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 redirect to
Chris Kenner (magician). –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Totally Out of Control (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No good indication of notability. YouTube videos aside, the only refs are two book reviews and an Amazon advert. Falls way below the standard of
WP:GNG
Velella
Velella Talk
23:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
Strong keep: If Kenner's Totally Out of Control isn't notable for an article on Wikipedia, than nothing magic-related is... All the sources (besides the Amazon one) are all notable, established magic sources who's only link just happens to be through YouTube videos. I know this because I'm a professional sleight of hand artist. I also think everyone should bare in mind that finding sources for magic, cardistry or sleight of hand is very different than finding historical sources, for instance.
Jonas Vinther • (
Click here to collect your price!)
00:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C)
00:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: Here's a rundown of the sources:
Sources
|
-
Scribd. This is a merchant source, since Scribd is selling the book. Merchant sources are almost never usable as a source in any context since their primary goal is to sell the consumer something and using it on Wikipedia can be seen as an endorsement of the site or product. It's used in the article to back up the David Copperfield claim, but the problem here is that Copperfield would be a
WP:PRIMARY source at best if we wanted to quote the book since he was approached to write the foreword. As such, he's not a neutral source to comment on the book. It's highly unlikely that he'd write something negative.
-
Vanishing Magic. This is another merchant source. It's used to back up the claims that the book has a cult following. Since they're trying to sell the consumer something (or were at some point in time), they're going to say things to make the book appealing. It might be a cult classic, but we can't rely on the merchant site to back up these claims.
-
YouTube. YT videos are sort of a grey area. You first need to be able to prove that the uploader owns the rights to the video, then you need to prove that this would be a reliable source. I haven't gone through the video entirely yet (offhand it looks to be a general discussion of the library, not of any specific book), but I will say that inclusion in a library does not automatically mean that a book is notable enough for an entry, at least not at this point in time. At this point it's used as an exclusionary tool in that we can say that if a book isn't in any libraries, it's unlikely to have any sources. If it is in a library, then that makes it likely that sources will exist but will be neither a guarantee nor notability giving in and of itself.
-
YouTube. Same issue here. Both of these videos seem to be used more to back up the claims for Kalush and aren't really being used to show how the book specifically is notable. I also get the impression that it's trying to say that the book is notable because this is where Sybil was first written about for the first time. This isn't necessarily something that would give notability since you would still have to show where this was notable by way of independent and reliable sources specifically discussing the book.
-
YouTube, Wired. Same issues, we need to be able to explicitly show that this is about the book.
-
YouTube, Kenner. Interviews are tricky. Sometimes they can be usable for notability, but you need to show that the people publishing the interview could be used as a reliable source. What makes it unlikely that Theory11 would be usable is because they are a merchant source. A look at
their website shows that they sell cards. This doesn't really make them the greatest of sources, to be honest.
-
Amazon. Another merchant source. One thing to mention about this is that it's being used to back up claims that the book is rare and expensive. You can't use things like this to back that up because prices on merchant sites like that are entirely set by the seller and book prices are one of those things that rarely show notability for a work. An especially rare or pricey book can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's far from a guarantee.
|
- Basically, none of these sources are particularly strong at first glance. Only a few of the YT sources are potentially usable and I'm only saying that because I haven't had the chance to really look at them yet. I have a strong suspicion that if the book is mentioned, it's mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all. If you're trying to assert notability for a specific act then that's the sort of thing that would best be covered in an article about the magician rather than the book. This is partially because it's usually easier to assert notability for a person rather than one of their works. What we need here are things like reviews of the work itself and citations in reliable sources. YT sources in general are usually greatly depreciated on here because anyone can upload a video (meaning that there are questions about editorial control, oversight, and other typical
WP:RS concerns) and copyright issues tend to be a common problem. Unless the people/person uploading the videos are extremely well known and reliable, they're usually seen as trivial or unusable sources.
- Now I'm aware that this is in a niche genre and as such, will be unlikely to really have a lot of coverage. However it's still necessary for an article. That's why it might be a better idea to create an article for the magician himself rather than keep an article for the book. I haven't made up my mind yet and I still have to really look at the sources, but so far the sourcing here is fairly weak.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
11:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- So far I've found one source, but it'd be a good one to establish that Kenner himself is a notable figure rather than notability for the book. It discusses his Sibyl card move and does mention the book, but only briefly. It may not do much for the book, but it does show that he's influential. If I can find a few more for him in general, I'll try to make an article for Kenner and support a redirect there. So far though, this doesn't really do an awful lot to show that the book specifically is notable.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
11:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
-
-
-
- I've added yet another reliable source, "Quality Magic Books". I think it's pretty clear the book is notable now...
Jonas Vinther • (
Click here to collect your price!)
17:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Quality Magic Books looks to be a database at best and I can't really see anything about their editorial oversight when it comes to the reviews they post. That the
About Us page links to a website where people can purchase things mentioned on QMB doesn't really help either. The
conference link would be considered a
WP:PRIMARY source at best, since bios of this nature are almost always written by the person or their representative and Kenner would be linked to the conference because he was involved with it to some degree. The
Bicycle Cards doesn't really help either. I'd consider it a potentially usable RS when it comes to an article about the author, but it wouldn't be usable to show notability for the book itself, as it doesn't actually mention the book at all. It mentions the cut, but not the book. This might have been where it was first published, but that doesn't automatically mean that the book is notable.
To be very honest, I think that your energy would be far better spent writing an article about Kenner himself rather than trying to rescue the article for the book. The basic info about the book can be covered in an article about Kenner and while I know that this isn't your ideal, this would still mean that the book's information would be on Wikipedia somewhere rather than an outright deletion.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
09:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I see that you have created an article, so my suggestion is that this redirect to
Chris Kenner (magician) with history. If sources ever do become available in the future they can be added and restoration sought, but right now I just don't see where the book is independently notable outside of Kenner. He is the creator of a notable card flourish, but books do not automatically become notable because it is the first place something is mentioned for the first time. It can make it more likely that there will be coverage, but it's never a guarantee.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
09:10, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- delete A book with only 30 magic tricks? Notable? You be kidding. I don't buy an argument that sleight of hand is a niche subject: it is simply not. - üser:Altenmann
>t
- You ... clearly... don't know what counts for "only" in the magic business. I've been introducing myself as a sleight of hand artist since 2009 whenever I perform, and not once have I ever experienced a person not saying, "a what artist?".
Jonas Vinther • (
Click here to collect your price!)
00:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Please don't confuse the knowledge of an average American and notability criteria in wikipedia. (I bet most of them dont remember who
John Tyler is.) There are tons of books about magic business and magicians. Even I own two (besides collections of tricks for kidz). - üser:Altenmann
>t
00:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Magic-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:57, 13 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Pantlessness (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is just a collection of trivial mentions of people not wearing pants on some occasion or other. The most notable claim, that it's "one of the fashion trends of 2010", is at the very least inflated--
the article does list it, but only after five "real" trends are discussed, and then only in a long list: "Fringing, military details, leather, ruffles, sheer fabrics, animal prints, bows, clogs and lower heels, one-shoulder dresses, cycling shorts, jumpsuits, peplums, genie pants, fur shag coats, capes, pantsless-ness, plaids and checks, draping and knotting, lace tights, sweat pants, tattoos, bodysuits, body-con dresses, blazers and military jackets, vintage and chintz florals, miniskirts and mini-dresses". In other words, it's nothing. We really can't be writing up articles that collect trivia--and one wonders if this article really isn't just an excuse to put up pictures of girls without pants riding the subway (File:No Pants Subway Ride 2011 Seattle.jpg). Hits in Google Books are trivial, passing mentions; hits in JSTOR and EBSCO don't exist; Expanded Academic Index gives only one hit, where the word is jocularly used in a caption in Esquire.
Drmies (
talk)
19:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep/merge It seems that the edit history is entwined with that of
No Pants Day and so we should be keeping it for attribution. No Pants Day seems to be a definite thing in the US but there's more to say about the global concept which is
big in Japan, for example. See also
sans-culottes for the French revolutionary take on this. And I, myself, created the article
Donald Where's Your Troosers? which celebrates a
True Scotsman...
Andrew D. (
talk)
20:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Andrew Davidson, I hope the devil pays you well for having you on retainer--you must be playing devil's advocate, which is always appreciated. But sans-culottes isn't even in the same ballpark in terms of significance (this concerns a bunch of jokers in their underwear comfortably riding the subway), and the Donald article has decent sourcing, including a real book from a real publisher. (You must admit the sourcing in this article is lousy, and there was even worse stuff in earlier versions.) I would not oppose a merge, I reckon. Thanks,
Drmies (
talk)
23:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - fails
WP:NEO. The actual term "pantlessness" (coined as a fashion term) hasn't been discussed enough - so most of this is
WP:SYNTH with random things about people wearing no pants.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
22:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
- @
Andrew Davidson: "Pantslessness" is still a neologism as it's not an accepted word. Not everything is better converted to a noun title if that noun is essentially made up, even if using the common format -ness suffix for -less words (ie awarelessness, hammerlessness, motivationalessness etc.). If you want an article on
pantless you would have a better shot.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
08:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
13:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: they are in the process of receiving rather more than a
WP:TROUT at the moment: see
WP:AN/I. --
The Anome (
talk)
15:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as listcruft with no meaningful content. WP:SYNTH is also an issue.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
21:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete An admin should know better than to create this bullshit. Non-notable. No meaningful, encyclopaedic content.
AusLondonder (
talk)
22:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Pantlessness, pointlessness. Unencyclopedic, not meaningfully cited sub-topic of
nudism, also likely a
WP:COATRACK for something else.
Gwen Gale (
talk)
00:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Dab to "no pants day" "Sans Culottes" and "Donald where's yer troosers" All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
23:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC).
reply
- Delete Being British I thought this had something to do with
Going commando, but it appears this was just
a random phrase somebody made up one day and attempted to throw sources at the term to make it stick.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
12:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:TNT, a huge hot mess, this article proves that one man's trivia is another's synthesis.
Bearian (
talk)
20:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete original research.
sst✈
discuss
08:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Erm, why does this trivial solipsistic article have a
WP:FURTHERREADING section with 14 (yes 14) items, as if it is an FA biography of Einstein?
Softlavender (
talk)
09:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I removed some of them despite the inevitable deletion coming.
AusLondonder (
talk)
10:05, 11 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 keep. (
non-admin closure)
Ya
sh
!
00:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Antonina Lebedeva (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Minor medal. No major accomplishments. The same routine coverage as all Soviet era female pilots.
DGG (
talk )
19:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as per obvious Wikipedia bias against women.
24.114.78.27 (
talk)
21:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - seriously? female fighter pilots in WWII were rare. The reason for the "same routine coverage as all Soviet era female pilots" is because they are all celebrated as heroes. She shot down three planes and fought during the
Battle of Stalingrad. Nom apparently ignorant of the huge gigantic significance of the Battle of Stalingrad that still exists today. She had additional focus as her remains and wreckage were not discovered until 1982.
[1] She was given a burial with an obelisk. She has a street named after her in the city near where she was found. There was a book published about her in 1985 and she's featured in a book about female fighter pilots. Shameful nomination.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep article about her in Russian is solidly referenced, so what is good for them is good for others, even americans, I should say. And my opinion has some weight, as personally I should regard those fighters pilots, female or other, as enemies who tried to kill my grandparents, well, not her personally, but colleagues. (Bombing of Tallinn 9 March 1944; there was rumor that to celebrate Women's Day this bombing was done by female pilots; nice thought but historically untrue.) But as good historian I respect my enemies and give them all credit of being war heroes/heroines. - Same goes about another deleted article about Claudia smth... Claudia Nechayeva. Клавдия Андреевна Нечаева, russian article about her is in good order, or looks like, and their colleagues. I'd rather prefer them to have separate articles, even short ones, not to merge into one like 'female soviet pilots' or even their Regiment 586 (полк № 586) - what, actually, might have separate article. Russian wikipedia does not, unfortunately, maybe because they all have separate articles.
BirgittaMTh (
talk)
22:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep interesting article. Sufficient coverage.
·maunus ·
snunɐɯ·
04:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Military-related deletion discussions. —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
14:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - As noted, the Russian article makes it pretty clear she's notable (as do sources when searching for her name in English/Russian). —
Rhododendrites
talk \\
14:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Subject passes #5 of
WP:MILPEOPLE. According to
this,
Order of the Patriotic War award is only given to those who have done some important heroic deeds during the German-Soviet War. Since she had received that award, it's clear that the subject played an important role in a significant military event. Now,
a full article in Russian language,
another full article,
significantly about the subject,
this,
this,
this,
this,
this,
this,
this,
this and many more, will certainly make the subject pass
WP:GNG and
WP:ANYBIO with ease. Ping
DGG to reconsider.
Jim Carter
13:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep this appears to be a major gaff or oops moment on AfD because it clearly doesn't belong here. Sometimes I believe editors nominate stubs because it's easier then writing. --
MurderByDeadcopy
"bang!"
20:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The article could certainly be improved with the addition of material from its Russian language counterpart, but per
WP:SURMOUNTABLE, that is not a reason to delete. Passes
WP:GNG.
Hawkeye7 (
talk)
01:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - pretty obviously meets
WP:GNG, and per Hawkeye7, the Russian Wiki article can be used to improve it.
Peacemaker67 (
crack... thump)
23:00, 12 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 keep. Consensus seems to be to keep the season page and merge the individual team pages to the season page. (
non-admin closure)
ansh
666
11:18, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Cricket All-Stars Series 2015 (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I am also nominating the following related pages:
-
Sachin's Blasters (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
-
Warne's Warriors (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
At the moment we don't know that there is going to be more than just this one "Cricket All-Stars Series", so all the information contained in this article, along with
Sachin's Blasters and
Warne's Warriors can be supplied at
Cricket All-Stars, with the possibility of a split later on, when there is enough subject matter to warrant multiple articles.
Harrias
talk
18:45, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —
Spaceman
Spiff
07:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep the 2015 series page. The official website of the tournament is titled "
Cricket All Stars 2015". Cricinfo calls the tournament as "
Cricket All-Stars Series, 2015/16". Tendulkar
has said there will be more such series across the world in the coming years. When all those leagues (IPL, BBL, CPL) started, I'm sure there was a separate article for the inaugural season along with a main article about the league. So why can't this have one too?
117.192.160.213 (
talk)
09:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge all per nom is probably the best solution, but certainly delete Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors per
Aspirex.
Jack |
talk page
13:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge into
Cricket All-Stars.
Umais Bin Sajjad (
talk)
14:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep season page, because this is a recurring event, but merge teams.
Coderzombie (
talk)
18:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- As the tournament is a world-wide tournament, do not delete it. But as everyone said Merge it. The deletion of this article is not good at all. Also as in 2014 cricket season which added
Bicentenary Celebration match, it is good to add this one to the
International cricket in 2015-16 page within other tournaments section.
Gihan Jayaweera (
talk) 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- Side comment: "international cricket" has a specific definition, and neither this series nor the Bicentenary Celebration match technically fits it.
Aspirex (
talk)
08:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
10:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
10:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge the 2015 page with the main one, and Delete Sachin's Blasters and Warne's Warriors, per SpacemanSpiff. —
Vensatry
(Talk)
08:10, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep the
season page, and Merge
Sachin's Blasters and
Warne's Warriors into the
main page. I completely agree with what
TheProudEditor suggested.
SWASTIK 25 (
talk)
10:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge as per above. Teams are not notable as stand alone articles and don't play official Twenty20 cricket.
PinchHittingLeggy (
talk)
17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as per ProudEditor.
The C of E God Save the Queen! (
talk)
09:30, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge with
Cricket All-Stars. Cricket All-Stars is undoubtedly a very big event, but it is still not sure whether more seasons will be held or not.
Bharatiya29 (
talk)
11:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge the teams into the
Cricket All Stars but Keep the season page.
Matt294069
is coming
01:35, 16 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Clare Ann Matz (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Tagged for notability and other concerns for quite some time, the article subject has requested deletion. After a preliminary search I have not found sources which would demonstrate notability under WP:ARTIST or WP:BASIC, although I am mindful of one claim made in the previous AfD. --
joe decker
talk
16:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete When I was working on the article about her mother (
Mary Jane Phillips-Matz) in 2013, I stumbled on this article in quite a disastrous state (basically, a pasted-in CV). The following is what I wrote on
Talk:Clare Ann Matz in 2013 and it still applies now...
- "I have extensively edited this article for encyclopedic style and tone, and added as many references as I could find. However, not only are many of the claims unsupported, there is nothing here that indicates the subject meets our notability guidelines. The references which are in the article merely confirm with name listing certain minor TV presenting jobs, the authorship of a few articles in not particularly notable publications, performance announcements, etc. I can find no reviews of any of her work and no evidence that anyone has actually written about her. The claim to having exhibited at the Venice Biennale is not quite what it seems, and was definitely misunderstood at the AfD for this article. She was simply a performance artist, one of a very large group, who presented a performance as part of the Biennale program. I'm afraid if no further references can be found showing substantial and significant coverage of this subject, it will be brought to AfD again."
- Given that and the subject's request, deletion is appropriate in this case.
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News media-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Italy-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:33, 13 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 delete per
WP:SNOW. Note my comments at the bottom for explanation as to why this was moved.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
09:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Dallas Buyer's Club Jared Leto (
|
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 that I am sure what this is about, but it does not seem worth a standalone article; its very skimpily referenced.
TheLongTone (
talk)
15:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - yet another class essay that should be a criteria for Speedy Deletion but people can't get it together. Editor
User:J chotto states he is student editor and is in women's studies class this fall. -
—Мандичка
YO 😜
16:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete completely unnecessary when
Dallas Buyers Club has its own article. Fancruft at best.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
20:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Delete - Already an article on
Jared Leto and DBC. --
CNMall41 (
talk)
23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Can we please get a snow delete here?
—Мандичка
YO 😜
05:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. While there might be room in
Dallas Buyer's Club to include some brief discussion of the controversy about Leto's role, this is not, per
WP:SOAPBOX, a topic that gets a standalone article about it as a thing in its own right separate from the film itself. I fully understand and even agree with the desire to speedy it, but I'm not sure I see a speedy criterion it can actually be done on — although we could conceivably stretch G11 (advertising/promotion) slightly to accomodate promotion of a viewpoint rather than a commercial product or entity, I'm not quite comfortable enough to do that myself (though I wouldn't object if somebody else wanted to pull that trigger.)
Bearcat (
talk)
16:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as I simply see nothing to suggest better.
SwisterTwister
talk
22:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I'm going to go ahead and close this, but since this is a class assignment I'm going to move this back to their sandbox so that they can look to see if any of this could be merged into the article for the film. I'm also aware that some teachers require some sort of proof that the student performed the work, so this is also a factor. I will note, however, that Leto's role is already mentioned at
Dallas_Buyers_Club#Reception, but this could be expanded somewhat to encompass some things that aren't in the article or aren't fully explored. This should not be taken as an endorsement for the article to be recreated or the content to be added as is.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
09:04, 13 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Anna Mandrax (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Well, there are claims of notability but the main claim is membership of a band on which there is not an article. Other than this, there isd little that I can see here to confer inderpendant notability. References are shonky to put it very kindly.
TheLongTone (
talk)
14:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
I hear you, Thelongtone. I know they were the most active psychobilly band in Stockholm during their existence but Im still looking for better references, Ill probably send a message to the band asking for any solid press coverage they or she might've received. And Ill continue to work on improving the article over the next few days. Thanks,
Streetdope (
talk)
05:01, 7 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Hindi Movies (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:GNG - two mentions of the channel being launched does not add up "significant coverage" by reliable sources as required.
Brianhe (
talk)
13:14, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
13:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Looks like it's not an over-the-air or cable channel, but a channel that is part of one of those '1,000's of online 'channels' for one low fee' providers that are of questionable legality. Can't really source this as having much reach outside of questionable means.
Nate • (
chatter)
15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: The article contains the website of the channel. So now the article contains 3 sources.
ЖunalForYou
☎️
📝
15:28, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The company's website as a
WP:PRIMARY source certainly doesn't count at all.
Nate • (
chatter)
17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- delete as per nomination
Jimmy Aneja (
talk)
19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Researching this is complicated by the fact that "Hindi movies" and even "Hindi movies channel" are used in a generic sense far more often than in reference to this particular service. Nevertheless, I tried, and all I could find were copies of the press release anouncing its launch and sources merely noting its availability.
Yamgo TV may be notable, but that does not extend to each the channels it offers. (Also, the article is full of misinformation: this is not a cable, satelite, or IPTV channel; it is delivered over the public internet.) ~
Ningauble (
talk)
17:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - As Ningauble said, researching this was a bear, due to the commonality of the name. Not enough in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources to show it passes either
WP:GNG or
WP:NCORP.
Onel5969
TT me
15:03, 14 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 keep. Article could do with some expansion but anywho consensus is to keep (
non-admin closure) –
Davey2010
Talk
03:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Harvey World Travel (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Questionably notable and improvable because although I found
this (which included its company history
here),
here,
here,
here and
here but none of these suggest obvious convincingly better improvement. Pinging editors
Dmol,
Grahamec and
Apparition11 and also Australian users
Shaidar cuebiyar and
Coolabahapple.
SwisterTwister
talk
21:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
21:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
14:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Harvey World Travel is/was a well known travel franchise in Australia, most major towns and cities had/have at least one agency. Enough of the background, this is what i have found online (most of which are mentions and may be deemed trivial?):
[4] - Helloworld says rebranded Jetset group from
The Australian of 22 July 2013 - "JTG chief executive Rob Gurney said the success of the new brand would largely depend on the take-up by the group's existing 1700 bricks and mortar agencies branded either Jetset, Harvey World Travel, Travelscene American Express or Travelworld.",
[5] - Harvey World Travel says hello to new venture from
The Border Mail of 28 December 2013 - "HARVEY World Travel in Albury and Wangaratta will be jetting into a new brand over the holiday period. Helloworld is a super brand created by merging Harvey World Travel, Travelscene, Jetset and Travelworld.",
[6] - Jetset Travelworld will launch a new retail network called helloworld in a move that is likely to spell the end of its existing brands. from
Travel Weekly (Australia) of 22 July 2013 - "Harvey World Travel, Travelscene, Jetset and Travelworld will be replaced with helloworld, with JTG expecting the first stores to adopt the new brand in the final three months of the year.",
[7] - Family firm alters travel brand from
The Newcastle Herald of 12 January 2014 - "THE well-known chain of Harvey World travel agencies run by Newcastle’s Pearson family has come under the wing of getaway juggernaut Flight Centre.". ps. "Aussie editor?", just because there are
big bunnies bouncing around in the hills where I live...
Coolabahapple (
talk)
03:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep – Meets
WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to:
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12],
[13],
[14],
[15],
[16],
[17],
[18].
North America
1000
12:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment – @
SwisterTwister: Please consider the sources I posted above, and how they demonstrate the
company's notability.
North America
1000
07:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I suppose those are some good sources but I'll keep this open in case anyone else wants to comment. I may also be willing to add the sources.
SwisterTwister
talk
07:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Although this was recently relisted so comments may come later, I wonder if
Flat Out can give any Australian insight.
SwisterTwister
talk
07:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment
SwisterTwister, Harvey World Travel is a well known brand, in no small part due to their extensive radio advertising. I see three good quality sources, one from Sydney Morning Herald and two from the Australian Financial Review.
Flat Out (
talk)
22:51, 9 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Vertigo Bliss (
|
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 came across this article as an
A7, but the article asserts that the band has performed with notable persons/groups. That's enough to give a weak assertion of notability, enough to where A7 doesn't entirely fit. A search, however, doesn't show where this band would pass notability guidelines as a whole. I found some routine mentions of local performances, but not really anything about the group itself. Other than that, the only thing that they really received coverage for is a rock concert they launched the same year they created the band.
If anyone can find coverage then I'm willing to withdraw, but I just can't seem to really find good evidence of notability.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
10:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The only coverage I found was the news article on the charity concert already cited in the article. The article states that the band 'shared the stage' with some notable bands. 'Shared the stage' is a phrase that should be banned from Wikipedia as it generally just means someone played a support slot at a concert featuring someone more notable. --
Michig (
talk)
10:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Washington-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:57, 13 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 Keep as the current article is more acceptable (NAC).
SwisterTwister
talk
19:48, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Dana Thomas (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Questionably notable and improvable journalist article as the best I found was
this,
this,
this and
this and therefore I simply see no convincingly better improvement (at best the article could somehow be mustered to a borderline better article but it's still questionable). This article has also stayed the same since started by the subject herself since September 2008.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News media-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep – Passes
WP:AUTHOR point #3. The subject has played a major role in creating a well-known work, authoring the book Gods and Kings: The Rise and Fall of Alexander McQueen and John Galliano. Furthermore, the book has received many reviews in reliable sources. Source examples include, but are not limited to:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5].
North America
1000
10:11, 6 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Jacques Kemp (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Questionably notable and improvable as the best I found was
this so unless there are some other better sources, I'm not seeing much here to keep and improve this article from January 2007. Pinging
Joe Decker,
Diannaa,
Cyclopia,
Izno,
Lhynard,
Anastrophe and
Dwarf Kirlston.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Not particularly notable, but not un-notable either. The article had a lot more flesh way back when, the problem was it was largely unsourced. For me it's in the Don't Care column.
Anastrophe (
talk)
06:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
GNews gets us
[21] and
[22]. The first might questionably be said to be about Kemp, but it reads more like it's about the company for which he is CEO. The second is only a brief mention that he's a venture capitalist.
In GBooks, he's jointly published Management Frameworks: Aligning Strategic Thinking and Execution with 2 others, and he has a number of mentions in other books, some in enough detail to pass the
WP:GNG I think. I could go either way, but I'm leaning to keep. --
Izno (
talk)
11:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep He is a CEO of an important company. He is notable.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
02:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I see two sources in the article which have the person as main subject, so it meets
WP:GNG. --
cyclopia
speak!
21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The bloomberg writeup (listed in the article as Business Week)is routine information they include for every executive. Much of it is based on information the person themselves furnishes. We have never in recent years treated them as RSs for notability , though like similar cvs, they are usable for uncontested routine biographical facts. He is not head of a major company; he i head of a geographic division of a major company, though it is possible that the copany is important enough that the heads of such divisions might be notable, but ti cannot be assumed. The article contains unsourced adjective of praise eg "famous. The Harvard Business Review item is a book review ofa book he is one of three coauthors--it can contribute to notability but by itself it does not prove it. The books itself is not notable or particularly important, WorldCat shows it in 88 libraries only
[23]. Important books in this field are in many hundred. The book is not in the library of any major business school in the Northeast US--not Columbia, NYU,Harvard, Yale,Dartmouth, Cornell, nor in UChicgo, U Calif. U Washington, etc. , nor in NYPL, which buys very extensively nontechnical businessbooks also.
DGG (
talk )
00:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - being the CEO of a company does not give one automatic notability. Business profiles in trade magazines also shouldn't be used for notability. Searches turned up brief mentions of him, but nothing in-depth enough to show they pass
WP:GNG.
Onel5969
TT me
15:34, 14 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 keep. For now. Can be renominated if the condition of the article doesn't improve. (
non-admin closure)
Ya
sh
!
00:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Leonard Filgate (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Questionably improvable article as the best I instantly found was
this,
this,
this and
this and this hasn't changed since starting in December 2008. Pinging
Chowbok,
Felix Folio Secundus and
Coolabahapple (BTW, what's the origin of this username, Coolabahapple).
SwisterTwister
talk
17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
17:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Keep, meets
WP:GNG, or at least the rip squeak books do, as i have found these:
[24] -
Publishers Weekly - "suffers from a surfeit of cuteness" and "If the text borders on the trite ... the artwork fares marginally better.",
[25] - Through The Looking Glass Children’s Book Reviews (online journal, may not be useable for notability?) - "Beautifully illustrated with rich and colorful paintings, this book is a joy to read.",
[26] - SDSU (San Diego State University) Children's Literature Reviews - "Not only is the storyline of Rip Squeak and His Friends engaging, but the illustrations by Leonard Filgate enliven Rip Squeak's world.",
[27] - 2003
Independent Publisher Book Awards Results - Rip Squeak and His Friends Discover the Treasure - finalist in Children's Picture Book (7 & over) category,
[28] -
Midwest Book Review Children's Bookwatch of January 2010 - ""The Adventure, Rip Squeak and Friends" is beautifully illustrated with paintings of ship, crew, and monster/friend Salvadore. Children ages 6 and up will love this colorful ship story." ps. editors who wish to guess as to my name origin are welcome to leave messages on my talkpage
Coolabahapple (
talk)
01:43, 27 October 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 has been improved and there have been no comments other than the mom that support deletion. (
non-admin closure)
Ya
sh
!
00:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
The Wee Blue Book (
|
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:NBOOK.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
13:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The article was
proposed for deletion, but another user removed the tag with the rationale: "Removed notice as numerous links establishing notability have been listed in the Talk page". There are six links given on the talk page. The first is a blog about Northern Ireland politics (Slugger O'Toole). The article in the Independent about
Cybernats in general, rather than this book specifically. The third link (Common Space) is an interview of Stuart Campbell (the publisher of this book) about his activities during the Scottish referendum, while the fourth (The Herald) is a list of nominations for book of the year (with the WBB mentioned only in passing). The fifth is a political site effectively advertising the book and the sixth is an opinion piece in a Canadian newspaper about the referendum in general. None of these sources go into in-depth coverage of the book.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
14:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
The discussion below is copied from the article talk page
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
17:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- So what? Those which are are very prominent and widely-read blogs, far outstripping the readership of many newspapers. The others ARE newspapers, in addition to those already cited in the entry. If being nominated as one of the Books Of The Year by the Herald - the oldest continually-published newspaper in the world - doesn't count as "notable", clearly nothing is going to satisfy you.
AlanLertreader (
talk)
14:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- So what? The point is that it does not satisfy
WP:NBOOK, the notability guideline for books. Has it been subject to at least two non-trivial works in independent sources? No. Has it won a major literary award? No. Is it considered by independent sources to have made a significant contribution to a political movement? No. Is it taught in schools? No. Is the book's author especially notable? No.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
14:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- According to your personal interpretation. Other people's differ. If you'd like a very long list of coverage of the *author* in the press to establish their notability, I can certainly help you. But you could start with his own entry on Wikipedia. And since that, of course, wouldn't be there at all if he wasn't acceptably notable, you'd be pretty scuppered already.
AlanLertreader (
talk)
15:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- You have clearly not read
WP:NBOOK. The point about an "especially notable author" is that in some cases, you may have a very famous writer who has a lesser known work that does not satisfy the other guidelines. With all due respect, Stuart Campbell does not qualify as "so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable" (to quote the guideline fully). As the guideline goes on to say, the fact that Stuart Campbell is personally notable by Wikipedia's standards is not relevant. Instead, the point is that the book's author is of "exceptional significance and the author's life and body of written work would be a common subject of academic study" Again, Mr Campbell does not qualify on this basis.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I did read it. This bit seemed pertinent: "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or POLITICAL or religious movement." (My caps.) Numerous "reliable sources" have been listed to that effect. A million copies distributed among an electorate of just 4m is plainly significant by itself, even before considering the content. Your unexplained animosity is blinding you.
AlanLertreader (
talk)
16:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
This deletion request seems politically-motivated, which goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. Regardless of anyone's feelings towards the content, the publication was clearly a notable part of the referendum debate, partly evidenced by the fact it is still a talking point thirteen months later. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
213.1.245.202 (
talk)
10:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:AGF. Presumably if the book is such a "talking point" or a "notable part of the referendum debate", you would be able to provide evidence of this?
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
10:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Hmmm. I can only agree this is a politically motivated request for deletion. The importance and influence of this one publication at the end of the referendum campaign is clear to anyone who was there. Oops, original research? Others have provided links. Those advocating deletion seem to be hanging their case on a disingenuous argument based on the fact that the bloody book was so much despised by the union-supporting media that they did their best to ignore it. Leave the article alone, it's not doing anyone any harm. The book isn't
Animal Farm but it was easily significant enough for a Wikipedia entry.
Morag Kerr (
talk)
19:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- If the book was that important, surely the parts of the media that were sympathetic towards independence (say the
Sunday Herald) would have covered it? Or international sources, without an axe to grind? If it were that important, surely the pro-union media would have covered it to at least the extent of saying "this book is wrong and this is why"?
WP:MERCY applies to the "it's not doing anyone any harm" plea.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Given the arcane, often seemingly trivial content seen elsewhere on Wikipedia (with all due respect) an entry for such a self-funded, self-published, mass appeal phenomenon during such an historic democratic exercise seems perfectly justified. Motivations for wanting its removal can only be guessed at.
86.145.101.87 (
talk)
12:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- "Or international sources, without an axe to grind?" They did, as per the example already linked. (ABC.es) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.27.237.203 (
talk)
17:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Again, please
assume good faith in other users. As for your arguments: "trivial content seen elsewhere" -
other stuff exists; the fact it was self-funded and published is irrelevant. The crux of the argument for keeping the article is that the book had a significant impact on the
Scottish independence referendum, 2014. You have not provided any evidence of this.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
12:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- A Book Of The Year nomination in a national newspaper is clear evidence of that, which for some reason you're dismissing out of hand as having been "in passing", despite such nominations being the entire and sole point of the article in question. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.27.237.203 (
talk)
13:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I see that while Jmorrison230582 has leapt within minutes on every other comment on this page, he's still got no retort to the above point a day later. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.27.237.203 (
talk)
11:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I believe that I already addressed that above ("the fourth (The Herald) is a list of nominations for book of the year (with the WBB mentioned only in passing)").
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
11:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- No you didn't, because as I noted above, saying it's "in passing" is a ludicrous statement when the *only purpose* of the article is to nominate books for the award. You haven't offered any counter to that. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
92.27.237.203 (
talk)
14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The mention in
The Herald ("Finally, Wings Over Scotland's Wee Blue Book is both iconic and of continuing value.") would only be relevant for one of two reasons per
WP:NBOOK: if the book won a literary award (it didn't) or if the source talked about the book in some detail and depth (it didn't).
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
15:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:NBOOK stipulates, as has already been noted, that the required criteria include that "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable or significant [...] event or political or religious movement." It further notes that only one of the criteria it lists is required for inclusion. Regardless of whether awards were won, regardless of the "depth" of coverage, that criterion seems to be more than amply satisfied by the numerous links posted.
92.27.237.203 (
talk)
17:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The book has been mentioned by numerous newspapers at home, as well as the Wall Street Journal and other international publications such as the Canadian HuffPo. It is also mentioned as being important in perhaps the only book (as of yet) to seriously examine the 2014 referendum: Prof. Mike Gardiner's Time and Action in the Scottish Independence Referendum. Admittedly, the sourcing on the article could be improved, and currently the WBB probably only just satisfies the criteria set out by WP:Book, but I think we should keep it, or, if this debate closes as delete, merge it with Mr Campbell's entry.
Hillbillyholiday
talk
05:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I can see why this article was listed as an AfD, especially being written by a person who has been such a controversial figure. But there has been quite a bit of info added to the article itself, since it was nominated. The number of downloads of this book was huge (especially considering the penetration of the target audience, i.e. download figures per head of population) which occurred over just a one-month period between the book being published and the Scottish Independence referendum vote taking place. So, although it is a book relating to a very specific time period, it seems worthy of being kept. I reckon it passes
WP:GNG or number 3 of
WP:NBOOK where the event is the referendum itself.
Drchriswilliams (
talk)
22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
21:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
21:07, 5 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
Double Mooring Thana. No keep votes, and creating a redirect at least keeps the history, if at a later time it becomes clearer that this is an actual defined area. (
non-admin closure)
Onel5969
TT me
15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Chittagong Madar Bari (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is a neighborhood, as stated in the poorly attended first deletion discussion. West Madarbari and East Madarbari are city council wards in
Chittagong. West Madarbari and part of East Madarbari are in
Double Mooring Thana. The remainder of East Madarbari is in
Kotwali Thana.
There are no shortage of Google hits for Madarbari (filter out the village in India with -Assam), but they are mere mentions (e.g. "fire service responded to an incident in East Madarbari"). I couldn't find non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources as called for by
WP:GEOLAND.
Redirecting to the next most general level would be problematic because the neighborhood is spread over two thanas. It would have to redirect to
Chittagong City Corporation or
Chittagong. In any case, the article title, "Chittagong Madar Bari" is not a plausible redirect.
The only sourced fact in the article is that Mazharul Islam Chowdhury is councilor for Chittagong ward 30, East Madarbari. The unsourced remainder is useless. This is a case for
WP:TNT. If someone wants to write two articles about the two legally recognized wards, fine, but this shambles of a neighborhood article is not a suitable starting point for that.
Worldbruce (
talk)
07:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions.
Worldbruce (
talk)
07:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete in any case if it cannot be improved as the current version could certainly be better but of course that's not surprising with these Middle Eastern subjects. Thanks again
Worldbruce for pinging as I'm always open to be pinged about any subject I encountered but I'm also curious what impulsed you to actually nominate it again (I often wish to relist them myself again and will if I have the enthusiasm and actually will have to go through my list as I never remove those from my watchlist). Cheers,
SwisterTwister
talk
07:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Actually now that I look through your recent contributions, it seems you were patrolling orphaned Bangladesh geography articles.
SwisterTwister
talk
07:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Double Mooring Thana as suggested at the first afd. Neighborhoods need either some formal definition, on consistent use in multiple sources, not just an informal occasional use. I do not see the necessary individual notability clearly enough here.
DGG (
talk )
00:30, 22 October 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. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Ed Gein (band) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
First of all, I was close to simply speedying as A7 considering there's not much and my searches found nothing better than
this but as always I like AfDs especially when they carry weight in case this is restarted (G4). Next, the last AfD is completely outdated and unapplicable with Wikipedia certainly changing since 2006 so it would be helpful to have new comments. This article has existed since September 2005 with hardly ever improvement and their website suggests they are not better known with considerably better coverage. Pinging
Ohnoitsjamie,
Boleyn (and I notice, Boleyn, you PRODded it and removed it but never advanced with an AfD, was that intentional?)
Scott MacDonald and
Mbinebri.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete I'm not sure what my edits were about from 2013, but I couldn't verify that this can meet
WP:NBAND or
WP:GNG.
Boleyn (
talk)
08:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - difficult to research due to the band taking their name from the murderer who was the inspiration the The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. But there is not enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show they pass
WP:GNG, nor do they qualify under
WP:NMUSIC.
Onel5969
TT me
15:43, 14 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
List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Five Nations (accessory) (
|
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 book (or game, I guess -- It's a D+D campaign supplement guide.) References aren't turning up, no out-of-universe material, certainly no academic study.
Mikeblas (
talk)
02:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
03:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
03:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or merge to
List of Dungeons & Dragons rulebooks.
BOZ (
talk)
11:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- If the decision is made to merge, the correct destination article is probably
List of Eberron modules and sourcebooks. No opinion at this time whether that's the right choice; I suspect that some discussion of most of these releases can be found in the various gaming-industry magazines, not all of which are well-represented online.
Squeamish Ossifrage (
talk)
14:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
Necrothesp (
talk)
16:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
Merge per consensus.
24.114.78.27 (
talk)
21:46, 6 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 keep. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Sander "Vo0" Kaasjager (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
It would seem to me that the assertions made in this article are not supported by
reliable
third-party sources.
It's 2015. If this asserted player of
Esports started his playing professionally in 2006, it would seem reasonable that an e-trail in reliable gamer references would have followed his career.
At present there are six purported refeferences:
- "Page Not Found (Error 404) - The file may have been removed or renamed. Be sure to check your spelling. If all else fails, you can go back to the page you came from, return to the homepage, or try searching (top right).
- "Firefox can't find the server at www.esworldcup.com."
- [view-source:
http://www.qpad.se/modules/news/article.php?storyid=359 viewing the source code] doesn't even bring up the standard 404 error.
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
13:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
13:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Keep A google search of sander kaasjager or Vo0 brings a up a multitude of reliable secondary sources not used in the article. For instance
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]
[48]
[49]
[50]
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54] He is also discussed at length in
TL Taylor's
Raising the Stakes: E-Sports and the Professionalization of Computer Gaming
--
Prisencolin (
talk)
16:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Ref bombardment is not particularly helpful. Why are these sources reliable (not just blogs, if not already vetted at
WP:VG/RS) and how much do they actually cover the subject?
czar
04:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Not going through all of the sources (some of them probably aren't the best i'll admit)
[55]: From
MTV so it should reasonably establish notability.
[56] Red Bull seems to be an organiation dedicated to journalistic excellence so it looks alright. Vo0 is not the primary focus but its still enough imho.
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60] are from the VG/RS search engine and are primarily focused on the player. The article in its current state is pretty horribly sourced and should be fixed.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
02:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- He was covered in
several stories in
Algemeen Dagblad, the second largest newspaper in the Netherlands. Stories in
NRC Handelsblad, another prominent Dutch news outlet:
[61]
--
Prisencolin (
talk)
02:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Keep, looking through the sources given in the above ref bombardment, there seems to be more than enough to establish notability. MTV and Redbull are commonly used and I assume are reliable. The book and the BBC article also work well. The rest are of varying quality, but at least some of the Dutch sources (Tweakers in particular) are reliable. Oddly enough, the source from Gamersnet.nl and from Gamer.nl don't seem to be working correctly for me. However, I do suggest it to be moved to Vo0 per common name and article naming guidelines. ~
Mable (
chat)
15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
@
Shirt58: something went wrong when the link to this debate got posted on my Talk page. I didn't really understand what it meant and didn't know this debate was actually going. I pinged you, but you didn't respond either. I figured I'd let you know that something didn't go entirely right, which was annoying. ~
Mable (
chat)
15:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Video games-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:51, 13 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (
non-admin closure)
—Мандичка
YO 😜
19:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
London Burning Book (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Subject of the article fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NBOOK. I can't find any evidence of notability.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£ 09:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC). Keep Nomination withdrawn.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
18:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
Wikic¤l¤gy
t@lk to M£
09:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Move to London Burning: Portraits from a Creative City - which appears to be the actual name of the book. A search of that title turns up a large number of results, many in reliable sources, which suggests the topic is notable. Question is whether this mistitled, and inadequately described, page should be moved, or whether to just
WP:BLOWITUP. I think it probably makes the most sense to move it right now.
FuriouslySerene (
talk)
13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
14:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- – (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Withdrawn by nominator. (
non-admin closure)
Onel5969
TT me
12:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Art and Upheaval (
|
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 much out there on the book. There is a nice review in Yes, but that's about it. The rest are merely trivial mentions on News, Scholar, and Highbeam. Books shows the book exists, as you might expect, but that's it. Newspapers had nothing.
Onel5969
TT me
12:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
14:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
04:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
I made a sacrifice to
Cthulu and gained l337 searching powers. (Not really.) I found the publisher's page, which had reviews listed with the media outlet and the publication details, which made it easier to search for the specific reviews. Not all of these outlets came up in a Google search, but for the most part they showed up when I looked through their websites. To be honest, I was pretty surprised to find them as well. I'd been pretty certain that I wasn't going to find anything.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
04:41, 7 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 Withdrawn by nominator (
non-admin closure)
—Мандичка
YO 😜
04:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
![Not a vote](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/92/Emblem-WikiVote.svg/50px-Emblem-WikiVote.svg.png) | 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.
Note: Comments by suspected
single-purpose accounts or
canvassed users may be tagged using: {{subst:
spa|username}} or {{subst:
canvassed|username}} |
-
Tucson Pride (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No indication of the geographically disperse sourcing required to meet
ORG
John from Idegon (
talk)
07:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - This is a regional event and organization held in Tucson, Arizona. Referenced are article from Tucson and Phoenix. This page is about Arizona's first and oldest LGBT organization approaching its 40th anniversary (making it one of the oldest in the nation) This move by John is anti LGBT harassment in its most blatant form in that this page has been under attack from day one first by C.Fred and now by John from Idegon. If this page is to be deleted due to
ORG then all other Pride pages such as San Diego, San Francisco, New York and Orlando need to be deleted as well. Christopher Street West has now been contacted to observe the proceedings here as well.
Robert Rowlkey (
talk)
16:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The event does seem to meet the standards for inclusion, as there have been multiple
reliable sources reporting on the event. Robert, I will advise you that calling people "homophobes" as you did for opposing an article and believing it is worthy of deletion is considered a personal attack. Please be sure you read up on
WP:NPA, s this kind of behavior is highly frowned upon here. While you feel very passionate about this article, be sure to keep a level head, and do not immediately throw out accusations of harassment or homophobia.
Wildthing61476 (
talk)
17:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The organization/event does meet the standards for inclusion, as there are multiple
reliable sources reporting on the event. My apologies for believing from his profile that John is homophobic (I have deleted the reference). I have created two pages on Wikipedia, both about LGBT organizations, both under threat of deletion. This article about an organization of historic significance is being threatened with deletion due to lack of relevance and yet a mall here in Tucson isn't. This makes zero sense. Thank you for your Keep vote.
Robert Rowlkey (
talk)
17:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per others noting coverage and notability
—Мандичка
YO 😜
22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I will be happy to withdraw this nomination if someone, anyone, can show me a
WP:RS source outside of Arizona that is discussing this organization. Talk is cheap.
John from Idegon (
talk)
22:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Except that Tucson Pride doesn't seem to be a local chapter of a national organization so I don't believe
WP:BRANCH actually applies.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
23:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Per
WP:NGO, under additional considerations, it states we should consider: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements, prominent scandals, or other factors specific to the organization should be considered to the extent that these factors have been reported by independent sources. As Tucson Pride is one of the oldest groups (almost 40 years old), that points to notability. They've manage to persist and organize successful events despite being in a largely anti-gay state.
as noted here by The Advocate (a national publication).
—Мандичка
YO 😜
01:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Arizona-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:00, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The article needs more
WP:RS, but a Gnews search reveals no shortage of prominent coverage. Easily meets
WP:ORG. This requirement that T.P. receive coverage outside the state is not policy. This is not a local chapter of a larger entity; not a state chapter of something else, if even there are other groups elsewhere in the country (and the world) that use "Pride" in their organization or event name. Keep..
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not sure what you're try to say but if you do a Google News search we do have enough coverage from reliable independent sources to meet any reasonable standard of GNG, including a photo essay from the national publication Advocate. As for this "local five and dime" thing, that's really just your personal sentiment. It's not policy and I remind you Wikipedia is
WP:NOTPAPER.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:20, 8 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 keep. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
List of ACoRP members (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Disputed Prod. We have no article for the ACoRP or for most of the members, and we have
List of British heritage and private railways for those lines not included in the national lines or with their own article. The railway lines are important, the CRPs not so much (in general). No notability for the list subject.
Fram (
talk)
06:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
10:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
10:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - The people proposing deletion do not seem to understand the subject.
Community rail partnerships have nothing to do with Heritage and private railways. They are support groups for certain
National Rail lines.
Biscuittin (
talk)
22:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - this is not anything to do with heritage railways and anyway this article could do with a revamp and possibly even a rename to something like
List of community rail partnerships in the United Kingdom. For example, the
Borders Railway is a community railway line. Proposed lines also do not count.
Simply
south ....
.. time, deparment skies for just 9 years
17:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Which still doesn't address the lack of notability for this list of CRPs. Yes, I shouldn't have mentioned heritage railways (the list didn't do a very good job of explaining what it was about anyway), but that it is about standard rail lines and not heritage rail lines doesn't change the reason for deletion, which neither of the keeps have so far addressed.
Fram (
talk)
18:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Community rail partnerships are special types of railway lines with an organisation on each line representing the communities they serve. Why would this not be notable? It would be too big to fit into
community rail (and besides it is incomplete). How about
List of train operating companies or
List of railway bridges and viaducts in the United Kingdom. Each describes an important aspect of the UK rail system.
Simply
south ....
.. time, deparment skies for just 9 years
19:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- If it is an important aspect, shouldn't we at least have an article on ACoRP, and on some more of these members? Now neither the organisation nor the members have any evidence of being notable subjects, and a list of mainly non-notable members of a non-notable group has no place here. Even a list of notable members of a non-notable group has no place; without evidence that the ACoRP is a notable association, there is no reason to have a list of their members.
Fram (
talk)
21:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
04:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Two of the listed ACoRP members have their own Wikipedia articles, but several others are sufficiently notable that they could have one.
Martinogk (
talk)
04:29, 14 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 no consensus.
Sandstein
12:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
List of aircraft by tail number (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
What is the purpose of this list? It's not a list of all aircraft that have an individual article on Wikipedia, only those with a tail number. But it's hardly a logical characteristic to group articles by. Date, death toll (for the crash articles), manufacturer, ... all would make a lot more sense. The tail numbers are included in the individual articles and searching on them in the search box (or Google) works just fine, so this isn't needed for navigational purposes either (or does anyone want to access our articles in the order of this list? Seems unlikely, as it is a largely random order in most countries). At 118K, a lot of work must have gone into this list, but that's hardly a reason to keep it around.
Fram (
talk)
11:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Tail numbers are quite logical as IDs for people interested in aircraft; that's why the numbers are marked on the aircraft, rather like the way that ships have names. The list seems useful for navigation and generic search functions would not be so good as the tail numbers can be quite ordinary numbers, such as 101, which don't make good search keywords. As for the amount of work, that is a reason to keep this around. All that deletion does is make the list viewable by admins only and how does that help anyone? If we felt there was a better structure for this sort of data then there are more sensible
alternatives to deletion, such as making it a draft, which wouldn't be so disruptive.
Andrew D. (
talk)
12:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Cars have license plates, but no one would order cars by license plates (as an encyclopedic list). And no, the amount of work is never a reason to keep anything around (nor to delete it, of course). Making it a draft is only useful if you (someone) is planning to do anything with it to solve the problems: it can't stay as a draft interminably, and it makes no sense to turn it into a draft only to put it back as is later.
Fram (
talk)
13:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- There are numerous topics for which codes or numbers are an appropriate form of index - examples include stars known only by a catalogue number; Mozart's works, which are referenced by their
Köchel number; complex chemicals such as enzymes and genes; &c. The list in question is a list of notable individual aircraft, rather than a type of named aircraft design, and the registration number seems to be the best way of identifying these particular notable specimens. If there's a better way of doing this then let's hear it. As for cars, there may well be examples for which the licence plate is a good index.
Gerald Nabarro used to be famous for having a car with the number plate NAB1. The blue link
NAB1 takes us to a protein instead. Perhaps we need some disambiguation? Until we have all this data nicely organised, it's best to leave it where readers and editors can find it and that is mainspace.
Andrew D. (
talk)
13:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Why do we need to organize these data though? A list of all articles on aircraft which have a tail number? That is an important list because...? What sets these apart from the aircraft with articles but without a tail number? You are creating a list of a random subset of the notable aircraft group, and haven't given a good reason for having a list for only this subset.
Fram (
talk)
13:35, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- This isn't a subset; it seems to be the main list of individual aircraft. The only other list of notable specimens that I can see is
list of aircraft in the Smithsonian Institution and that is more clearly a subset. Per
aircraft registration#International standards, an international convention was established quite early in aviation and so only the earliest models such as the
Blériot XI would be before that.
Andrew D. (
talk)
14:13, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- That we don't have a full list doesn't mean that this isn't a subset. It is a subset of all aircraft with an individual article on Wikipedia, based on whether they have a tail number or not. That is a very poor defining criterium for a list.
Fram (
talk)
14:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- You're still not getting it. The point is not to list aircraft that happen to have a tail number because just about all aircraft have tail numbers. The point of the list is to index all individual aircraft for which we have articles. This list is then structured by military/civil and by country. It's only when you get to the country level that it then uses the registration number and that's because the registration number is the standard way of uniquely referencing the aircraft. You're not offering any better way of structuring this information.
Andrew D. (
talk)
15:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
14:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or move out of article space. Tail numbers are a useful and standard way to identify aircraft. They can be compared to ISBN numbers for books, authority control numbers for authors, or geographic coordinates for places. Perhaps a better way to organize this information would be as some sort of metadata associated with pages about aircraft. Someone who is more familiar with wiki metadata may be able to provide more information on how this could be done.
Pburka (
talk)
14:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- STRONG KEEP - Apart from tying aircraft by registration to relevant articles, this list serves a useful purpose in maintaining Wikipedia by keeping non-notable aircrashes out. This is facilitated by editors who watch this list, and scrutinise new entries whenever they are added to the list. Apart from helping readers to find articles, it also serves a useful editorial/maintenance purpose. What harm is it doing? Absolutely none that I can see.
Mjroots (
talk)
18:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Is there a content policy which says that content of value only to editors may be maintained in the main article space? The argument based on editorial value appears to fail
WP:USEFUL because this list does not benefit the reader. See also
WP:NOHARM. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
09:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
keep unless sourced with verifiable materials, otherwise weak keep - Where are the sources for this information? This is very technical info and should have sources we can review. References point to off line books and lists. I am unable to verify any of this content is even accurate.
DangerDogWest (
talk)
18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- @
DangerDogWest: - the linked articles in the 3rd column are the references. Although in article space, this is not an article/list in the ordinary sense. I'm not sure what you mean by "References point to off line books and lists" but
WP:V only requires that if a reference is given it is verifiable, not that you personally can verify it there and then.
Mjroots (
talk)
18:48, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Thanks, I found the references. I'll update my vote.
DangerDogWest (
talk)
19:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Strong delete. Readers don't need this list: if you know the serial you can just type it in, if you don't then this list is far too long and cryptic to identify it. If every plane with its own article is to be listed somewhere for maintenance purposes,
categories are expressly intended for this purpose. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC) [clarified 09:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)]
reply
- Keep - per Mjroots. Nothing more needs to be said. -
BilCat (
talk)
21:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'd suggest that an answer to the question I subsequently asked in reply does need to be said. This may be one reason why this debate has been relisted a second time. — Cheers,
Steelpillow (
Talk)
09:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
Rename
List of individual aircraft and add time period, civilian/military, possibly some sort of measure of size/weight/capacity, etc. as well. The tail number is a bit of a red herring; it's just one small datum of the major information about each entry.
Category:Individual aircraft and its subcategories encompass a couple of hundred articles, so it wouldn't be unmanageable.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
21:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- On second thought, leaning towards delete. Even if people searched by tail number (falling afoul of
WP:USEFUL), this article is so chopped up into tables that it would be easier just using the search box. Most of the entries are airplanes that crashed, so
List of individual aircraft would not be substantially the same list.
I'll probably create that list regardless of the outcome of this Afd. I've created that list.
Clarityfiend (
talk)
22:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Aviation-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
20:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This list seems unnecessary, since a reader is unlikely to start with some tail number and want to go from there to an article about the airplane. I would also not want a list of addresses of notable people and organizations, or a list of ISBNs of notable books, or a list of license plate numbers or VIN numbers of notable vehicles, or a list of serial numbers of notable locomotive engines, or a list of inmate numbers of notable prison inmates. or a list of badge numbers of notable police officers. Not every list that could be created needs to be created.
Edison (
talk)
16:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC).
reply
- weak keep the article isn't optimal, and the sources are buried in the articles, but it could be improved. I know that tail numbering schema is in widespread use in the US, for example: N###UA is typical for United Airlines, N###AA is for American Airlines, etc.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
23:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete best reason I see for keeping is that it might be useful, does not seem to be though.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
22:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge with
List of individual aircraft, adding a tail number column and country to the table in that article, as well as the airplanes that are currently in the
List of aircraft by tail number but not in the
List of individual aircraft. That way, it is possible to sort the information not only by tail number, but also by other criteria. Would be a pity to delete the valuable information gathered for this article.
Martinogk (
talk)
04:46, 14 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Murdaland (
|
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 think this meets
WP:GNG, especially the "significant coverage" part. The only reference is an obituary in which the magazine is referenced in one paragraph.<"Murdaland: Dark Tales For Tawdry Times"> gives me 36 ghits with no reliable sources to be found and <Murdaland magazine> gives me ~3,000 hits, which is better, but it's a lot of blog posts and false positives. From my research, I don't think there's enough sources available to establish notability on this magazine. --
Tavix (
talk)
14:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
15:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The only results on a Google search are either promotional links to the Murdaland website/ its Facebook page/ similar non-independent sources, or are mirrors of this Wikipedia article. No independent evidence of notability detectable on any terms.
KDS4444
Talk
05:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to publisher
Cortright McMeel (yes, McMeel article needs work but he is notable ie.
[65] - some Short reviews. This magazine although only two issues, appears to have quite a cult following from the number of blogs etc I looked at from a google search (stopped after 1st 150 pages:)), so there will probably be some readers who will look for it. I did find this
[66], an interview with him in which he says "Murdaland is something I’m very proud of." but not enough for notability.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
17:46, 8 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Achrach (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No notability
Conan The Barbarian (
talk)
14:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
15:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete As
non-notable. No sources found outside the one cited in the article, from
the Dawn website. That article itself implies the dish is not notable, noting that those who have heard of the dish are "a tiny minority as none of my friends had even heard of it until they ate it at my mother’s table in Karachi." Were it more widespead, I would expect to see at least recipes in South Asian food cookbooks, many of which are available worldwide.
Geoff |
Who, me?
21:23, 23 October 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 article has been improved since being nominated but the AfD has lacked participation. (
non-admin closure)
Ya
sh
!
00:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Zone (play) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No sign of notability, and no third party references as per previous AfD in 2011, no major improvements to article since then.
samtar
{t}
19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.
samtar
{t}
19:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
20:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: the following resources might conceivably have content about the play. I may try to hunt some down now in my local library, although I am not sure if they will be there:
- Maurice Bourassa, L’idéologie dans la cellule de Marcel Dubé (Édition Presses de l’Université du Québec, Montréal 1980)
- Maximilien Laroche, Marcel Dubé (Coll. Écrivain canadiens d’aujourd’hui, édition Fides, Montréal 1970)
- Madeline Greffard and Jean-Guy Sabourin, Le Théâtre québécois (édition Boréal, Montréal 1997)
-
/wia
/tlk
17:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:24, 6 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 keep. (
non-admin closure)
Sam Sailor
Talk!
00:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Capricon (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Haven't found anything that suggests that this is a notable convention.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
21:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
The convention has been operating for over thirty years, with multiple guests each year. The convention is a volunteer-ran organisation, and is the premier volunteer ran science-fiction literary convention in Chicago. The history, combined with average yearly "warm-body" attendance between 970-1120 each year and a notable list of guests, I would suggest that this convention's page should remain published and publicly viewable. As a further discussion point, do we - as a community of editors - have a list of standards to comprise "notable"?
Lady Nhytefall (
talk)
00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)Lady_Nhytefall
reply
- Yes, there is the
general notability guideline, plus other useful, relevant links and information on that page as well.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
Capricon is currently in its 36th year and is the longest running 4 day sci-fi convention in the Chicago area. - marindad
Capricon is the second longest running convention in the greater Chicago area. The event to be held in Feb. 2016 will be the 36th annual convention. Capricon is the only four day convention in the Chicago area, and has an annual membership of approximately 1000 people.
A sampling of notable past guests of honor at the convention include:
Authors:
Mike Resnick,
Cory Doctorow,
John Scalzi,
Lois McMaster Bujold,
Terry Pratchett,
Larry Niven and
Frederick Pohl
Artists:
John Picacio,
Kaja Foglio,
Les McClaine and
Don Maitz
Others:
Tom Smith,
Javier Grillo-Marxuach,
Dr. Demento and
Steve Hockensmith
--pheltzer — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pheltzer (
talk •
contribs)
22:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Pheltzer, It being the longest running 4-day convention is not very impressive if it is the only 4-day one. Membership and notable guest on their own is not enough to qualify for an article. Can you show that this convention meets the
general notability guideline?
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
I believe using the guidelines from
WP:ORGDEPTH, the following articles can be used to support the notability guidelines:
Amazing Stories Magazine article,
WGN tv coverage of the Capricon 34,
Web Series "The Con Men",
FunctionalNerds Podcast about Capricon 35,
Chicago Now Capricon Recap, — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Pheltzer (
talk •
contribs)
01:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Amazing Stories source is not independent, writer was asked to participate in a panel there, he accepted it and wrote about the experience. WGNTV isn't signifiant coverage, basically a notice that the convention is going on. Ten Wing Media, maker of "The Con Men", doesn't seem very well-known, established, or popular (many of their "Con Men" videos struggle to get even a thousand views). Looks like it is made up of only three people. Not that any one of these disqualifies it (not sure if any do), it's just that with all the factors added together I don't think it could be used to establish notability. Podcast looks like an interview with someone at Capricon, not specifically about Capricon, I also don't think a "Functional Nerds" podcast can be used to establish notability. Chicago Now is a user generated blog style site, not a reliable source.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
03:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I don't see attendance size mentioned in that essay if that's what you meant. And ~1000 attendance events aren't that rare. Highschool/college level sporting events, opening of large, seasonal parks/facilities, and even some peoples' birthday parties could regularly get 1000+ attendance, yet most aren't considered notable here.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
19:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, although I think I do see why the nominator believes otherwise. The difficulty that I have in deleting this article is that the
List of science fiction conventions points us to a whole lot of conventions, most of them at sub-national (i.e., regional or local) levels. Sure, I know that "other stuff exists" is not a compelling argument, but what we have here is so much other stuff of the same nature that it begins to look like a consensus to have these sorts of articles. And this particular convention has been around for a long time, with a guest list that includes top-shelf authors in the genre (meaning that my opinion might have been different if this were one of the articles about small local conventions). Rainbow unicorn, how would you feel if the introduction was pared down to remove the fluff and the article was re-classed as a "list" article? I don't mind during the grunt work on that, if there is a consensus that this is the way to go.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
19:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I'm fine with that if you and others believe it should be kept. This one may be towards the side of being notable but there are some smaller and/or not as old ones on that list that are more likely not.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
22:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I agree with your take on some of the other conventions on the list. You and I would probably find ourselves on the same side of the fence for some of the small, local ones. As for the matter at hand -- I'll get to work on cleaning up the instant article, but I'll probably not have anything done until tomorrow. If you like the way it looks as a list article, perhaps the nomination can be withdrawn at that point.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Not sure basically as Books and browser found some links but nothing obviously better so draft & userfy if needed and it's also worth noting the original author was a "capriconchair". Notifying past users
Dravecky,
Realkyhick,
Shsilver and
Lmv4321.
I JethroBT (long time no see
), are you familiar with this?
SwisterTwister
talk
07:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as subject crosses verifiability and notability thresholds per
WP:GNG. Notability is not a competition and "rarity" is not a factor. -
Dravecky (
talk)
08:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but about as weak a keep as one can give. Seems to barely meet
WP:GNG, primarily because of tenure. It is a bit "listy," though, and verifiable sources are pretty thin. I don't have really strong feelings one way or another about this one, frankly.
Realkyhick (
talk)
20:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Capricon has many features which set it apart from other conventions which can, and should, be included in the article, ranging from its inclusion of a series of hoax panels (which have engendered some controversy) its historical relationship to Windycon. They just need to be added to the entry with appropriate sourcing.
Shsilver (
talk)
19:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep. A search on Google Books shows little snippets mentioning the convention, like
how a Japanese programming track drew in as many viewers as the American programming track in 1985. That's the kind of stuff that's really needed here to make an article, but there just isn't a lot of that kind of independent coverage available. I am generally seeing a lot of bare mentions of the convention, where it takes places, and that it deals with science fiction. I agree with
NewYorkActuary that a list article is a better format given the circumstances.
I, JethroBT
drop me a line
17:54, 12 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Cybersecurity Strategy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Original research, very similar article deleted at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybersecurity strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model
DGG (
talk )
06:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Mr RD
06:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
14:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. There are several fundamental problems with this article, each of which is sufficient grounds for deletion:
(1) To quote the deletion rationale for a previous version of this article, "This is a single analysis of cybersecurity, written as though there were 'one' strategy and 'one' framework for cybersecurity, which isn't by any means the case."
[67] By way of comparison, the
Military strategy and
Business strategy articles illustrate how the broad notion of strategy applicable to a particular field should be covered in an encyclopedic manner: Those articles (a) cite sources that discuss the field broadly, (b) discuss a variety of strategies that are individually notable in terms of
WP:GNG, and (c) cite sources that compare and contrast those strategies. This article describes "The Cyber Security Strategy" as the be-all and end-all of strategic thinking in the field, which is neither true nor supportable by any reliable sources.
(2) "The" strategy is defined in terms of some "recent standard
Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity", which is evidently
so recent that it has yet to be promulgated as a standard anywhere, and in terms of "The CS5L, Cybersecurity 5 Layout model" (
CS5L CMM) which was
found not notable (both articles by the same contributor). As such this is essentially an essay of
original research.
(3) Although not overtly promotional in tone, there appears to be a
conflict of interest in using Wikipedia to promulgate ones own ideas, as presented in a
blog post, or promoting
the strategy and
framework of one's
own company.
In sum, as noted by Blue Rasberry in the above linked AfD, there appears to be a misunderstanding of what is meant by
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. ~
Ningauble (
talk)
15:42, 6 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 to
Naanga (
non-admin closure)
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
22:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Nivas Adithan (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Very minor actor who has only been active since early-mid 2012. Some minor coverage in sources, but don't think passes
WP:NACTOR and subsequently
WP:GNG constraints. scope_creep 21:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
- He has appeared in several notable, award-winning films as well as in lead roles - both Kaaka Muttai and Thanga Meengal are both critically and commercially successful films, while his work in Ula and Naanga garner several more sources online. Also take notice that the coverage of actors from Indian cinema on the internet, is way below the numerous sources you would find for the same in English films.
Editor 2050 (
talk)
21:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
21:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
21:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Nice that you show an awareness of that tool. Below I examine what it offers a bit more thoroughly.
Schmidt,
Michael Q.
06:33, 7 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 keep. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Sophie Von Haselberg (
|
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 a notable person. The body of the article is mainly an opinion expressed by Woody Allen
Jan Arkesteijn (
talk)
15:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Merge into either or both
Bette Midler and
Martin von Haselberg. At this moment her notability mainly derives from her parentage. However, she is at the start of her career in acting and there is more than once source in the article that acknowledges that. Should her performances continue she could meet
WP:GNG in a few years. A merge of the info that is salvageable should allow for any eventuality.
MarnetteD|
Talk
16:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
19:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
19:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to Bette Midler as this is likely a more common search and there's nothing to obviously suggest a better separate article.
SwisterTwister
talk
19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep von Haselberg is continuing to gain more series roles and movies. I added another four part reference to the article where she has been signed as a regular on an HBO series, shooting a movie for HBO, plus two other films.
http://deadline.com/2015/10/mtv-nicole-byer-pilot-casts-three-sophie-von-haselberg-fahim-anwar-rachel-hilson-1201567622/
Zpeopleheart (
talk)
07:01, 25 October 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 delete.
WP:BE - Please see
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TechGrizzly/Archive.
Mkdw
talk
06:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Mark Angus Meyer (
|
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:BLP of a person notable as the creator of an app, which essentially just asserts that he exists and parks the referencing exclusively to sources — his company's own website, a community weekly newspaper in his own hometown, two university student newspapers — which cannot carry a person's
notability. Also probable
WP:COI, as the article was created by
User:HarvardLaunchLab1 — although the article doesn't explicitly state that the subject is directly associated with Harvard, it does say that he currently lives in Cambridge, MA. Delete, or redirect to
Getmii.
Bearcat (
talk)
06:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:44, 8 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
WSNQ (AM) (
|
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 a legal broadcast station under FCC rules. The WSNQ callsign is not licensed to any station, anywhere. No station within
Pennsylvania is licensed to broadcast on the expanded AM brand (1610 to 1700 AM). No AM stations are
licensed to Sarver, Pennsylvania.
Page is unsourced, full of OR, does not meet GNG. Major WP:V and WP:N issues. Part 15 stations do not enjoy the same inherent notability under
WP:NMEDIA as regular AM/FM/LP/HD broadcast stations.
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
14:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: As nominator. -
Neutralhomer •
Talk •
14:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News media-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Radio-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:05, 6 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 no consensus. (
non-admin closure)
sst✈
discuss
02:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Dorothy Garrett Smith (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
She is a regional representative to a state school board . Such positions do not lead to the assumption of notability.
DGG (
talk )
05:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Education-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as any sources are almost certainly going to be archived here I still am not seeing any convincingly better improvement for a local school board member.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Local school board member who was elected to state board of education. First woman president of the state board of education. Represented nine parishes. Qualifies as regional officeholder, as would a public service commissioner.
Billy Hathorn (
talk)
12:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Notability: Politicians and judges who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members or former members of a national, state or provincial legislature.[12] This also applies to persons who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them. (The state board of education would fall under sub-national or provincewide office in these cases.)
Billy Hathorn (
talk) 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC) (It's a statewide office with single-member districts.)
Billy Hathorn (
talk)
22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- That clause is usually for state assemblies/senates, not for people on a state school board.
czar
03:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Doesn't remotely make a difference if she is on the school board at the local level, state level or national level. The question is does she meet notability according to GNG. All GNG requires, is that she be covered in RS and not be fleeting. There are plenty of people included in WikiPedia, from Kardashians, to Hiltons, to Spencer-Churchills who are included on WikiPedia not for doing something but for having their non-contributions noted by the media. Likewise, there are plenty of scientists and academics who have contributed to society whose service is not noted in secondary media and thus they are not included in WikiPedia, regardless of how beneficial to mankind their contributions may be. This woman contributed to society and was covered in the press. As for the statement "sources are almost certainly going to be archived" that is totally irrelevant. RS guidelines do not require that sources be on-line. Further, GNG doesn't require that sources be provided, only proved to exist. Barring the primary sources and non-reliable sources given on the file, there are 7 articles from either the New Orleans Times-Picayune or the Minden Press-Herald. The Times-Picayune is a well-known paper the Minden Press-Herald, though regional has been awarded by the Louisiana Press association for investigative reporting, albeit at a later period, still of record. 5 of the articles cited, show Smith in the headline, so though no on-line access is given they would appear to be substantially about the subject. In addition, in the Picayune article, there are indications that further sources may well exist, as she "was active in the National School Board Association And The Southern Region School Board Association".
SusunW (
talk)
14:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The regional-ness of the school board appointment matters not for the GNG but the secondary notability guidelines (e.g., the politician guidelines) that approve articles even without a showing of sources, so that's why it makes a different there. As for the
general notability guideline, merely appearing in an obituary and local news alongside a handful of mentions in articles primarily about the board and not her leaves us with mostly primary sources (some inappropriate at that) with which to write the rest of the article. As for other articles,
other stuff exists—when judging these sources on their merits, this subject's coverage is marginal.
czar
15:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep You don't get an obituary like the one she had if you're not notable. She passes GNG, as per
SusunW. In addition, if a county clerk is notable because they are elected officials, why not a school board? I suspect due to the era we're dealing with that many of the secondary sources are in print, but I see enough here to keep the article even if a few references need cleanup. Slighly offtopic, but to answer an earlier statement in this dicussion, as a librarian, I take issue with the idea that everything gets archived digitally. That's just not true. There is a ton of information sitting on microfilm that still has yet to be digitized so that it's accessible to anyone with an internet connection. Assuming that human information is all digitized (or even available to the general public) is just wrong and shows a lack of familiarity with sourcing information.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
18:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, president of state school board passes requirements. Appears to pass GNG too. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
15:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC).
reply
- I don't think she passes the politician guideline if that's what you meant. State school board president is not included in
Template:Current Louisiana statewide political officials, which should give a good idea on what counts. Not sure if otherwise notable.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
17:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete It's an interesting and well written article, but it lacks significant third party coverage about her, the article subject. Much of the more promising sources are primarily about the school board, or educational institutions, but not specifically about her in a sense which satisfies GNG. Can anyone find and add any source which genuniely infer notability on her?
isfutile:P (
talk)
18:37, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Category:Connecticut State Board of Education members has seven entries. The Louisiana board has eleven entries. There are four entries in Category:Portland, Maine School Board members.
Billy Hathorn (
talk)
04:11, 8 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Rajendra Prasad Singh (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Can't find any good sources on this author. BLPPROD removed without giving any reason. The references in the article are academia.edu, which seems to be a site where one can login and upload their "research papers"(!), second ref is a self-published blog and third reference is of him winning ₹ 300 for this poem book Aao Khuli Bayar. But I can't verify who awarded this money. Seems trivial local award. Please note that a politician also goes by this same name and various others also share parts of this name. So please avoid throwing google search links here. In addition, the creator
User:Professor Ravi Ranjan has previously tried to add this name in various lists
[68],
[69],
[70] and templates
[71], along with their own name.
[72] §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
04:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions. §§
Dharmadhyaksha§§ {
Talk /
Edits}
04:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Pinging interested subject users
Yash!,
AusLondonder,
LaMona,
Tokyogirl79,
AKS.9955,
Human3015,
SpacemanSpiff.
SwisterTwister
talk
04:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I dont see the article improving further. In the current shape and form, the person is not notable.
Arun Kumar SINGH
(Talk)
04:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - If I found any substantial sources for "Rajendra Prasad Singh", then they were about the politician. There are VERY few mentions in the Google books which I doubt that is enough. I am unable to see any room for improvements and seems to be failing
WP:GNG AND
WP:ANYBIO.
Ya
sh
!
04:26, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Poetry-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:34, 13 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Sean Hargreaves (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Open and shut case of no better notability and improvement and the best my searches found was
this,
this and
this. This has existed since June 2008 after "Seandesigner" began it and this has not changed much since then. Pinging
Epeefleche,
Lectonar,
Geniac,
Apteva,
DGG and
Orangemike.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of England-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Arts-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Uncertain. If "His work is in the permanent collection of the Museum of Modern Art, New York." he is notable by WP:CREATIVE. We do need a citation for that; it is not in their on-line catalog. I added some other referecing
DGG (
talk )
18:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
21:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
21:18, 5 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Yasir Pirzada (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Questionably notable (that is, independent from his father) and improvable as the best my searches instantly found was
this,
this and
this and there's imaginably more at local news sources but this seems somewhat obvious. Pinging
ABDUL RAZZAQ QADRI,
StAnselm,
Bender235,
SoWhy and
RadioFan.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of News media-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Can't really say much about notability. All I did back in 2011 was some general copy-editing. Also, I remember finding the tone of the article weird, and suspected
single-purpose accounts
Saqibnajam (
talk ·
contribs),
Humahakeem (
talk ·
contribs), and
Ali Imran Shah (
talk ·
contribs) of POV-ing. --
bender235 (
talk)
13:12, 21 October 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. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Drowning Man (U2 song) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No reason why this song merits a standalone article, and I see no point in making redirects in cases where the song title mentions the artist.
TheLongTone (
talk)
12:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect unclear notability, but has sources; by redirecting the content can be kept for merging or exporting, and possible restoration as an article if more sources are found. This was created as a redirect five years ago, and shouldn't be deleted according to
WP:RFD#KEEP reasons 1, 4 and 5.
Peter James (
talk)
22:43, 10 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 no consensus. (
non-admin closure) With no prejudice for a renomination.
Ya
sh
!
00:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Europe Sees Syria (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
promotional article for a small local organization with unproven claims. It is one of many pages created by the same user (he even made a page about himself!) all nominated for deletion. Wikipedia is for sharing knowledge not political propaganda
Zebras234 (
talk)
13:13, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Europe-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
20:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Many of the references are about other similar but unrelated movements. Also, the claims about significance and number of participants are dubious (
talk). —Preceding
undated comment added
12:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Weak Delete There are similar movements, we can't have articles for all of them. Aside from the many sourices, doesn't seem to stand out in a sea of similar movements. Maybe this would be better served merged into a larger more significant article.
TypingInTheSky (
talk)
23:42, 29 October 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. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Bill Anagnos (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unremarkable stuntman lacking non-trivial sourcing
reddogsix (
talk)
13:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New York-related deletion discussions. —
Sanskari
Hangout
15:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as this seems somewhat obvious with no obvious better improvement. Pinging
Onel5969.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Keep - While they clearly don't pass
WP:NACTOR, nor meet
WP:GNG (since I couldn't find any in-depth coverage), I feel they do pass
WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. A search on Books returns dozens of mentions, showing his activity in the film industry, including
this, which I feels satisfies the Basic requirement, that and his appearance in more than 170 films and television shows. Very poorly sourced, but I think an interested party could source this better.
Onel5969
TT me
13:19, 23 October 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. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
FusionOne (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Seemingly open and shut case of no better notability and improvement and the best my searches found was
this,
this,
this and
this and this simply hasn't changed or improved much since starting in June 2009. Pinging
Epeefleche,
RHaworth,
UninvitedCompany and author
GRC250.
SwisterTwister
talk
17:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
17:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
20:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - I think some of the arguments forwarded above are flawed, at least as they are phrased--
notability is not temporary and therefore neither the lack of new details nor the company being acquired as an asset and ceasing to operate as a recognizable independent entity are argument for deletion, if notability and other standards are initially achieved. However, there is some question in my mind as to whether the content presently int he article is substantial enough that it will benefit any future readers even to the most minimal extent necessary to justify its existence. New sourcing might remedy this issue if the company were still in operation and being covered by tech industry press, but this is not the case, and perhaps this is what the previous editors commenting here meant to address.
Snow
let's rap
05:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Plain and simple, this company isn't notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia, right? Not a Who's Who of business?
Chisme (
talk)
19:05, 10 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 delete.
Sandstein
12:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Cartoon Boyfriend (
|
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 can't find anything to support notability for this band.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
05:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Allmusic doesn't count as "coverage" and neither does the LA Music Awards profile. Their song being used in two soundtracks might give notability to that song, but only if there was coverage of it. A magazine doing a teeny article about "nipples" in music and mentioning this group had a album by that name doesn't give them much notability. If they don't have chart success, a band must have in-depth coverage from reliable sources to meet GNG.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
21:29, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Of course Allmusic coverage is coverage. That's a rather bizarre argument. Re. the film soundtracks see
WP:BAND criterion 10. --
Michig (
talk)
05:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Allmusic is just a directory, not much different than IMDB or TV Guide listings.
—Мандичка
YO 😜
04:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- No it isn't. --
Michig (
talk)
07:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
06:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Whether a brief, incidental, and blog-like review on one of allmusic's tracklist pages could constitute a reliable source is debatable, but I don't think we need to tease that issue apart in this case, since the review really provides very little detail about the band in this instance. On the whole, I tend to feel that sourcing here does not satisfy
WP:GNG or
WP:BAND.
Snow
let's rap
06:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The book mentioned above,
Going Pro: Developing a Professional Career in the Music Industry, was written by the band's manager, so it's not really independent. The award doesn't look notable, either. That mostly leave the soundtracks, and criterion #10 discounts itself as a sole indicator of notability. I agree that Allmusic is more than a directory, but its mission is to be so comprehensive as to be useless as an indicator of notability.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
23:57, 7 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 no consensus. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Parti Unité Nationale (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL
Article about a non-notable party, which has apparently never elected anyone, or gotten as much as 1/10 of 1% of the vote (that is less than one out of every thousand voters) in any election. A google search found a number of news stories listing them among the parties that have registered candidates, and one very brief interview with the head of the party, but nothing beyond a passing mention. In looking for sources, please note that there is or was a party of the same name in Hati, apparently it was associatied with the Duvalier government. Do not confuse the two. Mos the the hits I found were in French, but Google Translate is good enough to distinguish a passing mention from significant coverage, and I still read a little French anyway. Someone claiming to represent the party posted at the Teahouse recently, asking that "false statements" be removed or else the article deleted. This person claimed that the version on the French-language Wikipedia was correct, and had been deleted for "no reason". Apparently it had been deleted for their equivalent of lack of notability.
DES
(talk) 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
DES
(talk)
20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- *I just added the former name to the find sources. no comment on AfD status at this point. --
TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom
20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I have added an link to an article in Le Devoir, which is Quebec's newspaper of record. The article does not mention the party in passing - the article is about the party. This was just the first article I came to.
Ground Zero |
t
01:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note to searchers: as well as the Haitian party noted by
DES above, there seems to have been a fascist party of more or less the same name, the "parti de l'Unité nationale du Canada", as reported in
this nasty little piece in Le Devoir of 18 August 1938.
Justlettersandnumbers (
talk)
20:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose: It is a registered political party in Quebec. That alone makes it notable. There is no justification for limiting Wikipedia to major parties. This one has run candidates in four consecutive elections, which is more than a lot of other parties. If there are false statements, they should be identified and removed, but that is not a reason to delete an article. Wikipedia would not be improved by this deletion.
Ground Zero |
t
00:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree,
Ground Zero. Where is the guideline that says that being a registered party makes a group notable?
WP:ORGSIG says:
No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is, including schools. If the individual organization has received no or very little notice from independent sources, then it is not notable simply because other individual organizations of its type are commonly notable or merely because it exists. (wiki-links and notes in source omitted.
- I think that is the proper standard to follow. Where has this party been discussed in any depth by independent sources? Any small but dedicated group can register as a party and run candidates. That does not mean that anyone ever takes any notice of them. One article I found seemed to say that there were only 300 members of this party (although I may have misread this). Small does not mean non-notable, but small and ignored does.
DES
(talk)
01:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Quebec-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
00:27, 13 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 delete. Notability is not temporary, true, but I don't see that notability has been established in the first place. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
DucKon (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Haven't found anything that suggests that this is a notable convention.
Rainbow unicorn (
talk)
21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
21:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
21:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
Human3015
TALK
21:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
DucKon, when operating, did host the Golden Duck awards. However, it has lost a lot of its notoriety in the last few years, finally culminating in it's hiatus/shut down. There are rumours that it will resurface, however this author is unsure of the validity of those rumours. Finally, unlike WindyCon and Capricon, DucKon is not well known outside of the immediate Chicago fan communities. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lady Nhytefall (
talk •
contribs)
01:16, 31 October 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 (
non-admin closure)
ansh
666
11:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Johnny Knorr (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I found links
here,
here,
here and
here but I'm still questionable to its notability and improvement (with this staying the same since June 2007). Pinging
RJFJR an
Gilliam.
SwisterTwister
talk
23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Comment.
This article from
The Bryan Times verifies the content, but, on the other hand, the entire Wikipedia article seems like a blatant copyright violation of it. It's possible the newspaper article is itself based on a press release. I'm not really sure what to say. I guess I'll try to clean up the article a bit. Most of the awards and honors seem regional, but the USPS award was also mentioned in
this article by
The Toledo Blade, which seems to use awfully similar phrasing to the Wikipedia/Bryan Times article.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
04:30, 25 October 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. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Valerie Gregori McKenzie (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Still questionably notable and improvable as five years have passed since that last AfD and there is no obviously better improvement with the best my searches finding
this and
this. It's also worth noting this started in November 2007 but was not touched until February 2009 (1 bot tagging) and August 2009. Pinging
Milowent,
Cirt,
TenPoundHammer,
CTF83! and
Malcolmxl5.
SwisterTwister
talk
23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
23:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Haha,
Milowent, I've recently made a consistent habit searching for these articles using
Special:RandomInCategory (orphaned, no sources, needing cleaning and promotional). Excellent question and thanks for asking,
SwisterTwister
talk
00:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - but no prejudice against an appropriate recreation further down the line when notability can be established. I did not find sufficient sources about the person to justify her having an article, and what there was seemed very flimsy. Checked on Highbeam, NYT archive, as well as Google. I do see quite a few hits for her in travel books and magazines on Google Books, but mostly advertorials/promotion. I am sure that if someone was prepared to put in a lot of extra work, the article MIGHT be able to be brought up to minimal standard, but what I see doesn't lead me to believe that it could easily be done. The current article is full of redlinks (suggesting that her notabilities aren't that notable in themselves) and some of the tone is very promotional and sounds like PR speak.
Mabalu (
talk)
17:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Mabalu's comments are pretty much on point. I held out hope for this article 5 years ago.--
Milowent •
has
spoken
18:31, 12 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
04:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Compa (
|
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 musician.
XXN,
01:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
01:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
01:47, 30 October 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. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
04:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Deer Trace Shopping Center (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is a generic power center that is a subregional shopping destination with the usual Target/Home Depot/local department store anchors and other smaller shops among it; there are much larger shopping destinations nearby (
Grafton's development, for instance) that do not have articles here. PROD
was removed under claim of
Kohler Company ownership, but the
village of Kohler has the land as part of the village and
provides police protection and provides the usual advice about clientèle so a payday loan store or other fad shop that clears out after a few weeks isn't part of this shopping center; it is under other ownership. Most sources found are mostly barely-veiled PR about businesses in the shopping center (i.e. ribbon cuttings for the CoC) or the usual 'check out our store here' mentions, or esoteric leasing information.
Nate • (
chatter)
20:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Upon deletion of the article, the shopping center will need to find it's way on the
Kohler Company has I have confirmed with the Village Clerk's Office that Deer Trace is owned by the Kohler Company.
Asher Heimermann (
talk)
22:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Not that it matters regarding deletion, but Land / GIS data from
http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us indicates that Kohler, 444 Highland Dr owns land adjacent to the shopping center, but individual tracts are owned by other companies in other states, Target, etc, not Kohler. They probably owned the land before, but apparently don't now, according to public land records. Certainly not worth mentioning prior ownership or ownership of adjacent land in an article about Kohler Company. --
Dual Freq (
talk)
23:22, 29 October 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. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
List of Aerosmith outtakes (
|
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 long list of mostly unsourced fan speculation and otherwise poorly (or primary) sourced non-notable stuff. Really, sources like
this should not be used in any Wikipedia article. The takes that made it into the official discography are or should be mentioned there, and the rest doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
Fram (
talk)
22:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose: There are 38 references; granted, there could be more references and better references added (they do exist) and the article could be improved a bit, but the article should not be outright deleted. Having the outtakes cataloged here makes it easier for researchers to understand where the takes came from, how they have evolved, what's still out there, how rough outtakes from one album were developed and placed on later albums, etc. Aerosmith's overly-long discography has already been broken up and it makes sense to have a separate page for the unreleased material, of which there is considerable documented information. Other artists of similar stature have similar articles and we should strive to improve this article to be on par with the others (see:
List of unreleased material recorded by The Bee Gees,
List of unreleased songs recorded by the Beach Boys,
List of unreleased songs recorded by Pink Floyd,
List of unreleased songs recorded by Madonna,
List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson, etc.)
Abog (
talk)
16:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Music-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
20:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete or Merge into
List of songs recorded by Aerosmith; there may be 38 refs, but virtually none of this sourcing is
WP:RS-quality. Aside from this, these sources only provide minute details about various pieces; they do not in any substantive sense discuss the notability of the core topic of "Aerosmith outtakes", and this notability must be established as with any other article (see
WP:SAL). Details on these songs could be added to a stand-alone section in the main article for Aerosmith's discography, provided consensus for such a move can be gained there (and I doubt that would be difficult), but regardless of the outcome of that discussion, this particular article, violating multiple core guidelines as it does, needs to go.
Snow
let's rap
05:46, 6 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 delete. –
Juliancolton |
Talk
04:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
A.D. Liano (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Promotional autobiography. PROD contested. Subject has some but limited notability but it is probably not enough to trump the COI issues here. The author has also made promotional articles about his own films at
Barberland and
Everything Strange and New.
DanielRigal. (
talk)
00:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
DanielRigal (
talk)
00:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
06:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: article is promotional and subject is insufficiently notable.
Quis separabit?
06:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Insufficiently notable as yet. Being nominated is not winning.
DGG (
talk )
06:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete. Subject simply hasn't received significant coverage. Userfy for now.
Blackguard
07:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as non notable director/producer, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –
Davey2010
Talk
09:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete If he had several rather than just the one shared
Gotham Awards nomination, I might argue for a keep under
WP:ANYBIO, and if he had a few more sources speaking about him rather than
these four, I might feel inclined to keep under
WP:GNG, and if his films had enough coverage to meet
WP:NF, I might argue a keep under
WP:FILMMAKER. If the situation ever improves, we can always
resurrect the article.
Schmidt,
Michael Q.
16:06, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as non notable director/producer, No evidence of notability, Fails GNG. —
Skyllfully (
talk |
contribs)
09:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: I know understand policies and makes total sense. I've moved my bio to a user page. Have to say -- my first experience w/ wiki is pretty awesome and the technology behind the auto gen flags is amazing. Please delete. Thanks.
Adliano (
talk)
20:24, 8 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.