Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Valley2
city‽
02:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Gabriel Brown (actor) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Lack of notability. Does not mention a single acting role. IMDB page only lists youtube videos. Not notable as a musician either
HoarseHorsie (
talk)
00:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Lakun.patra (
talk)
04:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Lakun.patra (
talk)
04:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
16:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete — This is afferently not written in a encyclopedic way.
CookieMonster755
(talk)
03:41, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete — References are unspecific (e.g. Gabriel Brown on Youtube should surely be an external link)
RatRat (
talk) 15:37, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
- Delete unless sources to establish notability emerge. Being primarily a YouTube personality isn't an automatic disqualifier, but we need reliable sources that cover Brown in depth to establish notability. The article doesn't currently have any and a quick search didn't turn up anything obvious (although due to the common nature of his name I could have easily missed something). Pinging @
SecretName101: who accepted this at AfC for input. --
ThaddeusB (
talk)
15:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Promo, no notability.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
00:22, 2 April 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 keep. (
non-admin closure)
Esquivalience
t
00:09, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Ilan Shohat (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article created on a person who was elected to the
Knesset in Israel's recent elections. However, they have opted not to take up their seat, so will not have been a Knesset member. Thus they fail
WP:POLITICIAN (and being a mayor of Safed, a small town in the north of Israel) is not really sufficient to confer notability. Prod removed by an IP without explanation.
Number
5
7
21:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
Lakun.patra (
talk)
04:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Lakun.patra (
talk)
04:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Israel-related deletion discussions.
Lakun.patra (
talk)
04:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Doesn't need to meet
WP:POLITICIAN, when it plainly meets GNG. Plenty of coverage about him on account of his decision to give up his Knesset seat, and previous non-Knesset activity. What's the point to delete a non-promotional, well soruced article about a man with plenty of media coverage, just because he's not quite as prominent as some users would like? Spare a few kilobytes for the poor mayor of Safed; his article meets our standards. --
Y
not?
14:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- That's accurate -- it doesn't need to meet wp:politician. I'm actually surprised that the nomination fails to mention GNG at all, and solely focuses on wp:politician. If one searches in Hebrew, one finds
even additional substantial RS coverage; it is certainly ample to meet GNG. --
Epeefleche (
talk)
20:48, 26 March 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 speedy keep per
WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (
non-admin closure)
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Live from Patrick Street (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:NALBUM. Should be redirected to
Patrick Street/
Karlhard (
talk)
20:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk
20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- @
Karlhard:So, if I understand your reason for imposing an AfD on this article [about an album], you are proposing that it should be re-directed to the existing article on
Patrick Street, which is an aticle about the band.
- Please would you explain to me how this makes any sense:
- Why should a new article about an album be re-directed to the article about the band, when the album is already listed in the
discography section of the band's article.
- Thank you for your prompt response, and for considering the removal of this article from AfD.
- With kind regards;
- Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)
20:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The album meets criterion number 1 of
WP:MUSIC as it has received multiple independent reviews, including
Acoustic Guitar magazine (link is to magazine index only),
Living Tradition magazine and
The Irish Echo.
RichardOSmith (
talk)
20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There is sufficient independent sources available to prove the notability of the album and album seems to be popular among the locals. more citations should be added to solidify its claim of notability.
Nicky mathew (
talk)
21:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Sufficient coverage to both establish notability and also to allow a meaningful article to exist. --
Michig (
talk)
21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I have now added six sources in the
External links section, showing evidence that this album was reviewed in issue No. 191 of
Folk Roots (fRoots), in addition to the reviews from the
Living Tradition,
Acoustic Guitar and
The Irish Echo that RichardOSmith kindly provided in the first entry above. I have also added the 'Album ratings' template (under the infobox), suitably updated with the scores available from the 'Allmusic' and 'Discogs' websites. I have also added links to online articles and reviews that associate this album with the notoriety of the band.
Retaining this article would enable our encyclopedia to offer a complete series of articles for the entire discography released by these notable musicians, who are deemed "legends of Irish traditional music". Thank you to everyone who supported this article, along with my efforts to make our encyclopedia more complete. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)
23:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- keep-same reasons as others have said.
Wgolf (
talk)
01:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Improved to the point that Speedy keep may be in order.
VMS Mosaic (
talk)
06:11, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - Please would someone therefore remove the AfD templates from the article itself? Very many thanks once again to everyone who helped so supportively. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ
Pdebee.
(talk)
15:17, 26 March 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 keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, per the sources provided below. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
10:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Joseph and Melissa Batten (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable domestic violence (murder-suicide) case involving non-notable persons. No significant coverage beyond local news, no legal precedents. Fails
WP:CRIME and
WP:NOTNEWS. I also find it bizarre that the murderer and his victim are given a joint biography. -
hahnch
e
n
20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or move back to Draft. Most commonly, I work on articles about and related to games. So when I found this interesting story, I was floored. Is it notable to have a murder within the gaming industry? I don't know, but I have never heard of a game designer killing another game designer. The Battens themselves may or may not be notable, but they have both worked on some pretty notable projects. I did not think that separate articles, or even an article on either individual, made much sense so I wrote one for both. The murder itself seems to have plenty of coverage, both from the local news and sources like
Fortune,
Kotaku and
The Escapist, as well as the print source Designers & Dragons (which describes the crime as "one of the more shocking events in RPG's history") where I first learned of this case. There were a bunch of blogs on my Google search, which I did not use, and I did not know if I should use
Whatifgaming even though it had an interview from her work on
Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts. This article in its current state is not my best work, I will grant you that, but I have never started an article on a crime before. I first posted to
the WP:VG talk page for advice, and got responses from
GamerPro64,
Jeraphine Gryphon,
Izno,
Czar,
1bandsaw,
Fakedeeps, and
Salvidrim!, some of whom also did some minor edits to the article. I could solve the "bizarre" joint biography by splitting them into two sections, but I was not sure if that was necessary. I was also unsure of what the article's name should be, so that could be changed by anyone with a better idea than me. I was also unsure of what exactly to do with the lead.
BOZ (
talk)
22:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - the sources appear to me to be more than just local news.
1bandsaw (
talk)
23:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Nothing remarkable about this incident. Husband kills wife then tops self. Happens somewhere every day.
WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.
WWGB (
talk)
23:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per BOZ. The article's title and content can be adjusted, but the event/people have been covered by different reliable sources so there's enough content to base an article on. Also I found these additional sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/us/facing-protective-orders-and-allowed-to-keep-guns.html?_r=0 and
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/26163179.html (
Komo News) —
Jeraphine Gryphon (
talk)
08:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I think it could make a wikinews article since it is news, but the point of an encyclopedia is that you take a ton of different sources and compile them to create an encyclopedic narrative. Someone Googling this will get the same story from Wikipedia or any news article, I don't think the topic is broad enough that combining multiple sources will create anything more than is already there. Wikinews yes, Wikipedia I don't think so.
Bryce Carmony (
talk)
12:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (
G·
N·
B·
S·
RS·
Talk)
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Washington-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Crime-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. The coverage is a bit light, but it's still there. The crime was highlighted by The New York Times in an article about murder-suicides related to domestic violence, and they specifically mentioned that it "made headlines". This seems to be an implicit statement of notability on their part. I can see how people would argue that it's perhaps more applicable to Wikinews, but I think it squeaks by the GNG.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
17:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge Agree with opening (
hahnch). Notability is questionable here; but the point is that victims of this domestic violence and their lives were not so domestic. Again, agree over joint biography goof - titles and POV should be different. However, if the event has been covered by significant sources and had notable impact on relevant communities - it might be legible as article. I recommend search and presentation of sources noting enduring effects; or incorporation of information into appropriate (possibly to be created) article, timeline or list.
Fakedeeps (
talk)
18:34, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - covers barely WP:CRIME and WP:GNG but still it is within the treshold for inclusion. That is my view.--
BabbaQ (
talk)
22:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - The situation was
highlighted by the NYtimes as a case where gun control laws overshadow rights of victims of domestic victims (in 2013), and was cited by a WA state legislator in the passage of a 2014 state gun control law that involved domestic violence
[1]. (in addition to the above aspects). --
MASEM (
t)
16:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
Nominator comment - Despite the NYTimes and Fortune sources above, I'm reiterating my stance in favour of deletion. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, I'd expect significantly more coverage of a news event for it to be considered in an encyclopedia, I'd expect national sources to dedicate articles to the crime, not have a few paragraph on it half-way down on a page filled with other murders. Had it been a cultural object, such as a video game, we'd expect previews, reviews and interviews in national-level publications - we have none of this here. -
hahnch
e
n
21:54, 31 March 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 delete. The article's subject is found to not be notable. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Nadruvian language (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The is not a shred of information about the language spoken by the ages extict
Old Prussian tribe of
Nadruvians, nor whether they have a separate tongue at all, nor who they were.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Language-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk
19:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete
No mention in academia, which is why the article is unsourced, I suppose.
Brandmeister
talk
21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I was able to find 2 sources for the written material ( it is in Lithuania and it is endangered ) But I still vote delete, we have an article
Nadruvians that can easily hold the information about their language, if down the road we have so much information about their language we need to spin out an article we can then, but having 2 stubs isn't the best way to get the content developed.
Bryce Carmony (
talk)
12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- And I was able to conclude that these refs are unreliable and do not support what you added to the article, see uts talk page for detail.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
21:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The fact is that the only information about it is that it was Spoken by Nadruvians. But we know nothing about them. For all we know, they might have been speaking Obregonian.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
22:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:18, 26 March 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 delete.
Daniel (
talk)
10:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Pursuit of the Truth (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Completely
unsourced article about an "upcoming"
web series, making no claim of
notability that would satisfy either
WP:NMEDIA or
WP:WEB. While it does have an IMDb page which confirms that it aired in 2013, the mere existence of an IMDb profile is not a notability freebie in and of itself — I did both general web and news searches on
Google, as well, but found nothing like the volume of media coverage it would take to make this something that Wikipedia should have an article about (especially not one that's so poorly maintained that it still describes a two-year-old series as "upcoming"). Per
WP:NOTINHERITED, further, the fact that a couple of people who were already notable for other things were involved in it does not, in and of itself, constitute a notability freebie either, if the series isn't itself the subject of any media coverage in its own right. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
19:05, 25 March 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. The community participating in this discussion was unable to establish whether precedent outweighed
WP:NHSCHOOL. (Note: this close does not necessarily mean that the subject is notable; instead, it finds that the editors participating in the discussion were unable - and others will most likely be unable - to establish whether it was notable or not.) —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
10:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Abhay Vidhya Mandir Senior Secondary School, Hindaun City (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
There are contradictions on the page itself, claiming to serve grades 1-12, while being named a Senior Secondary School, which would imply 11-12. I suggest merging into
Hindaun#Education or a new list of the local schools if needed per
Wikipedia:Notability (high_schools)#If it.27s not notable. The school does not pass
WP:NGO per
WP:NHSCHOOL, so while it does seem to exist, an article on it does not seem appropriate.
Jerodlycett (
talk)
17:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Just want to add, it was deleted under a different name already.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shri Abhay Vidhya Mandir, Hindaun city
Jerodlycett (
talk)
17:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- It's sufficient to talk about it, not to have an entire article on it, per
WP:NHSCHOOL. I can't even seem to confirm that it's actually a secondary school, let alone a senior secondary school though. I still feel the best solution is a merger. Can you explain why you feel a keep would be better than a merger?
Jerodlycett (
talk)
19:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Local government seems to think it is:
[2]
Samsara
03:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment, wikilink the "longstanding precedent and consensus" policy/guideline/essay, please. –
Be..anyone (
talk)
13:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- While I think we need to break the precedent, and that precedent isn't enough to keep but rather just to tie-break, I do know that it's found at
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES.
Jerodlycett (
talk)
14:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks, based on that I ended up on the "schools" section of
WP:ORG, an ordinary guideline linked from the
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay. Wisely not mentioning "precedent", because this could upset folks like me, who are not exactly fans of the concept. Yes, I know where the enwiki servers are ;-) –
Be..anyone (
talk)
14:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep if sourced I think having articles on secondary schools is fine since hopefully students will look at their articles one day and think "hey maybe I can edit this and make it better" and become Wikipedians. that being said, it still needs to have sources, if it can't be referenced I think we can delete it.
Bryce Carmony (
talk)
13:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted (per Afd) article...
Neutrality
talk
04:39, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose speedy. Previous AfD consensus was based on non-verifiability. There are sources documenting the existence of the school. Please take care to use the "find sources" links at top before opining on AfDs. Thank you.
Samsara
14:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per longstanding precedent at AfD that secondary schools of confirmed existence are presumed notable.
Carrite (
talk)
12:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Can you explain why you feel a keep is better than a merger?
Jerodlycett (
talk)
03:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete both speedily and regularly and/or merge into
Hindaun. If there are multiple reliable sources for anything other than this school's mere existence, I cannot find them. Mere passing mentions in directories or news articles is not sufficient to keep this. The administrator or closer who adjudges this discussion must weigh the arguments to keep this particular article, not just act on what usually happens here and those arguments must be enough in quality to either satisfy the
WP:NHSCHOOL guideline or to set it aside as a local exception under
IAR. Arguments from "precedent" or prior consensuses here at AfD in prior cases are meaningless whereas
WP:NHSCHOOL, as a guideline, is the "established consensus" of the community per
WP:CONLIMITED. Regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
14:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
precedent: Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. There are two independent sources that show the school exists.
Samsara
16:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Your precedent argument totally ignores what is said in the
"Citing this page in AfD" section of the very page that you're citing, which boils down to saying that the idea that prior outcomes — a/k/a precedent — may be "useful" but the notability guidelines prevail:
This page is not a
policy or guideline, and previous outcomes do not bind future ones because
consensus can change. The community's actual
notability guidelines are listed in the template at the right. Notability
always requires verifiable evidence, and all articles on all subjects are kept or deleted on the basis of sources showing their notability, not their subjective importance or
relationship to something else. All articles should be evaluated individually on their merits and their ability to conform to standard content policies such as
WP:Verifiability and
WP:Neutral point of view. ... Avoid over-reliance on citing these "common outcomes" when stating one's case at Articles for Deletion. While
precedents can be useful in helping to resolve notability challenges, editors are not necessarily bound to follow past practice. When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources.
(Emphasis expanded from original.) As for your sources, the two sources you've linked above are not
reliable and even if they were, we'd need more than something than directories — which amount to passing references — which merely indicate existence. Regards,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
16:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Saying that a government document is a not a reliable source for the existence of an institution reporting to it is a pretty tall tale.
Samsara
21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, fails
WP:ORG#Schools, zero reliable references counting findthebest.in as unsourced
spam collection, multiple issues, almost orphaned (one good link from
Hindaun suggests that this is no hoax), OSM and Google Maps are apparently unaware of a school at the given coordinates. –
Be..anyone (
talk)
16:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Google Maps is useless for this area - it doesn't even have street names for most streets. Why on Earth then would you expect it to have an accurate record of the identity of individual buildings?
Samsara
21:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- 'Keep I admit the evidence here is marginal . but it is enough to verify as a secondary school, and that is all that is needed. I'm not willing to overrule a consistent rule thathasservedus well for many years in this one borderline case.
DGG (
talk )
19:46, 30 March 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 keep. (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010
Talk
03:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Waterloo Warriors (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:CLUB or
WP:GNG
Boleyn (
talk)
14:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Inclined to keep I'm sure there is plenty of press coverage, one hopes not all like the Toronto Star's "Waterloo rocked by college football doping scandal" - see refs.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- While certainly this needs further sourcing improvement, there is already some
reliable sourcing here and other sourcing can be located. In addition, there's a potential bias issue, in that would be a double-standard to claim that the elite level of American college and university varsity sports teams automatically pass our inclusion standards but the equivalent level of Canadian college and university varsity sports teams automatically fail them. For both of those reasons, I'd certainly prefer to keep, though I'd also fully accept redirection to
University of Waterloo if consensus determines that the overall quality of the article just ain't there — but top-level intercollegiate sports are a thing that Wikipedia readers do expect coverage of on here, so this is unequivocally enough of a potential search term, and has more than enough "notability in principle", that it must exist as either an article or a redirect.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep top level university team, better as a grouping all sports (as opposed to just an article about the football team, for example). With the fear of resorting to an other stuff exists sort of argument, it seems to meet we generally have these sorts of articles. For example, in Ontario alone, all the university teams have articles excepting Laurentian and Trent (and potentially now, Waterloo). There should be sources out there, and as Bearcat said, top level university sport articles are the sort of page that Wikipedia is generally expected to have.
WP:NCOLLATH is about people, but that should broadly apply to the team(s) as well, which have won national (university) championships. Poor referencing is not grounds for deletion.--
kelapstick(
bainuu)
16:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Keep This nomination appears to be based on a case of mistaken identity (see
here). This particular team is located in
Waterloo, Canada, not
Waterloo, Belgium.
Ejgreen77 (
talk)
17:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I don't think the argument for deleting this article is valid. This is a notable organization, and while the sports teams associated with the University of Waterloo are not as high profile as at some other universities, they are still worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. --
Trb333 (
talk)
17:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:39, 25 March 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 to
Ligue Francophone de Football Amercain de Belgique.
Sam Walton (
talk)
09:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Grez-Doiceau Fighting Turtles (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:CLUB or
WP:GNG
Boleyn (
talk)
14:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Belgium-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of American football-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- ' Merge and redirect' Amateur league, apparently below the level where we keep articles on the individual teams; I assume the oher teams in the league will be treated similarly.
DGG (
talk )
02:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
- so I did, but you forgot to nominate
La Louvière Wolves . I'll comment in this field, if its as obvious as this. but I'd rather not nominate
DGG (
talk )
03:44, 3 April 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 delete.
Daniel (
talk)
10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Prathik Ponnanna (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Mr. Ponnanna doesn't meet
WP:GNG. He is a candidate for the Karnataka Legislative Assembly but he doesn't hold any elected position at the present, except that he is president of a students' union. The organizations he is a member of aren't notable. The party he started and leads, Yuva Bharath Party, is a newly formed party with minimal news coverage. He also leads Yuva Codava, that is a young and small organization (200+ members according to the article) and also with minimal news coverage.
Sjö (
talk)
06:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Unless it is converted to something other than a fan page. As it stands, it looks like... No, not much I can say here that would not be construed as a personal attack. Suffice to say that the content is poorly sourced, partisan, and non-encyclopedic.
ScrapIronIV (
talk)
20:43, 27 March 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.
North America
1000
10:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Bob Knuth (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable scenic designer and art director lacking non-trivial support. Awards appear to be minor/local.
reddogsix (
talk)
03:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
17:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
17:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
17:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
17:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment-I don't know why I found the part about living with his cats the most amusing part in this article. Which that really isn't a good thing. Anyway-Delete.
Wgolf (
talk)
02:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep - he's art director for the Second City, which is a national
improv group based in Chicago. That being said, sourcing could be better.
Bearian (
talk)
18:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep easily found lots of discussion of his sets in reviews of shows "the intimacy of the space and the simplicity of Bob Knuth's shoe-box set design — which dials back big-musical expectations (an ensemble of six feels just about right) and connects you more to the cartoon, TV and movie characters that are the reasons most people are buying a ticket.
[3].
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:05, 31 March 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 by nominator.
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
20:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Tropic Zone (film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Film lacks notability. No WP:RSes have established its notability as a film.
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
05:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The article's creator removed my Notability:Film tag and said "of course its notable." He then said in the talk page: "Dude, its a movie starring Ronald Reagan, released by Paramount Pictures. Of course its notable. A quick google search could tell you that." Unfortunately, a google search does not produce any WP:RSes that I could find proving notability re:
WP:NOTFILM. And no notability is given via solely Reagan or Paramount, as said above. This movie has drifted out of memory. --
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
13:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- it had no impact, it does not meet these criteria: "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" or "deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release." or "given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release" or "was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema." or "received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." Nor was it "selected for preservation in a national archive." Nor is it "taught as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." It's not notable, so delete it.--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
13:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment It's not cut and dry. Those articles are trivial. Meaning they aren't actual sources talking about the film, but simply listing the cast and crew, not discussing notability, or anything like that. They're trivial, by Wiki standards.--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
16:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. To misquote Gwen Stefani, this [film] is bananas. Turning up online, unpaywalled sources for a 1953 B movie can take a little work, but just as Koala15 says, a Paramount theatrical release starring Ronald Reagan is self-evidently a notable picture. I've added a few sources; more can be seen (some behind paywalls or snippets) at GBooks, such as
[8]
[9] --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
15:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I would consider only the second of those a WP:RS mentioning the film non-trivially, and this movie needs "Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release" to meet the criteria WP has set previously.--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Arxiloxos (
talk)
17:20, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
18:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- SNOW Keep per easily meeting
WP:NF. An assumption that a film directed by
Lewis R. Foster, produced by
William H. Pine and
William C. Thomas and starring
Ronald Reagan,
Rhonda Fleming,
Estelita Rodriguez,
Noah Beery Jr.,
Grant Withers, and
John Wengraf is non-notable is ridiculous on its face. Pardon
nominator... but did you actually
look for sources before making up your mind, or did you chose to judge the article in an unimproved status? Film's
"other attributes to consider" are NOT mandatory criteria... they are simply suggestions to encourage diligent before. And further,
"Drifted out of memory" is NOT a deletion criteria. I urge you to read
WP:NRVE to learn that topic notability is based upon sources being available, and not upon a use or not to cite a topic.
Schmidt,
Michael Q.
20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment Okay okay, withdrawing my nomination. Also, AGF, En face, this film doesn't inherit notability, etc, etc. but I can see a lot of other people think it's notable. I did google search for sources, and as said above, it is actually pretty difficult to find them. Also, you can't just assume notability. There's a process for a reason. Even so, I'll withdraw because you all think it's notable. I recommend you all AGF, things aren't so black and white.--
Shibbolethink (
♔
♕)
20:20, 25 March 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 delete. No prejudice against creation of separate list articles based upon the Wikipedia categories of
Category:Garage rock compilation albums and
Category:Psychedelic rock compilation albums.
North America
1000
08:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
List of garage rock and psychedelic rock compilation albums (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
A list with no references and filled with mostly redlinks, should fall under
WP:NOTCATALOG and
WP:NOTREPOSITORY.
TheMesquito
buzz
01:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions. -
McMatter (
talk)/(
contrib)
01:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -
McMatter (
talk)/(
contrib)
01:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
NORTH AMERICA
1000
19:32, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - way too many redlinks, and exactly where is the link between "garage rock" and "psychedelic rock" coming in? 0 inline references, woolly inclusion criteria based on pure
WP:OR, and do we even know for a fact that these compilations all actually exist? The title also implies that the compilation albums consist of "garage rock and psychedelic rock", rather than that it lists compilations of each genre on their own.
Lukeno94
(tell Luke off here)
17:18, 25 March 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 delete and redirect.
Daniel (
talk)
10:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Hani (singer) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I don't believe Hani is independently notable outside of
EXID. She's in a few reality shows, but I think it's too soon for an individual article.
WP:BAND states this: Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Singers and musicians who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated they are independently notable.
Random86 (
talk)
07:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Korea-related deletion discussions.
Random86 (
talk)
07:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Random86 (
talk)
07:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and redirect. The article's "filmography" section makes it looks like she's had acting roles in movies or TV shows, but they're actually all variety shows. As the nom said, that activity alone doesn't qualify a person as notable. The one source in the article isn't even about the show for which it's listed. A list of variety show appearances is the kind of thing that normally gets chopped out of band and singer articles, which would leave this article with zero content. There's nothing even to merge to
EXID.
Shinyang-i (
talk)
There's nothing even to merge to
EXID ? I disagree. Hani's name in Hangul, and other personal details. If she does not currently deserve a separate article, these things should at least be added to the EXID one.
Gavin (
talk)
09:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The hangul are already in the EXID article and wouldn't require a merge to be moved anyway. The only personal detail is her birthday, which is unreferenced and can't be kept. All the TV shows are unreferenced except one, so they wouldn't be kept, either, and as I said above, lists of variety show one-offs aren't appropriate for Wikipedia anyway. I'm going to drop you a note on your talk page with some suggestions for the EXID article, okay? :)
Shinyang-i (
talk)
11:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- To any admin who may be viewing this, A Style for You and Off to School are variety (reality) shows, not acting roles. I don't know what Crime Scene is.
Shinyang-i (
talk)
04:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- not short, not guest. she is main cast in many shows. She became famous also as a television personality now.
Kanghuitari (
talk)
02:20, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
- You keep missing the point. The question isn't "main cast" or not, the issue is the type of programs she's on. She's on variety (reality) shows - read the original nomination - it quotes WP:BAND where it says that isn't enough for a standalone article!
Shinyang-i (
talk)
04:47, 2 April 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. (
WP:NPASR).
North America
1000
09:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
American Blues Theater (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I couldn't establish that this meets
WP:NOTABILITY but it was deprodded by editor who felt it needed full evaluation and could possibly meet
WP:GNG
Boleyn (
talk)
07:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
NORTH AMERICA
1000
19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
NORTH AMERICA
1000
19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep – I have to agree with the nom that evidence on the web is pretty thin. I found that surprising. I would have thought that a theater company that has survived for 30 years in a major city like Chicago would have received a ton of coverage. Perhaps it used to exist and is now gone. Online newspaper archives only go back so far. For now, my keep !vote is provisional based on the number of world premieres,
these reviews at Chicago Stage Review, and the number of Jefferson Awards – 13 awards and more nominations according to
this page. If new evidence emerges I'll change it to a definite keep. If not I may have to reconsider. We have OTRS permission for material from the company, but we can't base the whole article on that. –
Margin1522 (
talk)
17:15, 18 March 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.
MichaelQSchmidt's point is the most compelling here, but there does not seem to be a clear consensus that it makes the article's subject fully notable. Therefore, this discussion is found to have not established (via consensus) whether or not the article's subject is notable, nor whether it should be deleted. —
Coffee //
have a cup //
beans //
10:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Love at First Sight (2012 film) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not
notable. Looks to have a very impressive list of awards but none of them are major. Some are extremely minor. Has a
ridiculous number of sources but there is a lack of good sources. Most are just listings. If no sources were found, just make some
[12]
[13]
[14]. The is a lack of coverage about this film. In the current version there is no in depth reviews from recognised critics. A search found none.
A look at some of the sources.
2.
The McIvor Times
(from
Heathcote, Victoria, circulation 987
[15])
- "‘‘This was successful with more than 50 people attending the matinee session,’’ she said."
- "The jury prize, consisting of $1500 and a magnum of the limited release 2012 Jasper Hill Georgia’s Paddock Shiraz, was awarded to Love at First Sight, a romantic comedy written and directed by UK-based filmmaker Mark Playne."
- Very small town festival, trivial coverage of film.
4.
News Express of India
- "the first annual international film festival of Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies ,New Delhi"
- "In the fiction film category, an international entry ‘Love at first sight’ by Mark Playne won the first spot"
- "The winning films by the jury were given the cash prizes of more of Rs 70,000 under different categories, in the valedictory ceremony." A touch over $1000.
- Student festival, trivial coverage of film.
6.
Golden Palmera Film Festival.
- Just a listing. Not an independent reliable source.
8.
Film Festival Life
- just a listing. Not an independent reliable source.
10.
House of Shorts
- Trailer. Not an independent reliable source.
This is
advertising from paid spammers.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
11:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Spain-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I've dropped a note at
WT:FILM for more input.
Lugnuts
Dick Laurent is dead
19:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. The sheer amount of peacock language and worthless citations lead me to a knee-jerk 'delete' vote, but there are a few valid, secondary sources. The problem is whether regional film festival awards on their own are enough to satisfy
WP:NFILM. I'm not sure. But if this article is kept, it's going to be need to be rewritten.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
05:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: NFILM's pretty foursquare on what they consider notable awards: Academy Awards, BAFTAs, Palme d'Ors, that standard. Nondescript school festivals are so far from counting I can't even see them. Fails the GNG, going away. Nha Trang
Allons!
17:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: It's Not Well -
National Names 2000 (
talk)
11:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Spanish title:(Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
- Spanish title:(Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
- Keep, arrived at via applying common sense to the notability guideline: this film has been heavily screened at festivals around the world; has won what seems to be a large number of festival awards (even if not the A-list of fests, dozens of wins still seems like a big number); was premiered at the Palm Springs ShortFest which apparently has some sort of selection process and ranks alongside Sundance and Cannes as a top short film festival; is at least mentioned in a couple of RS news sources (OC Register, a triple-Pulitzer winning CA paper; Zee News, big media machine in India); features an actor (Shane Zaza) with at least one credit in a major movie (The Davinci Code); and is currently active (on sale at iTunes; web site lists multiple festival screening dates in 2015). Further, WP's notability guideline suggesting "significant coverage" is in large part to ensure that there is enough material for an article (
WP:WHYN). Here, the article even as it stands (the insane festival list aside) does have the main elements of a film article in place - plot, cast, production detail, reception - and there is more info on the film's web site (which should be an acceptable source for non-controversial info about itself). Altogether, on a continuum from home movies to Oscar-winning Hollywood blockbusters, this would seem to be far enough along to be considered more notable than not. (FYI, I have no connection with anything to do with this film, never heard of it before the last hour, realize from clicking that it is part of a multi-article effort to have it included in WP, and haven't watched it. :) --
Tsavage (
talk)
23:05, 31 March 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 delete.
Daniel (
talk)
10:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Mark Playne (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not
notable. One of his films appears to have a very impressive list of awards (many for him) but none of them are major. Some are extremely minor. Has a
ridiculous number of sources but there is a lack of good sources. Most are just listings. If no sources were found, just make some
[16]
[17]
[18]. The is a lack of coverage about Playne. In the current version there is local interest puff piece
[19] that has any depth of coverage about him. A search found none better. This is
advertising from paid spammers.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
11:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:49, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TimeQueen32.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Your "coverage" is 11 hits. First ""Love at First Sight," director Mark Playne." is the complete trivial mention. Just a listing. Second. Unrelated. Third. "In the fiction film category, an international entry ‘Love at first sight’ by Mark Playne won the first spot " That's it, trivial coverage. Fourth. "The audience choice award was given to the short film Love at First Sight by Mark Playne from United Kingdom." That;s it, trivial coverage. Fifth. "Amor a primera vista. Dirección: Mark Playne. País: Reino Unido" Just a listing. None even remotely good enough for
WP:BIO. No major awards does not meet
WP:ANYBIO.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
11:28, 23 March 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 Delete.
Michig (
talk)
07:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
The New IP (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:IMPORTANCE -- not notable, from an editorial sponsored by software-defined networking company,
Brocade Communications Systems.
nenolod (
talk) (
edits)
13:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
Additional background is seen in the article it came from --
[20], there was no mention of "the new IP" in relation to networking until then, in fact, a google search for "the new IP" shows lots of listings about intellectual property; not networking. My conclusion is that it's just wiki spam, and should be deleted. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Nenolod (
talk •
contribs)
13:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The terms New IP and The New IP were trademarked at the
USPTO by
Brocade Communications Systems on Aug 19, 2014 (t/m serial numbers: 86371458 and 86371460). I concur that this article should be deleted. The term is purely a marketing term. --
User:nickhilliard
- I also agree that the page The New IP should be deleted. In fact, if you wanted to learn what it was, the current Wikipedia page for it will get you nothing you need to know what it really is. I vote for deletion.
Seer (
talk)
17:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
14:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The interesting thing is, the Brocade CEO won't even tell people what The New IP even is. So not only is it marketing, its marketing for a product that doesn't exist yet. I agree, this should be deleted.
Diablo-D3 (
talk)
06:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Of course there are lots of new articles - the Brocade CEO has been flogging his wares. All the news articles are copy-pasterino of that and this wikipedia article that is proposed for deletion. It is a junk marketing term not an actual thing which is precisely the point - this Wikipedia article is part of the problem not the solution. It doesn't make the grade of
WP:IMPORTANCE and is
WP:PROMOTION (see 1, 2, 4 and 5) and nothing more. FWIW it may some day be an actual thing but today it isn't and the only company pushing it that's involved in tech at all (as in being non-news) are the company that owns the Trademark. Wikipedia should have all kinds of issues with that.
Streaky (
talk)
16:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: The term is as per above
WP:PROMOTION, doesn't make the grade of
WP:IMPORTANCE (the article sources are copypastrami of each other), is mostly just a link to
SDN and
NFV which this term may or may not be adverspam for (hard to really tell from any of the articles) - but the principles encapsulated would be better discussed there despite being purely marketing terms in their own right. It doesn't make the grade for notability by any standard definition but even if it hypothetically did it's just the beginning of this article's issues and why it shouldn't exist.
Streaky (
talk)
08:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete-per nom and what others have said.
Wgolf (
talk)
19:25, 29 March 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 keep--
Ymblanter (
talk)
06:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Yara Amaral (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article is an unsourced stub, not evidence of notability.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 20:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Delete as proposer.
Joseph2302 (
talk)
20:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Everymorning
talk
23:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
15:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep-The Portuguese wiki shows that she has quite a bit of notability actually. (Granted I don't know that language but looking over it....)
Wgolf (
talk)
02:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Yes
her Portuguese wikipage suggests a regular working actress. Sources include
this one, plus
here (a photo shows her featured on a magazine cover), there was a
biography written about her, she died tragically. Another source
here, also
here. One day her page got almost
2000 pageviews, a sign of interest even though of course pageview tallies are not an official measure. I think she mostly worked in Brazil (not Portugal), dying in Rio de Janeiro. Another unofficial test (I use it, usually correlates with notability): image consistency; like if we put her name in quotes, then search for "images", such as
here, the same person comes up in lots of images (not different people).--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
19:40, 29 March 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.