The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Outside of the supposed bullying controversy, the sources that mention this subject, such as the TubeFilter page cited here, only mention him as one of the top-subscribed Youtube channel, which would suggest he has garnered a ton of interest, but that's it. A couple of reliable news articles have gone around lately about his controversy regarding him bullying an autistic man, but that's it as far as the "significant" coverage goes. Since the only real independent articles are about this guy bullying a disabled person, this article could only be be a violation of the guideline that
Wikipedia is not a news source at best. The Wikipedia article at its current state is mostly unsourced, not even mentioning his bullying behavior, with a youtube chart list (the TubeFIlter page I mentioned earlier) as its only source cited so far.
I also need to make note of this: The image you're seeing right now in the article was uploaded by a guy who may be the subject of this article,
User:Leafling Jr. 69. Leafling Jr. 69 also did a
draft of the article about himself in January 2016, if that is really him, but was declined by an administrator due to no reliable sources. The only way the article as of now was able to avoid a speedy deletion was due to the addition of the TubeFilter source, and on a side note, the citation in the article misspells the name as "TibeFilter" which is pretty hilarious. What's not hilarious, however, apart from the fact that this guy made fun of someone's developmental disability, is the subject's questionable notability. Probably should be a redirect to
List of Youtubers at best.
editorEهեইдအ😎23:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Agree with nominator. There doesn't appear to be enough significant coverage of him as a YouTuber (without focusing on a
single event). AFAIK, statistics such as views or subscribers alone aren't enough to show notability.
clpo13(
talk)23:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Youtubers. Although the article seems to not meet the standards of inclusion, the subject is notable enough to gain mention (although not enough for a whole article; see above).
BlackVolt (
talk)
23:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect, possibly with protection. The article makes no mention of the one thing he is even minimally notable for, i.e the bullying and feuding controversies and even if it did it would not justify an article. There is absolutely nothing here worth keeping. We should not be describing this stuff as "satire" and even "comedy" is debatable. There is also some COI going on here with that draft. I suggest to delete that too. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
14:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete or redirect - funny that my PROD was removed when you've said all of the points I had in there, and yet people here are supporting it. Fairly certain his fans are the only ones keeping this page afloat, but it's pretty cut and dry.
Sock(tock talk)16:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, per nom. Simply not notable; does not pass
WP:GNG. From my knowledge, the
List of YouTubers article is a list of YouTubers that have a page. A redirect to an article with no mention of the subject would not seem appropriate. Sekyaw(talk)23:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Honestly, I think youtubers that have been noted in reliable sources but don't have enough information to have a long-enough article SHOULD be listed in that page for that reason alone.
editorEهեইдအ😎03:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I see your point, but from the way the page looks, it doesn't work that way. Furthermore, I would have to disagree with you as the list would possibly be very long and would also contribute to many people listing themselves or other non-significant YouTubers onto the list, causing disruptive edits, edit wars, and so forth. Sekyaw(talk)04:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Dont Delete Why should his page be deleted people wish for it to be deleted because they are "mad" or "offended" by his channel, anyone with a presence on the internet that has a wiki page unless abusive deserves to keep it just because you dont like him doesnt mean you should have his wiki deleted i personally am not a fan of donald trump but im not complaining about it. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.247.7.87 (
talk)
18:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
His actions are not the reason we're debating on whether or not to delete the article, it's his lack of notability and independent coverage in reliable sources that we're wanting the article to be deleted.
editorEهեইдအ😎20:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Written like an advertisement and all references appear to be from company created content. This company is not notable and it seems it has been created only to promote or publicize this company. — Music1201talk22:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Very promotional article which doesn't establish notability, and the aforementioned lack of reliable sources indicates that it is not inherently notable.
GABHello!22:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy dDelete I removed all the preening and
WP:NOT material and wound up with an unremarkable software company with a staff of "more than 20" employees. I've tagged it for speedy deletion, so we'll see what happens.I tagged it for speedy deletion but changed my mind, since the article's been created three times before and it seems this AFD is going to be dispositively in favor of deletion, so let's just settle it here. A Google search for
"solutions resource" (bellevue OR seattle OR philippines) doesn't seem promising as far as
WP:GNG is concerned.
—Largo Plazo (
talk)
23:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been tagged as unsourced since July 2012. It appears this article is a morass of original legal research, hopelessly difficult to maintain. This is especially so given the uncertain copyright status of television episodes that were broadcast when the Copyright Act of 1909 was in effect. Moreover, even viewing the article as "TV series claimed to be in the public domain", the article would be hopelessly unencyclopedic. RJaguar3 |
u |
t21:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Draftify or delete This article belongs to a legitimate category of
surnames articles. As it stands at the moment it doesn't pass the notability guidelines at
WP:APONOTE. It would need to either 1) list people with the surname that have wikipedia articles (and there don't seem to be any); or 2) contain properly sourced information about the surname. The article can conceivably be improved to meet the second criterion.
Uanfala (
talk)
21:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Adamsquire86 (
talk)
19:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)There are plenty other Welsh Football teams included on Wikipedia, some playing at the same level as FC Nomads, others playing at a lower level. Only a small percentage of these would have played in the Welsh Premier, so to delete this article for the reason that they haven't played in the Welsh Premier, means all the others should be deleted too does it not? This club will be in the Cymru Alliance in the not so distant future, which is another league on here who's clubs have plenty of representation.reply
Adamsquire86 (
talk)
20:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
"Club notability
All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible for national cups must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria."reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - not seeing evidence of notability. Possibly a speedy candidate given the prior AfD result, although given that 10 years have elapsed since then may be worth letting this play out in case someone comes up with evidence of notability. It looks like this was actually redirected in 2010 and then re-expanded subsequently.
Rlendog (
talk)
14:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Running a series of martial arts schools is insufficient to show notability as a martial artist. Acting in a movie is insufficient to show notability as an actor. There is a lack of coverage to show he meets
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk)
03:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. I have considered the notability argument for deletion, however, in our
WP:N guideline, this also applies:
Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.
This is a list of streets, each of which largely fail our guidelines for general notability, effectively a
walled garden of sorts. I am presenting this deletion request to the community on the basis that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
22:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Even assuming that none of the redlinks in this list merit articles (and that there's no basis for listing any nonnotable streets),
Category:Streets in Karachi shows we have 21 articles on individual streets. That's plenty for a list. postdlf (talk)
19:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Thank you postdlf for commenting. In your opinion, how many individual street articles would be required to justify such a list? I ask because most all of the 21 articles you refer to lack anything in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The majority have no sources at all, and the few that do fail our standards for reliability. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
22:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Then you've done all of this backwards, haven't you? Nominate the street articles for deletion that don't pass GNG and then we'll see whether a list is merited for whatever remains. We're certainly not going to waste time discussing the merits of other articles that aren't actually included in this AFD. postdlf (talk)
22:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)reply
While I was not aware of the additional poorly sourced articles until you mentioned them, this only furthers the point that this is a walled garden. You are welcome to assist in the assessment process, as a second set of eyes to review would be helpful. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
23:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Karachi is a populous city, there is no argument to be made about that. That said, this list has existed for several years without improvement. Per WP:NGEO, "geographical features must be notable on their own merits", and "local roads and motorway service areas may vary, and are presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable and independent of the subject." As this list is unsourced, and the few articles which are linked also fail to provide adequate sourcing, your subsequent claim is dubiously speculative and wishful at best. Regards,
Yamaguchi先生 (
talk)
19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
*Delete - Had they all be wikilinked then fine but the article's existed since 2007 and only 5 or 6 out of 45 have been created, All the streets aren't notable (I've searched for 3 and found nothing) and it's extremely unlikely they'll ever be created thus making this article useless, Also in the 10 years it's been here there's not been one source added at all ....., I personally think it's utterly pointless in keeping something that we all know will never be expanded nor improved... plus it fails GNG anyway, As the saying goes No source = No article, Delete. –
Davey2010Talk01:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - No sources to support such a list, and the vast majority are redlinks. Though there are a number of existing articles on streets in Karachi that could be enough to sustain a list, as the majority appear to be unsourced substubs that will almost certainly be bulk AFD'd and deleted, it would be pointlessly bureaucratic to withdraw this nomination and renominate again two weeks later.
QueenCake (
talk)
17:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Having a list of redlinked articles yet to be created is useless to the reader and the list will grow with more redlinks ..... sure they could be create but chances are they won't ..... –
Davey2010Talk20:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment – Could this be redirected to "List of notable streets in Karachi" (or similar) and narrowed to only list streets with demonstrable notability? —Nizolan(talk)21:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
That's a matter for normal editing and is typical for lists. By convention, we do not include self-referential terms such as "notable" in article titles even when they are limited in practice in that way, so there's no need to rename. postdlf (talk)
00:19, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Postdlf's correct- We don't ever have the word "notable" in any article title, That aside it's a great idea however there's only about 5 or 6 bluelinks there so seems pointless to have a list of 6 articles and nothing else.... –
Davey2010Talk00:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
There are 21 in the category. Maybe some of those should be deleted, maybe all, but this AFD can't decide that either way because it's just about this list, an index. I'm also concerned about
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS when we're talking about features of a nonwestern city, so I'm more inclined to give the benefit of the doubt absent some showing of familiarity with the subject. postdlf (talk)
00:57, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and clean up – Thanks for the clarification
Postdlf. I was thinking of the
List of famous mosques (which I now see is also at AfD), but I get that that's a bit different in any case. I do agree on the point about non-western coverage, and since the
selection criteria seem objective and there are a range of potential articles that can be listed, I'm going to go ahead and !vote keep. Some of the arguments to delete seem to boil down to
WP:NEGLECT, which is a cleanup matter and not a deletion matter. For what it's worth, I don't think every entry here needs its own article necessarily either, but that can be discussed at the article. —Nizolan(talk)02:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Either way, if you like or hate articles abouts streets in Karachi, then you should vote Keep. Any new individual street topics should be covered first in the list-article, and only hive off into separate articles if there's lots to say about them. --
doncram17:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. This article is a very poorly written article. However, I also do not believe there is a strong consensus here to delete. The only policy-backed argument here for deletion is
WP:NOR, however, it is unclear to what extend how that applies here.
While it is nice to have academic sources for this subject, our
WP:N does not absolutely require this, rather it is the
WP:RS that needs to be demonstrated. None of the arguments demonstrated how this fails our notability guideline, or how the existing sources are not considered to be reliable by
WP:RS standards, hence I cannot see the consensus to delete.
Yamamoto Ichiro (
talk)
03:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I would argue that it would be best to merge back into
Earth Similarity Index which is where the page :was derived from. However speculation and/or OR is not going on in the article because
A) ESI values are known for solar system satellites
B) Exomoon information is provided by
PHL/HEC based on data from exoplanets and the planet-to-mass ratio of 10,000:1 as proposed by Bates et al.[1]
Essentially the entire article is speculative. It is impossible to remove the speculative information because then the article would be blank. Even the "ESI" values are speculative as the index itself is made-up by a single author and doesn't represent any meaningful statement with respect to habitability according to the inventor's own admission.
jps (
talk)
22:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I'm sorry I have to say this but nobody believes you with your WP:OR bs, just look at all your AfD's I'll be reverting your revision because apparently 3rd party sources are Original Research. Since Wikipedia is a communtity it would be nice if the entire community can have access to that sandbox. Davidbuddy9 Talk 04:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Please don't use the word "bs". I'm truly sorry that you're working on trying to include ESI in many articles, but it simply is not used in the academic literature. It is outside the
WP:MAINSTREAM. It is
WP:FRINGE. Thus, to write about it, we need
independent sources. That is, sources not written by Mendéz which reference the ESI. That is the goal of what we're trying to do here.
jps (
talk)
05:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete (changed vote). My original instinct was to try to merge this material somewhere or to rename the article, but I now think that the best solution is to delete it. WP should not describe an object as "potentially habitable" unless there is in-depth, peer-reviewed research which makes such a claim. The UPR source is not peer-reviewed and should not be the basis of a WP article. Moreover, there are other articles (e.g.,
Europa,
Enceladus, and
Extraterrestrial liquid water) which discuss in-depth, peer-reviewed evidence that other bodies in the solar system might sustain life. So even if this article were rewritten, it would still be redundant with those articles. See also my rationale at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of potentially habitable exoplanets. Note: for the sake of readability, if anyone wishes to respond to my changed vote, please do so at the bottom of the AfD discussion. Merge to
Earth Similarity Index, and remove hypothetical exomoons from table. It seems to me that this article basically applies the ESI to the objects listed in the table. Accordingly, I think that this table should be merged to the ESI article, supplemented with explanatory text. However, the hypothetical exomoons must be removed from the table. We should not presume their existence in the absence of peer-reviewed observational evidence. Listing them alongside objects which do exist has a very strong potential to be misleading, especially to readers without a background in exoplanets. Astro4686 (
talk)
23:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Astro4686: The I initially proposed this but after a few incidents (
1,
2) I have changed my mind as it appears to not be welcomed on the ESI page. Repurpose this for ESI's of Moons in the Solar Systems which is definitely known whether you like the ESI Scale or not. Davidbuddy9 Talk 03:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Hi @
Davidbuddy9: Thanks for pointing that out; I'll think about your point and reconsider my vote. One concern I have with keeping the article is that the use of "potentially habitable" in the title might be misleading, as ESI attempts to quantify physical similarity to Earth and doesn't take into consideration all factors relevant to habitability (as we know it). Changing the title to reflect this distinction might ameliorate any concerns that the article is too speculative. Best Regards,
Astro4686 (
talk)
05:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Astro4686:@
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: If its the title that's not OK than how about we rename it? List of Natural Satellites in order of ESI? Something along those lines. Regardless if you agree with the ESI or not a list of Natural satellites should still be accessible to the readers, even if it is repurposed to just include the Solar System. Davidbuddy9 Talk 23:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi @
Davidbuddy9 and
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: Renaming the article would address my concerns, and I am wondering whether the other participants in this discussion might find this to be an acceptable compromise. My interpretation of this discussion is that the fundamental issue revolves around the use of ESI as a predictor of habitability; if the article and its title are amended so that they don't use the ESI to quantify potential habitability, then the issue is remedied without deleting the article. Would the renamed article be too redundant with
List of natural satellites, though? Best Wishes,
Astro4686 (
talk)
04:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course it doesn't list them "in order of habitability" because such an order is entirely the unpublished originally researched invention of the person in charge of a single website (while simultaneously claiming that the ESI isn't actually an index of habitability). I have no objection to an article about the likelihood of habitable satellites, but this is not going to be a well-ordered list and certainly shouldn't be relying on the ESI. Unlike for Kepler candidates, there are precisely zero peer-reviewed papers on using this index with respect to natural satellites.
jps (
talk)
11:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete the article does not cover our own solar system's moons in any useful manner, our solar system's moons can't be merged to an exoplanet article, and the purely hypothetical exomoons shouldn't be merged anywhere. That leaves nothing to go anywhere. By the way,
List of potentially habitable exoplanets currently has a slim majority for delete once the sockpuppeting !votes are discounted. There's a good chance it won't even exist as a merge target.
Alsee (
talk)
10:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Although a desperate attempt is made to save this article, it still has hardly viable information or sources. The relevant information does not warrant a separate article and the info can be added to the main article
Miss SpainThe Bannertalk21:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Although she's been in one notable film and tv show there's nothing at all in terms of
reliable sources on the actress, (I've found about 3 mentions & that's it), Possible meets NACTOR however fails GNG,
Delete as simply not convincing for the applicable notability and the listed information is simply not enough, even for both moving elsewhere or the one award which I find is simply not enough to save the article.
SwisterTwistertalk05:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So many refs and so very little evidence of notability. Most are at very best tangential and many make no mention of the subject. The archetypal puff piece which fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 04:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. As far as I'm concerned, you can prove notability with articles that are not in English and that are not online.
Edsab15 (
talk) 15:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC
Comment - can somebody please point out which, if any, of these refs convey notability. Language isn't an issue. Spanish is fine, but where exactly can notability be found ? VelellaVelella Talk 01:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as this cannot be taken seriously as an excellent example keeping, the simple number of current sources are still questionable actually and, if there's nothing better, this is best deleted until better is available. Overall article is still questionable,
SwisterTwistertalk04:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'd like to know which refs are considered questionable. This is why is hard to have a better representation of Dominicans on Wikipedia, since articles of the best newspaper in the country is considered "questionable". TorchbitTorchbit Talk 23:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - most of the sources in the article are from non-reliable sources (imdb, youtube), or are non-independent (crunchbase, evernote), or are not about him directly (about his company), or are interviews or articles by him (and therefore primary sources and not valid for notability purposes), or are mere mentions of him. The search engines do not turn up anywhere near enough to show he passes
WP:GNG.
Onel5969TT me13:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. The Evernote link is a collection of scanned magazine features and interviews of him in Spanish. How is best to reference offline refs so it'd be admisible? The
WP:GNG doesn't specify this matter -
Torchbit (
talk)
23:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - Note that the Keep votes are not actually convincing to actually keep and improve this with the article currently still seeming as questionable as when it first started.
SwisterTwistertalk04:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is a mess.
Afro-American is synonymous with
African American, not a generic term for people of African ancestry in the Western hemisphere. This article has been unsourced/poorly sourced for many years. Finally, the idea that "foreign-born Afro-Americans" have anything in common beside the accident of geography of birth is pure
original research without
reliable sources that establish the existence of such a group. —
Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk02:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as this is still questionable and I'm not confident there would be better noticeable improvements, delete for now and then restart later if needed.
SwisterTwistertalk04:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete this appallingly diffuse, badly sourced
WP:COATRACK article. Problems include the fact that the term
Afro-American is commonly reserved for the United States, but here it is used for a motley array of groups claiming descent form other countries in the Americas. Sourcing is a huge problem, take, for example, the section on Amaro, Saro and Emancipado populations, which makes assertions not supported except by links to, for example,
Emancipados, itself a highly inadequate article desperately in need of sourcing. (On review, I see that Nom has already said all what I just said. He's right, however, to continue with reasons to delete this mess) The primary problem here is with the topic of article. It is not at all clear what, if anything, the children of American military personnel, the religious seekers of the
African Hebrew Israelites of Jerusalem and the
Freetown creoles have in common. To keep this article we would have to see evidence that someone other than the article's creator discusses these disparate groups as a unit.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Film with no strong claim of notability per
WP:NFILM, and no strong
reliable source coverage -- the "sources" here are IMDB, an entry in another IMDB-like film directory, and the sales page for the DVD on
amazon.com, but none of these represent media coverage about the film. (Side note, I'm also amused by the creator's username: "Accountcreatedsoicancreateanarticle".) As always, a film is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it has an IMDb page; it must have a credible claim of notability, which is not the same thing as mere existence, and must be sourced to real media coverage. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: I'm finding some stuff for the director's other work, so if all else fails we can always create an article for the director and redirect there.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)04:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Nobody said anything about the film being deletable because it was independent — the size of a film's production studio has nothing whatsoever to do with our inclusion criteria for films. The issue is the presence or absence of
reliable source coverage about the film in media — no film, independent or studio or American or Canadian or whatever, ever gets an exemption from that. My own edit history is bulging with the creation of articles about independent and/or Canadian films, so I can't be accused of having a bias against the topic — but I use proper sources to support the articles I create.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed
Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. A member of US diplomatic service, he has not held a rank of ambassador, just some mid-tier bureaucratic posts which do not seem to confer auto-notability. I don't see any references (articles about a subject) that would allow to expand the article. This is just an a person doing his job, not encyclopedic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Leaning delete per
Piotrus's rationale. But I did come across a couple of pages from the
USC Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership & Policy, where he is a senior fellow
[2], noting that he received an award for his work to implement new policies to secure the rights of same-sex couples at the State Department
[3], as well as a 2013 Washington Post article that describes him as "the department’s top human resources adviser on LGBT issues".
[4] I didn't find more online content on this topic (which isn't even mentioned in the current version of the article), but if some substantive coverage about his activities in this area were identified, I would reconsider my !vote. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
22:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - I've incorporated much of the material and sources found by
Arxiloxos into the article. The career section in particular has been expanded and (hopefully) improved. His aforementioned work on LGBT issues and benefits has also been included. Given that his contributions are now further elaborated on (and sourced) in the article, I would contend that this meets
WP:GNG.
GabeIglesia (
talk)
15:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Nice job, but I still don't see what makes him notable. He got a university award, which was covered in a university newspaper; all other sources either mention him in passing or are not-independent (such as his official homepage biography, etc.). Mid-tier bureaucrat doing unnotable, unencyclopedic work that is simply average and expected for someone of his level in the administration, and receiving corresponding minor recognition in media - I still stand by this assessment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here06:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Noted. I've added a few more sources I could find from the Washington Post and a few others that may help to meet the source independence criterion, but other editors can chime in and say otherwise. Also, to clarify, unless I'm mistaken, the subject received an award from
GLIFAA, which is the official association of LGBT diplomats, not a university organization.
GabeIglesia (
talk)
12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I tried searching for information about their US branch's name, McO'River. The company itself seems to have little to no coverage but one of their titles has some:
Aero Fighters. The console version was rarer but it was the heyday of the arcade. Since it's their magnum opus at least overseas, maybe a selective Merge would be appropriate? --
Mr. Magoo (
talk)
04:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
For since the
Video System had a bit of trivia concerning the development of
Aero Fighters, it might fit in the appropriate article along with possibly a brief background about the company, like the infobox (only without the meaningless website archive). If some more sources are found about the company I'd be inclined to keep, however. --
Mr. Magoo (
talk)
04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The only secondary source in this article wouldn't be relevant to the Development section of Aero Fighters.
Psikyo could work. czar03:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Lucien van der Walt's admittance of this blatant autobiographical, unsourced, non-encyclopedic editing is available in the
"Personal statement" from February 2016. In it, he describes his use of the
Redblackwritings account: "I apologise sincerely and unreservedly for engaging the issues under the Red.Black.Writings identity without clearly identifying it as mine. I should have done so, from the start. I am sorry if it was misleading. I acted emotionally, and without care. I am truly sorry... But that does not excuse me."
Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that anonymous edits to this article and related articles (for example, articles about the author's books), originate with the author or close friends and/or colleagues. The IP addresses
41.13.200.2,
41.13.216.24,
41.13.220.57,
41.13.228.45,
41.13.228.127,
41.13.192.222,
41.13.220.5, and
41.13.238.143 are also likely Lucien van der Walt, contributing original, unsourced information (such as
"working class and slave family background") and all originating from a private ISP account near the author's home and workplace in
South Africa. The IP addresses
197.79.37.234,
197.79.56.46, and
197.79.29.54 all originate from mobile broadband in South Africa, and only contribute links to talks and articles by Lucien van der Walt that the author or a close colleague would know. Other IP addresses that have edited this article show a similar bias, such as
105.250.162.49, which also originates in South Africa.
As an aside, it's rather embarrassing for a serious academic to be engaging in such blatant self-promotion, especially under a
"once-well-known name I used to use". Since that username was an open secret amongst Lucien van der Walt's friends and colleagues, it displays the author's brazen will to violate Wikipedia policy... it's almost like editing this article under the nickname "IamLucienVDW" -
Africanarchist (
talk)
07:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Unfortunately
WP:AUTO is not a reason for deletion alone. He seems to be notable under
WP:PROFESSOR (criteria #2), however, any blatant promotional content and the ridiculous over-listing of works by the author need to be removed. InsertCleverPhraseHere02:55, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. A GS
h-index is not enough to pass
WP:Prof#C1 in pop-sociology. Authorship of BLP is irrelevant. 21:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC).— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Xxanthippe (
talk •
contribs)
I'm open to Keeping if this can be improved. Delete at best as I'm uncertain but I'm able to examine this is still overall questionable. Also asking
DGG's analysis.SwisterTwistertalk04:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. but rewrite;, which I have just done. Anarchism and syndicalism is a reasonably important book. I removed the large excess of material which made it promotional , and does not conform to the standard practices for academic biographies. WP is an 1encyclopedia , and our policy is NPOV--not to reward or punish potential article subjects according to whether the people follow our rules DGG (
talk )
04:58, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I just removed further promotional text by
Redblackwritings, unsourced irrelevant material (racial and ethnic ancestry), and redundant info (birthplace, awards already mentioned). I still think it merits deletion; once you have stripped out the self-promotion and unsourced autobiography, there isn't much left but a stub page. There is even more text that probably merits removal or editing, but I will wait until this discussion closes.
Africanarchist (
talk)
07:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The article is linked to from a list of the oldest buildings in South Carolina which had long had a hyperlink without any article. More importantly, tagging something that was created literally FOUR MINUTES earlier for deletion is silly. Articles need a little time to breathe.--
ProfReader (
talk)
20:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Lack of assertion of significance is by some quirk basis for a speedy delete, but it is not a requirement of articles. Instead we use notability defined by reliable sources, present here. And it's subjective whether there is assertion of significance or not. You can say "The White House is a building in Washington, D.C." without having to explicitly document "Professor Z says the White House is architecturally very very important, and it is also very very important because lots of super-important events happened there." This one exudes significance to me. Also the article could say more about the dependencies, but it does say it has them and that they are award-winning. That's a second assertion of notability for the property. --
doncram17:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Being an almost two and a half century old South Carolina house asserts significance. Coverage indicated in article demonstrates passing WP:GNG too.
Ethanlu121, why was this nominated for AfD within four minutes of its creation?
[5] --
Oakshade (
talk)
02:07, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as my searches found several links at Books, News and WP:INDAFD but simply nothing to suggest considerable improvements, it's simply expected coverage. Delete at best for now,
SwisterTwistertalk05:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be a non-notable annual event. Hardly any coverage is available and all references are primary sources. The first edition of the event just happened last year. The impact of the event (if any) is not clear either.
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
09:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
SNOW Delete. All present "references" are just pages on the event's own website. There's nothing by way of legitimate sourcing and nothing in the content the context that gives good reason that more will be forthcoming. Indeed, google searches don't presently return a single result that doesn't direct to the afore-mentioned website.
Snowlet's rap22:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete It's completely non notable. Another article created by the same over enthusiastic Monster High fan. This user keeps making this kind of stuff repeatedly.
*Treker (
talk)
12:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From what I can gather by reading the college's website, it is a preparatory school offering courses that prepare students to sit university entrance exams. See
here,here and
here for examples. What I could not find was any evidence that the school offers degrees in its own right, which would mean it fails
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Nor could I find any evidence that it satisfies
WP:GNG.
AtHomeIn神戸 (
talk)
01:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article was already speedy deleted on two occasions, but it is back. I would like the AfD community to consider its value and determine its worthiness. For myself, I am not seeing where it meets any of the basic Wikipedia notability requirements.
And Adoil Descended (
talk) 18:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
And Adoil Descended (
talk)
18:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete No evidence of notability. The concert has been announced to be postponed until the latter half of the year. No date is yet confirmed. Even if there is a date, no one knows for sure until it actually occurs.--
TerryAlex (
talk)
20:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, no references, no indication of notability, and the amount of content barely qualifies this for stub status. Further, if the article has met speedy delete criteria twice there is overwhelming community consensus on this matter and salting may be recommended here.
Snowlet's rap22:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either
this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Per
Guidelines this does not qualify for a seasonal article, nor do the other two recent Coria articles. The standard guidelines per consensus are that IF the main page of a player is getting overwhelmed, we would create a
Guillermo Coria career statistics article like many other standout players have. He doesn't even have that yet!
Fyunck(click) (
talk)
18:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:
We would have hundreds of these trivial articles if the guidelines allowed for it.
It would be a sham to delete these articles for the sake of a formality. Coria achieved much during his short career, including reaching the French Open final in 2004 and winning many masters titles. He was even considered the best clay-courter in the world in 2004. By the guideline that only players who won a slam qualify for tennis season articles, less talented players such as Gaudio and Cilic who fluked their single slam titles would receive tennis season articles whilst Coria would be excluded simply because he choked and had cramps on match point in the 2004 French Open. It would be a shame to delete three fully completed articles detailing his match history during his peak years of 2003-2005. He was a talented player and deserves these articles. Excluding players who didn't win slams would also exclude players such as Nalbandian and Ferrer which is not right considering both have reached many semis and a final each and Nalbandian was extremely talented, although inconsistent. I don't see what is wrong with keeping this articles up. How will Wikipedia benefit by deleting this articles, considering Wikipedia's aim is to spread information rather than limit its spread?
Ujkrieger (
talk)
18:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge I don't think they merit individual articles, but they could be merged either into a single career article or summarized in Coria's main article.
Mdtemp (
talk)
15:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Incubate as a draft - currently reasonable coverage on "Work Your Muscle" but keeping in mind
WP:1E as well as the fact that Work Your Muscle is borderline, it makes the most sense to keep the article as a draft, hopefully expand on it if the artist continues to release significant music, and move it back to mainspace once that happens.
Appable (
talk)
23:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Draft only if needed (since "incubate" was mentioned above) as my searches found several extra links but this is frankly still questionable overall. I question drafting because I'm not certain if this can be improvable, delete from mainspace at best though.
SwisterTwistertalk04:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Poorly verified article for non-notable performer. No record contract, no hits, no in-depth coverage: not notable, in short.
Drmies (
talk)
02:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete She is a low level musician and actress with no sources in the article to pass notability. IMDb claims she has been features in newspapers in South Africa and Zimbabwe. If someone could find these sources, we might be able to salvage it. The Zimbabwe link we have does not seem to be enough to even count as one indepth reference in a reliable source. Even if it is, we need at least one more to pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:53, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus not to have an article. No consensus yet about whether to redirect or where to, so editors are free to follow up on this. Sandstein 09:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Totally pointless, belongs an a fan wiki instead of this wiki layla 18:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep - we need to assess an article's potential, not just its current state. For example, on the TV series, the location was introduced in the episode "
Remember". That article has 20 sources, several of which discuss Alexandria (the full name "Alexandria Safe-Zone" is not mentioned in every occurrence). You need only peruse the article to see this. The location has appeared in over a dozen episodes since then, and I'm sure looking over the sources presented in the articles for those episodes as well will reveal even more sources.
BOZ (
talk)
03:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)reply
While I agree there's no
deadline, I can't imagine there being several reliable sources that speak of the the fictional place. Going over the sources listed at "Remember",
this article does go into some detail though. But we need several sources, not
personal analysis of the episodes or comic books or dialogue taken verbatim.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK11:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Sources may mention it, but it doesn't seem to be independently notable. For the articles linking to it, the context usually provides enough information for a reader to understand the idea.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
12:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or redirect. Without real world details to establish the information as relevant, there is no need for an article detailing the extensive biography of a fictional character.
TTN (
talk)
21:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect per
Cunard. The character is not notable, but the the search term is a legitimate one, and should be directed to the legitimate content that we do have; namely, the list.
Vanamonde93 (
talk)
06:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Speedy keep For one thing, the nominator has given no rationale, which means it should be speedy kept anyway. And they clearly pass
WP:NCRIC, as they've played
first-class cricket. The solution is to improve the article, not delete it because it's a stub
Joseph2302 (
talk)
22:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Ah, welcome back Clavdia; your comments and attitude betray your former identity. Seeing as this is a player who played in the 1940s and 1950s and died before the internet age, the coverage is presumably in the print media of the era, but sadly this isn't easily available online unless you have access to the archives. Thankfully it appears
Struway2 may have access, as he's added some coverage from the
Daily Mirror. It's also disappointing (although not at all suprising) to see you bringing up the "wikipedia-specific concept" canard again. You were party to plenty of discussions in which it was pointed out that this is not the case, but for the benefit of the closing admin, here are just a few of the multitude of BBC Sport stories that reference this:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Winning the Atlantic Fleet title does not meet
WP:NBOX nor does anything in his pro career meet boxing notability criteria. The only coverage given is passing mentions of boxing results, certainly not enough to meet
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk)
03:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page has exisited for many years and is indeed very notable as the subject Mr Matthew co founded and managed one of the largest youtube channels in the world for many years and was responsible as shown in some references for much of the success and coverage of the channel.
Additionally since that time Justin has gone on to his own notable accomplishments and important news.
From Forbes magazine to the United Kingdoms City AM of the top 100 entrepreneurs and even the top 100 digital marketers from digital marketing magazine to mention a few.
Also the founder of one of the most respected digital marketing firms in the US which has also made headlines for their innovation in that field.
From being mentioned with the likes of Mark Cuban, Steve Jobs and other top entrepreneurs to helping create one of the most viewed science television shows Scientific Tuesdays on youtube.
Because of these actions millions of students were watching and learning about science in schools across the country.
May 31st 2016 Steve Olenski of
Forbes,
Huffington Post &
Business Insider contributor (among others), Writer, Top 100 Social Media Influencers, & Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Digital & Social Media Marketing wrote an article called The Single Trait That Can Build Or Kill Your Brand[2] about the importance of ingenuity in business and is mentioned by the author and cited with
"He would know, being named one of the top 10 entrepreneurs in the U.K. in the online presence of City A.M., London's first free daily business newspaper.
City A.M. is distributed at more than 250 commuter hubs across London and the home counties, as well as 1,600 offices throughout the City, Canary Wharf and other areas of high business concentration, giving it a daily readership in excess of 399,000 professionals. [3] CityAM.com has a monthly visitor figure in excess of 1.27m, of which two-thirds are in the UK.(Source: Adobe Analytics, Comscore). Matthew is alongside such people as
Richard Branson and
Victoria Beckham." [4]— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TrollPatrol247 (
talk •
contribs)
19:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
References
^Bate et al 2003 (Monthly Notices of RSA, vol. 341, pp. 213-229)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I should note that the article
had more claims about Vider before I pared it way back due to its being an apparent autobiography with a promotional tone sourced only to the subject's website. Another editor on the talk page feels that there is sufficient notability found
in this Highbeam search, although what I see there looks like repeated mentions in a single source (The Buffalo News) doing local-grad-makes-good stories. --
Nat Gertler (
talk)
14:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not notable yet. Promotional article which is probably meant to enhance her campaign. Might be notable when elected. Nothing in her legal career makes her notable
Gbawden (
talk)
13:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
As always, unelected candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates — if you cannot provide and
properly source credible evidence that she would already have qualified for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before becoming a candidate, then she does not become notable enough for an article until she wins the seat. But nothing else claimed or sourced here is enough to get her over the bar if you take the candidacy out of the equation. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in November if she wins.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Already tagged for notability, this person fails GNG IMO. Her claim to fame is a film called Unlisted, but even the film is not notable.
Gbawden (
talk)
13:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Subject lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. The page currently uses: Twitter, LinkedIn, and Unlistedfilm as sources.
Meatsgains (
talk)
00:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either
WP:GNG or
WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research.
Astro4686 (
talk)
23:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation".
Alsee (
talk)
23:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under
WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list right now.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation".
Alsee (
talk)
23:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under
WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.)
Astro4686 (
talk)
01:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under
WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.)
Astro4686 (
talk)
01:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under
WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.)
Astro4686 (
talk)
02:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under
WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.)
Astro4686 (
talk)
02:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation".
Alsee (
talk)
23:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.)
Astro4686 (
talk)
02:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under
WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.)
Astro4686 (
talk)
02:06, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails
WP:NASTRO. It is likely that most KOIs do not pass notability unless there are numerous papers written about them. Many if not most KOIs will be found to be spurious detections.
jps (
talk)
11:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge all unconfirmed KOIs into a single list, with entries moved out upon confirmation, and false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation.
bd2412T18:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete there are already over 1000 confirmed Kepler planet detections, and growing. That is already an excessive list of non-notable exoplanets, and we need to stop this nonsense before we have lists of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, or billions of non-notable exoplanets. We definitely should not build a list of unconfirmed exoplanets, and if we did, we absolutely should not keep "false positives moved to a bottom section upon disconfirmation".
Alsee (
talk)
23:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete.WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies here. As others have mentioned, the threshold for notability under
WP:NASTRO could be considered confirmation as an exoplanet rather than just candidate status. I'm not opposed to merging candidate articles into a list within another single article, but I don't think there's enough unique content to justify such a list for most of these right now.
Kingofaces43 (
talk)
20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. KOIs should not be exempt from either WP:GNG or WP:NASTRO. As a practical matter, if every candidate exoplanet receives an article without regard to GNG and NASTRO, then WP will be flooded with stubs about non-notable exoplanet candidates which needlessly duplicate catalog information. The problem with merging into a list is that I'm not sure that there's encyclopedic value in a list of objects which aren't sufficiently notable to warrant their own articles. On an unrelated note, a number of these KOI stubs contain very speculative statements about habitability. In the event that these articles are kept, I think that these statements should be removed unless substantiated by in-depth, peer-reviewed research. (Note: This is my verbatim rationale from
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KOI-2194.03; this AfD raises the same issues as that one.)
Astro4686 (
talk)
02:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Yet another piece of niche software without any evidence of notability. The refs show that it exists and the the Windows environment in which it operates exists. The others are non-substantive refs in terms of notability. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 11:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep! 1st it's not the same as nuget. 2nd: Beside the citations by @
Codename Lisa above, their site states that they've got 3,893 unique packages of which 3,010 are known good. There are 39,672,513 total downloads as of today!
asklucas (
talk)
19:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Any good editor in Wikipedia knows that download statistics are worthless. First, there is no Wikipedia policy to account for them. Second, it is rarely possible to translate them into anything meaningful because they are disproportionate to due weight. Consider this: The combination of a small app with an auto-updater and a developer that constantly releases new versions for every change, results in high download counts. But this app could be anything, like a
lolcat app. On the other hand, supercomputer operating systems (which might or might not be sizeable) do not receive more than a handful of downloads per version, even though their due weight and impact is more than any other software product in this universe.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non notable character. Other character from this film,
Jude Quinn is also tagged for notability. No reason why this character is notable.
I am also nominating this duplicate article:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No sources, very little content. Cleanup tags date back from 7 years ago but has changed little ever since. More beneficial on ro.wiki rather than here. NordicDragon07:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Inherent notability. A cabinet or government entity such as this is an absolute keep. The fact that the article needs expansion and some improvement is completely irrelevant to the
AFD process; it's about searching for sources and external resources to determine if the article should be kept or deleted. Article quality has nothing to do with this process.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)12:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A criticism section in the main article may be warranted, but an entire article on criticism of something of lower notability is excessive, and this piece is heavily slanted.
JamesG5 (
talk)
06:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment The creator of this article was blocked for 1 week for abusing multiple accounts. On both accounts the user edited this article and made it seem promotional. I currently don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted, but just keep that in mind. — Music1201talk22:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, the largest retail operator in the Visayas region, one of the three main island group divisions of the Philippines. As verified by an independent source (Euromonitor) and a stock exchange listed company.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
05:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment This article should never have had a speedy deletion tag placed, let alone twice. This is about a major regional stock exchange listed company with coverage in the international press. Clear case of
WP:GEOBIAS. A London Stock Exchange or New York Stock Exchange company would never have been subjected to such a rush of hostility.
AusLondonder (
talk)
16:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
It doesn't matter how important the company is: if the article reads like an advertisement then it can be speedily deleted. The original tag was removed by the article creator so I simply replaced it. The article has now been improved slightly so there is no longer a need to consider speedy deletion, but the list of store addresses and most of the pictures need to be removed. . .
Mean as custard (
talk)
16:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
It wasn't initially apparent the tag was removed by the author, as it was a sockpuppet account.
WP:G11 does state "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion."
AusLondonder (
talk)
16:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Apparently an I.P which may or may not be the creator keeps on adding uncited and promotional corporate fluff on the article. I have reduced the content again.
Hariboneagle927 (
talk)
06:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Old orphan page for an apparently non-notable street in London. Nothing more to say than
WP:ITEXISTS. Page was prodded and deprodded twice over the years but never expanded or linked to. —
JFGtalk05:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Not my field,so I may be making an error, but "has been involved in " is not notability. There needs to be evidence he was primarily responsible. The references given do not seem to show it. DGG (
talk )
04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. I checked the references given in the article, and none of them even mention the subject. This looks like self-promotion.
Bradv15:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Edit This page may meet {{{WP:NN}}} , It just needs a lot of work. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ThePlatypusofDoom (
talk •
contribs) 12:06, 8 April 2016
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Prod declined on the notability of the artist. However, I could find literally nothing on this album; it was a limited release in only one country, it contains no new material, and I could not verify the purported chart positions. No notability asserted at all. Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)03:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Verified some of the chart positions of this album for the NZ albums charts from 1981. You can actually look through the archived dates on this website. Added several sources. Had it has keep before, but actually looking at the album cover it's the same as 'Always on my Mind' by Willie Nelson. So I am a little bit confused. --
TheDomain (
talk)
06:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Actress who was under BLP prod but since a IMDB ref was added, decided to go to this.
Anyway non notable actress, only one film so far. So falls under too soon as well.
Wgolf (
talk)
03:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. All of her roles appear to have been minor. Her only named role is in Pandorica and I think that it's her on the poster, but I'm not finding anything to suggest that the film is notable. This might pass under A7 criteria, but just barely so it's probably better to let it go the full AfD route in this situation.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: I found
this source that discusses the show, but I don't see enough to really justify it having an article at this point in time and as far as I can see, this is the only actual source out there. I'm likely going to delete this as a copyright violation and I have no problem with this getting re-created once there's more coverage, but at best this is just too soon.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)03:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: It does have some unused Portuguese-language book references available,
[14][15][16][17][18][19][20] but apparently was never released in the US or in English. This pre-internet film needs input from Portuguese-reading Brazilian Wikipedians, better able to locate and offer hard-copy news sources or reviews that are not online.. Schmidt, Michael Q.23:39, 23 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep — There is a lack of online English-language coverage of this film because of the time period and genre, but it seems clear to me that this is
notable. The handful of mentions that MichaelQSchmidt linked above (thank you) demonstrate that there is more than enough in print to reach the notability threshold.
giso6150 (
talk)
03:48, 26 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as there is clearly coverage, although
not in English. Could do with some help from Portuguese editors to extract from the sources, but appears to have notability as is. —
crh23 (
Talk)
09:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No independent refs, tagged for notability. Since the first AfD nom on March 9 (not a single vote besides the nom) not a slightest effort was done to remedy the notability problem. It means nobody freaking cares.
Staszek Lem (
talk)
18:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Couldn't find any independent coverage using Google, although there is a bit of incedental coverage or POV coverage. Fails
WP:GNG basically. —
crh23 (
Talk)
09:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fictional character. Not sufficiently notable (
WP:GNG); her coverage is limited to short passages in interviews and reviews. As a principal editor of the main article about the TV series, I'd like to avoid more places for in-universe fancruft to accumulate; there's already too much of that at
List of Steven Universe characters. Sandstein 20:44, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Eh, just delete it, I suppose. Garnet and Pearl had some good content due to sexuality, but I have no idea what to say about Amethyst. I mean, she's an interesting character for sure, but I don't remember anyone ever putting much focus on her while discussing the show. If all there is to use are episode summaries and series reviews, then you might as well not have an article on her. I'm sure she'll become notable at some point, but that's for the future to decide. ~
Mable (
chat)
13:16, 5 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. An interview with a creator is not independent, and unreliable blog sources suggest this is bottom of the barrel in terms of independent notability outside of the fictional universe. Character can succinctly be discussed in a list of characters, to keep
WP:FANCRUFT to a minimum.
--Animalparty! (
talk)
18:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
I disagree that interviews with creators aren't independant. When an interview is held by a reliable source, I believe it should be held up to the same standards as other reliable sources. But yeah, it's still basically impossible to write an appropriately balanced article on Amethyst due to a lack of real-world impact. ~
Mable (
chat)
19:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
WP:GNG states: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it, with a note adding Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability.. Thus while content in interviews may be verifiable, it alone doesn't help establish
notability, no matter how much detail creators go into about what they've created. In this particular case, an AMA on Reddit is hardly reliable, reputable source. Cheers,
--Animalparty! (
talk)
01:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Content on AMA and Reddit would be considered self-published sources, so those obviously don't establish notability. Something like
this Newsarama interviewdoes, however, as Newsarama is a reliable source and both the website and the writer (Lan Pitts) are independent from the creators of Steven Universe. This argument doesn't really have much to do with the reliability of Amethyst, as we both agree there's just to little to go on, but I like to make clear for whenever this article gets recreated that interviews from reliable sources are excellent places to find content, and self-published sources should generally be avoided. ~
Mable (
chat)
10:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I nominated this article because the only primary reference I can find is an opinion piece article written in Slate
[21] making reference to the term, and a couple of minor articles referencing that. I do not believe that this term is widely used in any context beyond the targets audience of that Slate article. If the term Xennials, which generates more hits and references than this subject, was not deemed
good enough for its own article, I don't see how this one meets wide enough notability outside of the small fanbase of the show My So-Called Life.
Justinm1978 (
talk)
21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - I know it's a shout in the dark and this article is as good as dead, but, aside from my admittedly inclusionist leanings, I do like the name it gives to the many hundreds of thousands of late-70s, early-80s kids that are caught in the no-man's-land between Gen X and Millennials. I think Slate is a good source, but clearly it appears to be virtually the only one. And, yes, you don't hear people ever actually mentioning they are a self-identified member of Gen Cat, but hey, at least this is one 'keep' before the
WP:SNOWBALL comes roll'n on in. :)
Buddy23Lee (
talk)
23:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
For the record, the version of the article I am making mention to and voting for in the above is/was
this one, as recent edits had cut out some of the weaker, but still seemingly plausable citations. I added them back for maximal disclosure, but the above link can obviously be referenced if it gets all gutted out again.
Buddy23Lee (
talk)
18:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
That's my biggest point here; there is no mention of this that does not refer back to that one Slate article, which is an opinion piece from someone not notable. The author of that article attempted to make something happen and it went nowhere beyond a couple of brief mentions in a couple of other thinkpiece articles, and then alongside other terms. This is a no-brainer delete to me.
Justinm1978 (
talk)
20:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - I know Xennials didn't fly. Doesn't anyone know of a good term (at least better than gen cat) which describes the grey area between gen X and Millennials? Maybe just maybe something that will eventually have some merge potential?
Buddy23Lee (
talk)
Weak Delete or Merge as appropriate to
Generation X and
Millennials (and perhaps
My So Called Life) - There are a few sources which picked up on the Slate article, writing about the same subject of, basically "if you're at the very end of one 'generation' or at the very beginning of another 'generation' you might feel like you don't fit into either one, so let's make up a name for you based on pop culture at the time". We have two variously and arbitrarily bounded generational spans which have been written about extensively (in book form, in academic journals...everywhere), then we have a hodgepodge of names in blogs and magazines for the people "in between" (while making the case that an "in between" exists at all). — Rhododendritestalk \\
14:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Never watched Slap Shot but I don't find these characters to have enough coverage and notability to warrant their own article here. It's current state right now doesn't give much hope either.
GamerPro6402:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I am pretty surprised by this nomination. These characters are probably the most popular characters from any sports movie ever. They are talked about in media alot. -
DJSasso (
talk)
11:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep per Djsasso. The article does need to be improved but this is far away from not being notable. Hell you can even find websites that sell Hanson Brothers costumes.
Deadman137 (
talk)
21:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's obvious you've never watched Slap Shot. These characters are very notable and have received significant coverage from many sources.
Smartyllama (
talk)
17:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:GNG. could not significant coverage of actual relations. the fact they closed their respective embassies says something about the importance of the relationship.
LibStar (
talk)
02:04, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The previous existence of embassies does not grant automatic notability. You have failed to establish how notability is met.
LibStar (
talk)
09:44, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:GNG, as there is no third-party coverage to speak of about the relations specifically, all I could find was mention of the closing of the embassies as well as
[22], which probably is a non-independent source(?). —
crh23 (
Talk) 09:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC) Has now been expanded substantially, so I'm retracting my Delete vote and switching it to Keep, as notability has been sufficiently shown. —
crh23 (
Talk)
14:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
that is not a valid reason for keeping . Many bilateral Articles have been deleted therefore they have no inherent notability.
LibStar (
talk)
15:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep two OECD countries and even the closing of embassies got coverage. I've contributed to similar articles on other countries and found that it's not simple to Google the relationship and get the right info. I would leave it with a banner asking for more help.
VanEman (
talk)
22:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
That's true, but the governments of OECD member countries tend to have a bit to do with each other through the organisation and are the subject of regular and good quality comparative studies on a wide range of topics so it does help meet
WP:N.
Nick-D (
talk)
08:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. Refs provided are companies with an apparent commercial relationship to the software. A search turned up no significant
WP:RS coverage. Article was created by an
SPA as possibly promotional.
Dialectric (
talk)
07:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Bringing this here because it will not qualify for CSD A7 - there is an assertion of notability. Despite this, no effort to prove
notability is given beyond that he is well known
locally in his home town, and a photo of him with a UAE ambassador (which, from what I can glean from some brief research, he met while studying in Malaysia) - and he won an art competition, apparently. Only thing I was able to find in the way of any press was a news article in which he had one paragraph, where he reflected on how studying in Malaysia effectively improved things for him. Good for his studies, but not for notability. --
Dennis The Tiger (
Rawr and
stuff)
05:12, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete nothing in this article appraoches notability. If he is really "well known" in his city, we should have sources supporting and explaining this.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Autobiographical article of non-notable author. Sole reference is her own writing, and does not address any biographical claims. No biographical sources supplied at all. Google search turns up nothing of note; fails
WP:GNG and
WP:NAUTHORScr★pIronIV15:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello, I created the article Stub. Wang NewOne is an artist in numerous exhibits, and has been profiled in magazine (note Vice and Dazed Digital citations) and has received commissions, which helps with notability. I don't know Chinese but could use help filling out more information from someone who does.
Yellow Swans (
talk)
05:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Per
WP:GNG and
WP:ARTIST. I could find no secondary, independent,
reliable sources that meets WP:GNG; the sources cited on the article are of his Facebook page and YouTube channel, a source that
appears to be dead (and even if it met Wikipedia's WP:RS guidelines, that source is definitely not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG's requirement for significant coverage - enough in-depth coverage where an article can be written without the use of
original research), and a few mentions from "NewHive" (a site that, by
it's own words is a "multimedia publishing platform" that "provide[s] a blank space and custom tools to simplify the process of creating rich multimedia experiences on the web"). Also clearly fails WP:ARTIST.
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)06:11, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Hello, original writer here. I just wanted to note that the source you say appears to be dead works for me and links to Vice Magazine online, China. You state that there are "mentions" by NewHive but I want to clarify that they also commission artwork and online exhibits, both of which are cited here.
Yellow Swans (
talk)
04:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Weak keep. I added two attributes and hope others can find more. Both are reasonably sparse sequences on the OEIS (A78972 and A326) that deserve inclusion. —
Anticontradictor (
talk)
02:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Pentagonal numbers are a nice enough sequence, but at #13, this number is not particularly early in the sequence. However I think
OEIS:A78972 obeys the metatheorem that all base-dependent sequences are boring, and it's even farther out on that one. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
05:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. It is interesting by virtue of its being the lowest uninteresting number. I added this to the article, including a reference.
Brad16:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Oh the irony. By keeping it it is no longer the lowest uninteresting number. But deleting it makes it retain it's interestingness. I am seriously conflicted.
Jschnur (
talk)
06:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
If this article gets deleted it would be the only 3-digit number not to have its own article on Wikipedia. Does that make it more interesting? Or is that proof that the number truly is uninteresting?
Brad18:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page seems like a major
WP:NOTWIKIA violation. For one, in the Dynasty Warriors series, most, if not all, characters are strongly based on historical figures in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms novel. Also, to add more confusion, these fictional characters aren't exclusive to the Dynasty Warriors video game series: They are also present in the
Romance of the Three Kingdoms video game series. In addition, this entire list has a fine line between being a character list and a large historical figure page. Almost every section has a hatnote referring the reader to the character's biographical-based person. Since there really is no way to put a definite distinction between the fictional and non-fictional figures here, this page serves to confuse and mislead on an encyclopedia and really only belongs on a Dynasty Warriors-related Wikia-like site.
Steel1943 (
talk)
21:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
@
Czar: At this point, I would say "no" to all three of them. (I'm saying this in regards to
List of Samurai Warriors characters assuming that the characters in that series are based on historical biographical figures as well.) However, the series-exclusive content at
List of Warriors Orochi characters could probably be moved to a page regarding the Warriors Orochi series, if that was ever created, but probably not since it seems the only character exclusive to that series who is not based on a historical biographical figure is Orochi and some characters from Musou Orochi Z and Warriors Orochi 3.
Steel1943 (
talk)
23:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete mainly because of the already noted confusion that can occur between the Dynasty Warriors characters and their historical counterparts. Although later entries in the game series have gotten better about depicting the characters accurately, the game still takes quite a few liberties. If there was a way to better separate game from history I would be in favor of keeping the article, but I don't think this article itself could meet the game article requirements anyway.
ZettaComposer (
talk)
17:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Also, I can confirm that
Samurai Warriors (the first one anyway) is based off the
Sengoku period in Japan much like how Dynasty Warriors is based off the Late Han and Three Kingdoms periods in China. Samurai Warriors is, in a way, a spinoff of the success of Dynasty Warriors and are very similar games. The consensus made on this article would most likely apply to the Samurai Warriors Characters article as well. I'm not certain about Warriors Orochi but I think that is a fictional crossover of Dynasty and Samurai Warriors.
ZettaComposer (
talk)
17:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, and thanks to Cunard for finding the biographical material from the Wall Street Journal, which I think was decisive here. This lady is marginally notable because there are a couple of reliable sources which have noted her, although compared to most people who have Wikipedia biographies she hasn't accomplished very much yet.—
S MarshallT/
C08:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)reply
There is one source. Notability is in questions. And the article was created by a single-purpose user, FactorHK, whose only changes have been vandalizing Koch-related articles with POV edits. Therefore I am concerned that leaving up this article creates the possibility of future POV vandalism.
DaltonCastle (
talk)
22:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment many have stated that she passes WP:GNG because supporting users stated there are reliable sources. To be clear, the vast majority of articles related to Elizabeth Koch are related to different Elizabeth Kochs than this one (there is an elder and an unrelated musician). Of sources related to this Elizabeth, there are two, one of which is not reliable.
DaltonCastle (
talk)
17:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I found after a short time searching, several references from RS to support GNG. Also, a comment Wiki does not have a policy to delete articles just because we're afraid they may be vandalized. If that's a concern, ask an admin to lock the page to prevent such attacks.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
00:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and this habit of seeking to delete Koch family related articles because they might vandalized is not policy-based. A
Google news search without the parenthetical "(publisher)" reveals enough cover to meet GNG, once again.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
01:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment Many of those are not about this Elizabeth Koch. Leaving the ones that are, there are a handful of articles. Wall Street Journal, fine, and then Salon, which is not a reliable source. Many of these sources, too, are about the elder Elizabeth Koch.
DaltonCastle (
talk)
01:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Salon is a good source to show notability. There is nothing wrong with it. I am aware that many hits may be the elder Elizabeth, but there are still plenty for the younger, too.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
22:27, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Quick comment: Firstly, most of those are for a different younger Elizabeth Koch. Secondly, Salon does not count as a reliable source. Especially about politics.
DaltonCastle (
talk)
23:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, for starters, its an entertainment site. The article it most recently published is titled "The Big Oral Sex Fallacy". And then their political publications are so far beyond a simple political bias (like how most newspapers have a bias but keep it reasonable), with articles titled along the lines of "Paul Ryan is an absolute joke", "Uh-Oh where does all the white rage go when Trump loses?" and "Mississippi vs. Everyone: State’s pushing obscene law that’s not only anti-LGBT, it could also force women to wear makeup". Its along the same lines as Buzzfeed for reliability.
DaltonCastle (
talk)
18:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Those aren't good reasons to reject it as RS. Salon has an editorial policy which is on par with other journalistic sites. It may have a liberal slant (which they do not hide), but again, political leanings don't rule out RS. I've never read anywhere that Salon is unfactual. If there is slant, it can be balanced with other sources.
Megalibrarygirl (
talk)
20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Relist in 2 weeks This article is not yet developed enough to determine notability. Rather than legally vandalize it by deleting it, relist it so the authors can add more info, if available. On the other hand, if nothing much is added, it can go to the dustbin.
Whiskeymouth (
talk)
04:52, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
There's no need to relist. It isn't the current state of the article that's an issue. The question -- the only valid question -- is whether or not she has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as best as we can determine searching by Google or other means. And regardless of whether those references currently appear in the article or not.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
11:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment: most sources related to Elizabeth Koch are for different Elizabeth Kochs. There is an elder and an unrelated musician. There are very few sources on the publisher, and even fewer (possibly only one) from reliable sources.
DaltonCastle (
talk)
17:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: I find the same problem as many other editors are finding. Sources are not for this Elizabeth Koch, and the ones that are and discuss her comprehensively are pretty much just the two good ones already in the article. Others are simply discussion of Black Balloon or Catapult. I see no problem with a redirect to one of those if the closing admin feels it appropriate.
Chrisw80 (
talk)
04:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep As one is a published in which published novels, they should stand.
KingOfKingsTheAssassin (
talk) 21:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)*Keep Koch is a published author and a significant publisher of fiction in New York. It seems that she has written for magazines and papers including the Los Angeles Review of Books, One Story, FENCE, Glimmer Train, Guernica, the Columbia Journalism Review and the New York Observer. She has also published at least twenty books, including 'Margaret the First' by Danielle Dutton and 'Springtime: A Ghost Story' by Michelle de Kretser'. Why does this 'DaltonCastle' user keep nominating anything related to the Koch family for deletion? In requesting deletion, the user 'DaltonCastle' makes a number of assertions about perceived future vandalism (?) that it seems there is no evidence for.--
Plainswin (
talk)
16:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - As others have noted above, the Elizabeth Koch we are referencing lacks notability and coverage in reliable sources. RS, outside of the two already included, only mention her in passing. Simply being a publisher and writer does not seem inherently notable.
Meatsgains (
talk)
00:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)reply
Elizabeth R. Koch is the literary member of the Koch family. She has an MFA in creative writing from Syracuse University, where she studied with author George Saunders, has published several short stories (some under a pen name), and is working on a novel. This month she is launching an independent publishing company called Catapult.
Ms. Koch, who comes from one of the nation’s wealthiest families, personally invested the seed money for Catapult, which has an annual budget in the high six figures and aims eventually to publish 12 books a year. She is the daughter of Charles Koch, the billionaire industrialist who, with his brother David, co-founded a web of conservative interest groups.
In contrast to her father and uncle, Ms. Koch, 39, describes herself as apolitical. “We’re very close but we’re all different,” she said of her family.
...
Ms. Koch grew up in Kansas, and wrote stories from the time she was young. She studied English literature at Princeton University, then held a series of jobs, editing books, working at magazines and doing a brief stint in journalism. She was an editor at Opium Magazine and co-founder of Literary Death Match, a raucous reading series in which authors compete for the best performance. “I was doing so many other things because I didn’t have the courage to write,” she said. “It wasn’t until I got into Syracuse that I felt, okay, now I think I have permission. That’s part of what we want to do at Catapult—give people permission. Don’t quit… We’re here, we’re with you, we support you.”
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.