The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Searches overall found nothing to suggest solid independent notability and only finding passing mentions for the TV shows, I found nothing to even suggest a redirect to one of the listed shows. WP:TNT at best if ever notable. It's also worth noting there's some serious vandalism here (see history) that emphasizes how this is simply best deleted. I suggest it would be best if deleted.
Angry Bald English Villian ManChat23:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Part of this message is actually from my PROD, "Searches overall found nothing to suggest solid independent notability and only finding passing mentions for the TV shows, I found nothing to even suggest a redirect to one of the listed shows. WP:TNT at best if ever notable. It's also worth noting there's some serious vandalism here (see history) that emphasizes how this is simply best deleted." with which I still confirm and echo supporting as there's simply nothing obvious to suggest better notability and improvement here. Notifying tagger
Gadfium.
SwisterTwistertalk23:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete None of those new sources help. Those sources, taken together, don't meet
WP:BASIC, and I quote: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" Schwede6618:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unfortunately the author removed the PROD along with the maintenance templates with no explanations at all so here we are. I still confirm and echo my PROD: "Seemingly non-notable as my searches found several links at Books, News and browsers but mostly her local news reports and nothing outstandingly better.".
SwisterTwistertalk22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Rachael Kohn is well known in the Australian religious community across all religions. Her radio program is an institution in this country and has been running for nearly 20 years.
"Books The New Believers", Central Coast Express, 31 October 2003
Oberg, Terry (19 May 2007), "books non-fiction", The Courier-Mail
Preston (2003) says she is "One of Australia's foremost commentators on the phenomenon of religion, Rachael Kohn, pictured, presenter of the ABC Radio National program, The Spirit of Things,"
There are also some shorter ones such as
Crean, Mike (28 January 2006), "THE NEW BELIEVERS: RE-IMAGINING GOD BY RACHAEL KOHN.", The Press (Christchurch)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as it seems there's hardly much better signs of obvious improvement here and this is another case of a long troubled article so WP:TNT at best. Notifying the only noticeably still active AfDer
Whpq.
SwisterTwistertalk06:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - There's some minor coverage, and it local to Toronto. Given the lack of additional significant coverage, notability is not met. --
Whpq (
talk)
18:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Local coverage doesn't take away from passing
WP:GNG. That's not an argument to use in an AfD,
Whpq. However, I don't know that the Torontoist is a RS and that's where she's covered the most. I can't say "Keep" if the sources in the article aren't RS, so if anyone knows for sure about the Torontoist, please weigh in and ping me. She may be WP:TOOSOON.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
23:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
As far as I know it, is essentially an online magazine for local Toronto arts and culture, and would probably qualify as a reliable source. However, when considering notability, I would take into account the type and scope of coverage, and for me, what's out there is not sufficient. Other editors, may of course, come to another conclusion. --
Whpq (
talk)
02:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I do, for the record, sometimes use Torontoist for sourcing, but I use it the way I would use Now or Xtra!: reliable enough for supplementary confirmation of facts in an article that's already been sourced over GNG, but not widely distributed enough to make an article suitable for Wikipedia if it actually has to carry the GNG.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
While she's certainly talented, I'm not seeing anything here that rises to the level of wider prominence needed to satisfy a Wikipedia inclusion criterion. Since reference #3 (Toronto Star) led to a document summary rather than the actual text of the reference in question, I just ran a
ProQuest check to find it — and it isn't actually "an article about her poetry", as claimed, but merely the text of one of her poems. So it doesn't actually count as media coverage about her at all. She garners just 17 other hits in that database — of which she's the bylined author, rather than the subject, of eight of them, and is merely namechecked in almost all of the remainder. So there's just no real sourcing out there with which this can be improved. Vaughan Today, a defunct weekly community newspaper, was in the same "okay for supplementary facts, but not able to bring the notability" class of sourcing that I alluded to in my response to Whpq; now it's doubly clobbered by the fact that the link's been cybersquatted by a non-notable blog and thus no longer even
verifies the claims being cited to it. So the strongest source we've got here, in reality, is The Jewish Tribune — but that's (a) a deadlink, and (b) not actually being used to support anything in the article except the fact that she's Jewish, and thus still not actually contributing notability as such. So it's a delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation in the future if it can ever actually be sourced better than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:34, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article covers an arbitrary subset of
List of North American supercentenarians which creates an unnecessary maintenance burden. There are substantial differences between the inclusion of people on the two pages even though the data should be exactly the same for the two lists when looking at people from X country. Roll the Caribbean info into the North American page and then delete the Caribbean page. The people on the list are further covered on two global lists.
Legacypac (
talk)
21:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:LISTN as no sources discuss this particular data set. Only references are GRG lists (note that none of these sources discuss "Caribbean supercentenarians" and are just a big table of names) which do nothing to establish notability. All names in this article are available in other Longevity articles.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
23:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Quite questionably notable and improvable as the best my searches found were only passing mentions at Books, News and browsers enough to even suggest what I would've found continuing to search deeper. I was actually PRODing this with "Notability and improvement questionably enough for PROD as my searches found nothing better than passing mentions at Books, News and browsers." until I noticed both the September 2006 and March 2007 PRODs so here we are. Notifying first and only still active user PRODer
RJFJR and Nigerian user
Wikicology for insight.
SwisterTwistertalk20:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Although there's a valid potential claim of notability here, none of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines can ever be passed just by asserting a claim of notability if the quality of
reliable sourcing available to support the claim isn't there. Sometimes it's just
WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if better sources ever start panning out.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails
WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. This remains valid.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
19:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - He appears to have played for the Malaysian national U-23 football team. Is playing U-23 not considered a claim to notability? As for sources, I couldn't find much about him (only unreliable sources such as Facebook), so depending if U-23 playing is enough to establish notability this comment can be taken as either a keep or a delete.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
No,
WP:NFOOTBALL explicitly rules out youth football as a claim to notability: Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of
WP:GNG.Sir Sputnik (
talk)
18:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm proposing this because all, or almost all of the edits to it have been performed by a nest of sock puppets. Interested editors should examine
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/IceTeaKing and consider whether this article has been created correctly, or for some other purpose. Does it possess genuine notability or does it fail
WP:CORP?
This is a neutral nomination since I am genuinely unsure how to proceed. The article was created before the sock puppetry was discovered, thus before the sock drawer, which is large, was/were all blocked
FiddleFaddle18:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It clearly meets the GNG, and that's really all that matters since the group that created it (which appears to be a class) definitely isn't one of the banned paid editing firms that we could just apply G5 to.
Kevin Gorman (
talk)
20:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This is a quadruple-nomination for four related biographies, for the same reason (plus a request for a second opinion on two others).
Each one is a "vanity article" (aka
Self-promotion and Publicity), written by someone with a potential conflict of interest to
High Alpha. The creators and only major editors of these articles are
user:Ekruko (
whose sole contribution to WP is the Andersen article) and
User:Dbeechler (whose only contribution to WP is to create the
other three biographies). Each biography is primarily a list of the companies that they've worked for, only some of which are notable in their own right, with the salient information actually discussing those companies rather than the person. Therefore I do not believe that they meet the
basic notability criteria for biographies because the sources that mention them are neither independent of the subject nor independent of each other, and also that the reliable sources which are cited only mention these people in passing. The awards which are cited in each of the biographies are awards that would not be considered notable by Wikipedia's standards (e.g. "Indianapolis Business Journal's 40 under 40" (although I do acknowledge Dorsey having a list of more significant awards received).
Regarding the articles' authors, I believe these are paid promotions. After a quick google search, I found that Ekruko and Dbeechler have potential conflicts of interest with High Alpha.
Relatedly... There are also two articles about companies that relate to this nomination that, if commenters on THIS AfD thought warranted specific scrutiny, I could nominate separately:
The article on
High Alpha itself is of very questionable notability and was ALSO created by Dbeechler. I note that as of its very first edit it was marked as a "good article"
[1].
Delete at best as I looked at all of the articles and the sourcing was simply not solid enough to suggest better established notability and improvement here. Notifying past users
Largoplazo and
OluwaCurtis (both from Mike Fitzgerald) and also
DGG who asks to be notified of AfDs where he may have some familiar input.
SwisterTwistertalk06:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Relist Scott Dorsey separately--he is much more notable than the others, having been ceo of a 1 billion dollar company; there's plausible notability here. Delete the others: they are non-notableand promotional, and the sooner we remove them the better. DGG (
talk )
17:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the comment
DGG - I agree that Dorsey is the least problematic (as mentioned in the nomination re. awards), so I think keeping him and deleting the others is a very viable solution - without necessarily relisting him here separately (if people prefer it that way). However - could you (and others) please also comment on the two articles about the companies: High Alpha and TinderBox - and whether I should bother listing them for nomination here too?
Wittylama19:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I nominated TinderBox for G11; ; I'm trying Prod on High Alpha; if it's removed , we'll need AfD. They can't really be includued here--they're too different. DGG (
talk )
23:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks. Yes - so we agree. by "here" I meant in AfD (in their own separate nomination), not here within this nomination. That's why I mentioned them as related but separate articles for comment upon in my nomination text.
Wittylama
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
It is difficult to see where notability lies here. I prodded the article but this was removed by the original author without providing any better refs. It appears to fail
WP:GNG. VelellaVelella Talk 18:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete On list of publications, only one is mentioned to be published. The rest show as in the publishing process. That said, the only book that has been published has limited information available on it. I agree that there is no evidence to suggest that this subject meets the criteria for his own page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
151.191.175.228 (
talk)
20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
While this was kept in an AFD discussion back in 2006, both
WP:NPOL and our
reliable sourcing rules have evolved significantly since then, and this no longer meets contemporary standards. Her notability remains limited to a city council seat in a city not large enough to confer an automatic NPOL pass on its city councillors, and a non-winning candidacy for higher office — and the only actual source here is a deadlinked article which is actually about somebody else who later outyouthed her "youngest person ever elected to council" claim, which means that the article doesn't pass
WP:GNG in lieu of failing NPOL, because it isn't sourced to any RS coverage of Paulsen. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - She's done nothing notable except gain political office. This office is not notable enough to satisfy notability, evidenced by the fact that only one other councillor of equal standing has an article.
Rayman60 (
talk)
21:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BLP. Old BLP and GNG tags from 2008 still reflect the current problems with the article. Sources do not establish notability and provide poor biographical significance.
Delta13C (
talk)
18:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:AUTHOR does not include the criterion of being an author of a book that makes a bestseller list. There are discussions going on at
WP:Notability_(books), but there is no rule yet. I think it is a better policy not to simply use inclusion in a bestseller list to establish notability of a book, as these are based purely on sale volume. Even if we were to use the NYTimes bestseller list, the subject's book would be notable, and not the author of it. According to
WP:AUTHOR in this case, the subject the person must be "known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique" or their book must be the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" or "The person's work (or works) either...(c) has won significant critical attention." There are other criteria, but I don't think they could possibly apply in this case.
Delta13C (
talk)
08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete One book, made the "self help" list for two weeks in 2007, then she seems to have faded away. We know that the lists are not scientific, so I wouldn't rely on that alone for notability.
LaMona (
talk)
03:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - As News, Books, browsers and Highbeam all actually found enough links to suggest a better article here but nothing at Scholar, all in all, though examining these is actually not suggesting a better article at all as they're simply passing mentions and coverage.
SwisterTwistertalk08:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
After some research I believe that page, and its corresponding season pages are a series of hoaxes filled with false information. According to this article the first season and all 9 others aired on August 10, 2015. The Spanish language article,
[2], says that the first series began April 2015 and there has since been a second.
Searching for the various entrants suggests that actually they have appeared in different versions of the Argentine entries.
Add to that all of these articles are mostly in Spanish, and are entirely unreferenced
Jac16888Talk23:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: I was looking into translating this, but maybe it's not worth it. From the Spanish Wikipedia page, the official website given is a Facebook page, and the one reference that's there is a mention of the show being renewed for a second season. At the very least, the English Wikipedia pages with false information should be deleted, then maybe there can be a discussion if it's notable enough to translate the Spanish Wiki page. —
2macia22 (
talk)
21:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete According to the Spanish article, it started this year. I can't for one moment believe that they've had seven seasons in one year (they seem to have had two). And, we do get quite a lot of this construction of faked-up or fantasy tables on enwiki. I suppose it's a safer hobby than kicking rottweilers, but when it just gets deleted, what do they get out of it?
Peridon (
talk)
16:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The articles say the show appears on
Red Uno de Bolivia. I went to
their website and found that their schedule includes Bailando por un Sueño, which is the title of a dance competition program with series with franchises in several countries. In addition to all the signs of fakery already presented above, I doubt that the same network is hosting more than one dance competition program. Moreover, Google finds no mention of the phrase "bailando bolivia" on their website:
"bailando bolivia" site:reduno.com.bo. And a search for "bailando bolivia" without "sueño" leads to these articles and a bunch of download sites:
"bailando bolivia" -sueño.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
17:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NBOOK. One review by the BBC, multiple reviews required to establish notability. Does not appear to satisfy any other criteria of
WP:NBOOK. The fact that it may be kept in school libraries, a claim that is not sourced, does not establish notability anyway.
Safiel (
talk)
22:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The review referenced at the site mentioned in the second AfD appears to be a review in conjunction with the sale of the book, which would not count towards notability.
Safiel (
talk)
22:44, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I originally
WP:PRODed this because, "Could not establish notability. Could not find additional references. Tagged for notability since 2008. Unable to deorphan." ~
Kvng (
talk)
15:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. No refs. Nothing doing. I read the previous afds which ended no consensus for the obvious problems of translation and RS. It isn't the job of WP to guess at notability - there is none in the article itself.
Szzuk (
talk)
17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - the article is sourced with unfamiliar-to-westerners news sources. The first and third ref establish notability and the second ref is a dead link. Certainly not the best article ever written, but there is no reason for its deletion. Bfpage |
leave a message03:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect to Alan Minshaw actually as I'm not seeing anything compelling enough to suggest keeping and I only found some passing mentions. Notifying car enthusiast
Davey2010 who may also have some England input.
SwisterTwistertalk05:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge in to
Alan Minshaw - Unfortunately the only thing I'm finding are all mentions, Even books contains nothing but mentions so as it's clearly non notable it seems better to merge to the founder than to outright delete. (Thanks
SwisterTwister for the ping). –
Davey2010Talk23:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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
DJGPP. There's not strictly a consensus for this redirect in the comments, but reading between the lines, I suspect most participants in the AfD would approve. --
RoySmith(talk)14:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I've just added two book sources
[3] and it's obvious there are more, though none appear to discuss the subject in much detail. I think we would probably keep the article in most similar AfDs per
WP:CREATIVE #3 but I admit it's borderline.
Msnicki (
talk)
21:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Undecided Yes, I instigated the article, so I should be very much pro, but I'm not. On the one hand, I'm pretty sure the
DJGPP article reserves to stay. But OTOH I'm not sure whether this justifies the existance of the article on DJ, since his work on DJGPP seems to be his sole "claim to fame". Either way, I won't hold a grudge if the consensus will be to delete the article. --
Syzygy (
talk)
17:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
DJGPP. This isn't how I thought I'd vote, but I'm not seeing the coverage I expected. I think part of the problem is that a lot of the coverage would have happened in the early days of the Web. However, a great deal of this information has been digitized, and it's often possible to at least find text hits in many of the likely places, such as programming journals. And what these sources say is almost always the same sentence: "In 1989, DJ Delorie ported GCC to MSDOS." And then, almost invariably, the source describes DJGPP. For example,
[4] from Dr. Dobb's Journal.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable and WP is not a dictionary of emoji/characters. Mostly though no evidence of notability, as there’s just one ref and that is a dead link, and unclear how good a ref that is anyway; the article implies it was on another topic. Given the hatnote it might make sense as an Dab page, in which case the character can be included with a link to wiktionary, e.g.
wikt:囧.
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds16:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - the rise of Jiong from an obscure Chinese character to one of the most widely used emoticons is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon. The article needs better sourcing, but Jiong is far more notable than
Duang, for example. It has also inspired some extremely popular films such as Lost in Thailand, whose Chinese title is Thai Jiong, and Lost in Hong Kong (Gang Jiong). -
Zanhe (
talk)
05:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
comment then where are the sources? Being used in a couple of film titles is not enough and without sources is original research. If it really is a notable and long-lasting phenomenon, especially an internet one, it should be easy to find sources.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds13:51, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately numerous China-related articles are poorly written and poorly sourced. I've just added three scholarly sources to the article. The huge phenomenon has been studied in quite a few English-language academic works. -
Zanhe (
talk)
19:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article fails
WP:CORP and
WP:SOAPBOX.
WP:DEL4 is a very close call considering the tone of this article and
WP:COI. I tried to find reliable and independent sources for this article, but all of them struggle to cope with
WP:CORPDEPTH or are not independently reported. Saying this makes me retch, but the best source was
this one in which the CEO proudly states how he used Wikipedia for advertising to get into USA (
WP:SOAPBOX and
WP:COI). The awards received are typical third-rate startup company awards and do not prove notability. This page has been recreated after being speedily deleted back in 2009, and has somehow survived for years.
Ceosad (
talk)
15:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete for now and draft and userfy if neede at best as not only is IMDb summarizing her career well, my searches found links at Books, browsers and Highbeam but they're all basically routine coverage and passing mentions. Simply not much for a more compelling keep yet,
SwisterTwistertalk04:51, 25 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Questionably notable and improvable and also speedy and PROD material as my searches simply found nothing at all and it simply seems he's best known for Big & Small. It's worth noting the original author was removed of his editing capabilities exactly one day later or else I would've tagged this as G5.
SwisterTwistertalk07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm curious why you brought this to AfD if you think it's 'speedy and PROD material'. I certainly don't think it's speedy material, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of coverage around. I did find
this. --
Michig (
talk)
19:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seemingly questionably notable and improvable as the best links I found were only
this,
this,
this and
this. There's simply nothing to suggest he's better notable and the article is improvable as keepable. I considered speedy and PROD but it seems AfD is best for this. Notifying past users and taggers
AllyD and
DGG (no actors I know, DGG, but since you once edited this
).
SwisterTwistertalk07:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Not enough sources for a stand alone article. The common name makes its more difficult to find sources. History preserved if sources are found.
Valoemtalkcontrib07:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge and redirect to
Alvin Risk. Doesn't merit a standalone article but should be covered in the article on the notable member. A source that can be cited to confirm basic facts:
[9]. --
Michig (
talk)
15:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I cannot find anything in Japanese about this supposed doll. The spelling
wikt:歩子 does exist in Japanese, but only as a female given name, most commonly read as Ayuko. The reading hoko also exists in Japanese, but only for the spelling
wikt:矛, which means spear, halberd. The corresponding Japanese article for the reading at
ja:ほこ does not list 歩子, and the article for the spelling at
ja:歩子 does not exist. I cannot find this term in any Japanese dictionary; see also
http://www.weblio.jp/content/歩子 for the spelling (no entry exists),
http://www.weblio.jp/content/ほこ for the reading (no 歩子 anywhere on that page). ‑‑
Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig21:46, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note that I have corrected the kanji in the article since that mistake should not be allowed to remain even as the article is subject to an AfD review.
Michitaro (
talk)
23:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Thank you,
Michitaro. I was not familiar with this custom, and with both the anon's reading and spelling incorrect, I didn't find anything relevant. Now that I have something to go on, I note by way of comparison that the JA Wikipedia does not have a separate article at
ja:這子, and that it only appears in eleven other articles
when searching for the string, of which three appear to be in titles listed as article references. After reading around a bit, I'm not sure if this passes muster for
notability purposes; I defer to others' judgment. ‑‑
Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Whether the JA Wiki has it or not is one issue to consider, but in the end, each wiki makes up its own mind. I would need to research it some more to see if I think it deserves its own article, but my initial reaction is that an article combining amagatsu (天児) and hōko makes the most sense if there is to be an article.
Michitaro (
talk)
02:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not seeing sufficient evidence that we have enough reliably sourced information to demonstrate notability or justify a self-standing article. --
DAJF (
talk)
02:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep and move to Hōko (doll) I have to completely disagree with
DAJF. Not only did
Michitaro provide excellent information, but my own searches have turned up more. I'm going to expand the article today.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
15:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: If not left as individual articles, it might be less awkward to expand
Japanese traditional dolls rather than to try to combine them under a forced name given that they are linked in one period but separate later (and both hōko and amagatsu should appear there regardless). ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~~14:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree (very much so). I think the desperate desire to preserve any entry which is not completely wrong leads to huge numbers of really scrappy and disconnected not-really-articles. WP is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and "Hoko (doll)", even corrected to "Hōko (doll)" is not a reader-friendly title in an English language work. I looked at
Japanese traditional dolls, and though this really isn't my subject, I think the first sentence is "all wrong". Japanese dolls are known by all sorts of names (as the article shows), and 人形 means "doll" or "figurine", not "human shape". I can't really see that writing the Japanese generic term for "doll" is even necessary or helpful. Whereas obscure words like dogū might benefit not only from consistent romanisation but also a kanji "reverse gloss".
Imaginatorium (
talk)
15:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can see no real reason for this article to exist. It's just an unreferenced WP:LIST, and not one that anyone would ever search for. Why would I, or anyone for that matter, want to know exactly which combinations of colors and days exist, and which don't? Some of the combinations aren't even "days". "Mad Wednesday" directs you to a 1947 comedy film that was once titled that, while "Ruby Thursday" is apparently a character from Marvel Comics... And, if this list was actually completed, how long would it need to be to include every single combination that has ever existed at any point in any country?
Thegreatluigi (
talk)
16:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Also you cannot use
WP:Redlinks as the list creator does, at least in some cases, for combinations of colours and days which will never have articles because they don't exist, right? I'm going to add to the List deletions page, because that's really what this is. If this was pruned and restructured as a standard list, would it be salvageable?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
05:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If not deleted, this article should at least be split. Half of this article is a disambiguation page (The Alliance (professional wrestling), professional wrestling faction which ostensibly consisted of World Championship Wrestling and Extreme Championship Wrestling) and the other half are examples of alliances and the definition (Holy Alliance, coalition of Russia, Austria, and Prussia created in 1815)
Dat GuyWiki (
talk)
15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete an
WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of things based on whether they have the word "alliance" in the title, from NATO to
The Alliance (The Office). I find it a bit sad that so many editors worked over so many years to assemble what I believe to be an utterly useless assemblage of what is basically Things that Have this Word in the Title.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
DeleteWP:BLP of a businessperson and blogger, which makes no particularly strong claim of
notability — it basically just asserts that he exists, and reads far more like the kind of PR profile one might expect to find on his own website than like an actual encyclopedia article. Further, the referencing here is far too strongly reliant on
primary,
user-generated and other unreliable sources — the websites of directly affiliated organizations, calendars of event listings, his IMDB profile, etc. — with the few properly
reliable sources not being sufficient in number, nor substantively enough about him in most cases, to get him over
WP:GNG in lieu of any subject-specific inclusion criterion.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
* Keep. It's a tricky one, I think he has notability definitely, but not sure if it's enough. I do agree though slightly with the above comments, he has got references on high profile websites including
Vevo and
IMDb, plus his swimming career is clearly stated on the
UK governing body for swimming,
British Swimming.
Helloradiant (
talk)
23:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
* Comment. The individual seems to have the support from high profile people (
Ben Patrick Johnson) and (
Stedman Pearson) which is stated in the original article submission. Surly this should indicate some kind of notability on top of everything else. I'd suggest to keep the article. The individual believe will grow drastically with other notable sources popping up, which can then be added as of when they are published. Removing the article would result in starting this all over again. He does have notable sources like mentioned above from high profile websites.
Mechanicinformal (
talk)
00:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - reviewed cited sources and did not find significant secondary coverage. A brief search suggests to me that the required coverage is not likely to be found. -
¢Spender1983 (
talk)
04:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - citations provided clearly do not establish notability. I couldn't turn up anything better either. Based on the above votes, wondering if a sockpuppet investigation is in order.
FuriouslySerene (
talk)
18:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
None of the cited references actually mention Akkel Ali Seikh, except one which seems to be a circular reference right back to this article here on Wikipedia. I'm struggling to find any of the contents of this article substantiated by reliable 3rd party sources, or indeed any online mention of this individual. └ UkPaolo/talk┐13:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete unless better sources are found. One ref is self-published 2-page article, another is a copy of Wikipedia article and cites Wikipedia as a source; the rest do not mention the person.
utcursch |
talk01:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Although there's a valid potential claim of notability here, none of Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines can ever be passed just by asserting a claim of notability if the quality of
reliable sourcing available to support the claim isn't there. Sometimes it's just
WP:TOOSOON. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if better sources ever start panning out.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page should be deleted. It's a small organization which exists in isolation. It's primary membership does not exceed two-dozen people, and the organization appears to have no permanence to speak of. I put forward that it is the equivalent of a local band or podcast. I know of several bands and podcasts which have larger audiences (in the hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands), but do not qualify for inclusion. An organization with a following smaller than those unqualified examples, cannot claim to be qualified for inclusion.
California State fictitious name filings (also known as doing-business-as or "DBA") and LLC Incorporation records show a transient existence. The California State Board of Equalization shows that sellers permits and other filings made by or for this organization are not in good standing. Meaning that if it is still operating, it is not complying fully with the law. This indicates that the organization is not mature enough, or is so small that it cannot properly file it's paperwork.
It derives its authority by citing a larger "league," the membership of which is comprised, in large part, of only itself. It's the majority body of the body that granted it legitimacy.
The references are not industry trade publications. In many cases they are magazines with no physical distribution, or ad supported print publications freely distributed in an attempt to increase ad circulation. One reference is from an LBGT magazine ("San Diego Gay and Lesbian News"), which is not a respectable authority in this case. Another source appears to be the San Diego Union-Tribune, a local print publication. However, a closer inspection shows that the article cited was an online-only review, in the Arts & Entertainment section, of an independent movie, which was made by the Derby Dolls, for the Derby Dolls. The article is similar to a native ad, and was published in a section equivalent to the New York Time's "blogger" section (that is to say, with less credibility than the opinion or editorial sections). In any case, an article about an independent movie, who's author does not hold the Derby Dolls up as an authority on the sport, can not count as a respectable authority on Roller Derby or sports.
The remaining online sources can not automatically count as relevant to this discussion either. They should be at best considered neutral. Many of them are broken, or from the same author, or the same publication. Many of the publications cannot be held up as relevant or credible.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sailing californium (
talk •
contribs) 22:37, 5 December 2015
—
The San Diego Derby Dolls are a significantly well known entity in roller derby both on the banked and flat track with over 6700 subscribers to their YouTube training page[3] and references in several print trade magazines such as Five on Five, Blood and Thunder, and Lead Jammer Magazine. These statements of fact counter the statements made in the request for deletion.
Amy "Bitches Bruze" Moore (
talk)
04:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'd declined the speedy because of the sources. They're not slam bang great, but the thing about speedies is that the article only has to give a vague assertion of notability and having coverage from a major newspaper would accomplish this, as did the film. The other sites aren't great, but one could argue that they sort of assert notability as well. However that wasn't really what I was looking at when I declined the speedy - it was almost solely
this source that I based that decision on. This doesn't guarantee that either are enough in and of themselves to assert overall notability, but the threshold for passing speedy criteria is insanely low. If there's a good chance that something could be overturned at
DRV then it's always better to take it to AfD where it can get a more official consensus, as this would be less time consuming whether it may seem like it or not.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)13:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I see that Sailing californium is
Forum Shopping in their vendetta against this organization; funny how they have been an editor on Wikipedia for less than 24 hours and have made two attempts now at getting this article deleted, and no edits unrelated to the subject. The nom's suspicious editing patterns aside, the article could use some improvements and additions - as opposed to the absolute whitewashing the nom proposes. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Echoedmyron (
talk •
contribs) 16:56, 6 December 2015
Comment regarding YouTube: Wikipedia's published guidelines do not seem to indicate that YouTube subscriber counts may be cited to bolster notoriety. They seem to suggest social media should be disregarded. If no supporting guidelines can be found, the YouTube subscriber count will have to be disregarded for the purposes of this conversation.
Sailing_californium— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sailing californium (
talk •
contribs)
20:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment regarding vested interests: Although difficult to handle or parse, it's important to recognize that some participants in this conversation have already identified themselves as participants in the league which forms the subject of this article. Valid supporting arguments from these participants should not be disregarded, but passionate pleas, emotional defenses, or unsupported votes in favor of inclusion, must not be accepted. Of course the people who gain notoriety, legitimacy, or some form of "fame" from this page, would enthusiastically support it's inclusion in Wikipedia, as doing so lends legitimacy to their organization, and themselves.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sailing californium (
talk •
contribs)
20:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
By that do you mean that they're a member of the SDDD or that they're fans (or participate in) roller derby as a whole? If they're part of the team then that would pose a COI, but if they just participate in or follow roller derby as a whole, then that wouldn't really pose a COI. One can participate on other teams but still be able to neutrally participate with an article.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)11:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
And yes, where exactly do you think "some participants in this conversation have already identified themselves as participants in the league which forms the subject of this article"? I, for one, live in Canada, and have never been to San Diego in my life, for example.
Echoedmyron (
talk)
18:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Here's my rundown of the sources. I have no firm opinion on notability at this point in time.
Sources
KPBS. This is a
PBS station. These stations are held to a pretty strict editorial standard, so it would be considered a RS. The article goes into some depth about the group and was written by a staff reporter. Now the big thing about it is that it's local, though.
San Diego Union Tribune. This is a major newspaper and the coverage is quite lengthy. It'd be considered a RS, however like the PBS it's local so that does put a bit of a damper on things. However since this is a major paper that does give it some weight that a smaller paper would not. Whether this is Internet only is somewhat irrelevant when it comes to major news outlets.
North Coast Journal. This one is a little brief and one that I think I added to the article, mostly to serve as a basic trivial source.
San Diego Gay and Lesbian News. This one is iffy. It was written by a staff reporter, which is good, but it'd be something I'd run through RS/N first. Now what is interesting about it is that this asserts that the SDDD is a national champion. If they won a major tournament on the national level then that would be enough by itself to establish notability. I'm not hugely familiar with NSPORT, but I do know that winning major, national championships is almost always enough to pass GNG. Now it just depends on which one they won, since I'm sure that there are many.
SDUT. This one is insanely brief, to where I'd really only consider it to be a trivial source.
Derby News Network. This is a dead link. They had a staff, so that counts in its favor, but I'd still have to run this through RS/N since they did take contributions from random people. That's not always a deal breaker, but it can be sometimes depending on how much editing they do and how well known they are as a RS to other places. Offhand it's probably not usable for Wikipedia's purposes, though.
RD Coalition of Leagues. This is a primary source so it can't really show notability. Being the founding members of a major coalition can make it more likely that the group will be covered, but it's not a guarantee.
Now the problem here is that pretty much the only guaranteed usable coverage is local, which doesn't really help an awful lot. I do see where they're mentioned quite a bit in various places, but it's usually trivial. Now a viable option here would be to merge this into the founder's article. I think that there could probably be enough notability to firmly show notability for Bonnie and the SDDD, so that's always something to take into consideration. Still, I'll try looking for more and I'll stop in to ask the sports WikiProject if they know about the roller derby tournaments.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)
Weak keep. The San Diego Union-Tribune is a major newspaper, and its article is not a movie review, but about the team itself. (Whip It is also not "an independent movie, which was made by the Derby Dolls, for the Derby Dolls". It had a budget of $15 million and AFAIK, was not about or particularly inspired by the Derby Dolls anyway, just a fictional women's roller derby team, so that has no real bearing on this discussion.) There are a fair number of less reliable/second tier sources (here's another
[21]), just enough to push it over the notability bar IMO.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
00:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - as discussed above, there are a variety of decent sources on the league already in the article; the San Diego Union-Tribune one demonstrates some notability, and the other ensure that the information is verifiable. There may well be some other good sources; I'll have hunt around.
Warofdreamstalk11:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. This article's reliable sources are independent, with a sufficiently broad audience and depth of coverage for this to pass
WP:GNG or
WP:ORG. The San Diego Derby Dolls were just featured on the nationally-broadcast CNN program Somebody's Gotta Do It in October.
[22] Aside from the significant coverage in the
Union Tribune and
KPBS sources, there are additional sources not currently used in the article such as the
Texas Law Review.
gobonobo+c18:55, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This list is uselessly outdated, it cannot be reasonably updated because then it would fail WP:Notability as this tech is becoming way too common. Most of the displays listed here are the very earliest ones that cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. This sort of list is appropriate for a tech in its nascence only. A mention of a few of the notable firsts could be made.
B137 (
talk)
11:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment:This same kind of list but for
8K resolution devices may be appropriate. More modest 4K devices have dropped comfortably below the $500 point, 4K make up at least have the TVs in Best Buy and similar stores these days. Just for history's sake, this page could be moved to the 8K title, as they are extraordinary and somewhat notable at this point. Currently
this is the list of very limited 8K displays, cameras as well are thus far largely prototypical and discussed earlier in the article.
B137 (
talk)
12:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: A week of no activity and I may opt for the move option, to preserve the history of early 4K devices during the time they were notable but massively redoing the article of course to cover 8K, perhaps with a section talking about the similar production history of 4K from ~2010-2013. In 2014 and 2015 they broke through the $1000 and $500 barriers, respectively.
B137 (
talk)
23:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Black Friday sales just announced 4K TVs 60" plus will be
going for under $1000, that is as cheap as regular 1080p TVs, and these aren't grey market knockoffs. Early adopters of 4K have got to be kicking themselves in the head. Though I think the list should be moved to 8K, that is still especial tech, and I think the article should be geared more high-end and commercial. And there actually is one area where 4K has been the slowest, ironically with projectors, which are capable to be the largest displays by far, and it has left retailers to bash 4K since there are only about five 4K projectors to market for the past two years, and they are still generally five figures. It has the implication that the projection market is dying despite some significant advantages, due to the convenience of an all-in-one panel.
B137 (
talk)
21:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)reply
KeepList of 4K monitors, TVs and projectors is a useful addition to the primary article which references it,
4K resolution. The list was split off from (out of) the
4K resolution article. This list grew organically in
4K resolution as more displays became available and multiple people added each particular monitor which they had seen, or were interested in. In my opinion, it is easier to have a list such as this rather than trying to have only a few examples in an article (people will continuously add the particular device they are interested in to any such list; trying to keep it pruned generates conflicts between editors and is considerably more work than having the list). At the time it was split off, it was clear the list was growing large enough such that it was distracting from the content of "4K resolution". As described in
WP:SPLITLIST, the list was split off into its own
set index article. The
List of 4K video recording devices was also split out of the "4K resolution" article at the same time.
8K devices:
The argument that 8K devices have become where the technology curve is peaking at this time is not a valid argument that a list of 4K devices should be deleted. It is an argument that a list of 8K devices may be appropriate at some time. However, my opinion is that the list of such devices in the
8K_resolution article has not yet grown to the size which would justify splitting it off from that article. In the future, it almost certainly will grow to the point where splitting the list of 8K devices into one, or more,
set index articles will be appropriate.
Keep. outdated is a reason for updating, not deletion. We have many such lists of notable types of product. Whether the list should be divided is a question to be decided on the talk page, not here. I note that the need for information for customers on Black Friday is irrelevant to whether we should keep this list. We're not a consumer's guide--if we were, we would keep only current models. We're an encyclopedia, and a permanent record. DGG (
talk )
02:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)reply
While 4K televisions are a notable product category, what makes this list notable? There's no indication that any of the individual models are notable, nor is there any claim that the list itself is notable, nor is this an effective navigational aid. This is simple a (formerly exhaustive) directory of consumer products.
Pburka (
talk)
16:34, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Let me point out that two years ago the number of devices was at 150, that was right before the prices started bombing.
http://bgr.com/2014/01/06/ultra-hd-tv-announcements-ces-2014/ I couldn't find a more recent number for total devices but I think that itself suffices to say they are numerous and insignificant enough to no longer tally. My guess is that it is well into the thousands now between all the tvs and computer monitors and even cell phone cameras that now do 4k. Right now the "list" probably has about 15% of applicable devices.
B137 (
talk)
19:48, 26 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Move is my official vote, sorry for so many comments. Even though o started the AfD, I would like to move to preserve the history.
B137 (
talk)
02:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Now, it is a relic with totally out of date prices. Also, I should say the reason why I think that lists LIKE this one are very useful content. I have come across this list many times in search of a hard-to-find combination of factors: 4k, displayport, and a reasonable price tag. Lists like this one, when up to date and espeically when comparing rare/new products are very useful to Wikipedia's audience, and for one, I'd miss them. I second the comment about the list of 8k devices being more appropriate now, but bemoan the fact that no manufacturer has made a display that can serve equally well as a TV and a PC monitor :D.
Faddat (
talk)
03:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - I tend to consider these this sort of feature-based product list to fall under
WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a product catalog and
WP:NTEMP as a list that's only relevant (or
WP:USEFUL) for the lifespan of the product and afterwards fall into
WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a collection of device specs that hold little-to-no encyclopedic value (or usefulness, except to a rare few -- but that's why there are specialist sites and databases). — Rhododendritestalk \\
05:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. No discussion since the third relist. Keep and delete !votes bring up good points, but there's no clear consensus at this time. Past two relisters appear to agree that the discussion was verging on no consensus before relisting and consensus has not developed since.
(non-admin closure)clpo13(
talk)16:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
no evidence of notability. A list of a companies investments is not an encycopedia article. The references, as would be expected,are mere notices about those investments, not substantial sources about the firm. DGG (
talk )
10:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)reply
There’s another new startup fountain in town in India, after Helion Venture Partners announced its fourth fund worth $300 million.
Helion is the latest in a flurry of firms to raise money for investments in fast-growing India. ...
With its new fund, Helion — which includes Housing.com, TaxiForSure, and Komli among its portfolio — is again targeting early to mid stage tech startups in India. Typical investments will range from $1 million to $10 million, and the fund is expected to last for three to four years, according to Helion co-founder Sanjeev Aggarwal.
...
Helion, which was founded in 2009, will put around three-quarters of the fund towards startups that are helping digitize the national economy, for example those involved in retail, travel, insurance and, loans, Aggarwal said. The remainder will be set aside for Indian companies with the potential to do business globally, for example analytics, enterprise software and other “next generation outsourcing businesses.”
– In February Helion invested Rs 30 crore Hyper local products discovery platform Wooplr. The funds will be used for hiring and expanding Wooplr’s presence in the country.
– Helion also participated in a $100 million funding round for e-commerce site ShopClues in January. In March 2013, ShopClues had raised $10 million from Helion Venture Partners, Nexus Partners and Netprice.com CEO Teruhide Sato
– Personalised home furnishings provider Livspace raised $4.6 million in a series A round of funding led by Helion Venture Partners and Bessemer Venture Partners in December 2014.
– In September 2014, Bangalore-based online grocery retailer BigBasket has raised Rs 200 crore investment in a round led by Helion Ventures and Zodius Capital and participation from existing investors Ascent Capital and LionRock Capital.
– Online recruitment platform TalentPad in October raised an undisclosed amount of investment from Helion Ventures.
Helion Venture Partners, an early-to-mid-stage venture capital firm, is raising $300 million (Rs 1,900 crore) for its fourth fund Helion Venture Fund IV, a company spokesperson told VCCircle.
The VC firm is still on the road to raise funds and is in talks with both new and existing offshore investors. The average ticket size of the investment from the new fund will be in the $1-10 million bracket, much like its previous funds.
It expects to back 20-25 companies from the new fund and will focus on technology and tech-powered firms only. In the past, the firm has backed a few non-tech consumer services firms such as salon chain YLG and restaurant chain Mast Kalandar.
...
Founded in 2006, the VC firm currently manages $605 million across three funds. It has backed names like MakeMyTrip, Pubmatic, TaxiForSure and RedBus, some of which it has exited.
The firm is currently led by two senior managing directors Ashish Gupta and Sanjeev Aggarwal. Last year another co-founder and senior managing director Kanwaljit Singh had quit the firm.
Helion had launched its first fund, of $140 million, in 2006. This was followed by a $210-million fund in 2008 and a third one of $255 million in 2012.
...
While the first fund was completely IT focused, 90 per cent of the second was also deployed with a focus on technology so was the third fund, though it invested in other sectors as well, such as green tech (Azure Power), education (GTT, Attano, Vienova), financial services (NetAmbit, Shubham), health care (Eye Q, LifeCell), and IT-enabled real estate plays. Srikanth and Goyal said the fourth fund would not change its focus on IT and related segments.
...
Since its inception in 2006, Helion has invested in about 50 companies in various sectors including consumer tech, enterprise tech (business and infra), and technology-enabled services, among others.
Helion Venture Partners, India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management, is in talks to sell its stake in investment research outsourcing firm Amba Research.
Mauritius registered early to mid stage India focused fund, Helion Venture Partners has closed a $255 million fund, said Sanjeev Aggarwal, Senior Managing Director, Helion Advisors. This is Helion's third fund.
Helion, who have invested in companies like Make My Trip, Komli Media, redBus and SMS Gupshup, had raised a $140 million fund in 2006 and a $210 million fund in 2008. The first two funds are almost fully invested, the venture firm said.
According to The Economic Times, Helion Venture Partners in 2012 was "India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management".
In March 2012, the firm received significant coverage in The Economic Times for closing a $255 million fund. In August 2012, it received coverage during talks to sell its stake in Amba Research.
What do you mean by "same case"? The two articles have no overlapping editors. The only similarity is that I participated in both discussions.
Other than the portfolio list, the only text in the article is:
Helion Ventures Partners is an Indian focused venture fund based in Mauritius. It manages US $600M and invests in early to mid-stage companies in India in sectors such as Outsourcing, Internet, Mobile, Technology Products, Retail, Education and Financial Services. Helion is advised by a team of India based advisors with offices in Bangalore and Gurgaon. The advisors help the fund to select companies to invest in. And post investment the advisors work with the companies in areas such as finance, Human Resources, technology, marketing and operations.
How is this spam? This is neutrally written content.
A 2012 article in The Economic Times called it "India's largest domestic venture capital firm with assets of $605 million under management". This clearly establishes that Helion Venture Partners is notable.
Weak keep as per quite a few references following a brief Google search. However, the article should be restructured and a minor nuking done (if I may) to make the article encyclopedic. smileguy91talk -
contribs03:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This was a close call, because some coverage does exist, as shown by the keep votes above. However, after looking through these, it seems to me that they are lists of investments, rather than substantive coverage of the company itself, and therefore do not count towards the substantive coverage needed to meet GNG.
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
05:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Ah, I wasn't referring to the POV of the article so much as my own POV when reading said article, however, you did actually improve the article enough to solve my initial poor reaction to the article. Kudos! --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!"07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep It may be a weak keep, however, since I was on the fence and some of that had to do with the article lacking an encyclopedic structuring (until Cunard gave the article a better balance) I've decided to go with keep. Also, I hate being on the fence about anything!!! --
MurderByDeadcopy"bang!"07:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
CommentCunard and I seem to have a basic disagreement, but I think it can be resolved. As I see it, there are many reasons for deletion besides notability. Blatant advertising is a speedy criterion--and not-blatent advertising is a violation of WP:NOT, and should therefore be deleted. Yes, it is possible to fix it: just as its possible to fix an article that's a copyvio, by rewriting it. But in both cases, if it isn't fixed, it must be removed.
The question now is 1)whether it is sufficiently fixed. I think it probably is, for Cunard does not what a proper article should be & I do not see myself questioning the work of an editor of his experience and skill. . and 2) whether the references actually do show notability. I continue to think they do not. Articles just specifying funding are mere announcements, not coverage in depth. DGG (
talk )
00:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a
very brief, incomplete stub about an organization.
My rewrite of the article has proven that Helion Venture Partners has received "deep coverage" that is far beyond "Articles just specifying funding are mere announcements".
I discuss the company's history, its founders, its four funds, the sectors it focuses on, and its exit strategy for three of the companies it invested in.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Even after the extensive work by Cunard, their are substantive disagreements on policy points. Was going to "No Consensus", but a third relisting, especially since this is a 2nd nom, couldn't hurt.
Onel5969TT me12:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Onel5969TT me12:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Argument on both side have some merit. Some in favor of deletion suggest OR, those in favor on inclusion suggested the concept has been studied extensively. Redirect/Merge are also viable there is no bias against that if sources are not added.
Valoemtalkcontrib06:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The article is discursive without any clear subject, and appears mostly to be some combination of
WP:SYN and a
WP:COATRACK to hang other things on.
It starts with the words "Obsessive love is a hypothetical state", but then fails to give any real information about what this hypothesized state might be, or who might have proposed this hypothesis.
Mentions mental illness, but does not use
WP:MEDRS sources.
Lists a lengthy bibliography, but is entirely unferenced except just one mention of one author, without specifying a work, or a page reference or other more detailed citation.
At a quick glance, the bibliography appears to be made up mostly of popular-audience self-help books.
I've taken a look at trimming it, but found that if all the questionable sentences were to be eliminated, essentially nothing would be left. I'm not sure quite what should be done with this, but in its current state, I believe deletion would be an improvement, and I can't see any better options at the moment. --
The Anome (
talk)
13:43, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Rhododendrites: - The essay does have a point; however, let me rephrase my earlier reasoning. I intended my argument as more on the point that the specific subject isn't already covered in any other article, and the deletion of this article would result in a hole in the coverage of the subject of
love in general. Thanks very much for pointing that out though. smileguy91talk -
contribs05:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge very selectively, if at all, and Redirect to
infatuation, which looks to be talking about a similar subject. I'm sure there are small differences, but I'm not confident this article could be salvaged as it is and the distinctions are probably not enough to justify a stand-alone article. In addition to books that use the term, there need to be books that use the term in a way that's distinct from topics we cover under different names. At best this is
WP:TNT as it purports far too much psychology without using books that meet
our standards for content about health/mental health. It even makes arguments like "Although not categorized specifically under any specific mental diagnosis by the DSM IV, some people argue that obsessive love is considered to be a mental illness similar to "attachment disorder, borderline personality disorder, and erotomania". ??? That someone wrote that in a book does not mean we should be including it here. Especially when it's as horribly defined and explained as it is, that's problematic. — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:43, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Having been written about for centuries, it's a distinct topic and there are good references. Wgat the article needs is expansion. DGG (
talk )
02:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect probably, but the current description is so vague that I can't tell if it should redirect to
infatuation,
limerence,
Relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) or
erotomania (all of which need major work btw). I just deleted a sentence on
Obsessive love that said it should be "differentiated from relationship obsessive–compulsive disorder (ROCD) that commonly includes doubts regarding one's own feelings towards an intimate partner, preoccupation with the partner’s feelings towards oneself, doubts about the rightness of the relationship and preoccupation with the perceived flaws of the partner," because that was an inaccurate and unsourced definition of ROCD. It looks like it was based off the Wikipedia article ROCD which gives an equally poor, unsourced definition of ROCD. ROCD is just regular OCD where the intrusive thoughts (obsessions) have a relationship-oriented theme. I think that might be where Obsessive love fits best. It looks like there have been multiple unsuccessful attempts made to adequately source this article. I wasn't able to find anything that meets
WP:MEDRS in my own search, which would be needed for the article's current tone. It seems to me that redirecting it makes sense since it's doubtful it can stand on its own. I'm also fine with deleting it completely.
Permstrump (
talk)
08:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
non notable opensource software. No significant coverage in reliable sources. References given are either to directory entries, primary sources, from unreliable sources or trivial coverage. Disputed prod.
noq (
talk)
11:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
DeleteThis article was created by accounts linked to Iran. I believe that the article is predominantly biased.Unless we can fins accurate and reliable sources now then i advise that the article be deleted under AFD:Unsourced.
Rhumidian (
talk)
09:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete > even one of these assassination was really had happened, creator or editor of this lists must or could add even one source for it, but unfortunality did not happened. So this article doesn't have value to keep it
World Cup 2010 (
talk)
04:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - confused by this, it's a list of tours, not by the notable French group but by a Korean boy band of the same name who don't have their own Wikipedia entry? If they don't have an entry how did a list of their tours end up on here?
阝工巳几千凹父工氐 (
talk)
15:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment- The reason this article is unsourced and no band page exists is because I honestly don't think this group is real. There is absolutely zero Korean news on the group or anything about these concerts. Also, In my opinion the special guest performers is not possible. None of those people would have performed at another company's, boy group's, concert. And finally none of the concert venues list this group as having performed there during the times given.
Peachywink (
talk)
04:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 somewhere. Where to may need further discussion, but I suspect it's OK if somebody just goes ahead with any one of the various variants proposed. Sandstein 18:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure we should have an article on every SRS/SRA in Alaska, and in fact I mean to propose de-linking a great many of the redlinks at the
List of Alaska state parks page. There are dozens of these, and many of them are not notable. I've been to this place, it's basically a lakefront parking lot for RVs. The lake, which is not the property of the park system, is obviously the reason this exists but this is just a tiny campground and a boat launch. If it was privately owned there would be no question it was not notable.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
20:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect, but to where? – There are several likely targets:
The lake itself – This recreation area abuts another recreation area operated by the U.S. Air Force for military affiliates. Also, along the spot where the
Richardson Highway bends around the lake, is a townsite platted by the BLM or predecessor entity. This is enough to suggest that an article on the lake would help us to achieve our gazetteer function, though not by much. As far as military recreation facilities in Alaska go, Birch Lake is nowhere near as prominent as the Eielson or Wainwright ski hills, or for that matter, Seward Resort, none of which we really cover. The townsite has never had more than a small handful of houses. Which leads us to the next alternative...
The
Harding-Birch Lakes, Alaska CDP – Between the namesake lakes, Lost Lake and the area along the
Salcha River upstream of easy road access, there is absolutely something notable to be said about this area as a recreational destination. However, the substantial history of Harding Lake among the well-to-do citizens of Fairbanks (or prior Native history when it was known as Salchaket Lake) notwithstanding, the uninitiated and those who contend that CDPs are strictly arbitrary inventions of the Census Bureau are more likely to view this area as a part of
Salcha than as a separate community. This should be evident by the fact that "It is part of the 'Fairbanks, Alaska Metropolitan Statistical Area'" garners greater mention in the article than the titular lakes.
If we had an article on the lake, I'd be perfectly happy with a redirect and a small section on this there, as it s obviously the reason this SRS exists.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
18:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
My best guess on why the SRS exists is that the feds held title to lands around the lake, and a certain portion of that was ceded to the state to satisfy
statehood act obligations, or more specifically that the SRS was originally part of the much larger military facility next door and the land was turned over to the state after they deemed it surplus to their needs. I just acquired a copy of Alaska's Parklands — The Complete Guide by Nancy Lange Simmerman, published by
The Mountaineers in 1983. I haven't found any mention of this particular facility in the book, and don't specifically remember it from any number of long-ago visits to the military facility, so it's also probably too new to have any history worth mentioning.
RadioKAOS /
Talk to me, Billy /
Transmissions 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It is immediately adjacent to it on the same access road, so that makes sense. We found that out because we were looking for a place to camp, and couldn't believe we'd really seen the whole place so we tried going further up the road but right away ran into gates and so on for the military rec facility. We moved on to Harding Lake, which has a much larger, nicer campground and boat launch..
Beeblebrox (
talk)
19:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unreferenced. Very stubby, has about 2 bits of information, and should quite easily be worked into the
Trompe-l'œil article (which I would've done but as an outsider I don't feel i can do this appropriately). Don't know what notability criteria this would be assessed against, but would've thought if it was a sufficiently important aspect of art, there'd be lots written about it.
Rayman60 (
talk)
19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Questionably independently notable and improvable as the best I found was only
this,
this,
this and
this and I'm also nominating as I'm not sure whether there's a keepable separate article here or he should simply be moved to the TV show's article. Notifying past users
Ukexpat,
Twinsday and also
DGG who lists to be notified.
SwisterTwistertalk03:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep appears to be quite important as one of the first female principal brass players with an American orchestra. Long LA Times profile from 1988
[23]. One book reference already cited in article too.--
Samuel J. Howard (
talk)
03:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. Weak claim to notability. Subject is obviously a competent musician, but the article mostly drops names and has little in the way of strong sources we require for BLPs.
Agricola44 (
talk)
20:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC).reply
Keep: The LA Times story and the small book mention cited above as well as discussion of her achievement in this encyclopedia article
[24], on Minnesota public radio
[25] are sufficient for the GNG (especially considering that many sources from the time of her achievement would not normally be found online). Principal musicians at major orchestras have generally been found to be notable at AfD. San Diego Symphony is just below that bar, but the coverage for her particular glass ceiling breaking is beyond that of musicians at similar institutions. Her achievements at Hamilton College are not enough for WP:PROF, but only one notability guideline needs to be passed. --
Michael Scott Cuthbert(talk)05:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The origin of this article is questionable and so is its notability. The sources state that singer Madonna "'uses the name for pure promotional purposes. We can't really prove that we suffer a loss from that". I find that the only content that I can find all over internet is that Madonna said that she has a limited company called Semtex Girls and that Explosia, who owns the explosive
Semtex sued her. I find that this does not stand on its own as an independent article and should be deleted. Those two content can easily be added to
Madonna. —
Indian:BIO[
ChitChat ]11:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I found this death watch list. The intro is covered at
Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and all the recipients are covered in alphabetical lists like
List_of_Knight's_Cross_of_the_Iron_Cross_recipients_(A). Most of them seem to have at least a individual stub article. Given that all the men on the list are (or would be if there are indeed alive) in their 90's or 100+ it is essentially going to disappear as a list. If you look at the talk page and the article there is considerable doubt that the men listed are in fact living. The only other info here is who was the last to die under various filters, which goes against the title of the article. I suggest full out deletion as the info is all better presented elsewhere. If there is a desire to track missing or future death dates for the articles, this can be done on the award's talk page.
Legacypac (
talk)
10:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment regarding notice - I have notified the WikiProjects for Military History, Military Decorations, and Germany of this pending discussion at the main talk pages for those projects.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
14:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Query - @
Legacypac: Are 100% of the supposedly still-living recipients of the Knight's Cross also listed in the alphabetical lists for the decoration? If this list is deleted, will any non-redundant content be lost? This seems to be a core issue here. If no non-redundant content would be lost, I expect that I will be able to support deletion for the reasons stated in your rationale -- barring any other issues.
Dirtlawyer1 (
talk)
14:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
By this reckoning you'll also have to delete every other List of last living people, including the List of Easy Company (506 PIR) veterans, and Surviving U.S. veterans of World War II.
Hannibalcaesar (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
14:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
You stumbled upon this article and assumed that it's inaccurate, when in fact most of these men are indeed alive. Rudolf von Ribbentrop was just in Moscow presenting his memoirs.
Hannibalcaesar (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
14:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is a German WWII decoration. We are now 70 years from the end of that war. I suppose having survived the way by 70 years might be regarded as notable, but I am dubious. I am even more dubious of the WWII veterans article, which I suspect to be highly incomplete, in view of the size of British and Russian forces in WWII. I rather doubt that two years ago, that one contained my father, who was then alive and joined the Bedfordshire Yeomanry in 1938, serving through the whole war.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The surviving WWII veterans article is for 'notable' veterans (people who went to to achieve things in politics, art, science, sports, etc), though the 'notable' tag has long been debated.
Czolgolz (
talk)
16:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply to
Dirtlawyer1: Evidently all people that got this decoration are considered notable enough for an article because there are seperate pages for every letter of the alphabet with links to articles on the receiptiants. (The validity of them all being notable is not part of this debate). As far as I can tell the alphabetical lists are comprehensive, and based on the work of two main researchers. As for the Living List being inaccurate - the article itself says it is inaccuate, which makes sense given the age of the vets. To get off the living list requires some English speaking wikipedian to find a obit or other proof of death for a German person. Given many people's deaths are not publicized, variations in how names are used, language barrier, etc and that these men (if alive) are indeed very old, it follows the list of "Living" includes some not so living. Normally an encyclopia article deals with past events and once material is added it can stay. This is a list of future events with undefined dates - people's inevidable deaths. I have no opinion on the other "last of lists" at this time.
Legacypac (
talk)
19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm Canadian, so there is no American centric thinking from me. There are several large differences. Prestige of the award and that one is obsolete vs the other continuing to be awarded.
There have been 3,512 Medals of Honor awarded since creation, with just less than half of them awarded for actions during the four years of the American Civil War.
During World War II 464 United States military personnel received the Medal of Honor, 266 of them posthumously." So that leave only 198 living men total to track after WWII.
In contrast "The total number of recipients of the Knight's Cross is 7,366" all during WWII. Evidently the Knights Cross is about 10 times less prestigious based on # of WWII awards, though it was the highest award available to all ranks in Nazi Germany.
The Medal of Honor continues to be awarded in current wars so there will be living recipients for a long time. It remains a very select award with very few given out. The Knights Cross last award was in 1945.
Legacypac (
talk)
06:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Then could I put in a personal request? I really enjoy this article, I've been editing it for years, I use it for research, and it's not actually hurting anything. Could, as a personal favor, it not be deleted? Please? What harm is it doing?
Czolgolz (
talk)
12:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm sorry, but that does not really help. The main list of all recipients does not mention who is still living. As I do not speak German, it would be impossible for me to continue this research on my own (I rely on other wikipedians to update this article). So far as I can find, this is the only English language resource that still lists these veterans. As you mentioned, this list is going to vanish in a couple of years anyway. Maybe few people rely on this article. Maybe I'm the only one. But I do use it, and isn't that the point of an encyclopedia? If a television show can have individual articles for each episode and each character, can't we live this article of minor historical significance? Wikipedia has millions of articles, please don't take this one away from me. It's Christmas.
Czolgolz (
talk)
13:13, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't get to decide now, but I take your point it is likely the only list in English and there is lots of stuff that is WAY more trivial on Wikipedia then these men. How about shifting the "last of but now dead" info over to the main article to trim it down (that does not fit the title anyway). Also if we can maybe cross reference the German article (if there is one) and update the list, I'll support keeping the article for you.
Legacypac (
talk)
13:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't think that this works. The information derived from this list in its current form is uncited. The target list is featured, fully cited, diluting its quality.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
14:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Query Why is the merge being deleted and who is doing it without discussion? A delete and merge seems the best solution, and the new article can be reinforced by further work, cite addition, etc.
Irondome (
talk)
01:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete support rationale of Legacypac. Support Merge undertaken so article is kept in some form so user Czolgolz can continue his work.
Irondome (
talk)
00:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
the 'Last of' info is a really good fit in the 'List of recepients' article. In fact the subjects of the two articles overlap, so a merger is a good idea. i negotiate a solution with an editor with an attachment and long term interest in keeping things up to date and that is no good?
Legacypac (
talk)
02:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Let me explain my reasoning for my recent reverting, first, we don’t have consensus yet, second, the added information is uncited. In general, I think the information could be moved, but it requires more work than just moving of text and tables. As an example:
Highest scoring living fighter ace in the world. 222 victories including 78 Il2 Sturmovik in more than 1000 missions. He claimed 12 victories with the Me 262.
There is no reference, no indication what so ever for the statement that Rudorffer is "Highest scoring living fighter ace in the world. 222 victories including 78 Il2 Sturmovik in more than 1000 missions. He claimed 12 victories with the Me 262." Adding such verbiage to the target list, which is a featured list, needs to follow the
WP:WIAFL criteria. May I suggest that the editors of this "List of living Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients" first work on the quality of this content and then we revisit the decision whether we move or not. Thanks
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
06:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Umm. The Rudorffer baseline article is a bit toe - curling. Full of peacock and unsourced claims. I think the individual articles of all KC holders should be checked. Until then I suggest we put a hold on the whole deletion request. The individual articles seriously need revisting if this is a typical example. Chased down Croydon High Street? Me mum never told me about that
Irondome (
talk)
06:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I was looking at the overall structure of the articles vs each other, not the validness of the content. All involved articles are just links to underlying articles on individual solders. Merging them will have no effect on the quality of the lists.
Legacypac (
talk)
11:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I disagree; I have created a few featured and military history A-class articles, lesson learned, any factual bit of information requires fully referenced citations. The information on this list is lacking references and inline citations. You can't move this uncited content to the featured target list without negatively impacting the quality of the target list.
MisterBee1966 (
talk)
12:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Considering the fact that there are almost no sources proving that all this recipients are still alive (and that is what claims the name of the list), I support the deletion of this article. The Internet forums, which I use for keeping the article more or less up to date, can not be seen as reliable, of course. --
Sersou (
talk)
18:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The subject is notable, and the article has potential to be expanded beyond mere dictionary content. An example of a substantial discussion of the concept and history of such candidacies can be found in the
CQ Press book Elections A to Z (
[26] or
[27]). -
Arxiloxos (
talk)
01:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
CommentMdann52, Promotional language can be edit out, and there are references on the web that could improve this page, but OrangeMoody problems are serious. Is there a way to find out for sure? No use improving a page that will inevitably be deleted.—
Anne Delong (
talk)
00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
CommentAnne Delong and
Mdann52, Is it right to permanently delete articles although they might be orangeMoody recreations?The subject of the article "Milind Chittal" is an eminent Indian vocalist and has all the credentials to be included in Wikipedia. Hence request that the page should not be deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sursadhana (
talk •
contribs) 04:29, 14 November 2015
Sursadhana, if an article is deleted because of undisclosed paid editing, it can be recreated by a neutral editor with new text, not that which was paid for. This is assuming that there is enough information in reliable independent sources to warrant this. If you know that the text was created by a paid editor, you should register a delete !vote and give this as a reason, because in that case the sooner this one is deleted, the sooner a fresh one can be made by an editor who is not paid, or at least admits to being paid.—
Anne Delong (
talk)
04:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
CommentAnne Delong and
Mdann52, Perhaps it was a mistake since the previous creator of the article got lured and induced into paying for the article to be published in wikipedia.However I feel that this maybe condoned atleast for once and the article be retained if "Milind Chittal" meets other criteria and standards set by wikipedia.The current article has been recreated with changes in the text compared to the previous one made, although it cannot be drastically changed.Request you once again to reconsider and restore the article before deleting. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sursadhana (
talk •
contribs) 08:52, 15 November 2015
Mdann52 Since there has not been a clear consensus on deletion and new citations have been added to the article,the nomination for deletion may please be withdrawn and the article retained. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sursadhana (
talk •
contribs) 04:09, 27 November 2015
Sursadhana Actually that's not quite the case as I have to say I still think there are simply not enough in-depth third-party sources overall for an article. Additionally, an Orangemoody restarted article especially with no better improvement is taken very seriously. But as I'm not Indian, I'll notify some users who are and may have some insight for a consensus.
Yash!,
AKS.9955,
SpacemanSpiff and
MichaelQSchmidt. Cheers,
SwisterTwistertalk02:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Hello everyone,why not retain this article in the main space and withdraw the deletion nomination since an active Indian administrator has given positive feedback on the notability of this musician? Thanks. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sursadhana (
talk •
contribs)
03:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not sure maybe Merge to Silibinin This seems to be a drug that is a formulation of
Silibinin. Wikipedia does not have good coverage of drug formulations and articles on these are welcome, but need solid sources. The sources cited here are primary research and case studies and not
WP:MEDRS.
Blue Rasberry (talk)16:08, 20 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Subject of the article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NAUTHOR. It was nominated for deletion in October 2013 and the debate was closed as "No consensus" but I don't see how the author met
WP:NAUTHOR#3. Majority of the sources in the article and the ones are found through
WP:BEFORE are unreliable and self-published. Being invited to speak in local events is not an evidence of
notability.
Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£13:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: Per criteria cited by
Wikicology. Because he writes articles for notable newspapers or through his personal blog does not make him notable. A paragraph reads thus: "Since 2013, Ayo Sogunro has been listed consecutively as one of the 100 most influential Nigerians on Twitter.", when did Twitter become an award entity? --—
OluwaCurtis »» (
talk to me)
15:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
keep I don't have time to research if new sources have emerged since the first nomination. I can only refer to the sources that I found then for this, apparently, notable and controversial writer, social commentator, and activist, who seems to attract quite some opposition. Please read
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayo Sogunro. It would seem that this person's notability should not only be based on his merits as an author, but also for being a well known social commentator. -
Takeaway (
talk)
12:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete: It has been more than a year since this article was first nominated for deletion, and nothing has improved/changed. I still feel that the notability of the subject is in question because of the lack of extensive coverage. If someone can provide me references that discusses the subject in significant detail, I won't hesitate to change my views. Versace1608(Talk)22:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - I agree with Versace's opinion. The fact that the subject of the article is controversial does not make him notable. It does seem that there could be a source that confirms notability for the subject, its just not in the article yet.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
00:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - While there is some sourcing out there, searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage from reliable secondary sources to show they meet the notability criteria.
Onel5969TT me12:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Redirect and simply it will stay like that until there's enough for a considerably better article as there's hardly even general notability for a separate article.
SwisterTwistertalk07:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ah thanks
Timtrent for nominating even though I had some plans about this article myself. I think Merge would be best as I'm actually familiar with this area and know the name well but as my searches have shown, there's no considerably better coverage thus no better notability and improvement.
SwisterTwistertalk19:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge for now. Yeah I'm with
SwisterTwister on this - I suspect there's a decent article to be made about Numark but I'm struggling for sources, and the InMusic Brands one needs some more info as that's just a list of its subsidiaries.
Dylanfromthenorth (
talk)
10:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This never should have been on AfD because the proposal wasn't to delete, it was to merge or redirect. That conversation should have taken place on the article's talk page, in a much lighter-weight process than AfD. Be that as it may, opinion here is all over the map; there's no consensus to do anything in particular. --
RoySmith(talk)00:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. We actually have many articles about historical figures'
childhoods,
love-lives,
families, and, yes, even
their sexuality. Having separate articles for multiple sections of a notable figure's life allows to provide a more detailed analysis, without having to clog up the main article. I would suggest withdrawing the nomination, as the article's topic has been covered by a range of sources and thus clearly meets the
WP:GNG. IgnorantArmies(talk)09:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - The article needs lots of work, but the subject has certainly been debated and discussed frequently enough and in enough depth to warrant a separate article.
Fyddlestix (
talk)
15:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- While this is based (apparently) on an academic source, it strikes me that the academic in question has been guilty of the kind of original research that WP deplores. We have a long exploration of the historiography of the subject based on very little substantive evidence, mostly on speculations undertaken long after the event, probably by people with an agenda that they wanted to push. If this is something that is seriously discussed, it might warrant a couple of sentences in the main bio-article, but such speculation is essentially non-encyclopaedic.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The
original research that Wikipedia deplores is explicitly limited to that of editors. If it's been published, the concept of original research is irrelevant. People's agendas and historiography are likewise irrelevant to whether or not a topic is notable, which is determined only by the extent to which it is covered by
reliable sources. So if the sources we would otherwise rely on for notability of this topic -- and justification of a stand-alone article -- are not reliable (and I haven't yet looked closely myself), that's one thing, but these other things aren't reasons for deletion. — Rhododendritestalk \\
17:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is largely unsourced claptrap. There is something in Japanese called a shigedō no yumi (with shigedō spelled variously in kanji as
wikt:重籐,
wikt:滋籐, or
wikt:繁籐), but there's nothing called a shigehto yumi, nor the more-standard Hepburn romanization possibilities of shigeito yumi or shigeto yumi.
An anonymous user discussed this with me over on Wiktionary a while back; I suspect this anon (using a series of anonymous IP addresses) is the same person as
User:Mare-Silverus. See
wikt:User_talk:Eirikr/2013#Others for that thread.
I don't think the shigedō no yumi meets the Wikipedia requirement for
notability. I see too that the Japanese Wikipedia has no article at
ja:重籐, with the main mentions occurring in subsections of the
ja:弓 (武器) (
Bow (weapon)) and
ja:和弓 (
Yumi or traditional Japanese bow) articles.
I'm nominating this article for deletion. If it survives the review process, the article is in need of 1) moving to a more-standard spelling (I suggest just
Shigedō, or possibly
Shigedō no yumi or
Shigedō bow), and 2) complete rewriting. See
wikt:重籐 and
wikt:User_talk:Eirikr/2013#Others for some reference. The two bows on the left of
this image are two different styles of shigedō bow.
Comment Looks mostly like fancruft to me. The bow has appeared in a number of games and manga/anime such as Nobunaga no Yabo
[33], Final Fantasy 11
[34], Samurai of Legend
[35], and Naruto
[36]. The only source that doesn't look like fancruft is
this page from a European
kyudo organization. The Wiki article looks like a copypaste of this. I doubt it is an RS, however.
Michitaro (
talk)
02:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)reply
There are a few book sources with "shigeto no yumi", etc, however all appear to indicate that the bow is rattan bound rather than purple leather.
The Shigeto as a type of bow is mentioned three times (with three different wielder) in the fourteenth century
The Tale of the Heike (ie: well before Nobanuga) including:
In his quiver were twenty four arrows barred with black on their white feathers, not to speak of the special arrow, feathered with a hawk's wing, always carried by the Imperial Guard of the Takiguchi. His bow was a 'shigeto' of black lacquer with red binding.
I cannot find shigeto, only shigedō. I do see a few stray instances of 重藤, which presumably might be read as shigeto, but that appears to be a misspelling of 重籐 -- note the difference in radical on the second character, 艹 (from
艸) for the former, and
竹 for the latter. The
藤 in the former spelling means wisteria, which is clearly out of place in this context, while the
籐 in the latter spelling means rattan, which is appropriate for the bows. The latter spelling is the only one I'm finding in dictionary resources, such as
Daijisenhere or
Daijirinhere, among others, which all list the reading as shigedō. I only find shigeto in English resources, which strike me as less reliable on the whole.
(You're the translator here, and this is rather outside the parameters for the AFD but...)
There are a few reasons I can think of why this may have been romanised as shigeto:
Long "o" has often been transcribed "o" rather than "ō"/"oo"/"ou"
The word is uncommon, and likely to be found in written sources only. Since the roots are shige + tō, a translator might not identify that the "tō" might become voiced (or unvoiced unaspirated??)
-籐 as a suffix does not universally apply
rendaku -- see
here. Not sure how trustworthy that is in its entirety, but note that there's a number of instances of "katō" being written 加籐 (eg
this.
Given the age of the word, it's possible that "-to" rather than "-do" was deliberate to reflect the standard Middle-Japanese pronunciation (???).
And getting even further into the Offtopic Original Research morass: There may be
a punning reason. If there were ever a purplish wrapping involved as the current article suggests, then a pronunciation suggesting wisteria might be appropriate.
Should it ever warrant an article (or even a mention in an article) it should be shigetō per
WP:MOS-JA since the majority of English Language sources appear to romanise it as shigeto rather than anything else. A search in Google books for '"shige-X" bow OR yumi' has 3 hits for -dō, 24 for -tō, 1 for -dou, 7 for -tou, 18 for -do, and 489 for -to~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~~10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
FWIW,
rendaku is more common when the preceding morpheme has two
morae, so a reading of katō for 加籐 is expected, while kadō would be odd. I also did find a Japanese resource that specifically mentions the "t" reading, but as an alternative:
this entry in Daijisen.
There's instances where the words are not adjacent,
for example here where 2 out 3 hits are for Ni(t)chō no Yumi Chigusa no Shigedō. Apologies, however: I missed that Shigeto throws up a lot of false positives ("Shigeto" as a name, homonyms of "bow", Google's random count...) so true figure would be closer to 48 than 480... ~~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~~13:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete : The title is plainly wrong, since 'eht' cannot occur in standard romanisation as specified for WP. The whole article is dubious, and it is better deleted; it is not our job to hunt for nuggets of truth among the confusion.
Imaginatorium (
talk)
15:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Of note is that the nominator withdrew (
diff), stating "(I didn't think about searching "Maris Racal", Sources aren't amazing but notability's there by a bare minimum, Thanks Narutolovehinata5 for the pointer)", which was reverted by another user. However, per this initial closure, the nominator does not appear to be for deletion of the article at this time. As such, no consensus has formed herein. North America100019:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I originally CSD'd under A7 but was declined, Anyway non notable actress, Can't find anything on Google or anywhere else, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk20:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak keep - Articles about the subject have been deleted in the past due to
WP:TOOSOON. However, since then, she has received coverage even from sources independent of ABS-CBN (of which she is signed to). She has also have a number of acting roles, perhaps just barely enough to pass
WP:ENTERTAINER. Sources about the subject are more commonly found under just "Maris Racal" rather than variations of her real name.
Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew13:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. I can see why there are no other comments on this one, it required a lot of investigation...first off I looked at Notability motorsports - a driver must have been professional on at least one occasion in a major competition - then had to trawl through the numerous amateur tournaments he competed in to see if anything he competed in was professional. The article mentions two professional appearances in the GT3 European so I thought he's in, but on closer inspection the GT3 was intended for amateur drivers however some were paid, therefore my opinion is that he fails notability motorsports because the cost of the drive would largely exceed the likely paid fee. Happy to further discuss this one.
Szzuk (
talk)
20:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per
WP:BEFORE, no significant coverage of the subject found at Google News or Google Books, only passing mentions, as far as I can tell. All references in the article appear to be to yoga directories, not to reliable published sources independent of the subject. Article comes off as promotional and was created by an SPA.
Cyphoidbomb (
talk)
20:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seemingly questionable notable and improvable as my searches simply found nothing at all so unless there's some archived French coverage, there's nothing to suggest keeping this. Notifying
Wikimandia who lists to be notified for French insight, as there are no other past contributors or taggers and it's worth noting the author's name was "Laswalidas".
SwisterTwistertalk03:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Station was only on paper and was never launched (ie: took to the airwaves). As such, the station (and by extension this article), does not enjoy the notability that other radio station articles do under GNG, NMEDIA and consensus.
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) 04:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I can imagine a "special case" scenario where a station which was licensed, but never actually launched and thus had its license expire unbuilt, might still get over
WP:GNG for something (e.g. it was at the core of a massive controversy about the licensing), but no evidence has been shown that this would be the case here — and radio stations that never actually broadcast at all do not get an automatic inclusion freebie under
WP:NMEDIA.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: Yeah, this is one of those special cases. Page was created before the station was launched, so it didn't meet NMEDIA and GNG. Dravecky and Mlaffs have nom'd a couple paper-only stations before. That's why when a station is launched, we don't create the page for it until that day. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
23:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability unclear. Most sources I've seen are either primary, not reliable, or just looking for nominations for this award. I also see no claim of significance. Was tagged CSD A7, but this is clearly outside A7's scope.
Adam9007 (
talk)
01:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I originally CSD'd under A7 but was declined, Anyway non notable model, Can't find anything on Google or anywhere else, Fails MODEL & GNG. –
Davey2010Talk20:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete for now as this seems simple with the best my searches finding only
this,
this,
this and
this. I wonder if we could restore the redirect to WeTab. Unfortunately the article has never changed from its current promotional and non-notable state and I think even tagger
Mean as custard would agree, and I see no chances of making the article better.
SwisterTwistertalk20:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
WeTab (with the history preserved under the redirect). The sources mentioning Neofonie that I reviewed were primarily about
WeTab. I recommend preserving the history under the redirect so that it can be undone if the company receives substantial coverage in the future. I agree with SwisterTwister: "I wonder if we could restore the redirect to WeTab."
Cunard (
talk)
07:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Totally redundant. Why do we need such a list for a group of countries, when the same information is adequately presented at the country and continent level?
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
09:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:LISTN as there are no sources (not even the GRG) discussing "Nordic supercentenarians". Also redundant because as stated, each name in this article is also covered in the country and deaths in year articles under
Template:Longevity.
CommanderLinx (
talk)
01:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
And even if there was it would be no less visible in the Europe list. (I'm still unconvinced we shouldn't have just one giant world-wide list.)
EEng (
talk)
18:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Every entry here is a partial title match. Deleting all these entries leaves an empty disambiguation page. With no redirect target in site, delete is the only option left.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
02:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. All except Innotata have a Wiktionary entry (for the lower case word). Would replacing these pages by soft redirects to Wiktionary be better than actual deletion? DexDor(talk)06:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Have now upgraded that list in sections A,B and C: takes a little time, what with following up side issues which crop up as I go. But I'll get it done.
PamD 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC) "D" now done.
PamD15:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I concur with regard to
WP:PTM, the pages contribute very little over search engine output. Section redirects seem reasonable, although if we wanted to keep the navigation aid, we should also sprinkle {{in title}} in the list article. --
Joy [shallot] (
talk)
12:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Back to delete I've reconsidered my comment above and concluded that a redirect would be worse than worthless to our readers. A reader encountering one of these words probably saw them in a species name, and to be redirect to a page that tells them it's used in species names is entirely pointless. The search function would serve readers better in this case.
Oiyarbepsy (
talk)
17:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete While I am sympathetic to the author and think that some of this material, when sourced, might properly exist in other articles, this is clearly a
WP:Essay and as such, belongs on a user page, not as an independent article.
Nwlaw63 (
talk)
19:17, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep orUserfy - This appears to be a
class project. On a side note, the
talk page does seem to have been used as a "peer-review" forum. As for the AFD, I would err on the side of being nice and encourage improvements to the article rather than deleting it all-together.
GabeIglesia (
talk)
10:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Do you think anything in this article is actually salvageable? The style is that of a polemic, not an encyclopedia article. There are no sources whatsoever. The article topic itself is promoting a point of view. "Being nice" isn't an excuse for paying no attention to Wikipedia's policies.
Nwlaw63 (
talk)
10:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - Hmm. I had a look at the article again, and the lack of citations is concerning. And I also see how the style is rather polemic. As for "being nice," I think
WP:DONTBITE is a policy worth considering - although not necessarily one that is superior to other policies. Considering it's a student project (which by no means am I arguing is necessarily a reason to automatically keep it), it's probably best to move it to the creator's sandbox or userpage.
GabeIglesia (
talk)
06:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Draft and userfy at best as there is imaginably a better acceptable article later but there's hardly much currently aside from what would seem like a journal report.
SwisterTwistertalk06:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. There are a few refs in the article but nothing that indicates he's notable. A recently created article which won't go anywhere because his career is in its twilight or ended.
Szzuk (
talk)
16:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I declined the speedy as the article had already been challenged per the talk page, and there are claims that coverage exists in Vogue, the Sunday Telegraph, etc. This is a thorny one because we are talking about a mid-20th century British craftsman whose work would have had very high profile exposure, but he would not necessarily have been widely credited for that work. I have found one article published in a guild journal
Article published in The Journal for Weavers, Spinners & Dyers - BUT that article was written by Dixie Nichols, the subject's daughter, so not exactly neutral/unconnected. A search for Lionel Nichols pulled up a book on Norman Hartnell that I actually have a copy of, so I checked - he is not mentioned in the book, the only Nichols is LA Nichols in the bibliography who wrote something about the Royal Family. I am really conflicted about this, because on technicalities, I can see it is almost definitely going to be deleted, but it makes me sad to think that it will be.
Mabalu (
talk)
02:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Is that allowed on Wikipedia per
WP:Canvassing? Seems like a very obvious attempt to influence (or at least consolidate) the AFD outcome, which I think is pretty clearly going to be delete anyway.
Mabalu (
talk)
11:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
We;ve discussed this extensive a few days ago at AN/I. When I started here I tried to look at all afds; then I found myself able to only do it in topics of interest where my !vote might help make a decision in a neglected or uncertain case. I can now do longer even do that, unless someone notifies me, and I have asked those interested to do so. As always, those who ask me cannot predict what I will say. I consider ST sensible, and find myself agreeing with ST a good deal of the time, but I do not look at ST's opinion before deciding my own; in fact, I try not to look atanybody's opinion before deciding, or even look at who it was that nominated it. DGG (
talk )
16:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Uncertain This is the sort of industry for which there does exist some specialized coverage, but I do not have easy access to it. I simply cannot tell--it is possible the firm is notable, and it is also possible that the importance has been exaggerated by the spa author. DGG (
talk )
16:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment I've got to agree with DGG here about the uncertainty. It does seem notable since glass buttons from that time period from the UK is rare. Most glass buttons came from Bohemia. The thing is, this article is closely related to textiles and that's not Wikipedia's audience so I don't think it matters much one way or the other. --
MurderByDeletionism"bang!"06:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
This article is about a key figure in the 1940s to 60s British Haute Couture industry and many buyers have requested a page and been suprised that there has ot already been one made. Articles about the said buttons have been in magazines such as Vogue, Interiors and the Sunday Telegraph —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Whistle1127 (
talk •
contribs)
I'm not convinced that would satisfy
WP:BIO, but will remove the tag.
Giles Bennett(
Talk,
Contribs) 19:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I cannot support retention because no citation information has been provided about which articles have discussed the buttons. I cannot support deletion because of
FUTON bias and
Wikipedia:Offline sources.
Delete Based on the current sourcing and what can be found online (and what was found offline by Mabalu), I don't think this can pass
WP:GNG. The old talk page statement found by Cunard is enough to show significance (saving the article from an
A7), but, without the actual articles in question, it's not quite enough to prove the necessary notability to keep this article.
clpo13(
talk)19:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Move to draft space. Worldcat shows many possible references . Search as su:buttons.
[37]. Someone has to be willing to do the work, of course. I think I've shown it's possible. DGG (
talk )
19:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
But who's going to do the rewriting? I mean I agree that it probably is notable, however, this type of article just isn't Wikipedia's target audience so maybe Wikipedia ought let this article go so that google searches can focus on providing a better top article. Just a thought! --
MurderByDeletionism"bang!"18:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - The argument that just because something isn't for "Wikipedia's target audience" then it probably should be deleted (even if it is likely notable) is one of the most bizarre AFD statements I've ever seen on here. The question is about notability, not whether something is likely to match the requirements of a predetermined group of people.
Mabalu (
talk)
19:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
My thinking is Wikipedia doesn't have anyone with the interest (possibly info) to write a better article than what's already out there. However, from what I can tell, you'd be the best possible choice here to give it a go. And I believe that since google wants to now default to Wikipedia, Wikipedia should begin to take that into consideration seeing as it's pretty well known by now that Wikipedia can only attract certain types editors with the same interests. One evidence of that is the multiple times I encounter editors stating there are no more new articles to create. In fact, a ton of articles are ending up in AfD mainly because they are poorly written more than any other reason. Sure, the article gets tagged as "not notable" but the reality is that tag could be applied to almost anything. Pushing to keep notable articles that the majority of Wikipedia has little to zero knowledge in, is a losing battle since eventually they will be deleted. --
MurderByDeletionism"bang!"16:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I'm happy to have it in my userspace, although I can't imagine where I'm going to find anything relevant for it as I've already tried several times to find sources. To be honest, I think deletion is inevitable in this particular case, but at least there IS a source out there in the guild journal I could find, so it won't be completely consigned to obscurity.
Mabalu (
talk)
18:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What I find interesting/entertaining is there are no button makers/manufacturers of notability on Wikipedia except this one! (Which like you've stated is likely to be deleted.) --
MurderByDeletionism"bang!"18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - meets prong #2 of
WP:NBOX. Has fought for and won a regional WBO title (Oriental title). Also, for a guy that has only once fought outside of Russia (and that was in Moldova) I found a number of English sources that discuss him:
[38],
[39],
[40], and
[41]. Of course a lot of these are not in depth, but considering this level of coverage in English and the meeting of
WP:NBOX I think its fair to presume that Russian sources exist. Therefore keep.
RonSigPi (
talk)
17:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
I agree #1 is not met, but #2 is. Only one of the four need met - failing to not meet another is irrelevant. Otherwise, someone like
Manny Pacquiao or
Jack Johnson would not meet the guidelines since they didn't have an amateur career that meets #4.
RonSigPi (
talk)
19:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Fighting for a vacant minor title is not enough. Title is another questionable one from a boxing organization. Two non-Orientals fighting for the vacant Oriental title seems like an attempt to pad resumes.
Mdtemp (
talk)
15:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Bogdanov is from near the Estonian border which can hardly be considered Asia. Without wanting to get too sidetracked, back when I was in school during the Dark Ages we were taught there were 3 races--Caucasian, Negroid, and Oriental. I always figured that Mdtemp, like almost all WP editors was a lot younger than I am, but using it as a race definition then both fighters would be "non-Oriental". I don't think any of this aspect necessarily reflects on notability one way or the other.
Bogdanov is not representing Pskov, he is representing RUSSIA, which spans Asia. And what athletic competitions are categorized by RACE? That is seriously laughable.
—МандичкаYO 😜
02:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Even though I said I didn't want to go into this, I feel compelled to respond. Russia is considered part of Europe by every athletics association I'm aware of. Furthermore, he's representing himself--not Russia. I doubt that there is a universal agreement of what countries make up the Orient--Australia is further east than China, but I don't know any Australians who consider themselves Oriental. Germany is east of France, are they Oriental? It may seem like I'm being silly, but vaguely named titles do seem a bit confusing. As I said originally, this is off topic and I'll comment no more on this aspect.
Papaursa (
talk)
03:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The Philippines is clearly in the Orient. Obviously the World Boxing Federation considers Russia eligible to compete in the Orient title. This is separate from the Asian titles. You can contact them for answers.
—МандичкаYO 😜
05:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete While I think it could be argued he meets criteria #2 of
WP:NBOX, those guidelines have been discussed previously as being very, indeed overly, generous. In this case I think GNG trumps SNG, and he doesn't appear to meet
WP:GNG with coverage being limited to fight announcements and results.
Papaursa (
talk)
03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Questionably notable and improvable as the links I found were only
this and
this for the Houston, Texas company and the also
this,
this and
this for the Selkirk, Scotland company. If at all, it seems there's somewhat more coverage for the Scottish company but all in all, both also seem questionably keepable. Notifying author
Victorgrigas and also
DGG who lists to be notified of these subject AfDs.
SwisterTwistertalk07:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I have added some sources to show that the company based in Scotland has grown rapidly and received quite a bit of coverage. I consider that there is enough for it to have
WP:CORPDEPTH. The article had just contained a small amount of information on the Scottish company until 12 October when there some material added to the article which related to a separate US company. I have removed this from the article and put it on the talk page- it consists of a couple of press releases and a page on a listing site. The US company began as Spark Energy Ventures in 1999 and was incorporated in 2014.
Drchriswilliams (
talk)
16:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. The references all seem to indicate it is not yet notable. It's odd that according to an over-literal interpretations of the notability guidelines 2 or 3 references saying or implying that something is not notable could make it notable for our purposes. I do not accept such a irrational result. In this case, they show the firm is just a minor competitor in the field and showing its relatively low funding, and received an award for being fast-growing(which almost always implies still very new. DGG (
talk )
18:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The article looks better and an article for the Scottish Spark Energy may be notable and acceptable but I'll still hear any more comments if they come before this AfD ends.
SwisterTwistertalk06:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Recommend delete and merge to appropriate list, per
WP:NOPAGE. Omitting information on who was the oldest before her, after her, during her, over her, under her, and so on, reads in its entirety:
Sarah DeRemer Knauss (née Clark; September 24, 1880 – December 30, 1999) was an American supercentenarian. Of her death, state senator Charlie Dent, who had attended her 115th birthday in 1995, said "Mrs. Knauss was an extraordinary woman who pushed the outer limits of longevity. This is a sad occasion, but she certainly had an eventful life."
The senator was just making that up, of course. As an added bonus, several or most of the sources are non-RS or copyvios.
Special note: Ms. Knauss herself has !voted, from beyond the grave (as it were), for the deletion of her own (and other similar) articles. According to
[46]:
She became the world's oldest person in 1998 upon the death of Marie-Louise Febronie Meilleur of Quebec, who was 117. But when her family members walked her into the dining room to tell her of her new fame, she smiled and said: "So what?"
P.S. I just noticed this edit
[47] from a few hours ago. Before someone says that other editor and I were acting in concert: we weren't. And presence of the deleted material wouldn't have changed my NOPAGE recommendation.
EEng (
talk)
03:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Meh!
Earwig's copy violation detector Sarah Knauss I would say that the copy violations are easily cured and are by themselves no reason to delete. Her sole claim to fame, I gather, is super longevity. Listing of others must exist somewhere, and could be added to the article if that would help. She is #2 on
List of the verified oldest people, and almost all of those have an article. She is the oldest verified American super centarian, if that list is to be believed. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)03:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I didn't make myself clear -- the article links to
[48] as a source, and that link is a blatant copyvio of a newspaper article; our article's shouldn't carry such links. As to your other point, yes, there's also
List of supercentenarians from the United States, and since apparently there's nothing at all to say about Ms. Knauss, the right thing to do is redirect to that list, where she can be seen in context with other similar people.
EEng (
talk)
03:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Good work fixing the cites, but you're missing the point of the nomination. Most nominations are based on questions about the subject's notability, but here the question the one posed at
WP:NOPAGE:
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
My point is that (as with most of these long-lived people) there's actually very little to say about their lives, so it's best to make them "part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context" i.e. in a list article along with other long-livers DOB, DOD, place of birth/death, and so on. Where there's a bit more to say or a photo, the list articles have "mini-bios" as well.
EEng (
talk)
04:27, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Looks to be a case of not following
WP:BEFORE. She is the second oldest person who ever lived, I doubt that she wouldn't be in some books at the least or studies done on her longevity. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard.
Alansohn (
talk)
04:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
EEng, The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Nothing needs to be added. Don't make me copy the full text of the article into this talk page.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
But all it says about her is what I quoted in the nomination. Everything else is about other people (who was the "titleholder" before and after her, etc.) and would be apparent to the reader when looking at Knauss in an appropriate list article.
EEng (
talk)
05:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
EEng, The article makes a clear and unambiguous claim of notability and backs up the claim with a broad range of reliable and verifiable sources to create an appropriately substantial article about the subject that meets any and every aspect of the Wikipedia notability standard. Nothing needs to be added. Don't make me copy the full text of the article into this talk page. I'll Do it. Don't make me.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. We have gotten much more limited in our coverage of supercentenarians over the years, but deleting the article on someone who actually has been the verifiable world's oldest person is carrying things to the level of utter absurdity. I was asked to do a speedy keep on the basis of obviousness (actually, it would better be a snow keep) but I don't like to do this in the presence of good-faith opposition from someone known here for generally good judgment. (opposition from a spa would be very much another matter). So I will just urge my friend
EEng to take overnight to think about it, and reconsider. DGG (
talk )
05:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Even though I'm an Arbcom member, I'm just commenting here as an average, everyday editor.
Gracious! I had no idea I was held in such "generally" high esteem in the corridors of power. And since I'm also generally known for my impish and endearing sense of humor, you'll forgive my inserting the image at right. Now then, to the matter at hand!
I'd like to draw attention, again, to this bit of NOPAGE:
There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
As a parallel I'd readily agree that every pharaoh is notable, but one can easily believe (hypothetical -- I've got no idea about pharaohs) that there may be some about whom so little is known that there's no point in a standalone article about them -- an entry in a list, with dates of reign, parentage, and whatnot, might present him better than a tiny standalone, since in a list the reader can at least see how he fits in chronologically and so on, which would be obscured in a standalone. Same thing here.
In light of your gracious request, I'll indeed think about this overnight, but likely in the morning I'll be looking to see if anyone's added anything to the article about the subject (not fancruft about other "titleholders") which would better justify a standalone. In return, I hope you'll reconsider as well, with a focus on NOPAGE instead of N.
Thought while showering... Finally, take a look at
[49], which explains in more detail my thoughts on lists and "minibios" for long-livers about whom there isn't really much to say.
EEng (
talk)
06:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) P.S. Have you visited
the Museums lately?reply
An additional column in the list could easily accommodate such information. Or if it's too bulky for that, a minibio (with picture), per this discussion
[50]. BTW, her comment about "So what?" would be a perfect caption for the picture.
EEng (
talk)
14:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Four comments in fifteen hours on a wee early Sunday morning is hardly a snowstorm. Let's see what other editors think.
EEng (
talk)
19:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
EEng, before this comment, this AfD had been edited 33 times, 14 of them (more than 40% of all edits) by you. You've repeated your usual arguments in the nomination and then repeated them ad nauseum with every single participant in this AfD. Why not just come up with a valid argument in your next nomination, make it your best possible argument, and then let the Wikipedia community participate as they see fit without the same constant repetition. Try it. Once. See how it works.
Alansohn (
talk)
20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
A nomination like this one -- based not on notability, as is usual, but on the NOPAGE question of whether or not to have a standalone article -- is unfamiliar to most editors at AfD, and so (not surprisingly) many editors have trouble understanding it. Often editors don't actually read the nomination text, just looking at the article to judge its sources for notability purposes -- witness the posts here (most recently Nathan's, below) speaking, irrelevantly, to notability. Thus it seems necessary to draw other editors' attention to the actual question at hand.
Some 80% of the longevity nominations in the last three months (and essentially all of those made by me personally) have ended in Delete, Merge, Redirect, etc., so it's hard to take seriously your plea that I "come up with a valid argument" in my next nomination. I'm doing just fine without your advice, thanks!
I can understand nominating relatively non-notable 110 year olds or whatever for deletion, but this is the second oldest person EVER, the oldest American ever, and a former world's oldest person. Generally speaking on Wikipedia, if someone passes
WP:GNG (this person clearly does) then they are deserving of their own article.
WP:NOPAGE is a more useful guideline for dealing with Characters in a TV show, or members of a band, where they are all notable for being part of a more-widely notable topic. On the other hand, supercentenarians are all individual people, living in different parts of the world at different times. Longevity is a very broad topic, so I fail to see how NOPAGE can be applied in this instance. Instead, this nomination just smacks of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --
Ollie231213 (
talk)
10:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I have no idea what "longevity is a very broad topic" has to do with anything, and please cut out the tired "smacks of IDONTLIKEIT", which I guess you could say about anything negative anyone says about anything. I've been hoping someone would add something to the article so it said more about the subject than what little's already there, but so far, nothing.
EEng (
talk)
11:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:NOPAGE says "Editorial judgment goes into each decision about whether or not to create a separate page, but the decision should always be based upon specific considerations about how to make the topic understandable, and not merely upon personal likes or dislikes." ---> If we're talking about (as I say above) characters in a TV show or members of a band, it might make more sense to include mini-articles on them on pages about the TV show or the band itself, as they're all closely connected by one specific topic. On the other hand, what connects supercentenarians? Longevity. But longevity is a much wider topic than a TV show, and all supercentenarians are different people who otherwise have nothing in common. It therefore makes sense to have individual biographies for them, at least in the case when we're dealing with people who were once the "world's oldest person" or the oldest person ever from a nation.
Your nominations don't actually seem to explain how deleting these articles makes the topic more understandable. Instead, it's just you complaining that there's "nothing worthwhile or interesting" in the articles. I've explained above that the information about this person is more easily viewed in a standalone article, where the information is in one place, than in a multitude of separate lists. --
Ollie231213 (
talk)
12:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Putting what little there is to say about her (and that excludes mindnumbing fancruft like "Knauss is the second-oldest fully documented person ever, behind Jeanne Calment. She was the last verified living person to have been born before 1885. At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder, then thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). It is now believed that the record should have been held by Lucy Hannah (1875–1993), who died aged 117 years and 248 days in 1993. In any case, Knauss extended the United States longevity record to age 119. Knauss was the second fully validated person in history to reach age 118 and 119 (the first being Calment in 1993 and 1994, respectively). She came within 33 hours of having lived in three different centuries.") in a minibio, where she can be seen in the context of others like her, is a much better way to understand about these people -- together, side by side -- then by clicking through scores of trivial articles. It could all be in one place, just not disconnected from everything else.
EEng (
talk)
13:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
All that information that you call "mindnumbing fancruft" I would consider interesting and completely relevant to the topic, as would many others I imagine. You've just proven my point yet again: this all about your own opinion that longevity is not interesting. --
Ollie231213 (
talk)
15:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
That X lived to be Y years old is obviously central. When that fact was established ("At age 116, she was recognized as being the new United States national longevity record holder"), and the confusion about the records of two other people who have nothing to do with X ("thought to have been held by Carrie C. White (reportedly 1874–1991). It is now believed that the record should have been held by Lucy Hannah (1875–1993), who died aged 117 years and 248 days in 1993") is just fancruft. "She was the last verified living person to have been born before 1885" -- so she's the last born before 1885 -- so what? Who was last born before 1884? 1886? What does any of that have to do with anything? As to "She came within 33 hours of living in three centuries" -- you must be joking.
EEng (
talk)
16:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The last sentence is not necessary. Otherwise, it's all perfectly valid, relevant information. You've become so prejudiced towards this topic area because of the actions of a few so-called "fanboys" that you're deluding yourself. Look around you, the consensus amongst most other editors here - just like at other recent AfD discussions for world's oldest person articles - is in favour of keeping these articles. --
Ollie231213 (
talk)
17:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
FWIW, the fact that her lifespan almost touched three separate centuries puts into larger perspective the remarkable extent of her longevity. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)17:46, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
Notability isn't, and has never been, in question. The question is how to best present what little info there is about her.
EEng (
talk)
13:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
We have rules and guidelines. Apparently you have not actually bothered to read the sources in this article as it now exists. To be sure, there is more that could be said about her, and the existing sources support that. Others will carry this further.
But your insistence on one leaf (rule) in wikipedia does not make the tree or the forest (the purpose of the project; the rest of its rules) disappear. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)13:29, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What other rules are you talking about? The question here is whether the subject, clearly notable, should have a standalone article or not. NOPAGE is the guideline for that. What other guideline would you bring in? Contrary to what you say, I certainly did read the sources (those that were in the article at the time of the nomination) plus made a quick check via Google. So far the new sources have added nothing substantive about her, just more fancruft like "she was 33 hours from living in 3 centuries" (not correct, actually, since 2001 was the start of the new century -- makes you kinda wonder about the source).
Anyway, your forest-leaves analogy is an apt one. It's better to present these people, in most cases, in an integrated article (a "forest") where they can all be seen side by side, than in a bunch of scattered, trivial standalones ("trees" or maybe even "leaves").
EEng (
talk)
13:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
But your insistence on one leaf (a sentence in one rule) in wikipedia does not make the tree (the rest of the rule, and the article and subject which stand on their own) or the forest (the purpose of the project; the rest of its rules) disappear. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)13:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Mere strenuous repetition and intensity is no substitute for substance. Perhaps you need to reread the rest of
WP:NOPAGE, rather than giving us the expurgated version. In any event, I will concede that reasonable minds may differ; hence this discussion. But in doing so I do not waiver from my position that you are wrong. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)14:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
WP:NOPAGE is a mere guideline that suggests that one ought to use editorial judgment in deciding where information ought to go. It does not command the elimination of particular pages. In any event, it is clear that there is none so blind as those who will not see. 7&6=thirteen (
☎)17:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Who said anything about "commanding"?; the point of this discussion is make the judgment NOPAGE says to make. I agree there is none blind etc., to which I reply: two gloves do not a hat make. So if you're done reciting random proverbs, will you have time to point to this mysterious other part of NOPAGE you've keep talking about?
EEng (
talk)
18:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge The keep !votes are not following what EEng has been stating. Yes, she has a source or two that ID her as one of the oldest living persons. And that's it. Her name comes up as "second in line" (of sorts) for other oldest living persons, but that's not equating to significant coverage. She obviously should be listed among a list of oldest living persons (having had been one), but what little there can actually be written about her directly (not in relationship to any other oldest person) is far too short for an article. --
MASEM (
t)
15:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment: You are confusing failure to agree with failure to understand. That aside, are you asserting that it's impossible to produce a properly sourced biographical article on the subject?
Ravenswing 22:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
No, I'm seeing what EEng has rightfully argued against what the keep !votes are presuming the argument is. And I am asserting that is impossible to produce a sourced biological article that weights on most information coming from secondary sources, as we expect for all articles. (Some primary may be needed to establish things like high school, etc.) And as EEng has shown, very few of the given sources are secondary, as they only mention her name in passing. --
MASEM (
t)
01:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Masem Just a note but EEng has withdrawn the nomination and yours is the only non-keep vote here. If you were to withdraw your vote, I think this could be closed as a nomination withdrawn. --
Ricky81682 (
talk)
06:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Received extensive coverage in the media, as the then "World's oldest person" and still the second oldest person ever. This extensive coverage supports the need for a standalone article.
Bodgey5 (talk)18:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
What other wikis under WMF do is not of interest to en.wiki, though if those articles have more significant coverage in sources, we should be using them here. However, the GNG is not met as there is no significant coverage. Being one of the oldest living persons is a fact, but it is not coverage. The person did little else in their live to be notable beyond living to an old age, which technically also fails
WP:BLP1E. Incorporating her into a table of the oldest known living persons keeps the little information about here in summary with other such people and provides better context (replacing all those trivial notes of who she succeeded and who succeeded her). --
MASEM (
t)
19:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
119 years is very long for "one event", don't you think? I don't know what article you're looking at, but I see 15 sources included in this article. This person easily passed
WP:SIGCOV and
WP:GNG. --
Ollie231213 (
talk)
19:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The one event is the moment she outlived the previously oldest person. And not all sources are equal - we do not judge by quantity but by quality, and as EEng has repeated pointed out, all but a couple are mentions of her name in passing and thus do not contribute towards the GNG. Of those that do cover her in more depth, they give very little beyond beyond beyond one of the oldest people in the world at one point. It might just trip being okay by the GNG, but as pert
WP:NOPAGE we are not required to have a article on every GNG-passing topic, and as EEng has pointed out, having her listed in a table among all other 100+yr persons would be more comprehensive than a standalone where you have to use 15 sources to identify her place in that line. --
MASEM (
t)
01:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
And when she became the oldest American? And the second-oldest ever? That's already three events. Regardless, this is not the kind of person that the "one event" guideline covers. Longevity is an integral part of the person, not an event. And as I've explained above, it makes sense to have all of her longevity-related achievements listed in one place, and in any case, what's wrong with having a bit of extra information on this person? --
Ollie231213 (
talk)
01:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
20-Mule-Team Keep: Oh for pity's sake. Passes the GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote. I understand that EEng is waving around NOPAGE! with all the force and furor that your average American Republican politician screams "Liberal! Liberal! Liberaaaaalll!!" -- as if the mere word is a trump card that automatically supersedes all other considerations or arguments -- but sooner or later the fact must be faced that it's not that we don't understand his argument, we don't agree with it. The Knauss article is, I freely concede, poorly written and longer on irrelevant blather than on encyclopedic fact, but that's a content dispute, not an appropriate issue for AfD.
Ravenswing 22:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Oh man, comparing me to Republicans -- now there's a personal attack! Unfortunately, the fact that you think that "passes GNG with flying colors, and that's all she wrote" make any sense shows that you, still, aren't reading NOPAGE, or GNG for that matter, which say:
If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. (GNG)
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. (NOPAGE)
They're fluffy longevity articles saying little about the subject, puffed up by minutiae of the timeline of verification e.g. meaningless events like belated recognition of who was the previous pre-1885 person to have been displaced for the title by someone who was mistakenly thought to be the current record holder except for...
EEng (
talk)
01:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Reply: @
EEng, let's see if I can phrase this in terms unlikely to mistake. Yes, I have read NOPAGE. Yes, I have read your arguments. I do not agree with you. What about that is so hard to understand? I'm sorry (well, not that sorry) if you find the consensus against you bewildering, but it is obvious that many more editors reject your curious interpretation of that section as meaning "Any article that any one editor argues can be redirected into a broader topic must be redirected into a broader topic" than otherwise. I am among them. The nature of a consensus-based system is that sometimes consensus runs against you. When it does, accept that fact and move on.
Ravenswing 07:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
This discussion of turning the page into a redirect is now 20 times longer then the article and contains about half as many facts as the article. The article has been heavily edited during the discussion so who knows what we are even discussing. Perhaps we should close this discussion down, let the editors who want to try to get this up to something that does not fail NOPAGE and then renominate for delete and redirect.
Legacypac (
talk)
03:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The overwhelming consensus -- before, during and after the article was expanded -- is that Knauss is unquestionably deserving of a standalone article. It's
EEng who has accounted for 35% of the edits and has fluffed up the article with his endless repetition of the same rejected arguments he uses to attack nearly each and every editor who advocates for retention. The failure to recognize this consensus reflects poorly on the whole campaign against these articles. A speedy keep is the proper close at this point, though I anticipate further bad faith nominations in the near future.
Alansohn (
talk)
05:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Still angry you couldn't get me blocked, it seems. I look forward to your popping up at various other discussions I'm participating in, though. Always entertaining.
EEng (
talk)
05:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Obvious keep considering that this woman is the Oldest Verified American Person Ever. I'm thankful for the withdrawal of the AfD-nomination, perhaps you and your team could withdraw all nominations and refrain from making new ones?
930310 (
talk)
08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep This was a big issue and on nearly every national newspapers front page and was significant in the local area as this person even stood as a local councillor. There are notable and reputable sources that verify this. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.178.217.5 (
talk)
13:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete This is classicBLP1E and should be deleted forthwith. If window breakers are notable, then we will soon have a legion of articles on people known only as shop lifters, car thieves, barroom brawlers, muggers and check kiters. Plus the guy who recently broke my car window and stole $2000.00 worth of my professional tools. No thank you.
Cullen328Let's discuss it03:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn. Redirecting/merging can be discussed through normal channels, and should always be considered prior to starting an AFD, per
policy. postdlf (talk)
02:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
This list simply duplicates
List of Japanese supercentenarians except for the short list at the end of old people who don't live in Asia anymore and are covered on other lists just fine.
The list lacks all credibility for it's title. The population of Japan is only 2.9% of Asia yet according to this list Japanese people represent 100% of the oldest people both living and dead in Asia ever. If this list is correct, major media should be digging into this amazing "fact" that Japanese genes are required to live past 110 years old and all other Asians are genetically inferior. I propose we delete this unless and until someone figures out how to cover the other 97% of the really old people in Asia properly.
Legacypac (
talk)
00:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Your vote means little with no answer to the rational given. It duplicates another list and is obviously and by design hopelessly incomplete and misleading. Needs to be TNT'd
Legacypac (
talk)
01:58, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't understand. After checking that everyone on the Japan list is also here, we'd just redirect the Japan list here. This way, if (say) a Korean supercent is found, that can be accommodated.
EEng (
talk)
03:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
I don't see that as a problem; the problem is multiple overlapping lists, so that the same person is confusingly duplicated here and there depending on the whims of people creating these lists, which slice and dice things in random ways. Someone looking at the Japan list might well wonder whether there are any supercents in Asia outside Japan; if we've deleted the Asia list, there won't be anywhere to look for the answer to that question. (I don't see any sensible place to redirect the Asia list if it's deleted.) On the the other hand, if we merge Japan into Asia, with a redirect, people get the answer to their question whether they're interested either in Japan only, or in Asia generally.
Honestly, this is another example of why there should just be one gigantic list of all supercents, which can be searched and sorted at will by the reader.
EEng (
talk)
14:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Ok with an appropriate note clearly stating how Japan has all the "verified" superold, we can redirect Japan to Asia. I'll WITHDRAW and do that.
Legacypac (
talk)
20:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep We follow what the reliable sources say and not the doubts of an editor. That there are no credible Chinese verification need to be addressed via reliable sources.
Vivexdino (
talk)
22:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notability? Aside from the article's problematic history (original article was an OM sock creation), the current version doesn't establish notability and uses several questionable sources (will post detailed source review below). I wasn't able to find additional reliable, independent and in-depth coverage about this artist. Needs further scrutiny.
GermanJoe (
talk)
00:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - sources (Refs #1 and #5 are among the better references here, but they aren't sufficient to establish notability per
WP:GNG):
mostly an interview, short background info
Athenian School Blog - blog, restricted problematic usage, doesn't add to notability
Note - nominated image for speedy. Pre-published images from the Internet need clear source information and permission from the copyright owner.
GermanJoe (
talk)
00:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
"consider editing" i authored this page a year and a half ago as a draft, got feedback and posted it but was asked to find more sources and i did improve it. this artist is known to me and is doing some innovative things in Hip Hop Education, unique to the genre and seems to be in the vanguard of notability. OM approached and said that they worked with Wikipedia and knew how to post the article, and they did, that is the history of how this spiralled into a an article for deletion. If its deleted, I would like suggestions on how to improve it. Based on notability guidelines, and fanbase the artist qualifies and the articles in the SF Bay View, which is an interview, and in the Green Prophet/and Illume, are independently written articles about the artist. I'm a bit confused because it seems to me this artist is more notable than many who have pages on wikipedia and are not up for deletion at all. ookladamotookladamotTalk08:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
It is probably still
too soon for a Wikipedia article about this artist. I'd suggest to wait, until additional third-party sources become available (i.e. news stories, album reviews or other independent articles about his career). I sympathize, that it's difficult to find sources for regional artists in a subgenre, but the article needs such sources not only for notability but also to independently verify the article's claims.
GermanJoe (
talk)
15:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment - My edit to the page was to nominate it for speedy deletion. I appreciate the above comment by Ookladamot, so won't vote one way or the other at this point. If there person is indeed notable, I would add as many significant news stories about them as you can find. If those sources exist, then the person would be notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Jeremy112233(Lettuce-
jibber-jabber?)19:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
"'Comment'" Thank you Jeremy112233 and GermanJoe for your feedback, please feel free to delete this site, I will continue to improve my article and do my research, there are many local artists I follow and there is great disparity on who gets discussed and not--I would argue that a vast majority of indie artists on Wiki now are probably not notable enough. I hope as I improve my article and add album reviews and other information from press that I can look to you both for advice on my writing before I upload it, thank you for your advice, it has been invaluable. ookladamotookladamotTalk08:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
172.2.241.104 (
talk) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.