post is behind a pay wall. I didn't add this one [5] from the Vancouver Sun. There is more than enough evidence that the article meets WP:BAND numbers 1, 5, and 11. I didn't get around to citing the WP:BAND 10 claim. P.S. Feel free to bring the articles to an Afd. However, Exclaim! has reviewed them along with some of the other references I've added to this article. Argolin (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – It's difficult to understand how commentators here say that there is no independent significant coverage. Other coverage includes:
- Sperounes, Sandra (May 30, 2003). "Salteens lose none of their taste after Bradfield departs", Edmonton Journal, p. E12.
- Burliuk, Greg (June 12, 2003). "Salteens a 'fourth generation' pop band", Kingston Whig-Standard, p. 31.
- Weingarten, Marc (June 13, 2003). "Listen 2 this", Entertainment Weekly, p. 97.
- Skelton, Caroline (June 30, 2004). "Salteens revel in simple, fun songs", Victoria Times-Colonist, p. D10.
- And so on... Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Paul Erik, Argolin, and WP:HEY. Plenty of good sources exist for WP:GNG, in addition to those added already. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BigDom 08:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The bunk magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From the original PROD "As per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:GNG". Original author deleted prod with no reason. Bluefist talk 20:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article seems to be promotional in tone, notability isn't established and it's not sourced. If these aren't fixed I say delete this. Zakhalesh (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:GNG. This is still too new to have become notable yet. Please recreate the article once the magazine is sufficiently notable that there are reliable, third party sources writing about the magazine. Pburka (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete under WP:SPEEDY#G7 - article has been userfied. Marasmusine (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Raze (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability of this game is in question. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This game has been played over 13 million times in co-op mode via the internet. Now I'm pretty unsure that a heavy amount of plays counts toward any significance, but it's just a point. It has won the several awards in the past and has become quite noted in the online gaming community. Could anyone please tell me any reasons that would help keep this article up? I know there is a page for this, but I am meaning specific to the subject matter (Raze). 1Matt20 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment I would recommend finding additional outside sources, right now it has 4 references, 2 of which are the creators website, and the other 2 are the game it self. Bluefist talk 21:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there aren't many others, and none that I can find. Oh well... 1Matt20 21:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sympathy I know what you mean, I was pretty disappointed when people proposed deletion of Markus Persson, luckily people found and added good references in time. Bluefist talk 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, well any other suggestions? 1Matt20 21:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Another note: This game is, more or less arguably, notable. Tens of millions of plays, hundreds of videos, embbed on a very large amount of websites... and there is a sequel coming out. What would I have to say to clarify the problem, significance? What elements in the article The Room (video game) help it meet notability and significance guidelines, besides reviews? Also I added categories, does that help at all? *sighs* 1Matt20 22:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment The References are from reputable news organizations. Find some news articles that praise the game or talk about it. Bluefist talk 22:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and please userfy the page for me. It would be greatly appreciated. 1Matt20 23:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep on procedural grounds, per RichardOSmith. CT Cooper · talk 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Simcity 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
SimCity Societies is not SimCity 5 as it's considered a spin-off and their is no reference to SimCity 5 on the SimCity series article so I think this redirect should be deleted. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The redirect doesn't say anything about SimCity Societies; it redirects to the Versions section of the SimCity article. What's the harm in the redirect? Anyone looking for SimCity 5 will be redirected to SimCity#Versions and will discover what versions actually do exist. This is no different that a redirect from a misspelling. Pburka (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is not the correct venue - for redirects, use WP:RFD. RichardOSmith (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed as moot. Article speedily deleted by User:Jimfbleak as G11 advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- QualCare, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
COI , promotional article with unsubstantiated claims of importance and no references at all. I was unable to find any significant, secondary source coverage after looking. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 20:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete As per CSD#G11. Bluefist talk 21:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Speedy delete. Yet another business that offers affordable health plans, workers’ compensation products and related services to employers. No showing of significant effects on history, culture, or the field. Google News shows only routine press release based announcements of contracts or litigation; nothing worth saving in this unambiguous advertisement. Article placed by User:Qualcare. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Byzantium; v. 1: The Early Centuries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:N with no significant secondary source coverage asserted either in article or just generally locatable. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 20:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, expand and rename to Byzantium: The Early Centuries. This review and this bestseller list in the New York Times establish notability. The current article needs improvement, though. Pburka (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've rewritten the article, added categories and references. Quite a bit more can be done, but it's an okay stub now, and does have notablity. The page needs to be moved - I'll leave that to someone else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Despite its flaws, Norwich's series on Byzantium is one of the most popular and accessible introductory works on the empire's history (witness the dozens if not hundreds of Wikipedia articles using it as a reference). A move is in order per Pburka, however it should probably wait the outcome of this AfD. Constantine ✍ 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but I am going to move it. Actually, almost all of JJN's works are probably notable as he is such a noted author, especially on this historical period, though it is probably difficult to find references to individual works. Deb (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Keep. As nominator, I have withdrawn this nomination. All editors commenting here have supported keep. Donald Albury 16:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The Roads (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. The only mention of the neighborhood that I can find that is not a blog, real estate listing site or pure advertising site is a newspaper article mentioning that a church hosting a festival is in "the Roads". Donald Albury 20:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - An extremely difficult search term as "The roads" is a common phrase. However, just doing a search of "The Roads" and its founder Brickell Hammock, I found very significant coverage on just that extremely narrow search term. [6][7]. It's a bona fide historic Miami neighborhood.--Oakshade (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: this is one of those articles I call a "real-time" article, one which is all well and true but impossible to find "references" for and which should be allowed to exist on accepted truth. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It's one of the city recognized neighborhoods, and also has an extensive article. Unlike many of the other "neighborhood" articles for Miami which are either too short, not legitimate, and/or without sources, I believe The Roads has credentials to stay. --Comayagua99 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please, if you have found reliable sources, add them to article. Saying there are reliable sources without citing them doesn't help much. BTW, I searched on '"The Roads" Miami', and found only one newspaper article. Without knowing the connection to the Brickells, I had no reason to search for that. Oh, and I don't think the founder was Brickell Hammock; the hammock was named after William Barnwell Brickell and his family. -- Donald Albury 23:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N does not require sources to be in the article, just that they exist. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But how can anyone check the sources if they are not cited? WP:Verifiability does require that reliable sources be cited for any statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged. -- Donald Albury 11:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:N does not require sources to be in the article, just that they exist. --Oakshade (talk) 02:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the Miami neighborhoods aren't notable, perhaps all the Tampa neighborhoods should be deleted also?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Tampa_neighborhoods
- Changing to Keep. I've seen enough now to change my mind. I believe the notability of this neighborhood has been established (at least as much as many other neighborhood articles in WP). -- Donald Albury 11:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: lol since you are the nominator, and the only one who said delete, and now you're changing your decision to keep, doesn't that automatically make the decision keep and end the nomination? Daniel Christensen (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably not. Welcome to bureaucracy! - Marc Averette (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd close this as "Withdrawn by nominator" but as I participated in the discussion, I prefer not to.--Oakshade (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BigDom 08:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Harris (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No references in article as it stands and I was unable to find enough secondary source, significant coverage. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 19:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources provided or found. Not notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per the above. Without the coverage we require, I can't see keeping this article. That said, we should revisit the issue if Mr. Harris composes some more notable works, or if he receives coverage that inches him past the requirements of the WP:GNG. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Deep Freeze (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable movie. The director has some minor notability for his work in the 80's. I can't even tell for sure if this movie was ever officially released anywhere in any form. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Following the links to IMDb and from there to Amazon.com, it appears that this film has at least been released on DVD under the title Ice Crawlers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - limited release, no reviews by major critics, no awards or other assertion of notability. Cannot see it meets any of the standards of WP:NFSeaphotoTalk 00:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Michael Q Schmidt has done a very good job finding sources and reviews that bring it up to notable. Well done! SeaphotoTalk 04:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) DVD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Greece DVD
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) working title
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Hungary
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) France
- Keep as it now meets WP:NF. Rather than a "limited release", this one has had US and European releases on television and DVD and in several languages. Almost surprsing though, as this is one has a repute for being one of John Carl Buechler's least professional efforts. That said, any hope that a "nationally known" reviewer might soil his hands is a bit much. However, even as a piece of derivative schlock, the film is critiqued (panned) by reviewers notable for their genre. Work in ongoing, yes... but the one-sentence unsourced stub that was nominated,[8] is already beginning to look better.[9] Improvement through expansion and regular editing serves the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources found and included in the article. Dream Focus 09:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete and SALT as reposted hoax. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC) (non-admin closure: already deleted by admin)[reply]
- Futbol Club de Real Bigone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is almost completely unsourced. It was previously deleted and I don't see how this recreation is any better. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the page should be salted after this because this is the third time it was recreated.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an obvious joke. "Real Bigone" has zero hits on Google News, Books and Scholar. Relevant web hits appear to be mirrors of this article. Why would a football club in England have a Spanish name, especially the joke "Real Big One". Why would their rival "Athletico Ladrid" have a Spanish name, and only 4 Google hits, including this article and two Facebook pages? Ho ho, very funny. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Good club, good future coming Terry Venables —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.179.250 (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as obvious hoax, and recreation of previously deleted material (a mere 5 days ago). Needs to be salted too. Ravendrop 01:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete -- db-hoax & db-repost. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus, should of asked Jeeves instead mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.93.17 (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Bigone is a world renowned football club. Anyone who follows football and doesn't sleep with their computer would know this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenny90 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as absolute nonsense; once deleted, please SALT so that we don't have to waste our precious time on future AfDs. GiantSnowman 16:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Stocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Radio presenter/produced who doesn't seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). BLP created in 2005 and tagged as unsourced since 2009. I did a short search for sources but couldn't find anything that looked reliable. Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, the article survived an AfD in 2005.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - seems to be an unremarkable local radio presenter, fails WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:Entertainer. Pburka (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per the notability arguments made above plus the fact that I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources to verify the contents of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 13:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to International Volleyball Association. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- San Jose Diablos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This team article is the only one from any of the teams in the International Volleyball Association. Since it was formed in the league's final year of existence, it does not deserve to have that distinction. It is also a stub, poorly sourced, and poorly written. Instead of having just one team article, have there be no team articles. Soxrock24 (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into the IVA article. Except there's no real information to merge... I redirected it back to IVA, but the rdr itself could be deleted. –SJ+ 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have of late been directing my attention to other topics in sports history. However, I will devote some time to improving these IVA articles (not written by me) with sourced information. I do know that Sports Illustrated magazine included weekly updates on this league during the late 1970s; however, I will have to go to my storage locker to dig up the paper copies. I doubt that the SI website has archived these older volumes. i also have a San Jose Diablos pennant that I may photograph.
The result of the discussion was to merge. Soxrock24 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. As this AfD received minimal participation, anyone may request restoration of the article at WP:REFUND. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheetah Motorsports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable company, fails WP:COMPANY due to lack of significant coverage. Only press releases and routine news coverage. Dbratland (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. I can only find a couple of press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to The Game Creators. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FPS Creator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced semi-ad for non-notable software. Orange Mike | Talk 01:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - unreferenced software article, no indication of notability. could not find reliable 3rd party source coverage of this product. Dialectric (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to DarkBASIC Professional, or The Game Creators. FPS Creator is a stripped-down version of this language with a GUI added on. Verification available through these three books. Marasmusine (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 05:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Nothing establishing notability.--Sloane (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- R. K. Kamboj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Although it is easy to find many publications by the subject of this article, I am unable to find any significant coverage of this individual in any reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Should anyone locate and add reliable sources that verify the content of the article I will happily reconsider this nomination. J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral (
Delete Per nom. I'd taken a shot at this one and had come up empty on finding reliable sources providing signficant coverage as well. --joe deckertalk to me 03:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)(switched to abstain based on the ACADEMIC argument).[reply] - Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. Google Scholar shows that some of his publications have been cited by others hundreds of times. Article needs cleanup but the subject appears notable. --MelanieN (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ACADEMIC is a good point. The only publications I see there that list hundreds of cites list far down on the author list, but I haven't done a deep study of that. Publications where he had a lead authorship start with cite counts about 40. While h-index and g-index are crude tools at best, I'll note for the record, CIDS gives 17 and 35, respectively, when self-citations and apparent false name matches are excluded. I have no idea if that's suggestive of notability within this fellow's field of study. As a result, I'm left neutral/abstaining. --joe deckertalk to me 03:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Keep there is an existing consensus in academic related afds that a h-index > 10 makes a academic notable--Sodabottle (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute that there is such a consensus, and I encourage reading the Talk page for WP:ACADEMIC for anyone who wants a little more information on that point. In particular, this discussion mentions the problems with the index as an indicator of notability but discusses a threshold of 25, whereas a later section (with only one author, so I'm not claiming it demonstrates much) laughs at an h-index of 14. --joe deckertalk to me 06:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: WP:ACADEMIC should not eclipse the core content policies No original research and Verifiability. This article is all unverifiable original research. This is a BLP with zero sources in the article and zero sources offered yet in this discussion. J04n(talk page) 06:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but the article needs massive clean up. It should probably be reduced to a stub containing only verifiable material. Here's an article where the subject is interviewed as part of a forum: ‘India may get its first novel drug by 2014’. Here's an article confirming his appointment to an executive position at Lupin Ltd.: Lupin goes all out to make up for lost chances. Pburka (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 17:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Vegan Prisoners Support Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
not convinced by the last AfD. in 16 years of existence all it gets is 6 gnews hits [10]. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per previous AFD. It was notable then and it's still notable. The argument of low GNews hits is a non-starter - there isn't a threshold of number of hits that counts either way towards notability. Google News also misses lots of UK newspaper coverage - a search on the NewsUK archive demonstrates much more coverage from UK newspapers such as the Express, Mail, Telegraph, Western Mail, Guardian, and Birmingham Mail, several of which are not found in Google News. --Michig (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- could you please provide evidence of this additional coverage? LibStar (talk) 03:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it was notable the last time, it doesn't loose notability just because it hasn't received much recent press as reported by google news. Monty845 (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- google news doesn't just cover recent press. it covers English press from up to over 100 years ago. LibStar (talk) 03:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - granted, not a lot of coverage, but appears they achieved a major policy change which was reported by the Daily Mail[11], the Guardian[12] and the Telegraph[13] in 2009, which is significant.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- International Pixel-Stained Technopeasant Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a notable event. Not the subject of significant mention in thrid-party sources. Wikipedia is not for publicity for things made up one day. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's the subject of significant mention in *many* third-party sources, per the above search link. It was "made up one day" but it spread like wildfire and it's been continuing for several years, with many notable award-winning authors participating. -- BunsenH (talk) 04:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as subject crosses the verifiability and notability thresholds, including third-party coverage in Galley Cat and Boing Boing. - Dravecky (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is BoingBoing considered a reliable source for the purpose of establishing notability? (I'm not familiar with MediaBistro.) Nevertheless the coverage is rather scant at the sources you linked. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per BunsenH. –SJ+ 18:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The references in the article and both the examples above appear to be blogs, not reliable sources. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the whole point of the event is to post material for free on-line, it's unsurprising that most of the coverage is in blogs. -BunsenH (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, but we require verification from reliable sources, and it is well-established that blogs are not in general reliable in our sense. Is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, as WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Dravecky (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite correct, which is why I said "in general". However, the exception is for verifiability. Notability requires reliable third-party sources, an additional condition, so the exception you quote does not apply here. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, because your comment was prefaced "Maybe so, but we require verification from reliable sources" you appeared to be talking about verifiability. You even linked it to WP:V so my apparent confusion as to your point is not exclusive. - Dravecky (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite correct, which is why I said "in general". However, the exception is for verifiability. Notability requires reliable third-party sources, an additional condition, so the exception you quote does not apply here. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so, as WP:SPS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." - Dravecky (talk) 20:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe so, but we require verification from reliable sources, and it is well-established that blogs are not in general reliable in our sense. Is there "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Howard V. Hendrix. The day itself does not appear to have received sufficient reliable coverage to satisfy notability requirements, but the incident did (see Google Books for a couple of sources). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If merging, it might make more sense to merge to Jo Walton, who created the response, rather than to Hendrix, whose comments initiated the reaction, but didn't participate in the event.Shsilver (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The comments themselves seem to be more notable than the response to them, but that would also make sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The event has been going on for years, and the participating authors are *much* better known than Hendrix is. (See the list in the article, and -- again -- the search link above.) Why do you think that the comments are more notable than the response? BunsenH (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's what I found significant coverage in independent reliable sources on. The notability of the individuals isn't at issue - I agree Walton is more notable than Hendrix, but the event cannot inherit her notability. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The event has been going on for years, and the participating authors are *much* better known than Hendrix is. (See the list in the article, and -- again -- the search link above.) Why do you think that the comments are more notable than the response? BunsenH (talk) 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The comments themselves seem to be more notable than the response to them, but that would also make sense. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If merging, it might make more sense to merge to Jo Walton, who created the response, rather than to Hendrix, whose comments initiated the reaction, but didn't participate in the event.Shsilver (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Igwe Kenneth Onyeneke Orizu III (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article fails to establish notability - article fails WP:GNG & WP:RS. Amsaim (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For heaven's sake, he's the hereditary ruler of a city of 300,000 people in Nigeria. Of course he is notable - per WP:POLITICIAN if you aren't impressed that he is regarded as a Royal Highness. Google News finds plenty of material about him. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. GNG and RS were not meant to be used in this way to delete people with an obvious claim to notability. Help find better sources, or claim that the article is making false claims, but please don't try to delete because the sources haven't been included yet. –SJ+ 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. As if Wikipedia were not biased enough.--TM 18:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Boerebach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 3. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can't find any reliable sources which would back the claims of notability outside of the Rockwiz stuff. Lovetinkle (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not established outside his connection to Rockwiz. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep So he finally received national recognition through Rockwiz? We have a well-sourced article on a blind savant, a victim of Asbergers, whose deeds have been reported in multiple reliable sources. Sourcing appears to meet WP:GNG, and the many articles about the man and his accomplishments show his being worthy enough of note for Wikipedia. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Please see the sources in the article and the ones that were mentioned in the DRV for this article. He has received significant coverage from many independent, reliable sources. Although the majority of the coverage is related to Rockwiz, not all of it is. He clearly has the coverage to pass the general notability guideline and has also received coverage for more than one event, so WP:BLP1E (I think that's what the delete votes were claiming) does not apply. Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per Jenks24. I'm not sure WP:ONEEVENT is really geared to this particular case, as my reading of it suggests to me that the primary purpose is to avoid creating articles about people who are only known by virtue of involvement in a notable event. In this case, if one assumes that the "event" is the subject's appearance on Rockwiz, I would suggest that the "event" itself made the press only because the challenges Boerebach faces in daily life and his efforts to overcome them--few, if any, who have appeared on the show have been interviewed so extensively on TV and radio, or had similar coverage in regional or national press. I am swayed by the extent of the coverage about the subject, and that the documentary made about him is making the rounds now of film festivals. Between the documentary, the number of interviews and article about him and his journey to the Rockwiz show, and the local coverage in his home town and the ZDNet article on his net radio program, both of which occurred prior to his involvement in Rockwiz, I believe he meets, if narrowly, provisions established in the GNG. In way of disclosure, I was involved in rewriting this just prior to the last AFD. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Nuujinn –SJ+ 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the same reasons as last time. This is a guy who appeared on one not-very-notable game show and... well, that's it. Really, that's all. It's not a BLP1E because that generally implies being notable for one event, but being on "Rockwiz" doesn't rise to that level. This is a BLP0E. Even if we did away with our "encyclopedia" goal and decided to be a game-show contestant directory, there are tens of thousands of more notable contestants on important shows before we'd get around to listing everyone who's been on "Rockwiz". In addition, the subject, for whatever reason, seems desperate to self-promote by having an article, and I have serious concerns that COI/SPAM issues will arise if this is kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So basically what you're saying is that, even though this guys easily meets the general notability guideline and is notable per Wikipedia's definition of notability (ie significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, and for more than one event), because you think there are other more notable game show contestants and because the subject wants an article on himself, we should ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and delete the article? Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. What I'm saying is that this is a person who has essentially no notability at all and is completely out of scope for an encyclopedia, and would be so even if we were a game-show-contestant encyclopedia, which we are not. I'm also absolutely not nearly as impressed by the supposed "coverage" as you are, but I acknowledge that the primary issue here is one of notability and SPAM, and not necessarily verifiability. You are entitled to your own !vote, which you've already had. Please don't attempt to misrepresent mine. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for the response. On re-reading my comment, I guess I can see where you can see that I was trying to misrepresent you, but let me please assure that was not what I was attempting to do; I was honestly a bit confused by your delete !vote and was trying to seek clarification (though my bias in thinking the article should be kept obviously came through). I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the scope of Wikipedia and Boerbach's notability. I think he passes the GNG, is not subject to BLP1E and therefore is within Wikipedia's scope whether we want it to be or not. In regards to the spam issue, I do understand your reservations there, but Nuujinn and myself both have the article watchlisted and will continue to do after the AfD (if it is kept) and both of us will try to maintain the article in a neutral, enyclopedic tone. I don't know if that gives you any confidence in believing the article will remain free of spam, but I hope it might. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if he is not subject to BLP1E, I'm not sure what the objection would be. He's clearly had significant coverage in reliable sources, I think because he is a remarkable person by virtue of being a savant. Savants are an interesting topic, so it's not surprising that there is coverage of him. It's true that the bulk of the coverage is related to his appearance on the show, and normally a contestant on such a show would not be notable--and a reflection of that is that most such contestants do not wind up receiving attention at a national level in the press. I believe it is the combination of 1) a savant who operates an internet radio station who's 2) appeared on a popular game show about music, who has also 3) had that experience documented by an independent film maker that creates the interest that led to the coverage. Also, I personally do not believe that the current version of the article is very spammy, but if anyone wants to trim it back to improve it, please do not hesitate. If the concern is that the subject of the article might try to push a point of view of use WP as a promotional tool, I would suggest that he's acting in a conservative mode now, and let's assume good faith and deal with such problems if they arise. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thanks for the response. On re-reading my comment, I guess I can see where you can see that I was trying to misrepresent you, but let me please assure that was not what I was attempting to do; I was honestly a bit confused by your delete !vote and was trying to seek clarification (though my bias in thinking the article should be kept obviously came through). I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the scope of Wikipedia and Boerbach's notability. I think he passes the GNG, is not subject to BLP1E and therefore is within Wikipedia's scope whether we want it to be or not. In regards to the spam issue, I do understand your reservations there, but Nuujinn and myself both have the article watchlisted and will continue to do after the AfD (if it is kept) and both of us will try to maintain the article in a neutral, enyclopedic tone. I don't know if that gives you any confidence in believing the article will remain free of spam, but I hope it might. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all. What I'm saying is that this is a person who has essentially no notability at all and is completely out of scope for an encyclopedia, and would be so even if we were a game-show-contestant encyclopedia, which we are not. I'm also absolutely not nearly as impressed by the supposed "coverage" as you are, but I acknowledge that the primary issue here is one of notability and SPAM, and not necessarily verifiability. You are entitled to your own !vote, which you've already had. Please don't attempt to misrepresent mine. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So basically what you're saying is that, even though this guys easily meets the general notability guideline and is notable per Wikipedia's definition of notability (ie significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, and for more than one event), because you think there are other more notable game show contestants and because the subject wants an article on himself, we should ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and delete the article? Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I can see where those who vote to delete are coming from, where a contestant appearing on a quiz show does not count for notability, however I feel the main thing all these votes fail to recognize is the subjects ability for chart knowledge, and the press articles, including ZDNet, which were published way before the subjects appearance on Rockwiz. With this in consideration, it is evident that the subject is notable outside of Rockwiz. KatCassidy (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per katcassidy. This person meets MUSIC and SINGER guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Followmy.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable Aaabbccz Talk Contribs 16:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No coverage that would meet WP:WEB. The Interior (Talk) 12:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nominator was blocked by Tnxman307 on a {{checkuserblock}}. Though I do see a posiblity to delete. Closing admin should take this into account. -- DQ (t) (e) 16:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve, borderline per WP:WEB and growing. –SJ+ 18:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Live at the Marquee Theatre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Just a track list, and I cannot find any outside sources about this album. Nothing really to merge into the artist's article. Logan Talk Contributions 16:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Probably exists, but it's not notable enough. No reviews in allmusic, billboard, exclaim, blistering or any similar sites. It just might also be scheduled for a future release, but whatever, it fails WP:NM ༺ gabrielkfl ༻ (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can find no sources for album's existence outside of social networking and download sites. Oddly, the album, is listed in the band's template but not in the discography list at the main band article. It can be mentioned briefly there. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete without prejudice . Poorly sourced BLP. I won't restore this but feel free to recreate with multiple reliable sources if they exist. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jared "Deraj aka Teddy Bear" Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Notability not established according to WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cind.amuse 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:GNG etc.--TM 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Rammstein demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
These demos appear to fail the WP:NSONGS notability guideline. There does not appear to be significant coverage of this in third-party sources. Icalanise (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh. Maybe I should have just gone with WP:PROD on this, for all the discussion this has attracted... Icalanise (talk) 12:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Certainly widely known; the article could use a better title and some work looking into the history of the demos. Sources are hard to find b/c they are often mentioned in the context of later albums. –SJ+ 18:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- JammerDirect.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article about local website with only minor local news coverage, which does not meet the "non-trivial coverage" rules of Wikipedia's notability standards. Other alleged sources are online blogs that fail WP:RS quite dramatically. Article is also clear COI violation, with most edits by SPAs. -- Previous nomination had no other input for or against. Relisting to get some outside opinion. DreamGuy (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for mercy's sake. Article is about a social networking website with its primary focus on the artistic and music scenes of the Midwestern United States. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopes Die Last (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod - Non-notable, non-sourced band that fails WP:BAND. Aspects (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems notable enough after the last album. –SJ+ 18:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete - Notability is questionable here. The album did not chart, but the label is the same one who contracts Vanilla Ice. So if notability can be determined by the label, then it's a Keep. Otherwise, delete. CycloneGU (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ithaca Shakespeare Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable local theater company WuhWuzDat 22:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 16:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 05:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stacy Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. This is a self-promotional article written by the individual herself. She has had small roles in some red linked projects, and a two episode walk-on role in a reality TV show. The references included are bare mentions and are not the siginificant coverage required to meet WP:ENT. As it is an autobiography, there is also the concern that large parts of it consist of original research. Kessler may one day score the types of roles required to meet notability criteria, at which time someone uninvolved will likely create her article, but she's not there yet. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Per WP:COI Might be worthwhile to determine if she is notable for other reasons. CycloneGU (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. gnews archive brings back nothing --CutOffTies (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for failing WP:ENT and WP:GNG. She does have some minor coverage for her work in Millionaire Matchmaker,[14] but not enough to push the bar. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. CSD:A7 Stifle (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Efied (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
site of classified advertisment launched in 2011, IMHO non notable yet Melaen (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-- per nom. Doesn't appear to be notable. --E♴(talk) 15:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete I believe it meets criteria for WP:CSD A7 as non-notable website with no claim of significance or importance. Enfcer (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn LibStar (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Kåre Hedebrant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
fails WP:ENT. only 1 major role. has been nominated for awards but that is not the same as winning them. LibStar (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Even if one lead role in a notable film isn't enough to meet WP:ENT, a point that's been repeatedly debated, a simple GNews search turns up more than enough commentary on the subject and his performance to satisfy the GNG. Besides, the "Fangoria Chainsaw" award is more significant than most of the awards that have been (regrettably) recognized by consensus here as significant enough to contribute to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Hullaballoo. –SJ+ 18:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Hullaballoo.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Also has the lead in the upcoming Amors Baller (and the cited article calls him "one of Sweden's biggest film talents"). That gives him 2 leading roles, surely enough to meet the applicable notability criterion, and the article is amply cited.--Yngvadottir (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep multiple nominations meet WP:ANYBIO. Coverage in multiple independent sources meets WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Molly O'Connell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Who is she but a contestant in a reality TV show? Not even a finalist. The established consensus is that few but the season winner has an article, if they have other notable achievements to their name. The article already bills her as a 'fashion model'. Substantially contributed to by two new accounts with few edits outside of the subject or ANTM16. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Non notable game show contestant. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-- per above. Just a contestant. --E♴(talk) 16:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Agree with above. Would not contest recreation if something eventually transpires out of this appearance (i.e. becomes a professional fashion model or appears in T.V. or movies elsewhere in other roles), but right now not worthy of an article. CycloneGU (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This user removed the BLPPROD tag, although it was unreferenced and it does need to take proposed deletion. First, the BLPPROD tag didn't really last long and I choose to delete for one vote. Non-notable person. ApprenticeFan work 13:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. BigDom 08:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hlynur Atli Magnússon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL because the Úrvalsdeild, whilst being the top division in Iceland, isn't a fully professional league. Also doesn't appear to have done anything to pass WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7. NN autobio of a 14-year-old, previously deleted three times and salted. Author was warned for removing speedy tag; 15 minutes later a new SPA account was created and started removing it. That is not the way to avoid speedy deletion. JohnCD (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jaco Snyman (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The speedy deletion tag (A7) has been repeatedly removed by various IPs; while I personally have very little doubt that they are all connected to the article creator, I'll take this to AfD now. I still believe that the article qualifies for deletion for lack of notability per WP:ENT. Two earlier versions have been deleted as such already. bonadea contributions talk 13:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dylan Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Restored PROD. The undeletion request says that this is autobiography. The Amazon link is dead, and I have searched in Amazon, Google Books, Worldcat, without finding any trace of this author's books, e.g. [15], [16]. Possible hoax, certainly (see correction below) fails the notability standard of WP:AUTHOR. JohnCD (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again. Autobiographies are discouraged, as they're generally neither verifiable nor neutral. This autobiography fails WP:V and WP:N. Pburka (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The amazon page as linked in the prod is [17] but that merely confirms that these books aren't notable.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-- WP:AUTHOR. --E♴(talk) 16:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correction: I withdraw the "hoax" suggestion: searching without the author's first name finds the other book too [18] - but they are self-published (Lulu) and do not show notability to the standard of WP:AUTHOR. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only claim to notability is his books, which are self-published. I have searched for reviews of the books but not found anything, so this article fails WP:AUTHOR. --bonadea contributions talk 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete again, nn.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as the autobiography of a self-published poet that fails to cross either the verifiability or notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 14:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - vanity autobio by vanity-published writer. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brânză topită (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Brânză topită should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Besides, brânză topită (= melted / processed cheese) is not a traditional Romanian cheese, as it was first produced in 1911 in Switzerland, from where it spread all over the world - in Romania it has been produced only since 1930. For a more thorough discussion of this topic see also fr:Discussion:Caş/Suppression and fr:Wikipédia:Pages à fusionner#Brânză topită et Tartinette. Burghiu (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- see also fr:Discussion:Brânză topită/Suppression and es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Brânză topită. Burghiu (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. —Burghiu (talk) 13:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KeepArticles about varieties of cheeses are much more than dictionary definitions. Nominator seems to feel that there are inaccuracies in the article. Fine. Please use your knowledge to improve the article, referencing reliable sources in any language. Thank you. Cullen328 (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- you've got me wrong - brânză topită is just the Romanian term for processed cheese, it is not a variety of the "processed cheese" you can find in your cheeseburger in LA, in Manchester or in Sydney. The brânză topită Romanians can eat in Romania was invented in 1911 by Walter Gerber of Thun, in Switzerland just as any other processed cheese one can eat anywhere else in the world. The Laughing Cow is an example of brânză topită, just see for yourself and, if you want, see also here. Burghiu (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is simply the Romanian name for "processed cheese" and does not describe any cheese product specific to Romania, then I change my recommendation to Delete. I trust your judgment on this, Burghiu. Is that what you are saying?Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's exactly what I'm saying: brânză topită is the Romanian name for processed cheese. The Romanian name is similar to the French fromage fondu and to the Spanish es:queso fundido which literally mean "melted cheese" and which translate into English by processed cheese. The confusing element is that while Romanian, French and Spanish are Romance languages (which often permits to translate phrases literally from one language into the other), English is not a Romance language and one cannot translate literally from Romanian or Spanish to English. If "melted cheese" sounds odd to a native speaker of English is because it is a literal translation from Romanian or Spanish and it is at the same time the wrong translation for "processed cheese". Burghiu (talk) 06:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is simply the Romanian name for "processed cheese" and does not describe any cheese product specific to Romania, then I change my recommendation to Delete. I trust your judgment on this, Burghiu. Is that what you are saying?Cullen328 (talk) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As a Romanian speaker, I can validate Burghiu's point. Dahn (talk) 10:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I like to keep the article but as per nominator, there are no references and it a brand of Cheese which is a generic term. --Visik (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Either a casual hoax, or an odd attempt at OR - as indicated by the reference. –SJ+ 18:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Grind turn pull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
this article is unsalvageably non-notable Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Given that there are exactly two hits on google for the exact phrase "Grind turn pull" which are this article and the entry on the AFD page... It doesn't technically meet any of the deletion criteria since it's not an individual, animal, organization, web content, or song. SDY (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't agree with speedying the article only because there is no {{db-original research}} tag. LordVetinari (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You could very easily add one. The reference is, for all I can tell, a joke. SDY (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I agree with that. I was just trying to highlight my view of the article as being WP:OR and also propose a new speedy criterion in a simultaneous and economical manner. LordVetinari (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That said, I've added a {{db-hoax}} tag. If that flies, then this discussion can be admin closed. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not sure it qualifies as an obvious hoax, though: obvious hoaxes involve physical or historical impossibilities. It is definitely a dictionary definition, original research, and simply dumb. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Algeria–Kosovo relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The introductory text to this article is "Algerian-Kosovan relations are non-existent", which brings doubt onto the necessity for the page, certainly with this title. The rest of the article is a direct copy of content from International recognition of Kosovo, and isn't really about relations.
The article's creator, User:*Kat*, stated in the original edit summary that "I am in the process of breaking down the International recognition of Kosovo article into much smaller pieces (the main article is over 220kbs long). This is the first of several sub articles on it". The International recognition article is lengthy, but no discussion has taken place on its Talk page about this. This should have been a first step before creating split articles such as this one, and I suspect that any such proposal would have been rejected. I would certainly argue against splitting up the content of the International recognition article in this way. Bazonka (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As per nomination. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 12:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/ Redirect Such relations do not exist and that content which is in this article is not notable for a stand-alone article. I propose that the title "Algeria–Kosovo relations" be redirected to "International recognition of Kosovo". IJA (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to International recognition of Kosovo. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per my edit summary. The International recognition of Kosovo article is one of the largest (both in terms of word count and KB) on Wikipedia. Breaking it down into smaller bites would make the whole thing much more readable. --*Kat* (meow?) 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whilst I agree that the International recognition article is overly large, the creation of articles like this is not the best way to address the problem - certainly not without prior discussion anyway. Bazonka (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BRD doesn't apply to this article? --*Kat* (meow?) 05:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:NOTPAPER IJA (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to split that article, then don't make a hundred small mini-articles because it's much more difficult to maintain. Break it into big pieces. A good way is taking the biggest sections and moving them to a new article, leaving a brief summary behind. For example List of states which formally recognise Kosovo as independent and List of states which do not formally recognise Kosovo as independent, leaving behind summaries of how many states are in each list. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a sensible proposal, but it should be discussed at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo first. Bazonka (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Whilst I agree that the International recognition article is overly large, the creation of articles like this is not the best way to address the problem - certainly not without prior discussion anyway. Bazonka (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to International recognition of Kosovo. The only encyclopedic content is about recognition. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would only propose creating separate articles for countries with large sections, such as Russia, Slovakia, Indonesia ect. The section regarding Algeria is not big in comparison. Also I would name theses articles "X and Kosovo's Declaration of Independence" instead of X-Kosovo relations" as they aren't relations. IJA (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Man, how many things can you say about the recognition of *one* country? You would have to milk mercilessly every source to extract enough material for one full article. It's better to group several countries and make sections for each country. Try, for example, grouping all European countries in one article. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think the difference between the Deletionist and Inclusionist tribes is actually comparatively small. There's plenty of crap coming through the pipe that we can agree needs to go away and most of the serious articles in Wikipedia aren't subjected to pointless attacks on the grounds of religious application of notability doctrine. The "Country X — Country Y Relations" articles are one big sticking point. Yes, they are extremely esoteric. I don't know what would motivate a person to dedicate their time to constructing these, but mine not to reason why... In general, the absurdist permutations of these have been getting whacked, Maldive Islands-Iceland relations and fodder of that sort, the really big ones aren't getting challenged, Russia-Canada relations and so forth. Then there are articles like this one. Esoteric? Certainly. Useless? Maybe not — Algeria and Kosovo both being Muslim countries and all. Anyway, I'm an inclusionist — there's no point in deleting serious information just because it's highly esoteric. There ya go. Carrite (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the issue here is not about the type of article, but about its content. There are no diplomatic relations between Kosovo and Algeria, and the text in this article isn't about relations; if there were relations then I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion. Bazonka (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- @Carrite. Is it significant that both countries are muslim? Has it affected relationships in some notable way? Can you cite RS that support these effects? Those are the questions that are relevant here. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or possibly merge anything useful to International recognition of Kosovo. No point in writing an article about something that apparently does not exist, and the content in the article is about recognition, not relations. Sandstein 07:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Types of Christianity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There's an article on Christianity. Is this one needed? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Shire Reeve (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge It seems this information could easily be added to the Christianity article. Being the current list on this article lists only variations of the main Christianity. Golgofrinchian (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. This article is based on the research and conclusions made by Arthur J. Bellinzoni Professor of Religion. The Christianity article is protected. Since I couldn't put these classifications on there I wrote this article. I would be quite happy if somebody with editing permissions could do such a merge (Yessy543 (talk) 17:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete Prof Bellinzoni, whose classification this article is about, is expressly giving his view on the development of what he terms Early Catholic Christianity. The subject heading isn't appropriate for this and there are several articles on Early Christianity. AJHingston (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge then with either Christianity or Early Christianity. How Christianity is today, is a direct result of the substreams that developed initially. Still today those branches of Christianity exists very definately - Gnosticism, Pauline Christianity, Johannine Christianity as well as Jewish Christianity are active streams within Christianity, and the fact that this differentiation is not made when people introduce themselves as being Christian creates a lot of confusion, even when one starts doing research on the types of mysticism that applies to the different branches, and yet is almost worlds apart (see Christian mysticism. Why the article on Early Christianity and Christianity isn't combined I don't understand.Christianity is such a vast topic, I would have personally been much more comfortable if the main article Christianity merely pointed to a long list of sub-articles, including Early Christianity without being an article in itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessy543 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The early divisions are enormously important, of course, and the classification is not novel. But it is inferred from the sources, not the only way of looking at it, and Paul, of course, famously rejected the attaching of his name to a particular faction. Then there are those who are very uncomfortable with the whole idea, which is presumably why Prof Bellinzoni carefully talked about the development of Catholic Christianity. Added to that is the question of whether any doctrinal understanding since 200AD has validity other than by reference to things written before that date (or an earlier one). The difficulty for Wikipedia is that the topic of Christianity is so complex and far reaching. Keeping control of the structure (hence this discussion) is essential, and periodic restructuring will have to be done. I voted for delete rather than merge because it seems better to address inadequacies in the present articles directly than simply trying to slot in this material wholesale. AJHingston (talk) 13:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic of Christianity is indeed complex. And the greatest division is indeed about the Gospel of Paul. You said "and Paul, of course, famously rejected the attaching of his name to a particular faction." Within the context of his gospel, I disagree with you. In Paul's letters to the Galatians (Chapter 1) he talked about "his gospel" and stated in no uncertain terms, that if anybody rejects "his Gospel" (Paul's Gospel), let them be accursed. Paul had no tollerance for any other Gospel than his Gospel. He considered it as the only truth, the only true interpretation of the message of Christianity. Yet the other streams of Christianity does not emphasise the Gospel of Paul. The Teachings of Jesus is rather emphasized as a guide to assist people in their spiritual development when adhered to. This division within Christianity between those following Paul's Gospel and those that reject it, is so enormoys, that to consolidate all groups that uses the bible within one umbrella called "Christianity", would be similar as to group together all vegetarians as all serving some common couse. I would love to see that divide emphasized in any way, it doesn't have to be with the content of the article under discussion. Paul's Gospel is either rejected or embraced, no neutral stand on it is possible in Christianity. Not in early Christianity, and still not today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yessy543 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, and I really wasn't wanting to express an opinion either way on whether Paul's teachings stand as a distinct doctrine. What I wanted to get at is precisely that we all have our own understandings, and these differences may even extend to the way the Christianity articles are structured, because what makes sense to us may unwittingly step on somebody else's profound belief. The challenge is not just to try to maintain a neutral point of view but in these matters actively seek to accommodate views which we consider mistaken. The Wikipedia Christianity articles would be better if everyone had found that possible. AJHingston (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You said "The challenge is not just to try to maintain a neutral point of view but in these matters actively seek to accommodate views which we consider mistaken."
- The issue is that wikipedia goes from the standpoint that there are many truths and one should not try and offend. Fundamental Pauline Christianity is however an extremely offensive religion. It boldly proclaims that there is only ONE truth, that there is no salvation available to anybody that does not embrace the Pauline Gospel, that all people are lost and deceived that resists the Gospel of Paul and that our best efforts to try and please God without faith in the finished work of Jesus on the Cross, is like filthy menstrual cloths before God - that disgusting, not our sin, our self-righteousness!!. Except for pointing out that there is a distinct difference between Pauline Christianity and all other religions that tries to earn salvation or enlightenment by means of pursuing some spiritual path and doing good deeds, there would be no way to cater for all. If the current "Types of Christianity" article is not satisfactory, let us change it then, and then merge it, but let us present the concept of Christianity with it's fundamental divisions from the very introduction. (Yessy543 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)) PS: Looking at the article Christian mysticism , the need for type spesifications, running through to practices and the different mysticisms that applies is unquestionable. (Yessy543 (talk) 18:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I understand, and I really wasn't wanting to express an opinion either way on whether Paul's teachings stand as a distinct doctrine. What I wanted to get at is precisely that we all have our own understandings, and these differences may even extend to the way the Christianity articles are structured, because what makes sense to us may unwittingly step on somebody else's profound belief. The challenge is not just to try to maintain a neutral point of view but in these matters actively seek to accommodate views which we consider mistaken. The Wikipedia Christianity articles would be better if everyone had found that possible. AJHingston (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Christianity, this is a pretty clear cut situation here. There is no indication that this needs a dedicated article. I dont think anyone will dispute that this religion, like most religions, have differences within, but there is not ample evidence that a dedicated article is needed. Those differences can be briefly covered in the Christianity article and then expanded in the articles on each "type" (certainly there is a more academic word than type that can be used here instead)?. RadioFan (talk) 00:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete altogether. Redundant and inferior in coverage to List of Christian denominations, with an interesting but ultimately irrelevant addition of the Christian sect Marcionites. They became extinct in the early centuries of the first millenium, and have neither grown sufficiently in recent years, nor have their beliefs remained sufficiently unaltered, such that they would not be better described as Christians who believe in Marcionism, rather than a separate type of Christians. Anarchangel (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The types of Christianity is the higher category. List of dinominations are under each (except for the one distinct type). The types are completely different like fruit and vegetables. Under fruit is a list of fruits, and under vegetables is a list. But to mix a list of fruit and vegetables without a type heading will be less meaningful. That's the issue here. (Yessy543 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: You claim the types are higher, but there's nothing in the word types that readily distinguishes the content from say, Roman Catholic v. Eastern Orthodox v. Protestant; or, Western v. Eastern v. African v. Asian; or several other categorizations that all seem to be "types" as well. You clearly need to define "types" more explicitly, or find a term that doesn't make people wonder why you're not talking about the "types" of Christianity that are more commonly talked about today. I agree with the editor above who said this is really an article about early church terms, because it ignored everything after the Chalcedonian split. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Help needed please: This article on Types of Christianity in itself is not what is so important to me, but the greater issue is. The Liberal Gnostic streams of so called "Christians" have taken over the word Christian mysticism for themselves. On the article Christian mysticism they totally redefined what Christianity is all about. Refer to the article Pauline mysticism and compare it to Christian mysticism and you will see it is two worlds apart. Yet, no matter how hard I try, how many times I try to bring anything about Pauline mysticism into the article, it simply gets deleted to leave the article only with this New Age Gnostic type of flavour. I hoped that having some types of Christianity defined somewhere else I would be able to pull it through to that article. You will see the trail of my failed attempts on the discussion page. I am a Pauline Christian, and suddenly now my view groups take on Christianity and our practice and beliefs about mysticism gets totally disregarded as the "not true" "not valid" stream. Even attempts of me just to include Pauline mysticism as a "see also" item in the list got deleted time and again. And I am not an administrator, so what can I do? I tried twice again this morning to place something about Christ mysticism, but I don't know if the second attempt had been deleted once again, without even engaging on the discussion page with me. Please help. (Yessy543 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- I'm not sure why the other editor keeps removing all your references to Pauline mysticism; I've asked him on his talk page to respond. It's unclear to me how much material should be added to/removed from the page while the article is being reconstructed. There's no reason to have endless edit wars when we can simply seek consensus on the talk page first. But I want to point out that what you call "New Age Gnostic flavor" in the article is actually just an overview of the Roman Catholic tradition. Your calling it New Age Gnosticism comes off as either uninformed or as dismissive of Catholicism. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not an enemy of the Catholic Church, in fact I even enjoy the work of Madame Guyone, a Catholic mystic. I agree with much of the principles in the article Christian meditation. But the article on Christian mysticism, promotes the view of the Eastern Church, and even refer to Ghandi. Read the section on Practices. To me it is describing New Age with a flavour of Christianity. If I could have my way it would be for the article "Christian mysticism" to be simply a reference article referring to various Christian mysticism related articles, such as Pauline mysticism. Then they can keep their article and call it Eastern Christianity mysticism. Then all could be happy. (Yessy543 (talk) 06:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- These are the kinds of comments you need to be making over at Talk:Christian mysticism, since they're off-topic for this discussion of Types of Christianity. Let's move this conversation over there and then hope the other editor responds to our request for comment. Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not off topic for that is the very reason this article was written. My inputs on the discussion page of Christian mysticism are blankly ignored and my edits are simply deleted. Over and over. What else can I do but to discuss it here? (Yessy543 (talk) 07:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- What else can I do but to discuss it here? You can discuss it on the talk page of the article, and you request discussion on the discussion pages of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spirituality. I appreciate your concern, but the discussion you and I have been having here is no longer about Types of Christianity, and the person who is reverting your edits isn't likely to come to this page to discuss the issue, so we need to find ways of moving the discussion to a more appropriate and more effective place. Aristophanes68 (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The types of Christianity is the higher category. List of dinominations are under each (except for the one distinct type). The types are completely different like fruit and vegetables. Under fruit is a list of fruits, and under vegetables is a list. But to mix a list of fruit and vegetables without a type heading will be less meaningful. That's the issue here. (Yessy543 (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete per AJHingston. Bellinzoni's theories might be notable for an article on himself or his work, but I don't think that they are held by enough other people to justify having a separate article on them. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, do not merge; this seems to be a typology reflecting a viewpoint held only by one or few persons and is as such not suitable as the basis of a classification article. Sandstein 07:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, POV fork. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and don't merge. This is only the viewpoint of the author and is already covered in Christianityand List of Christian denominations.Ryan Vesey (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this is blatant POV, if it survives it needs to be as a theory of Prof. Bellinzoni and not as a definitive list of 'types of Christianity'. Even then there needs to be evidence that it is a notable theory and not just something he said in a lecture once. Bob House 884 (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ruby Jewelz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not wikipedia notable drag queen. References boil down to a facbook page, some pictures and the externals are user uploaded youtube videos. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST Off2riorob (talk) 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Without third-party sources reporting on her work, I don't see how she can satisfy the notability requirements.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not have significant coverage in reliable sources and so does not meet the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 15:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources on the page at all. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nothing in gnews, fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no sources to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep with snow (bold non-admin closure). CycloneGU (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Born This Way (Glee) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as nominator I feel it's a little too early to start this article. "Night of Neglect" is fine, because it's the next episode, but I don't think this one is ready to start. Wikipedia is an encyopedia, not a crystall ball! Kanavb (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't feel like this is too much of crystal-balling. It would be different if this was about articles on episodes from the third season, but this is merely the second episode to be aired next month, which has been confirmed by the sources you can see in the article. I don't think we should waste our time with deleting this and recreating it in two weeks. SilverserenC 09:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Though I still happen to disagree, at least wait till we can get a reliable source giving us a date. We just can't predict it'll air a week after Night of Neglect, according to this. We've never added episodes so early, so I don't see why this time should be an exception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanavb (talk • contribs) 09:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator shouldn't vote delete in the discussion itself, as it is already assumed that, because you made the nomination, that you think it should be deleted (unless you state otherwise in the nomination section itself). Voting delete again in the discussion part is redundant, unnecessary, and can be seen as gaming the system. That's why I removed your second delete vote, please don't add it back again. SilverserenC 09:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I did not realize that I should not vote again. I'm new to editing Wikipedia... I am not trying to game any system! Sorry!Kanavb (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't accusing you of anything either, I was just informing you. Now you know how to do it correctly next time. :) SilverserenC 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - sources are accumulating. And soon it will have aired. It was even discussed weeks before "Born This Way" come out, so it has this massive pre-airing deal-brokering history that is about to unfold.12:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - I concur. SunCountryGuy 01 16:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (stub creator). There are enough details, and the episode will air soon. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, enough sources to justify. CTJF83 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article as it currently stands deals with any crystal issues via sufficent referencing and I also agree with Silver's point about deleting and having to recreate later. Whether as a function of time or this AfD, the article is in fine shape now. As a side note to Kanavb - welcome to the community! :-) --Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per more sources added to justify notability. HorrorFan121 (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I was going to vote to delete, but then I took a second look at the article, and saw that there is now a production section, which would be too long to add it to another page. JDDJS (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Power in Communication: Attaining Goals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
essay , promoting a book, speedy G11 declined by sysop who only considered one of the speedy deletion criteria this article was tagged for. WuhWuzDat 07:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unreferenced essay. It is not immediately apparent to me that this is unambiguous advertising. VQuakr (talk) 08:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as an essay per above. JIP | Talk 10:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. Meaningless essay; words chasing their tails: Power in communication is defined as the ability to influence the attainment of goals sought by you or others,.... In communication there are general indicators, verbal indicators, and nonverbal indicators of power. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was KEEP. postdlf (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- François Asselineau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 12. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Did I vote in the last one? I don't remember. Either way, I feel that the further sources that were uncovered during the AfD and the deletion review are more than enough to show notability of the subject. It's quite clear that, while a small politician, he is a quite controversial and talked about one in France. SilverserenC 08:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Though there are obviously a few sources giving glimpses at Mr Asselineau, I don't think he passes WP:N or more specifically WP:POLITICIAN. I shall give details later, but to open the discussion, I underline that I disagree with Silver Seren above : Mr Asselineau is not "quite controversial" and not at all "talked about".
- The rare relevant sources about him are factual, say who he is and what he is doing, but don't go far enough to give an opinion (favorable or unfavorable) about his person ; as far as I remember only one source [19] uses one sentence to be critical about Mr Asselineau ("Convictions pas toujours très bien argumentées au regard des enjeux de la mondialisation." - rough translation "His convictions are somehow contradictory in view of the real stakes of mondialisation."), and this is about the first life of Mr Asselineau -as a civil servant ; his second life as a politician attracts virtually no attention at all. French Tourist (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If he wasn't so controversial, I don't understand why so many administrators from French Wikipedia came over here to vote Delete on this article, which then prompted a number of French IP addresses to show up to vote Keep. I think French Wikipedia should not attempt to have any hold over articles on English Wikipedia, just for the main fact that our policies and notability requirements are different. SilverserenC 08:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't consider I am here as a fighter trying to force our French way of life to the English speakers, I edit here in view of the article about François Asselineau, not in view of forcing new notability rules on this wiki. This is not an interwiki fight. Several french sysops came here because Mr Asselineau and his friends had been disruptive on :fr Wikipedia, and they were hence boiling. They were perhaps right to do it, perhaps wrong, but this can be rationally explained and has nothing to do with the knowledge relevant sources have of Mr Asselineau (and the :fr's sysops'board is not a reliable source of course). As far as I can read you, when I ask for sources proving Mr Asselineau is "controversial" and "talked about", you only produce WP:OR founded on the behavior of five Wikipédia sysops. This does not carry much weight, in my opinion. French Tourist (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave sources in the previous AfD here and here. (Ah, looks like I did vote Keep.) And I would advise you also check out the newspaper clipping info from his press book, not to mention the myriad of sources given by other people in that AfD and the Deletion Review. SilverserenC 09:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I already checked the press book, but intend to answer source by source : you try to prove something (that Mr Asselineau is "controversial" and "talked about"), so you show sources, and then I try to answer "OK for this one" or "definitely no for this one".
- So, let's see which ones you call. The first you cite is [20]. This is a Carnet entry in Les Echos, published in 2004 (in the "first life" of FA, as a civil servant). It does not prove at all he is controversial, since this is a factual biographical note. Les Echos publishes every day an entire page of similar entries, I have at hand yesterday's issue : it contains 9 similar biographical stubs. There is one for any new appointment of a high-ranking civil servant or manager in a reasonably big company, several thousand similar notices a year. Hardly a way to prove WP:N, unless you consider that every high-ranking civil servant or manager is notable.
- Next one is [21], hardly a "reliable source" : a page on a commercial website about cultural events in Nice. This page proves that Mr Asselineau has given a conference in this town, and probably copies verbatim the announcement given by Mr Asselineau himself, as far as I can judge from its laudative style. No proof that he is "controversial". As for "talked about", it proves that Mr Asselineau talks about France, not that France talks about Mr Asselineau :-).
- The article [22] (a web journalism article on a right-wing website) hardly passes WP:RS (a very marginal right-wing source, not a national newspaper or a reasonably famous website), but is interesting nonetheless as far as it writes that Mr Asselineau "mérite d’être invité dans les grands médias, ce qui n’est pas le cas aujourd’hui" (deserves to get invited in mainstream media, which does not happen today). No proof at all that Mr Asselineau is controversial (the fact that his article was deleted on :fr wiki hardly proves that - being controversial helps to get an article on any language wikipedia), no proof that he is "talked about" but rather a proof of the opposite.
- The very short article [23] has nothing to do with the word "controversial" as it is very factual. It is one of the most interesting in my opinion, and justified a "weak" in front of my "delete" non-vote on the first procedure. It shows that Mr Asselineau got some fame, very local in space as in time, by leaving the main opposition group in conseil de Paris to stand as an independent. As this conseil has 161 members, most of them obscure, I still don't consider that such a micro-event makes you "talked about" even if it is related by the only local newspaper for Paris town.
- For [24], I am sorry not to have access to the website. "206 words" seems short, I suppose this is a biographical note similar to the Carnet entry in Les Echos. Please give us more information about this source if you think it is really relevant.
- At last [25] is only very marginally about Mr Asselineau. It is linked to the same event that the one I quoted myself, his nomination in 2004 as head of a commission about economic intelligence. It does not show at all he is "controversial" and hardly that he is "talked about" - the pure fact that he is president of this commission is given, in one factual boring sentence ("La direction de cette Délégation générale de l’Intelligence économique a été confiée à François Asselineau, Inspecteur général des finances, ancien d’HEC et de l’ENA."). French Tourist (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have to prove that he is controversial to prove that he is notable, you know. So you don't have to go on about that. SilverserenC 09:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK if "controversial" is not important in your argumentation, I have typed many words pointlessly. So you don't say anymore that he is notable because controversial, so what proves that he is notable ? French Tourist (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Moved to the bottom so they're easier to read). I was just using controversial as a descriptor. You do know how notability is ascertained here, right? For one, I would say that he passes the general notability guideline handily. SilverserenC 09:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK let's go again on general things, this goes faster than opening and discussing individual sources. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" and explains shortly what "significant" means : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source materia. In virtually every source we have met until now, we have not much more than a "trivial mention", at least for "reliable" sources. French Tourist (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 4 references that use François Asselineau in the title of their articles. Therefore it would be awkward that in those references he is not "the main topic of the source materia". source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4--Lawren00 (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- these are not "press articles", but mere mentions of appointments published by Les Echos in Le Carnet, ie entries related to the appointment of civil servants or executives. The Carnet publishes brief announcements relating to deaths or appointments of civil servants or in corporates. Something similar seems to be the announcements published in The Hill. It is pretty certain that not all the people mentionned in the Carnet or in the announcements of The Hill are notable for WP. Mr Asselineau has a total of 8 hits in Les Echos over a period of 12 years, which does not seem particulmarly impressive for an average high grade civil servant. Sipahoc (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you find the rule or the recommendation explaining that sources should have a minimum size to be valid? I did not find. Until you show us that, the combination of 19 sources from the most well-known French Newspapers allows to build a decent articles that is proving the article's Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Lawren00 (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "There are at least 4 references that use François Asselineau in the title of their articles". This is factually wrong. "François Asselineau" is written in capital letters on the web references you cite, but it is not the "title" of an article but of a section of a page in the paper edition. Of course I don't have at hand these old issues of Les Echos but can give an example of how a "Carnet" page looks like in last Wednesday's issue. The title of the page is "Carnet" in 0.8 cm black letters. The page contains 2 sections, titled in 0.4 cm red letters "Entreprises" (6 items), and "Fonction publique" (also titled in 0.4 cm red letters) (2 items), but also a real short article titled "Portrait", significantly longer and with a picture. In the "Fonction publique" section, a typical article reads "MINISTERE DE L'ECOLOGIE Vincent Pourqu** de Boiss** est nommé directeur général des établissements publics d'aménagement de Marne-la-Vallée", with 0.2 black letters for the name. Note that Mr Asselineau's notices, considering their length are not similar to the day article, which is indeed a proof of notability (it is signed by a journalist who has met today's man or woman and has not the form of a curriculum vitae). French Tourist (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not wrong. People has to click and see for themselves source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4--Lawren00 (talk) 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- these are not "press articles", but mere mentions of appointments published by Les Echos in Le Carnet, ie entries related to the appointment of civil servants or executives. The Carnet publishes brief announcements relating to deaths or appointments of civil servants or in corporates. Something similar seems to be the announcements published in The Hill. It is pretty certain that not all the people mentionned in the Carnet or in the announcements of The Hill are notable for WP. Mr Asselineau has a total of 8 hits in Les Echos over a period of 12 years, which does not seem particulmarly impressive for an average high grade civil servant. Sipahoc (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There are at least 4 references that use François Asselineau in the title of their articles. Therefore it would be awkward that in those references he is not "the main topic of the source materia". source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4--Lawren00 (talk) 23:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK let's go again on general things, this goes faster than opening and discussing individual sources. WP:GNG requires "significant coverage in reliable sources" and explains shortly what "significant" means : Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source materia. In virtually every source we have met until now, we have not much more than a "trivial mention", at least for "reliable" sources. French Tourist (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Moved to the bottom so they're easier to read). I was just using controversial as a descriptor. You do know how notability is ascertained here, right? For one, I would say that he passes the general notability guideline handily. SilverserenC 09:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- OK if "controversial" is not important in your argumentation, I have typed many words pointlessly. So you don't say anymore that he is notable because controversial, so what proves that he is notable ? French Tourist (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have to prove that he is controversial to prove that he is notable, you know. So you don't have to go on about that. SilverserenC 09:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is exactly one single reliable source that is just barely more than a passing mention, Le Parisien from 2006. Everything else is either trivial or self published / blog / not a reliable source. The Parisien mention is in itself not substantial enough to verify more than two isolated events in the subject's life, let alone a full biography. There simply is not enough reliable material to assure a WP:NPOV article at this time. MLauba (Talk) 10:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point which materials are self published / blog / not a reliable source? Looks like I did not check well the sources. --Lawren00 (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Passes General Notability. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 11:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mr Asselineau does not meet the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN or even the general notability guideline.
- "Political carreer": as a reminder (from WP:POLITICIAN#3), "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability".
- The provided sources are the following: general results of the local elections in Libération (so this tells us he was elected as one of the ~160 other members of the Paris council), then he is mentionned 5 times in 6 years in Le Parisien: 2004 (Mr A becomes a UMP member), 2006 (Mr A is leaving the UMP), 2007 (considers the coming elections) and 2007 again (about the non registered members of the council such as Mr A) and finally 2008 about Mr A as giving up being a candidate. So coverage by Le Parisien of this Paris politician for his tenure period (2001-2007): 2 brief articles about his party changes, 3 mentions in 2007 where he first candidates then gives up.
- Then we have the one single mention of Mr A in a national newspaper : Le Figaro, a 2 pragraphs article in 2008 about Mr A saying he withdraws from the election. This is the sole article from a newspaper ever mentionning the Union populaire républicaine (UPR), the party that was then newly created (see next section).
- "President of a political party": Except for this political site reproducing a press release on the creation of the new party in 2007 (and the mention of the Figaro), the only thing we have is a couple of entries in enquete-debat.fr, such as in Januray 2011, about the fact that the article of Mr A on WP:fr was deleted. But Enquête & Débat seems to be a collective newsblog created mid-2010 (see this), so based on WP:Reliable sources we cannot use it. What the party itself has to say about his press coverage does not help us: a couple (4) of annoucements of conferences in local newspapers, apparently Mr A spoke 4 times in local radios between 2007 and 2010, there is one article in a local newspaper (Le Bien Public) in 2008 and one article from 2007 in Entreprendre, an economic monthly, about a dinner-conference.
- So although I would certainly favor the lowest of all possible barriers to notability for political parties, regardless of ideology, this party doesn't pass any barrier at all: it was created 4 years ago, never had any coverage in any known newspaper, no-one ever analysed the party's programme or position. I mean these guys are so minor and unknown that there isn't even a newspaper interested enough to say that they are minor and unknown!
- "Staff member of various cabinets"
- Mr A is a civil servant. He is inspector general of finance, which means he is one of the 260 members of the General Inspection of Finances, an auditing body of the French administration. This does not make him very notable. More important, Mr A was head of staff or staff member for ministers or similar personnalities, and this is the area where some will tell you that there are "newspapers articles whose title is the name of Asselineau".
- But these are not "press articles", they are mere mentions of appointments publihed by Les Echos in what they call Le Carnet, ie entries related to the appointment of civil servants or executives. You will find in the Carnet brief announcements relating to deaths or appointments of civil servants or in corporates. Something pretty similar seems to be the announcements published in The Hill. It is pretty sure not all the people mentionned in the Carnet or in the announcements of The Hill are notable for WP.
- Mr A has a total of 8 hits in Les Echos over a period of 12 years.
- You can compare that with Mr Philippe Andres, 7 entries in the Carnet, or Pascal Faure 20 entries. They do not have a WP article, and probably will never have one. You can also have a look at announcements published in The Hill. Lots of people have entries therein, but have no article on Wikipedia, such as Dr. Stephen Flynn, 7 hits in The Hill over a 5 years period.
- "Head of the Délégation générale de l'intelligence économique": this is the thing that almost made me swing from delete to weak keep. Almost. But the sources are Another of these Carnet entries about the creation of the Délégation générale de l'intelligence économique, A Liberation article about the creation of the General Delegation that mentions the fact that Mr A is appointed as head of the delegation, and that the delegation will count up to 15 people.
- That's it. 1.5 years later, this article talks about a presentation made by Mr A regarding economic intelligence and says the delegation was dissolved in May 2006.
- So this delegation was created, Mr A was heading it, and then....nothing. Nothing was produced by the delegation, nobody heard anything about it, no newspaper ever mentionned it again and...it just disappeared 1.5 years later.
- Conclusion: any person holding various staff member position with ministers and the like over a 10 year period and then gets elected at a local election will certainly gather some news coverage, but is there a significant coverage here? What do we have?
- 402 hits on Google.com, 494 hits on Google.fr (note: there seems to be a bug, as the results seem impressive when you hit the search button, but when you go ahead with the next button, you soon reach the end of the list).
- a total of 8 Carnet entries in Les Echos on his staff positions between 1994 and 2006,
- a total of 5 very short articles in Le Parisien covering the 2001-2007 period when he was a member of the Paris council (in 2 of these, Mr Asselineau is mentionned incidentally),
- 1.5 article (one article about the creation of the delegation, and one announcement of the appointment of Mr Asselineau) about the delegation. This delegation was so famous that it never received any other coverage for the next 1.5 years, not even to announce the fact that it was dissolved 1.5 years later.
- 1 article mentionning the party founded by Mr A in 2007.
- This is not a significant coverage. This guy certainly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria, and according to me does not meet the general notability guideline. He was not deleted from WP:fr for nothing. The only thing you need to have your article is to be notable, such as fr:Rassemblement pour l'indépendance et la souveraineté de la France to give an extreme right-wing example. Sipahoc (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that this AfD is about Mr Asselineau, not his political party, or any other people featured on TheHill or Les Echos, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. See also WP:GOOGLE for why I think your google results are biased. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, exactly per my detailed reasoning at the last AfD.—S Marshall T/C 13:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't see threshold being met here, per the exposition above (+ note the .fr discussion). Eusebeus (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per Sipahoc's compelling case. –SJ+ 18:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have to ask, in what sense is Sipahoc's case "compelling"? Let's analyse it.
In the "political career" section, Sipahoc says that M. Asselineau is the subject of five "very short" articles in Le Parisien. I submit that Le Parisien is a reliable source. Sipahoc then goes on to say that M. Asselineau has been the subject of an article in Le Figaro, which is also a reliable source.
In the "president of a political party", Sipahoc then makes a compelling case that the political party M. Asselineau led is not notable. But that does not prove that M. Asselineau himself is not notable. On en.wiki, the notability of the party is independent of the notability of the person.
In the "Staff member of various cabinets" section, Sipahoc makes various WP:WAX-type arguments in the form, "Person X doesn't have an article, so person Y should not have an article either." These arguments are normally given little weight.
In the next section, Sipahoc highlights coverage given to M. Asselineau in Libération, which is also a reliable source.
In the conclusion, Sipahoc summarises what he's already said and comes to the curious conclusion that the coverage M. Asselineau has received, across multiple articles in several different reliable sources, is not sufficient to establish notability!
I don't doubt that on fr.wiki, Sipahoc's arguments would be understood as correct: they have strict standards for politicians and M. Asselineau's article was correctly deleted from there. But on en.wiki, I respectfully submit, they establish that this gentleman is notable and merits an article.—S Marshall T/C 19:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel useful to add a precision about the "article" in Le Figaro : [26]. As precise and exhaustive Sipahoc could be, he has obviously made an error on this one. As you can check when opening it, the title of this web page begins with "Figaro : Flash Actu ...", and the webpage text terminates with "Source: AFP". For a reader used to the Figaro website, these two informations show that this is not an article from this newspaper, but simply a page on the newspaper's website, where a dispatch from Agence France-Presse is reproduced. As far as we know, no newspaper judged this dispatch worthy of an article.
On the other hand, I willingly concede S Marshall that the articles of Le Parisien and the article in Liberation are to be taken in consideration ; the first ones because Le Parisien is the only local newspaper for Paris proper, and for this reason a primordial source for local events in Paris (including local politics at Conseil de Paris), the second one as Liberation is one of the main French national dailies. Indeed, my "delete" !-vote tends to be weak because of Le Parisien, while Sipahoc admits that he is not so far from considering Liberation. Note however that in both cases, we are quite far from the exigence of significant coverage, IMO. French Tourist (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But isn't AFP a reliable source in its own right? AFP is the world's oldest news agency! See WP:NEWSORG: we are to prioritise sources from news agencies. If AFP says a thing and Le Figaro publishes it, then doesn't that add to, rather than subtract from, the credibility associated with Le Figaro's name?—S Marshall T/C 20:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, and I should modify my arguments. AFP is obviously a reliable source ; note however that you cannot say that there is credibility in "Le Figaro" publishing this dispatch, since it did not publish it - it is not in Le Figaro it is on the website. After making this concession, I don't change my opinion but formulate it differently : if a very short article of twenty lines in one of the main French newspapers is not much, but something (since a newspaper has limited room), one dispatch in the gigantic production of AFP is very, very little, and very far from the exigence of significant coverage. French Tourist (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for being a very reasonable interlocutor. I should probably draw your attention to our definition of "significant coverage", which is at WP:SIGCOV: "more than a trivial mention, but need not be the main subject of the article". Haven't we agreed that M. Asselineau has been the main subject of articles from three reliable sources?—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I understand it, the rule as it is written is an implication if a coverage is sufficient, then the article contains more than a trivial mention, but it does not work in the opposite direction - for me it is obvious that not everybody who has been the main subject of articles in important newspapers verifies WP:GNG ; for instance as you can read in this page "In particular, if reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." So we have to decide whether the global coverage of Mr Asselineau is significant or not, not by applying some automatic rule ("main topic of an article" - while the article may have only a few dozens of words), but by watching what parts of his biography is covered by these articles ; as far as I judge, very little. Last detail : I agree that M. Asselineau is mentioned by three reliable sources (AFP, Le Parisien, Libération), but he is the "main subject" of an article only for the first two (and even for the first, the word "article" is slightly inappropriate, this is a dispatch). French Tourist (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall, If significant coverage means "more than a trivial mention, but need not be the main subject of the article", then we remain with 2 one-paragraph articles in the local edition of Le Parisien (2004 and 2006) and the two-pragraph article in the Figaro (the article about him, in 2008)(a mere reproduction of an AFP press release only published on the electronic version of the Figaro, if I understand correctly what FrenchTourist says). All other articles who mention Mr Asselineau are about another subject. I guess the 3 said "article" do not allow to consider somebody notable? Sipahoc (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On fr.wiki, three articles in two journals wouldn't be sufficient for a politician, but here on en.wiki they can be. My position is that M. Assilineau is notable, and Sipahoc has already linked to the reliable sources that have noted him.
In response to French Tourist: it's true that some people are notable only for one event, and these people are excluded from our encyclopaedia. This is our rule about WP:BLP1E. However, M. Asselineau is notable for several things: being elected to the Paris council (source), becoming a member of the UMP (source), leaving the UMP (source), putting himself forward as a candidate for the elections (source), and withdrawing (source). These things took place in different years and were reported separately in different reliable sources, so they are clearly more than one event.
M. Asselineau is not an important figure in French politics. He is a very minor one, and I agree that he has not been very successful. By fr.wiki's rules I'm sure it was right delete his article. But by en.wiki's rules I'm sure it's right to keep it.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as a matter of fact, I think there must be on WP:fr a number of articles based on 3 articles in 2 journals or even less. But then you would have a short article based on said newspaper articles. In this case, there are two problems: (i) the only thing these sources indicate is that the guy was elected at a local election in 2001, jumped a bit from party to party and finally decided to give up being a candidate for his reelection, which does not make somebody notable enough for WP:fr (FYI, fr:Wikipédia:Notoriété des personnalités politiques). The fact that said 3 articles are: 2 times 1 paragraph in the local pages of Le Parisien and 1 time a 2 paragraph article in the internet version of the Figaro wouldn't have helped either. Worse, the article that was created on WP:fr (and here) was/is not about a local politician that was once elected and then never again. It is about some kind of Superman, a powerfull intellectual that had a brilliant carreer but that no party was good enough for him so he created his own party. So although an AfD debate is not about the content, I think you cannot disregard it in this case. What will you accept in the article? ;-) Because the only significant coverage is about a single event (although you say there are many): the short life of Mr A as a member of the UMP. Because that is the single event that received a significant coverage: he entered the UMP 5 years after his election (no significant coverage for his election), left it 2 years later, which made his reelection impossible. Sipahoc (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On fr.wiki, three articles in two journals wouldn't be sufficient for a politician, but here on en.wiki they can be. My position is that M. Assilineau is notable, and Sipahoc has already linked to the reliable sources that have noted him.
- I feel useful to add a precision about the "article" in Le Figaro : [26]. As precise and exhaustive Sipahoc could be, he has obviously made an error on this one. As you can check when opening it, the title of this web page begins with "Figaro : Flash Actu ...", and the webpage text terminates with "Source: AFP". For a reader used to the Figaro website, these two informations show that this is not an article from this newspaper, but simply a page on the newspaper's website, where a dispatch from Agence France-Presse is reproduced. As far as we know, no newspaper judged this dispatch worthy of an article.
- Well, I have to ask, in what sense is Sipahoc's case "compelling"? Let's analyse it.
- That is just a Carnet entry. Look at the top of the entry: "nomination" (appointement). It just says the same (or even a bit less) than the Carnet entry about the same in Asselineau Les Echos. Le Monde also has that kind of Carnet, being the subject of one of these does not make of you "the subject of an article", does it? Sipahoc (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm afraid I don't really see why it doesn't.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep The news coverage, 19 sources, are all coming from the most well-known French Newspaper such as Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro. Every single piece of information in the article are coming from those articles. Thus, there are enough pieces of information in well known French Newspapers to build a decent article. It proves the Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability of the article. --Lawren00 (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am not a French speaker and have no idea why there is such rabid opposition to this article. I do know how to run a Google search and to count, however, and there is no way that this individual should fail a notability challenge. The frenzy over the topic here is highly indicative of notability in and of itself. Now it's time for some people to buckle down and craft a fair and informative biography on the subject. Carrite (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you cannot understand what the warning I put at the top of this subpage refers to. Sorry about that.
- The first link is the facebook page of François Asselineau and his staff. During the first AfD, there was a call there to vote keep or strong keep. Amusingly, people had to contribute to wikipedia in order to game the system, therefore at some point somebody explained how to edit the page to another people who couldn't understand how to contribute. He concluded his explanation by saying that he'd been found out and quoting my answer to the ip to explain why he couldn't write on that page any more.
- The second link is a call on fr.wp administrator's notice board to come here delete the article because of Lawren00. Although a checkuser result proved he was not a vandal, the demander still had reservations (J'en tire d'autres hypothèses personnelles). I haven't followed what happened as a result of that french AfD, but the obvious result is that François Asselineau is not a contested people in France, but only on the French Wikipedia. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 23:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete How many times do we have to do this to get this article out of Wikipedia ? This person is a perfect unknown in France. He is a middle rank civil servant, who tried to launch a personnal political career, but failed. There is no news article that deals specifically with him. All the articles quoted only refer to him superficially as they are about politicians for whom he worked. The sources that refer specifically to him are only very short notifications of his appointment to some civil servants jobs. A proper search on Google, using the exact wording function, only gives 392 "real" hits : [27]. To sum up: a perfect unknown who's trying to use Wikipedia for his (desperate) PR. It's time to stop him. Gede (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would seriously like to know why, if Asselineau is a complete unknown and totally unimportant, are admins from French wikipedia coming onto English wikipedia to make sure that his article gets deleted here as well? Do all of you do this for every counterpart article on English wikipedia that gets deleted on French wikipedia? Because I haven't really seen that, which seems to insinuate that there is something slightly more important about Asselineau for all of you to make sure he gets deleted. SilverserenC 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Any point in making this personal? MLauba (Talk) 16:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say anything personal about the user, I think it's a legitimate question that contributes to the fact that, no matter what may be claimed about if Asselineau is controversial or not, the fact that this very AfD is going on (and the AfD and Deletion Review that came before) show that he is controversial or, at least, that there's something else going on here. SilverserenC 16:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I had already answered, but without sources, French admins are fed up with Mr Asselineau because of the disruptive actions of his fan-club on Wikipédia in French, see for instance fr:Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d'adresses_IP/Requêtes/décembre_2010#Demande_concernant_:_Trilaterale_etc_-_12_d.C3.A9cembre (and the next section) for sockpupettry. Our interest for this problem can be explained this way ; you seem to suggest that they are proof of some importance of Mr Asselineau outside the administrative pages of Wikipédia in French, perhaps that we act as the arm of some political opponent of Mr Asselineau, you are wrong - Mr Asselineau is known by most Wikipédia admins because his fan-club has kept annoying us. For a broad majority of people in France, the checkuser pages are not their favorite reading, and they don't know at all this obscure politician. Local notability among french sysops is not notability. It would be a bit paradoxal that disrupting a wiki of the WF might be deemed a valid motive for inclusion in another ! French Tourist (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, neither the motivations of any participant nor a description of the behaviour of some FR users on FR-wiki have any relevance on a policy-based discussion on whether Asselineau meets the EN inclusion guidelines. It is however a huge distraction. MLauba (Talk) 17:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is cause for concern when half of the delete votes in a discussion are by admins from another Wikipedia, one of which has just admitted to there being conflict between admins of said Wikipedia and the subject that is to be deleted. SilverserenC 17:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- One could just as easily respond by pointing out that those same admins offer a detailed source analysis that many EN posters cannot refute because they cannot actually read them without resorting to inadequate tools like google translate. It is not a vote, and AfDs are, fortunately, only rarely affected by an attack on the motivations of the nominator or specific voters. MLauba (Talk) 18:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can understand Silver seren's concerns (although of course his aggressive approach is less understandable, as well as his vote on a matter he readily admits not to understand) and maybe a little explanation from someone who hadn't heard of Mr Asselineau until I started looking at this AfD. What happened Silver seren is the following: the article about Asselineau was created in January 2008 on WP:fr and it was quickly sent to the equivalebnt of the AfD's, see fr:Discussion:François Asselineau/Suppression. You will note that there is little discussion, a consensus is quickly reached, and, more interestingly, note that amongst the 11 people who choose for "delete", there are only 2 admins, none of which came here. A third admin (again, none of the ones who came here) deleted the page accordingly. And between that and the Checkuser page (December 2010, 3 years later) there seems to have been a constant war by a couple of editors creating sockpuppets, creating articles about the new and unknown party, etc, becoming something really disruptive on WP:fr. With the creation of the WP:en article of Asselineau, we enter into the realm of cross-wiki disruption (as it is quite clear that a WP:en article will serve to create others on other wikis, and to try to force the re-creation on WP:fr). Now, do you see anything wrong about being helped by contributors from the original Wiki when there is a cross-wiki disruption? No, of course! Such cross-wiki help is generally managed by very seasonned users, active on both wikis or on meta....ie sysops, quite often. What is the problem with that? Sipahoc (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rules for notability are significantly different from one language Wikipedia to the next and no language Wikipedia should tell another what articles it should or should not have. In this manner, some articles will be allowed in one Wikipedia without being in the others. For example, Japanese wikipedia is far more strict about such things than we are (and yet is almost entirely pop culture articles for some reason). I would expect all of you on French wikipedia would highly object to a number of English wikipedians going over to French wikipedia to vote to delete an article that was deleted here on English wikipedia, would you not? SilverserenC 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems to me that MLauba is correct, and I see no reason to go any further along this sidetrack.—S Marshall T/C 22:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I guess no one else is concerned about this. :/ SilverserenC 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am. I apologize for the delay of my answers. Comte0 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete He doesn't meet the notability criteria of WP:POLITICIAN and even not the general notability guideline. The few references in newspapers articles are merely carnet information and cannot be regarded as sources allowing to create an article on Mr. Asselineau. --Lebob (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? You maybe skipped the 3 first line of Wikipedia:Notability. I quote it here for you "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. The 19 sources, are all coming from the most well-known French Newspaper such as Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro. So are you saying that those newspapers are not reliable? --Lawren00 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to make the usual confusion between if and if and only if. Wikipedia:Notability does not assert if some reliable third-party source can be found on a topic, then it should have a separate article : if some reliable third-party source can be found, then we have to weigh it, that is what Lebob and others are doing. French Tourist (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- French Tourist, I know you like a lot to write. But I think Lebob can answer by himself, can he? --Lawren00 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He can indeed, which does not preclude me to point the fallacies of your reasonings. I have no intention to restrict myself, as long as I have the feeling to add something new. French Tourist (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear French Tourist, it seems like you did not get my point, so let me explain more in details. This page here is for discussion to reach a consensus. And to reach a consensus, me and Lebob need to discuss to understand what are the reasons and root cause for his deletion vote. These reasons, only Lebob can explain. However, if you keep answering instead of him, we might think that you think exactly the same. So is there any French Wiki admins point of view that is coming from the French wikipedia administrators' noticeboard? If there is, maybe all the messages from Lebob, User:Sipahoc, User:Gede should be signed directly by '"Wiki admins" represented by French Tourist. If not, please let him answer. :) --Lawren00 (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like not to answer, but your factual inaccuracies might deceive the admin who will close this AfD, so I have to. It is true that Gede and myself are admins on :fr Wikipédia, as far as I know, Lebob and Sipahoc are not. As can be seen through their contributions, they have a common field of interest on :en, that is politics in Belgium. Don't try to relaunch the theory of a plot by Wikipédia admins, this backfired already and is absolutely untrue. French Tourist (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Plot theory is the last argument of those who have none. Do you really want to have us to believe that the sysops on :fr have ploted against FA for some reasons ? The story is much simpler: FA is a just a nobody who's tried desperatly to promote himself on :fr and failed. As far as I'm concerned, I'm a contributor here (though not very active, lately). I created a couple of articles, contributed to many more, and given my opinion on AfD where it could be useful (because I had some insights on the debated issues). And that's just what I'm doing here. Gede (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Who talks about plot theory? It's you. I just talk about facts, and to prove it I have this source French wikipedia administrators' noticeboard. And the non-answer of Lebob that you are trying to hide with this decoy discussion is another evidence that you are a little group that is expressing a single point of view. You may not like it but it's like that. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would like not to answer, but your factual inaccuracies might deceive the admin who will close this AfD, so I have to. It is true that Gede and myself are admins on :fr Wikipédia, as far as I know, Lebob and Sipahoc are not. As can be seen through their contributions, they have a common field of interest on :en, that is politics in Belgium. Don't try to relaunch the theory of a plot by Wikipédia admins, this backfired already and is absolutely untrue. French Tourist (talk) 08:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear French Tourist, it seems like you did not get my point, so let me explain more in details. This page here is for discussion to reach a consensus. And to reach a consensus, me and Lebob need to discuss to understand what are the reasons and root cause for his deletion vote. These reasons, only Lebob can explain. However, if you keep answering instead of him, we might think that you think exactly the same. So is there any French Wiki admins point of view that is coming from the French wikipedia administrators' noticeboard? If there is, maybe all the messages from Lebob, User:Sipahoc, User:Gede should be signed directly by '"Wiki admins" represented by French Tourist. If not, please let him answer. :) --Lawren00 (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He can indeed, which does not preclude me to point the fallacies of your reasonings. I have no intention to restrict myself, as long as I have the feeling to add something new. French Tourist (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- French Tourist, I know you like a lot to write. But I think Lebob can answer by himself, can he? --Lawren00 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to make the usual confusion between if and if and only if. Wikipedia:Notability does not assert if some reliable third-party source can be found on a topic, then it should have a separate article : if some reliable third-party source can be found, then we have to weigh it, that is what Lebob and others are doing. French Tourist (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- delete coverage is all of insufficient depth to pass WP:N. Brilliantine (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you mean that 19 sources that are all coming from the most well-known French Newspaper such as Les_Échos_(France), Libération, Le Monde, Le Parisien and Le Figaro are not sufficient? Then how many do you need? 25, 50? --Lawren00 (talk) 04:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating the same thing again and again does not make it true. The source supposed to be coming from the "well-known French newspaper" Le Figaro comes from the website lefigaro.fr from this newspaper, and we have no proof that the text linked by this source has ever been printed in the paper edition of this newspaper. Incidentally, the comment of Brilliantine is not about number, but about depth. French Tourist (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not interested in the number of sources, I am interested in the depth of coverage shown by the sources. They are all very brief, nothing more than one or two sentences relating to Asselineau at best (most of them are passing mentions), which is certainly not enough to demonstrate any kind of notability. Seriously, if these were our standards we'd have 10,000+ articles on local councillors in England. Brilliantine (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point of view. And where is the rule / recommendation mentioning that sources should be at least 5, 10, 20 lines to be valid? Maybe you can help us to find? --Lawren00 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't consider the coverage to be "significant" as required by WP:GNG. Also see Note 5 on that page - "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Brilliantine (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So your point is that the coverage is not "significant" which bring us to the Wikipedia:GNG#cite_note-0 where they give 2 examples to make us understand the meaning of significance. The example to show insignificance is a mention of half a line in a 138 lines article . Brought in percentage, it is 0.4% of the article. However, here, source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, I bring 4 articles where Asselineau is 100% the topic of the article. So the significance as defined in the WP:GNG is met. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Note 5 that I quoted above makes it quite clear that "announcement columns and minor news stories", which all of these Les Echos sources are, do not necessarily confer notability. Brilliantine (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. So your point was not about the "significant coverage" that is proven (and refers to note 1) but the "presumption" of notability in note 5 which says "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements,'announcements columns, and minor news stories". So here, Source 1 or again here source 2, you can find articles that are not announcements columns, and minor news stories that are evidence of Asselineau's notability for the purposes of article creation. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think significant coverage is proven and don't consider the announcements columns and minor news stories to be of any significance whatsoever. The other sources are just passing mentions. So, all of the sources are either "announcement columns and minor news stories" or they are trivial passing mentions and for that reason, he cannot be presumed to be notable. Brilliantine (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Brilliantine, thank you for your answer. The Wikipedia:GNG#cite_note-0 shown what is an insignificant coverage. It's half a sentence in a 138 lines article, 0,4% of the article. For instance, the article about Asselineau in Libération is mentioning about him and his activity in 124 words out of 622, which means 20% of the article directly on François Asselineau. But I know what you can answer and the debate can continue Does 20% of an article is enough to be a valid source? And we can go on and on on each details of the recommendations: What part of Le Monde's article can be considered as valid for being called "source"? What is a minor news? From how many lines a news can be considered as a news and not an announcement? How to be sure that an article publish on Liberation.fr is also published in the hard-copy of the newspaper? Debates will never finish. Moreover, we will never reach a consensus if we try to agree on mathematical definitions of each recommendations. I think that by going into such details, we forget to look at the big picture and answer to the real question. Do I have enough notable (from famous Newspaper) and verifiable (facts that can be directly sourced) pieces of information to build an article that is long enough to understand who is this person? Every single piece of information in this article is sourced and the article has a quiet good size hasn't it? That is why I see this article fully valid. I would agree with you with a deletion if the article was a 5 lines article and no other information could be brought from notable and verifiable source. But here, I see a quiet decent article in term of size made of notable and verifiable sources. --Lawren00 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think significant coverage is proven and don't consider the announcements columns and minor news stories to be of any significance whatsoever. The other sources are just passing mentions. So, all of the sources are either "announcement columns and minor news stories" or they are trivial passing mentions and for that reason, he cannot be presumed to be notable. Brilliantine (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I see. So your point was not about the "significant coverage" that is proven (and refers to note 1) but the "presumption" of notability in note 5 which says "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements,'announcements columns, and minor news stories". So here, Source 1 or again here source 2, you can find articles that are not announcements columns, and minor news stories that are evidence of Asselineau's notability for the purposes of article creation. --Lawren00 (talk) 02:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Note 5 that I quoted above makes it quite clear that "announcement columns and minor news stories", which all of these Les Echos sources are, do not necessarily confer notability. Brilliantine (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So your point is that the coverage is not "significant" which bring us to the Wikipedia:GNG#cite_note-0 where they give 2 examples to make us understand the meaning of significance. The example to show insignificance is a mention of half a line in a 138 lines article . Brought in percentage, it is 0.4% of the article. However, here, source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4, I bring 4 articles where Asselineau is 100% the topic of the article. So the significance as defined in the WP:GNG is met. --Lawren00 (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't consider the coverage to be "significant" as required by WP:GNG. Also see Note 5 on that page - "Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources." Brilliantine (talk) 17:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting point of view. And where is the rule / recommendation mentioning that sources should be at least 5, 10, 20 lines to be valid? Maybe you can help us to find? --Lawren00 (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, and as minor as it can be, since I think useful to expose any inaccuracy, 6 appearances of Mr Asselineau name in Les Echos, 1 in Le Monde, 5 in Le Parisien, 2 in Libération and 1 on lefigaro.fr (not in Le Figaro paper edition) make a total of 15, not 19. As you seem to think all of these sources are supporting your cause, I incidentally point that the second Liberation entry [28] is a page of electoral results with no human comment inserted, only a list of figures. French Tourist (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI find it sad that all of the Keep voters from the DRV have abandoned this article after that. :( SilverserenC 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. BencherliteTalk 21:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Machan(film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient secondary source coverage. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Fixed nom by completing Step III (add to log). Please close seven days after 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC) -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One: [29], Two [30], Three [31]. Pretty sure that constitutes secondary source coverage. It literally took half a minute to find those.. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources found prove its notable. Dream Focus 09:37, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep and close The nominator may certainly have been acting in good faith when he sent this article directly to AFD when it was just three hours old without first tagging it for concerns nor speaking with the new author about how it might be improved.[32] But the fact that so MANY reliable sources were easily found [33] makes me request that he give more consideration to the instructions at WP:BEFORE prior to nominating anything in the future, specially as WP:Deletion policy explains the valid grounds for deletion, and strongly encourages that if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing. It was quite easy to take the nomimated stub and expand and source it. And I hope the newb author has not been chased away. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator withdrawal I withdraw the nomination per large number of secondary sources. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 19:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Shane Duggan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable footballer who fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 06:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. He has not played in a fully pro league, thus failing WP:NSPORT, and there is insufficient coverage for him to meet WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Not notable - WP:NFT and WP:N Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 10:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SIMPLEBOTICS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable "company" with 0 media coverage and 1 product, which is just instructions. All 3 of the articles made about this company were made by his friend. I know this is his friend, because if you follow the youtube link at the bottom you see the video called "The History of SimpleBotics (for Wikipedia)". In the description you can see that this video is for "Keith". Which logically must be the user linked above. Bluefist talk 06:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not even close to meeting the notability standards for a company, and unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. SeaphotoTalk 06:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete -That new type of robotics is genuinely real,its aspects are those with the beam robotics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.34.84 (talk • contribs) 06:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Not Delete -notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.34.84 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete -"SIMPLEBOTICS" is like "BEAM robotics",If the BEAM robotics is in a wikipedia article,So does the SIMPLEBOTICS.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.34.84 (talk • contribs) 06:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not reasons for deletion -it is notable!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.34.84 (talk • contribs) 06:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because other stuff exists, does not make it notable. Also, we can see that it's the same IP doing all these comments, as well as the one that originally deleted the Speedy Delete template. Bluefist talk 06:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I might be good to know to other users, that the IP above has deleted the AfD template from the page and from the AfD log. Obvious COI in my opinion. Bluefist talk 07:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User:Keithosmarferrer made the same disruptive edits. The anon is obviously a sockpuppet. —teb728 t c 08:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt. Article about a company that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Not one independent reference. Recreated after previous deletion of Simplebotics and Simplebotics®. —teb728 t c 07:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete -This article is an important part of robotics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithosmarferrer (talk • contribs) 07:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- G.I.D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
PROD was removed without comment or improvement. PROD rationale was "Unreferenced. Possible neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary: WP:DICTIONARY". The page may also be a possible CSD G3 hoax. Kudpung (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article is barely more than patent nonsense-- DanielKlotz (talk · contribs) 05:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and anyway the article has no sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 10:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and speedy close. Written as a joke (and with poor punctuation in the title!) –SJ+ 18:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Get It Deleted as plain ol' junk. —Tamfang (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete vandalism RadioFan (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete Non-notable neologism. LK (talk) 10:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Deleted. ttonyb (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Craig gang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not conform to Speedy Deletion standards (at least my understanding of them). Other than that, this is a non notable, non referenced group that has almost 0 hits from searches. Although most hits are from a South Park episode about the character Craig. Bluefist talk 03:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete wow I would have speedied this ASAP. It is nothing but a crass gathering of nonsense. Nothing notable at all. Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete. Looks like WP:CSD#G10 applies. I've boldly added that tag to the article page, if someone disagrees with the CSD, we can always conclude here. Probably would have been best to WP:PROD the article first as well. Looking at the article more closely, it alleges illegal activity, but it's mostly just nonsense (G1), lacking in context (A1), or fails to indicate importance (A7). SDY (talk) 03:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I knew there was something I forgot in between CSD and AfD. Bluefist talk 03:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as per previous comments and the fact that this article is completely unsourced and non-MOS. Also sounds like non-NPOV.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 23:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Christos Trikalinos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page was previously nominated for deletion in 2005 because of concerns about notability. The article has not been expanded in the intervening years and contains no references, which appear to be difficult to find. In particular, I have not been able to locate any accounts of the subject's scientific work, apart from original journal articles. It was mentioned in the previous discussion that the subject was president of the Greek national federation of university professors (POSDEP), but I have only been able to find two brief mentions of this in the press. Will Orrick (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Sailsbystars (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:BIO. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Only minimal on GS. Not enough for WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. Not invisible on Greek Google. Have added a couple of references (including a University and the BBC). Meets general notability as the president of a national federation of teachers. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 11:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Nipson - non-English sources exist. –SJ+ 18:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very little evidence of impact on physics scholarship. Of the order of 1000 citations are usually needed for a keep for scientists. There are few here. Please identify the 29 papers published in international journals. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- As far as I can tell, the BBC article is about the same as the two English-language sources I found: it contains one quote by the subject acting as a spokesman for his organization, but doesn't provide much information on which to base a biographical article about the man himself. At best it corroborates that he was chairman of a federation of academic staff, but I am doubtful that this is sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia. As for his university web page, this does not distinguish him from the hundreds of thousands of other academics with similar pages. Will Orrick (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added the English-language sources, so that non-Greek speakers can better judge. Will Orrick (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Existence ≠ Notability, and the sources found so far establish only his existence. I see no evidence that he passes WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't need to pass WP:PROF since he already passes General Notability as the President of a national federation of teachers. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG has no "president of a national federation of teachers" clause. WP:PROF maybe does if you could establish the importance of this national federation. What WP:GNG does require is nontrivial coverage in multiple reliably-published third-party sources. It's essential to have something we can say about the subject that we can verify by looking at the sources, and currently we don't have anything about him that is properly sourced in that way: we have only his self-published faculty profile and a couple of news stories that quote him but don't say anything about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added more references from Kathimerini (top newspaper in Greece) and from Greek Sky TV's online publication Skai.gr. Multiple reliable third-party news sources meets WP:GNG with ease. There are also multiple references at Greek government websites where P.O.S.D.E.P. interfaces with the Greek government (do I really need to start listing those as well?). Here is the official website of P.O.S.D.E.P.. Have also added a reference to a publication of a national conference organised by the Ministry of Education where he represented P.O.S.D.E.P. as its president. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 13:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not convinced. The new sources still only mention him trivially (as a source for a quote, or with a single line stating that he was elected to the post) or not at all (the last one, from Oct 2004). At this point, number of sources is not what's needed to pass WP:GNG, it's rather the depth of coverage within the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an article with his name in the title. The entire article is dedicated to the opinion of Christos Trikalinos and the organisation that he represents. Χ.Τρικαλινός:Οι προτάσεις Παπανδρέου για την παιδεία υποκρύπτουν τεράστιους κινδύνους. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't actually say much about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Multiple reliable sources, even if they are not in-depth, are still more than adequate to meet WP:GNG. I have supplied references from four excellent newspapers, two radio stations (one Greek and one British), a television station (Greek Sky) (two articles including one dedicated to Christos Trikalinos), and the Greek Ministry of Education. More than adequate to meet WP:GNG (and some). Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 10:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still doesn't actually say much about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is an article with his name in the title. The entire article is dedicated to the opinion of Christos Trikalinos and the organisation that he represents. Χ.Τρικαλινός:Οι προτάσεις Παπανδρέου για την παιδεία υποκρύπτουν τεράστιους κινδύνους. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still not convinced. The new sources still only mention him trivially (as a source for a quote, or with a single line stating that he was elected to the post) or not at all (the last one, from Oct 2004). At this point, number of sources is not what's needed to pass WP:GNG, it's rather the depth of coverage within the sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added more references from Kathimerini (top newspaper in Greece) and from Greek Sky TV's online publication Skai.gr. Multiple reliable third-party news sources meets WP:GNG with ease. There are also multiple references at Greek government websites where P.O.S.D.E.P. interfaces with the Greek government (do I really need to start listing those as well?). Here is the official website of P.O.S.D.E.P.. Have also added a reference to a publication of a national conference organised by the Ministry of Education where he represented P.O.S.D.E.P. as its president. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 13:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GNG has no "president of a national federation of teachers" clause. WP:PROF maybe does if you could establish the importance of this national federation. What WP:GNG does require is nontrivial coverage in multiple reliably-published third-party sources. It's essential to have something we can say about the subject that we can verify by looking at the sources, and currently we don't have anything about him that is properly sourced in that way: we have only his self-published faculty profile and a couple of news stories that quote him but don't say anything about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't need to pass WP:PROF since he already passes General Notability as the President of a national federation of teachers. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 01:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Xxanthippe and David Epstein. Does not meet WP:PROf or WP:GNG (only trivial in-passing mentions). --Crusio (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on a second. Xxanthippe placed a comment before I introduced several references that easily qualify for WP:GNG and there appears to be nothing that I can do to satisfy Eppstein. Xxanthippe should reconsider position. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've been watching the article and the debate from the start and I'm in agreement with David Eppstein. From WP:BASIC: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. All of the sources given are quotes from Trikalinos. Not one independent of the subject gives any information beyond his name and title. Furthermore, being the head of a union of scholars is not the same as being a member of a major academic body, so I don't think he qualifies for inclusion under WP:PROF criteria 3 either. Sailsbystars (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete meets neither WP:GNG (lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources) nor WP:PROF (1 paper does not make an academic career) RadioFan (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I had not even bothered to look at WP:PROF because he easily meets WP:GNG. But now you come to mention it. He actually meets WP:PROF too. Item 6 in WP:PROF is "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". And he has as the President of P.O.S.D.E.P. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 14:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being head of POSDEP, which is concerned with employment conditions for academics, does not establish notability as a scholar in the way that being president of a university or head of a major academic society would, so WP:PROF doesn't apply. I am not sure what Wikipedia's standards are for inclusion of heads of labor unions, but it seems untenable to try to maintain biographies of every past president of every national federation of every profession. In my opinion, the main problem with over-broad criteria for inclusion is that secondary sources simply aren't available on which to base a substantive biography. A bio page can languish for years with few or no editors watching or updating it, and with nobody able or willing to assess the accuracy and significance of its content. Will Orrick (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- POSDEP has a far wider role than "employment conditions for academics" you only have to look at a translation of the POSDEP website to see that. CLICK HERE to see a translation. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But there's an enormous difference between between a learned society and a professional organization, which is what POSTDEP looks like to me. Item 6 in WP:PROF specifies leadership of a "notable national or international scholarly society". Will Orrick (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "professional organisation" . It's an organisation that discusses and lobbies for the best interests of education (by scholars). He also organized the 1st Panhellenic Physics Education Congress in Greece. 1ο Πανελληνιο Εκπαιδευτικό Συνεδριο Φυσικών for the Union of Greek Physicists eefthes.gr Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 20:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. But there's an enormous difference between between a learned society and a professional organization, which is what POSTDEP looks like to me. Item 6 in WP:PROF specifies leadership of a "notable national or international scholarly society". Will Orrick (talk) 02:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- POSDEP has a far wider role than "employment conditions for academics" you only have to look at a translation of the POSDEP website to see that. CLICK HERE to see a translation. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 19:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being head of POSDEP, which is concerned with employment conditions for academics, does not establish notability as a scholar in the way that being president of a university or head of a major academic society would, so WP:PROF doesn't apply. I am not sure what Wikipedia's standards are for inclusion of heads of labor unions, but it seems untenable to try to maintain biographies of every past president of every national federation of every profession. In my opinion, the main problem with over-broad criteria for inclusion is that secondary sources simply aren't available on which to base a substantive biography. A bio page can languish for years with few or no editors watching or updating it, and with nobody able or willing to assess the accuracy and significance of its content. Will Orrick (talk) 15:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I had not even bothered to look at WP:PROF because he easily meets WP:GNG. But now you come to mention it. He actually meets WP:PROF too. Item 6 in WP:PROF is "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society". And he has as the President of P.O.S.D.E.P. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 14:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 15:14, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article seems to have met WP:GNG requirements.Deyyaz [ Talk | Contribs ] 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Menarch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nominating Comment I initially nominated it for speedy delete due to it reading like a joke. Menarche is a woman's first period. There is also a reference to 'nardburns' insinuating burning testicles. The article appears to belong in the Paul Menard page as an addition. The author has been editing it since the initial speedy delete. It makes a bit more sense now. Suggesting Merge into the Paul Menard page. Golgofrinchian (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nardburns are a reference to facial hair, side burns that look like Paul Menards. (talk) 19 March 2011 —Preceding undated comment added 02:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- Ha, no, this should have been speedied as a hoax. Delete. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A merger with Paul Menard's Wikipage is ill advised considering the Paul Menard Empire and Menarch operate separately from Paul Menard. Possibly an addition of the Paul Menard Empire with Menarch as a subtitle would be best.Dig818 (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey there Dig818, this page will be for other editors a chance to review the article and see how it appears to them. You are free to comment here and it is encouraged. It is not a voting system but a way to come to a consensus. This actually gives you more time to perfect the article. In the mean time while it is being discussed feel free to edit the article to make it better, such as explaining the nardburns. I will not be making any further comments as this is meant as an independent review of the article. Good luck! Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Golgofrinchian. I am not familiar with making wikipages as I'm sure you noticed. I will try to make the page more clear.Dig818 (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assistance How would I go about creating The Paul Menard Empire, and placing Menarch under it. Therefore, topics such as 'nardburns' can be explained. Dig818 (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't appear to be a hoax, exactly, but based on what I've found so far, I doubt that the Paul Menard Empire is notable enough to sustain its own article. There's a bunch of stuff about this goofy fan club in non-reliable sources--blogs, bulletin boards, SB.com, Urban Dictionary, and the like--but as for reliable sources, so far I have found only one brief reference to the Empire: three sentences in today's (3/18/2011) Birmingham News[34]. That might be enough to justify a reference to the club at Paul Menard, but not its own article, and certainly not an article for "Menarch". Unless more reliable sources turn up, I have to !vote delete on this article. Maybe a userfy would be OK to allow the Menard folks to dig for more reliable sources, which may actually be in the offing. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Another source: today there's a column at NASCAR.com entitled "Menard's empire continues to grow with success", starting with this: "If only every month was Menarch. . . . Yes, Menard has his own fan club called The Paul Menard Empire. They even have their own Facebook page, where they proclaim the current month on the calendar as Menarch in Paul's honor and boast that their favorite driver 'also possesses the most awesome facial hair in all of NASCAR.'" However, I still think any references to this fan group and its tongue-in-cheek support belong in Menard's article, not a separate one.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would suggest redirecting this to menarche as a plausible misspelling. NASCAR fans are unfamiliar with that word, it seems; if they knew it, they likely would have chosen a different name. It means a woman's first menstrual cycle. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I suspect that they knew that. The plentiful non-RS content turned up by Google makes clear that this whole thing was intended to be satirical in the first place.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ihcoyc there is no need to attack the intelligence of NASCAR fans. Especially when it is easy to see the vastly different pronunciations of both Menarch and menarche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dig818 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and don't merge into his article. Too trivial to belong anywhere, even in Paul Menard's article. Let this meme become much more well-known if this content is to ever exist at Wikipedia. Royalbroil 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and because this makes Wikipedia look stupid. Bearian (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator of the Empire and one of the main propagators of the Menarch name. I'm a student at the UW School of Pharmacy, so I'm well aware of what Menarche means, it just happens to be a coincidence and something I did not think of until after the fact. I am in talks with Menards and RCR about the Empire and Menarch itself, so it is not just some minor meme at the moment.Phathead (talk) 04:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, and because Wikipedia should not be used to promote minor memes. --Falcadore (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:ARTSPAM. TheChrisD Rants•Edits 13:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This isn't even notable for its own article. You may be able to include something in his article. --Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The "keep" !votes fail to provide evidence to support his notability under WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Erick Ambtman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has the look of self-promotion. There are no independent sources. A quick Google doesn't bring up anything useful and substantial. He'd be notable if he was party leader, but the president is not the leader. He's basically the head administrator. He'd be notable if this was for a federal party, but it's not. He doesn't hold public office. He holds a position that nobody else even sought at the time (only half a year ago). Now, I do think many party presidents, even at a provincial level are notable. But this person, based on the current version of this article, is not. Rob (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because he is a young leader does not mean that his information should not be available on wikipedia. The information is readily available on the Party's Official Website and as the complainant openly stated "party presidents, even at a provincial level are notable". This one user has attacked several Alberta Liberal wikipedia pages and clearly has an agenda to keep them off of wikipedia. User:Vinsher
- I said "many" were notable. This isn't one. I haven't "attacked" anything. I made a page for an eventual Liberal MLA, and added to a number. I've nominated for deletion articles related to different parties. This isn't a partisan question. Unfortunately, no party's web site is considered a reliable source. I suggest, if you want to keep this article, you actively seek, and add, independent sources that cover him. For example, a story in a newspaper about him as the primary topic. --Rob (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's unusual that you provide no conflicting information or deny that he is the President of the Alberta Liberal Party - a noteworthy position whether you personally deem it to be or not. His photo is in the national newspaper for his work as the President of the Alberta Liberal Party and the article contains independant news sources and referenced his charity work. If there is something factually incorrect, please provide proof.User:Vinsher —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- It's the other way around. Those wishing inclusion must provide proof of notability. You need to provide independent reliable sources that show substantial coverage of the subject. All the claims in the article need appropriate citations. Sites connected to the subject aren't considered independent, and therefore, not reliable. If he's been covered by a national newspaper, or anywhere independent and reliable, please include citations in the article. According to the general notability guideline passing mention is not sufficient to establish notability. The National Post article said nothing about him; it was just a photo of him standing in the background. The FFWD article makes minimal mention of him, as the article was principally about David Swann. --Rob (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think it's fine. --MoonLichen (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Sourcing sucks and article should use his last name, not his familiar first. Notable as head of the Liberal Party in the province of Alberta (evidence). Encyclopedias NEED this sort of information. Carrite (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, he is *NOT* the head of the party. He is the president. David Swann is the leader (for the moment), and therefore the true head of the party. The leader is the most powerful and significant person in the party, both inside and outside of the Legislature. The leader is a essentially a candidate for being premiere in any election, normally sits in the legislature, or seeks to. The president holds an administrative task, that is legal and clerical in nature. The president does not hold nor seek any public office. They have no special legal powers. If they appear in the media, it's as mere spokesperson for the party. --Rob (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Carrite. –SJ+ 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As Rob points out, the president of Canadian provincial party is not a leadership position, but an administrative one. I would be very hard pressed to name the president of the prov. party I vote for. As such, we need significant coverage in secondary sources, which we don't have and I could not find. The sourcing doesn't meet WP:BASIC, and it may not in the future. Of course, Mr. Ambtman may go on to bigger things, but doesn't meet the bar at this point. As a side note, this article also stinks of self-promotion. The Interior (Talk) 20:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The vast majority of party presidents at the provincial level in Canada don't have their own articles, and notability on Wikipedia is a matter of substantial coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, not a matter of just being able to prove that he exists by pointing to a few passing mentions of his name in coverage of other things. And furthermore, I've never known Rob to harbour any particular bias against the Alberta Liberal Party — in fact, while I could be wrong, I always thought he was a member of it (and whether he actually is or not, the fact that I had that perception at all certainly proves that he doesn't harbour any obvious bias against them.) What I have known him to be, rather, is a strong and persuasive advocate of respecting and following Wikipedia's notability and inclusion policies regardless of what party a political figure is or isn't associated with. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete president of a party is very inside baseball, not a spokesperson or public figure in Canada. Unless notable for something else, we shouldn't have articles on provincial party presidents. - Pictureprovince (talk) 12:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Article reads like a resumé. DOn't think political apparatchiks rate their own articles. Not notable otherwise. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Prime (Transformers). Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Prime Nova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An article with sources from long discredited websites to support its notability Dwanyewest (talk) 02:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Prime (Transformers), as it's about this character and others. Mathewignash (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Prime (Transformers) per User:Mathewignash. JIP | Talk 10:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge for sake of building a consensus. No sources to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. 3 "keep" !votes but one is a "per nom" and the other is in Swedish and the google translation of it is not a "keep" rationale. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Caroline Edelstam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable.There are three references. One of them is a report that some grandchildren of Harald Edelstam had been introduced to the president of Chile in honour of Harald Edelstam - there is no suggestion in that article that Caroline Edelstam Molin has nay notability in her own right. Another reference is an announcement by AMREF that she had been appointed to a post by them. The other one is a very brief mention of the same appointment, which actually refers to the organisation she was appointed by as "the almost unknown organization AMREF Flying Doctors". Nothing at all indicates notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - seem to have had some success for herself. References exist. I say Keep.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Molin förlita sig på sin egen kreativitet och övertalningsförmåga och organisationen har därför lyckats --MoonLichen (talk) 03:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Care to translate that? While sources don't have to be in English, a comment in an AfD should be if you want it to have any practical effect within the decision. LadyofShalott 00:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Babba. –SJ+ 18:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was DELETE. postdlf (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pikachu Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"Worldwide" day that according to the article talk page is celebrated by a group of people on Twitter. No other evidence of notability. roleplayer 02:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Wikipedia is not for things that you or your friends made up. Surprised you withdrew your speedy nom. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It turned out to not be a hoax after all, which is what I claimed it was in my nom. Might have made speedy under another criteria, but not that one. -- roleplayer 03:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I can't find any sources to establish notability. Shanata (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with the nomination statement, if it is "unofficial" there needs to be some independent coverage of it, and the unsourced article does nothing to address that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. Superheroes Fighting (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank Sisley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Potentially non-notable minor league baseball figure. As far as I can tell, he never played that level and his only claim to fame is leading a team to a league championship. Alex (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Or merge, if there's anything to merge, to Uniontown Coal Barons. A championship-winning minor league manager certainly could be notable, if there's some coverage about him in reliable sources. Standard practice here is not to keep minor leaguers without such coverage. All I have found about Frank Sisley is reference material stating that he managed those teams.[35] This information, and its sources, can be included in the team article. Not sure that there's anything much to merge, though, since the key information (that he managed them to the 1909 championship) is already there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Solaris (comics) and deleting history per consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pancosmic Justice Jihad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Pure plot summary given from an in-universe perspective. Feezo (Talk) 06:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Could be respectable if cleaned up and some sources added --MoonLichen (talk) 03:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Delete - Per WP:RS, and WP:N. Monterey Bay (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources exist to WP:verify notability. Safe to say this article cannot be improved. Shooterwalker (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - i don't think that this is even a real comic book series. I can't find anything about it online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.225.218 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Patrick M. Walsh Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing in the article really indicates that this person meets notability guidelines, just that he's a working actor/stuntman/CEO. Nothing illuminating on his IMDb profile. I can't find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources (although plenty of coverage of someone by the same name), all I can see is social networking/marketing profiles. BelovedFreak 09:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete stuntman with a few acting roles which appear to be very small, unnamed parts (corrections officer, homeless man, cop #1, etc.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails to meet our minimal standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was dabify. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Veridian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A dabbish sort of page listing a whole bunch of unnotable companies. The defence firm and the electric utility might be marginally notable. Miracle Pen (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert to a disambiguation page and spin off stub articles (at a minimum) for Veridian Corporation (United States) and Veridian Corporation (Canada). The U.S. company (see [36] and [37]) was a large (it sold in 2003 for $1.5 billion) and complex publicly traded company that did a lot of business with the U.S. defense establishment (see [38] and [39]) and figures in some people's conspiracy theories (e.g., [40] and [41]). --Orlady (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Convert per Orlady. Three companies merit or have an article.
- Convert & spinoff per Orlady. Veridian the defense contractor was a significant company: tons of likely references at Google News[42] and Google Books [43] that can be used to expand the spinoffs.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Raymond E. Feist#Chaoswar Saga. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A Kingdom Besieged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No claims in the article or the website of the publisher demonstrate that this book meets the WP:BK criteria. No matches in GBooks, GNews or initial results of a general Google search to indicate significance against any of the BK criteria so improvement in the near future seems unlikely. PROD removed without explanation by anon IP (apart from the comment "take it to AFD"), so raising for wider discussion as suggested. Fæ (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Raymond_E._Feist#Chaoswar_Saga until such time as it's suitable for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable. I do not see that merging the plot/storyline would add anything useful to the target article. - Sitush (talk) 11:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was NO CONSENSUS. postdlf (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter Orullian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 4. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per lack of reliable, independent, and verifiable sources to indicate notability. Yaksar (let's chat) 21:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article might have been created a bit prematurely, but there's a reasonable amount of online sourcing (albeit less than optimal) and several strong indicators of notability: a book tour sponsored by a major publisher [44], nontrivial reviews of prior work [45], and selection by the Science Fiction Book Club [46] (which doesn't so much contribute to notability as demonstrate it exists; after spotchecking, it seems that everybody they publish has a Wikipedia article). Well past the WP:CRYSTAL stage, better to keep and build up as the book hits than delete and restart within weeks. We've got articles on TV episodes that won't air until about the time the book is out. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - He does not meet the notability criteria right now. He may in the future, so the future is when the article should be created. An alternative is to userfy the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the guy has a bunch of books published --MoonLichen (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - He does not have a bunch of books published. He has one published, and one set to release. Having a bunch of books published does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. He is listed as a bestselling author by the New York Times. He has been interviewed by a number of websites and blogs as an author and separately as a singer. He easily meets General Notability. Nipsonanomhmata (Talk) 12:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a citation for being a best selling author? I'd be rather surprised as he has only one released book, and it wasn't a best seller as far as I can determine. And being interviwed in blogs doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. We need to be careful about mechanically applying standards like "blog coverage doesn't establish notability" in fields like f/sf, which have a long and recognized tradition of "amateur" publishing by professional writers and recognized commentators. Coverage in John Scalzi's blog, for example, (Scalzi is president of SFWA) probably would contribute to notability. More generally, while blog coverage can't normally be used to source biographical details, especially in BLPs, it can be used to demonstrate peer recognition/reputation under WP:CREATIVE, which quite clearly would demonstrate notability. We have to be careful, of course, about walled gardens, indiscriminate backpatting, and purely promotional comments about friends, but that's routine editorial judgment. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Do you have a citation for being a best selling author? I'd be rather surprised as he has only one released book, and it wasn't a best seller as far as I can determine. And being interviwed in blogs doesn't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Jonny Quest. MoonLichen's comment is discounted because it makes no sense. Sandstein 07:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Dr. Zin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is completely unreferenced, it has no sources to establish the notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk) 01:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just because something is in a cartoon doesn't mean it's not real --MoonLichen (talk) 03:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: If it fails our guidelines, especially that one notability, it should be deleted regardless of its reality.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Information should be included into the main Johnny Quest article. Also the article reads poorly Zin is the first word in every paragraph. With some work it would make a good addition to the main JQ article. Golgofrinchian (talk) 03:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Golg. –SJ+ 18:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think these articles just got deleted because there was no one to contest them who was better at finding sources than the Deletors. I am not even going to bother showing you the sources; they are there. You do some work for a change. I already added two Google Books sources to the article, there are literally (and I do not use that word lightly) scores of references in the Google News links above, for both the Dr Zin of the 1960s Jonny Quest series (sources going back to 1964 and 1965), and his appearances in the series and movies that followed. Anarchangel (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Golgofrinchian, unless sources to establish notability can be found. Harry Blue5 (talk) 11:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would rather rest on assertions than check to see if they are well-founded? Suits me. Here are some more sources:
- Dr. Zin Comic Book Database
- Dr. Zin - Chronological Listing Comic Book Database
- Saturday morning fever, pages 113-116, MacMillan
- The supervillain book: the evil side of comics and Hollywood, Visible Ink Press, 2006
- We gotta have it:twenty years of seeing Black at the movies, 1986-2006, Esther Iverem, Thunder's Mouth Press, 2007 - Performing Arts
- Dr. Zin (Character) from "The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest" (1996), Internet Movie Database
- '60s Hero Goes Back To Future Nov 19, 1995, Scott Moore, Washington Post]
- VOICES OF Dr. Zin behindthevoiceactors.com
- Articles in the Contra Costa Times (Walnut Creek - November 17, 1995 - E08 News
- She's racing for her Quest Tampa Tribune
- Jorge Luiz Calife ‘Homem de Ferro 2’ chega ao Brasil antes dos EUA. diariodovale
- Anarchangel (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.