The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 page called
Ben River currently exists on wikipedia and used to be the page that redirected to this page, the main page for this person should be
Ben River with the title Ben River and this page should be deleted and the
Ben River page should be kept online on Wikipedia as this is the page of this artist/person — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Newdjango81 (
talk •
contribs)
14:37, 17 June 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.
Can't find any sources in English which establishes that the subject passes GNG. The sources provided are only in Armenian and a quick internet search turns up little results on the subject. Fails
WP:GNGClass455fan1 (
talk)23:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: There isn't much at all in English, but he's listed as a "Famous Master" with a little cross-confirmation of other sources in this UNESCO
nomination. The article states he won the
Khorenatsi medal in 2004 (Armenia's highest cultural honour) and the
Armenian wiki that he won international awards including in the USSR -- both of which crossreference with
this. There's evidence
here,
here,
here and
possibly here of apparently independent coverage of him and/or his work. He passes ANYBIO/ARTIST, however the article needs to be properly referenced with sources, and if available these are likely to be in Armenian or possibly Russian, and may be offline. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~
(Talk)~12:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
If this is the case that no english sources are available, then this article would be better placed on the Armenian Wikipedia, not here. Also, some of the sources you have provided (YouTube and OK.ru) may not be reliable sources. See
WP:YOUTUBE. Class455fan1 (
talk)12:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
no, if the subject is notable, then an article can be on the English wikipedia, see
WP:GNG - "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." and
WP:NOENG - "Citations to non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia.".
Coolabahapple (
talk)
16:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment One thing I sometimes do for artists to get a rough feel for their notability is to check what the Google image results are for their name + artist (e.g. Arsen Panosyan artist). Interestingly, basically nothing comes up for this artist beyond a few still images from the Youtube pages, four wikiepdia-hosted images and a few blogspot-hosted images. Setting aside language, I think it might be correct to be dubious of this artist's notability, as even in another language I do not see much. The Youtube and wiki links given above are irrelevant for obvious
reliability reasons. The Unesco document is also not valuable as a reference since government assessment work is often governed by other criteria such as balancing assessment commmittee members by location, ethnicity, gender etc. So the Unesco document is not a stamp of approval and is not intended as such. Beyond that I am not seeing much.
HappyValleyEditor (
talk)
07:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
That's the whole reason why I nominated this for deletion. There is no significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Still fails GNG. Class455fan1 (
talk)08:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete instead as he may be known locally but there are also no collections so that's something missing for the notability, then there's also the number of sources which is simply not enough to support this article.
SwisterTwistertalk06:16, 25 June 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.
Completely unsourced article about a cable public access television series. Something like this might merit a Wikipedia article if it could be
reliably sourced over
WP:GNG, but
WP:NMEDIA does not confer automatic notability on every local television series that's claimed but not sourced as merely having existed. Also
conflict of interest, as the creator's username corresponds to one of the cast members. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:33, 17 June 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.
Original research attempt to create a Tommy Westphall thing, based solely on very superficial recurrences of minor characters, coincidental recurrence of shared names among characters intended as different people, and brand names of products not central to the plot in any way, across more than one of
Bryan Fuller's television series. Something like this might merit a Wikipedia article if it could be sourced over
WP:GNG as a thing that real
reliable sources actually discussed, but the sourcing here is based entirely on
Tumblrs, tweets, individual episode recaps and listicles on pop culture fora and casting announcements that don't have the word "Fullerverse" in them. That's simply not the kind of sourcing it takes to make something like this an appropriate article topic. Delete.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
None of this has been original research "to create a Tommy Westphall thing".
Beth Grant's character is intended as, and credited as, the SAME character throughout Wonderfalls, Pushing Daisies and Mockingbird Lane. In her two appearances in Wonderfalls and her one appearance in Hannibal,
Chelan Simmons character Gretchen Speck-Horowitz (known simply as "Gretchen Speck" in Hannibal after her divorce in Wonderfalls) claims to have "lost the hyphen, kept the ring.". These characters are clearly NOT intended to be different people, meaning these shows esist in a
shared universe. Also, it is not ENTIRELY based on Tumblrs & Tweets. There are also links to the Fullerverse Website.
[1][2]Keep.
TotalTruthTeller24 (
talk) 09:54, 18 June 2016 (ROI)
One example of a repeated character name that is intended, according to this very article, to be a different person is "Katherine Pimms", so I'm in no way making stuff up with that — and the characters who did cross over from one show to another as the same person are minor ones, not main characters, so there's clearly nothing significant about the crossovers as a thing in their own right. None of this constitutes a compelling reason why this would merit coverage in an encyclopedia as a thing. As well, fullerverse.com is not a
reliable source for content like this, as it's not a media outlet but rather a
self-published fansite created by a theorizer — and I didn't say the sourcing here was based solely on Tumblrs and tweets, I said it was based on Tumblrs, tweets and several additional kinds of sources. But all of the sources here, regardless of their type, failWP:RS for one reason or another. Simply put, you've either misinterpreted or misrepresented every single thing I actually said.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete or just redirect to
Bryan Fuller, which already has a section called "Fullerverse" that basically already has this same info. Most of the information is fairly trivial and
WP:FANCRUFT, hardly warranting a standalone article for the subject. Most of the "crossovers" between the shows are fairly minor and more of a "wink" to fans. It's not like it's the
Marvel Cinematic Universe or something. I'd also like to point out that this same user created
Template:Fullerverse which is fairly redundant of
Template:Bryan Fuller, and should also be deleted.
Drovethrughosts (
talk)
20:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete This "shared universe" is incredibly minor to non-existant – this is coming from a longtime Fuller fan. The template isn't even done to the same standards as templates; article isn't done to the standard of articles.
Cartoon Boy (
talk) 1:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Just did a read-through and the "Connections" section, basically identical to the "Fullerverse" section on the Fuller article...
Cartoon Boy (
talk) 1:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Template should also be deleted.
Cartoon Boy (
talk) 1:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
All the references are either own web-site, directory listings or advertisements. Nothing here is a reliable independent source demonstrating notability. Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 22:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
There are no advertisements in the references. There are some references to the homepage, but also to some entirely independent pages, such as the article from the "San Diego Business Journal," another article from the "Phoenix Business Journal" or the the FMCSA company detail page. This article's subject does meet the requirements for notability. Check reference #s 1, 11, 19 and 32 if you'd like to see for yourself. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ogbrewer (
talk •
contribs) 22:18,
Ogbrewer (
talk)
22:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, overtly promotional article of at best dubious notability. Even if usable sources were to be presented - the closest the current article comes is
this, which has all the hallmarks of a barely-edited press release reprint, and the bare handful of sources I could find are all of similar or worse quality (
typical example)- the article should
deleted and rewritten from those. And if the 9! nearly-identical copies of
this fatuously cited as references don't qualify as advertisements, I can't imagine what does. —
Cryptic23:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Do not delete, No advertisements are in the references. In case you don't know, an advertisement is an announcement, message, or listing that is paid for. None of the references were paid for. Those 9 copies are the directory pages for the different branches. If you read the article you will see that the company has nine branches. They are nearly identical because they are reference pages for each branch of the same company. Also, the article you refer to as a having "all the hallmarks of a barely-edited press release reprint" is an article from the Phoenix Business Journal. If you would like to contest their legitimacy, take it up with them. Ace is a multimillion dollar company with 9 branches nationwide and meets the requirements for being considered notable.
Ogbrewer (
talk)
23:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete WP is not a business directory. I see nothing notable here. The company exists, as do tens or hundreds of thousands of others. Significant independent coverage is required but not found here.
MB (
talk)
00:47, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not meet
WP:CORP which requires multiple instances of "deep coverage" in notable independent sources. Is there even one in-depth article on this entity in the San Diego Union-Tribune even (let alone a the LA Times or whatever)? Can't find one. As to the subject of promotion... it seems that the only editor likely to be involved in maintaining this article is
Ogbrewer, and so I'd like to ask a question of
Ogbrewer: if a scandal involving this organization were to make the papers, would you be eager to rush over here and add it to the article? I didn't think so. It's never going to offer balanced reporting. Delete.
Herostratus (
talk)
03:39, 18 June 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.
Keep per
WP:GNG. Below is a selection of some of the available articles focusing on him and his work.
"From psalms to flowers, art means life", Manly Daily, 10 June 2014 - A qoute: "Now prominent and prolific artist Salvatore Zofrea has been awarded the Medal of Order of Australia for his services to art."
Morton, Rick (19 April 2014), "Putting leadlight back in the limelight", The Australian
Burke, Kelly (6 April 2012), "An artist, a saint's spirit and a vision splendid", The Sydney Morning Herald
Meacham, Steve (7 November 2011), "Late flowering of a bold master", The Sydney Morning Herald
Proudfoot, Cassie (11 June 2001), "A Migrant's Story Carved Into Compelling Images", Canberra Times
Genocchio, Benjamin (1 April 2000), "Woodcutting edge", The Australian
Stowell, Jill (15 April 2006), "Faces in the mob", The Newcastle Herald
MacPherson, Deirdre (10 March 1990), "Portrait of a simple man", The Sydney Morning Herald
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Thanks Owen. Yes, I placed a merge tag on it and the article creator
answered thusly, perhaps not quite aware of how consensus works here. And the comment about adding content on "unique RFID products available only at LCBO Agency stores witch will definitely warrant its' own piece" leaves me more puzzled as to what he or she has in mind. But when I see something like that, it reinforces my feeling that we can easily add to the main article how
LCBO agency stores have existed since 1962. SupportShawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:31, 17 June 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 delete. Only been deleted once before so I'm not sure salting is warranted, but drop me a line if you disagree.
Jenks24 (
talk)
10:20, 25 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Repeatedly deleted in previous versions. promotional and non-notable. All the references come from its home city, and therefore can be assumed to be indiscriminate, in the sense that local business publications will write promotional articles on every local business. DGG (
talk )
18:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I was actually involved in the original version when it was speedy deleted under G11 and G12. The user who created the page (who I will not name for operational reasons) was actually using a promotional username to promote this company. The user tried to contest the speedy delete but it still went ahead because it was promotional. Unfortunately for this matter, I'll have to go with a delete, notwithstanding the fact that there have been references in the article. If it is repeatedly recreated, I'll have to consider requesting salt protection for the title.
Hx718:25, 24 June 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.
Very borderline for deletion under CSD G10. Subject is evidently NOT yet a convicted criminal. Even if notability is established, it would be entirely prudent to nuke the existing article completely and start over from the beginning in an unbiased manner. The IP recently registered account that started this article wrote it more as a manifesto against the subject than as an encyclopedia article.
Safiel (
talk)
18:09, 17 June 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 Delete per nom. Barely any coverage at all. Only a few of mentions in reliable book sources, all of which were in passing, and mainly in relation to the
LR-300. The
Armed Forces Journal has printed more extensive information about the company (i.e.
[4]), but I'm unable to view it to see how detailed it gets, and I'm personally unfamiliar with the source.—
Godsy(
TALKCONT)21:46, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment It is unsourced, so a WP:V deletion would be policy based. However, WP:BEFORE IMO shows that the nomination as it stands is not sound policy. The issues don't seem to yield to quick analysis by content non-experts.
Unscintillating (
talk)
12:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I made the nomination. So if there is an issue with the nomination, it's my action. So what IS your issue with the nomination? And what issues do you feel require more expertise?
Niteshift36 (
talk)
21:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I didn't say anything about your actions.
WP:AVOIDYOU says to talk about the contribution, not the contributor. I provided a policy basis for the nomination that was not in the nomination. I've added the word "IMO" to my original comment, if that helps. The point of my comment was to invite a deeper look at the issues involved here. Do you want to develop with me a step-by-step detailed WP:BEFORE analysis?
Unscintillating (
talk)
23:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
"Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources" is the
notability guideline that I based the nomination on. I also pointed out that the company doesn't appear to pass the notability guidelines of CORP. I don't need any help with BEFORE and I'm not sure I see a need for a step-by-step guide. But thanks for the offer.
Niteshift36 (
talk)
00:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Oh wait, disregard. In looking at your other AfD "contributions", you seem to mention BEFORE everywhere, and leave other editors as confused as I am about what you actually mean. Disregard my request to clarify.
Niteshift36 (
talk)
03:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as my searches found nothing noticeably better either and the overall sight here seems to suggest there's simply not the needed solidity, which is not surprising considering it's local and nothing else to suggest it would be better known. I would've frankly PRODed.
SwisterTwistertalk20:05, 18 June 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 Speedy keep. This is the second nomination within a matter of hours (the previous was at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jo Cox), the first was closed as speedy keep and this nomination is not going to result in a different outcome with nobody other than the nominator advancing an opinion in favour of deletion. This is without prejudice to a third nomination (if desired) when things have settled down and more facts are known and different arguments can be advanced. Speaking now in my capacity as an editor not closing administrator, I'd suggest a renomination sooner than about a week's time will be liable to be speedily kept again, unless there is very significant new information.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
This is explicitly not about the notability of the event (if you take a look at the ITNC nomination, you'll see quite clearly that I was heavily involved in getting the story onto the main page in a timely manner. I am nominating this specific article as the only content which should be in here would be insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. The parts about the event itself, beyond the very basics, are unambiguous and irreconcilable breaches of
WP:BLPCRIME (the basics should be – and are – in the victim's article anyway). The reaction parts are totally out of proportion to the scale of the remainder of what can tenably be kept in the article itself, and to be honest the subject's article does a far better job in this aspect as well. What the reaction section needs to do is give a representative flavour of the tone and stature of the people who are reacting to the event – Cox's article does this perfectly well.
No prejudice to recreation after a conviction, at which point a stand-alone article may be able to stand on its own two feet. But right now this article is absolutely incapable of being anything other than a BLP-breaker, and/or a total overlap of what either is, or absolutely should be, in the parent article.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
17:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep Another AfD was closed as SNOW keep a matter of HOURS ago. Request urgent closure and trouting of nom per
WP:SKCRIT "making nominations of the same article with the same arguments immediately after they were strongly rejected in a recently closed deletion discussion". Shameful.
AusLondonder (
talk)
18:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It didn't even occur to me that someone would be nonchalant enough about BLP policy to call a page "murder" and name the suspect within hours of the event. Nonetheless. And at no point was BLPCRIME discussed in the nomination. I know people tend not to give a damn about BLP when they don't like it, but that's no reason to simultaneously personally attack me and claim it was previously discussed.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
18:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
What a load of crap. The suspect has been widely named in the quality media worldwide and in the UK. Additionally you better call the Police on Jeremy Corbyn he called it "murder". Furthermore BLPCRIME was discussed in the nom a few hours ago.
AusLondonder (
talk)
18:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Jeremy Corbyn is not (to my knowledge) a Wikipedia editor. Regrettably, you are. Though not a particularly honest one if you are seriously arguing that BLPCRIME was discussed in that nomination.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
18:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Where it is possible to possibly break a law whilst abiding by Wikipedia policy, that is at the user's risk. I certainly wouldn't encourage it. On the other hand editors cannot choose whether to abide by Wikipedia's content policy.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
18:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
As a young Wikipedian, I'd recommend keeping this article until more information about her tragic death is known, as after all known factual information is added and false information removed, we can work on improving this article to meet wikipedia's standards. This is an emotional issue and there will be edit wars and content that violates Wikipedia's guidelines, but in a few weeks they should have reduced and we can work on improving the article. Therefore I vote keep, as a separate article would allow the heated discussion not to overlap onto other parts of the Jo Cox article.
Can someone with a modicum of willingness to read step in here? This event is notable – I was explicit about the fact that I was nominating for deletion based on something other than notability. However there is somewhere to cover it adequately without distorting the article:
Jo Cox. That Norway event was also notable, and there was nowhere to cover it, hence a new article was created.
As for the relationship between that part of my argument and
WP:BLPCRIME: BLPCRIME applies to
Jo Cox equally as it does to this article. My point is that to go beyond the scope of what should be and is currently in the
Jo Cox article, we would inevitably breach
WP:BLPCRIME, therefore it is senseless to have the second article.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
18:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep: Although I am very uncomfortable with articles about matters that have yet to come to trial (because for one thing the full facts cannot be established) there is no doubt this has received international media coverage far beyond the norm.
This is Paul (
talk)
18:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
You haven't, but one cannot ignore the level of media coverage. I do, however, understand your concerns (i.e., that we know very little beyond the basic facts which may not justify a standalone article), and suggest it may have been more appropriate to open a merger discussion.
This is Paul (
talk)
18:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Ah, didn't know that since I nominate very few articles for deletion, so perhaps not such good advice after all. All we can do then is keep an eye on the article as it expands. One thing we haven't covered yet is the debate this has opened about the security of public figures.
This is Paul (
talk)
18:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The policy states: "A living person accused of a crime is
presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For subjects who are not
public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured. Generally, a conviction is secured through court or magisterial proceedings. Allegations, accusations, investigations, and arrests on suspicion of involvement are not a conviction.
WP:BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not covered by
WP:WELLKNOWN."
The known facts surrounding the nature of Cox's death (that she was shot and stabbed in close proximity to a scheduled constituency surgery) are covered in Cox's article, as is the fact that a 52-year-old has been arrested. I'm not sure what else can be put into either article at this point which would not breach BLPCRIME?
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Looking at the page, I see no accusation from Wikipedia. That would indeed be improper. But nothing in
WP:BLPCRIME, in my reading, prohibits us from naming an individual who has been arrested but not convicted, so long as high-quality
reliable sources are reporting it, we give
due weight within the scope of the article, and we frame the content in the appropriate manner (i.e., we recount what police or witnesses have said as reported by reliable third parties, and we don't ourselves
in our own voice accuse the person). For example, it would violate BLPCRIME to identify an unconvicted person as "the perpetrator," or to state "they did it." But there is nothing wrong with identifying such a person as "the suspect" or "the arrested man." Indeed, that is what every British and American newspaper is now doing.
I heartily agree that, when it comes to crime, special caution and careful wording is required. I disagree, however, that such caution and care always requires outright exclusion of widely-reported information. I especially am alarmed at the suggestion that we should withhold such information for months or years on end pending trial. That is often not required by law or Wikipedia policy and would not serve our readers well.
Neutralitytalk18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
We cannot call someone a suspect of a crime without suggesting that they committed a crime. Merely being a suspect is an accusation of potential wrongdoing, and we shouldn't be including this information on BLP grounds. The Suspect and Investigation sections don't belong until after a conviction is secured. --
Kyohyi (
talk)
20:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
That argument might hold, if the article were aimed at being covered in a NPOV, letting the facts speak for themselves way. Looking at the RM discussion on the talk page, it seems pretty unambiguous that there is no intention whatsoever of doing so (the page was called "murder" before and there seems to be consensus in the direction of "murder" or "assassination" now). I would also make the point that many of the editors ignoring BLPCRIME there are avoiding engaging in the discussion here (claiming that this matter has been discussed). I would further make the point that most of the more policy-conscious editors in this field are editing the subject's article. Now, I chose not to post a notification anywhere other than where was absolutely required for fear of being accused of notifying non-neutrally, therefore to my knowledge none has been posted to the talk page of
Jo Cox.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
18:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Nobody is disputing the notability of the event. The discussion a few hours ago did not clarify whether this article could exist without being trimmed to a meangless fork or breaching BLPCRIME.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
18:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. Stand-alone notability is given per the last
WP:AfD just hours ago. The alleged breaches of
WP:BLPCRIME weren't substantiated at all, and things like the use of the terms "assassination" or "murder" may be further discussed on the Talk page. --
PanchoS (
talk)
18:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Please look at the comments from other wikipedians. If anything there is an even stronger concensus to keep from your "nomination"
Davethorp (
talk)
19:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
There are only two people who have evaluated the issues raised. One of whom has yet to declare, the other of whom has !voted keep but has agreed there are BLPCRIME violations. Or have we become a
democracy since I was last here?
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
19:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Couldn't say if we are a democracy or not but 7 votes to 1 in favour of keep appears to be strong concensus to me and far stronger than on the last AFD discussion. I cannot see anything in the article that suggests the suspect has committed a specific crime and even if there is the solution is to amend the article so it complies with BLPCRIME. Not go nuclear on an article that already has strong concensus for remaining on both the AFDs it has been subjected to today
Davethorp (
talk)
19:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep as there are a number of aspects on this incident that will likely still emerge and serve to expand it to being beyond what the victim's biography alone can carry. Particularly, there are the political implications and affect on the EU referendum; that this involved a firearm, very rare in British life; and the outcome in the local constituency.
Radagast (
talk)
19:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I respect you for focussing on the merits nomination itself, even though I disagree with your conclusion. The point I'd make about the EU referendum is that a comment about the campaign suspension would already be justified in the main article (and is already present at
Jo Cox. If this has a wider impact than a break in the two sides tearing lumps out of each other, that too would justify further coverage on the main referendum page. But you raise a valid point, and I respect it.
StillWaitingForConnection (
talk)
19:47, 17 June 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 prodded it with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by
User:Anton555a (creator, SPA) with no rationale. As I discussed in my
Signpost Op-Ed, this is a good example of Yellow-Pages like company spam. Last year this was AfD by
User:DGG, but kept (I was not pinged, and I missed that AfD). Unfortunately, the sources presented there do not seem to be very helpful.
User:CorporateM provided to links to Networked World - but they are not about company, but its products (and notability is not inherited).
User:TYelliot provided another product review irrelevant here (
[5]), and one on-topic ref (
[6]), but it is mostly a listing of the company's products; the "in-depth" coverage of the company itself is 2 paragraphs, including a sentence "the company is not one of the bigger names in network monitor applications." The other ref added by the creator is
[7], and it reads like a press release, complete with 50% of the content being a lenghty quote from company's CEO. I don't see what would make us keep this entry here; it is just a minor business with no reasons for being encyclopedic. Please keep in mind encyclopedia is not a business directory. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here15:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. The Network World material is essentially a press release, at least as I read it, , where he president of the company is allowed to say whatever he wants to say, without analysis. Unfortunately, even well known trade magazines do that--there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it--they make a convenient source for people looking for information who just need to know what the producer says about it. But that doesn't make them a RS for anything but the incontestable facts, and it certainly doesn't make them a RS for notability. DGG (
talk )
15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
This in-depth competitive review cannot credibly be compared to a press release repost. The article specifically says that the editor obtained the product itself and tested it in a lab environment. It includes a description of their testing methodology. The source is almost 7,000 words long. For technology, to get a copy of the tech itself and have experts from a credible publication test it in a lab environment - this the most reliable form of independent fact-checking available and is far superior to most press sources that are just repeating what they were told by bias parties.
CorporateM (
Talk)
19:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is a tricky one as there doesn't seem to be much coverage of the company around, but its main product appears to be notable. It might be best to refactor it to be about PRTG Network Monitor (or merge with an undeleted version of that article), for which independent sources exist (although they're not the most convincing):
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12]. --
Michig (
talk)
17:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
User:DirkPaessler - thank you for the sources (and disclosing the
WP:COI). Since I appreciate you respecting our discussion enough to participate in it yourself, with a said disclosure and sources, which is very rare (usually we deal with anonymous for-hire PR hacks who don't bother to talk back at all, just go on to create another problematic entry under another anonymous throw-away account), let me address your points one by one (I've spent about half an hour reviewing your sources and writing the following):
"Paessler is the vendor of the PRTG Network Monitor product that 150.000 customers all over the world use 24/7 every day." There has never been a consensus as to factors such as volume of sales, number of employees, or such when it comes to establish notability of the company (mostly because there are no reliable benchmarks for most industries).
"Gartner recently listed Paessler in its Magic Quandrant for "Network Performance Monitoring and Diagnostics"
https://www.paessler.com/blog/2016/04/20/monitoring-news/prtg-included-in-the-gartner-magic-quadrant" Setting aside the fact that the source is your own blog, so
WP:SELFPUBLISHED, there is no consensus on what awards make a company notable (again, there are hundrend of thousands of minor awards around the world, and
Gartner's Magic Quandrant award is not a household name). In such cases we default to
WP:GNG, which roughly asks: did the fact that Foo-award was presented to Boo-entity generated any independent coverage? Which doesn't seem to be the case here (in other words, unless a
reliable source comments on the fact that Paessler received "
Gartner's Magic Quandrant" award or mention, it doesn't help us in establishing notability.
"Just last week German IT magazine Funkschau wrote in a lab-based review: "Over the years Paessler has succeeded in setting the standard for IT monitoring" ("Mit den Jahren ist es dem Nürnberger Unternehmen Paessler gelungen, den Standard für IT-Monitoring zu setzen.", Article is not yet available online)." We would need a proper
citation (offline sources are ok). Then we should discuss whether
Funkschau magazine is a reliable source, and check the article for whether the coverage is in-depth. If all they wrote about your company is one sentence, well, it seems just like the case with the Networked World article about one of your products I discuss above: it may be a good source for an article about your product, but does not help in establishing notability of your company (please also see
why notability cannot be inherited between entities, such as father and son, or company and its product).
"Paessler has 160 employees" - as I mentioned, size is irrelevant. Is 160 a lot of a few? How are we supposed to know?
"Local newspaper report about Paessler
http://www.nordbayern.de/region/nuernberg/software-fur-einsatz-in-antarktis-und-industrie-1.3988406?searched=true." There is no consensus on whether strictly local reporting suffices for what is an international encyclopedia, but it also means it is not discarded without a review, which unfortunately I cannot do as I do not speak German. I will say that it does not appear that
Nordbayern has an entry on English or German wikis, which suggests it is a very minor outlet. If a German speaker can comment on whether this report is in-depth about Paessler the company, and not just about a product (like other sources provided so far), and on source reliability, this could constitute the best source we have seen here so far (IMHO). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here06:34, 19 June 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 evidence for notability. the awards are trivial: it's time we stopped paying attention to such meaningless PR as "best place to work"--most of them seem to rotate from year to year among various important businesses and are awarded for trivial employee facilities. DGG (
talk )
15:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as there's nothing at all minimally convincing here for any notability, no actual claims of solidity, and I would've frankly explored speedy which is what happens to these articles....until the speedy tag is removed. Notifying tagger
Melcous.
SwisterTwistertalk17:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete, the references given are either associated with the company or for awards that are not notable. Doesn't meet primary criteria of
WP:CORP.
Melcous (
talk)
01:43, 18 June 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 considered boldly redirecting, but I am not entirely sure this should not be outright deleted; moreover there are multiple potential targets (I also considered redirecting and bringing it to
WP:RFD).
Most of the content is duplicate of
Joule heating as it seems this is just the application of JH to transformers. The only ref is a WP clone (articleworld).
Merge - to
Transformer#Energy_losses, subsection "Winding joule losses" or Keep. It does not relate to Iron loss as that is about the losses in the core material, not the windings. The transformer article can use the content as the Core losses section also has the formula to calculate the loss.
DeVerm (
talk)
21:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Update: I agree with others that this is a notable subject and should have it's own article on Wikipedia; the current article however is not that and would fit better merged like I showed above. When editors expand the article then we have the content that is needed to simply keep it. It seems we're caught somewhere in the middle and this also means that I have no strong preference of merge over keep. I have therefor added keep to my !vote so that the closing admin can use my vote for either but not for delete or redirect.
DeVerm (
talk)
12:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Transformer#Energy_losses, subsection "Winding joule losses". This article is just about the resistive power loss in the windings, typically made of copper. There isn't a great deal to say about it, and it is best discussed in the context of other transformer losses. --
Mark viking (
talk) 09:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Update Using Glrx's explanation below, I was able to find a number of sources taking about the proximity effect, skin effect and winding strategies in the context of copper loss. It has convinced me that this topic can be developed with multiple RS discussing various aspects of copper loss. Hence, keep. --
Mark viking (
talk)
23:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Transformer is already quite a large article and should not be further expanded with peripheral details. "Copper loss" is a well known term, and readers searching for it would be better served by having an article directly addressing the subject. --
R. S. Shaw (
talk)
18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. I click on the books link above and get 45,700 hits. The term copper loss is not just about Joule heating but includes the notion of
skin effect and
proximity effect (carrier crowding due to electromagnetism). Maybe this article will mostly be a short description of what copper loss is with links to the articles about the technical physical phenomena, but that seems OK. If copper loss were only used in the context of power transformers, then a redirect to
Transformer#Winding Joule losses might suffice, but the term copper loss is not just for transformers:
inductors,
motors, and
generators also have copper losses. On the first page of the book search, there are references to rotor copper loss and stator copper losses (Kothari). The current article mentions copper loss in
induction motors. Maybe it is important in other electric machinery; copper loss / power dissipation may be important in
induction coils and
ignition coils. Also, WP has several articles related to transformers: e.g.,
welding power supply and
inverters. The design of
induction heaters often involves minimizing copper losses (e.g.
Litz wire stove top elements) or countering the generated heat by liquid cooling the
induction heater#Work coil.
[13] The analogy to
Magnetic core#Core loss is poor because that section just hits the main points; it provides only one attack on eddy-current losses (laminations; the section ignores mixtures and glasses) and does not address modeling (e.g.,
Legg's equation). Furthermore, this article is just a stub; it does not discuss what winding techniques are available to mitigate proximity loss.
Glrx (
talk)
23:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I agree with everything you write Glrx but the current article is not that wide and fits in the transformer article listed above. If an editor want to write a full article on copper losses, then that can still be done by taking the section from the transformer article and making a "main article" from that by expanding into inductors etc. I don't see much advantage for one option over the other and can live with keep as well as with the merge.
DeVerm (
talk)
00:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment by nom: I see two issues here. One is the age-old WP philosophical dispute about whether a topic which could be expanded into a standalone but is not developped right now belongs to a stub or to a subsection of the parent article (FWIW I advocate the second). The other is the precise scope of the topic "copper loss" - is it any Joule loss in copper, Joule loss in wiring, Joule loss during
AC operation, Joule loss in transformers...?
TigraanClick here to contact me10:57, 22 June 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.
Nominated for PROD and also MERGE with
Frame Relay before nominator of merge apparently changed their mind and wanted to keep the article. The article has never cited any sources. In the merge discussion, four sources were found, all primary (Cisco) sources; still no reliable secondary sources appear to exist. The technology is an offshoot of the Frame Relay technology. I am moving the few sentences from this article into the Frame Relay article. That leaves this one to be deleted. —
Prhartcom♥14:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I've added 5 sources based on those given in the
Frame Relay article and the talk pages. Three Cisco, two non-Cisco. As this is part of a Frame Relay Forum standard agreed upon by multiple manufacturers, it is not clear to me that Cisco is a primary reference. I want to search a bit more before making a recommendation. --
Mark viking (
talk)
18:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Frame Relay like nominator started. This is not an off-shoot of frame relay but actually part of it. Also, the Cisco references are secondary references, not primary.
DeVerm (
talk)
21:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Frame Relay. This seems to be the best option per AfD nom. I have to say that it appears to me that Cisco refs #1 and #3 should be considered as primary and the blog (#2) probably not. The agreement, I am not sure - primary or secondary? ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
04:13, 20 June 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 can find no
WP:Secondary,
WP:Reliable sources for this event in Google News, Scholar or Books. It was deleted on the same grounds in an AFD a month ago, but speedy G4 was declined on the grounds that new sources have been added: I assume that this refers to the article from MarjaeyatTV.com. I can't tell whether this is a video blog or a television channel, and whether it's a
WP:RS, but it seems from the lack of widespread coverage of this observance that it's not yet a notable annual observance per
WP:GNG.
OnionRing (
talk)
14:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The seventh snippet on the first page of Google says, "May 8, 2016...Discover all important facts about internationalshiaday.com e.g. it was created 20 days ago and is visited by 780 people every month. (websitepart.com/www/internationalshiaday.com)." I also note that while there is mention in the article of an observance in Washington, DC, the article lists no well-known Washington media reporting the event. Fails WP:DEL8 (WP:N) and WP:DEL14 (WP:NOTPROMOTION).
Unscintillating (
talk)
13:05, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete as G4. All evidence suggests that this version is substantially similar to the one that was already deleted. The user is persistently re-creating it and should be blocked. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
03:05, 23 June 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 future airline does not appear to meet the Notability Guidelines at this point. The only mentions I can find of the airline are on other wikis, and a couple blog like sites.
The article was originally tagged for CSD G3 as a hoax. The limited search results I did find, in my opinion, push it out of the obvious Hoax category for speedy deletion. That said, its either a Hoax, or
WP:TOOSOON.
Monty84513:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
SNOW Delete as there's sufficient consensus, searches have found nothing better and it seems noticeable there's simply excessive questionability here, both the apparent founding date but absolutely no sources and simply everything overall therefore.
SwisterTwistertalk17:19, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete and
Salt as a hoax that someone has gone to a lot of trouble over, spending time to twice create a WP article, among other things. [What follows is partly copied from my post at the beginning of May on the Talk page of the first Pride Airways article, which was restored at my request so I wouldn't have to spend hours trawling for supporting evidence again].
There is no website for the company, but someone went to the effort of setting up a
Pride Airways Youtube channel, then copying
this Youtube video showing a Delta Air Lines flight from New York to Los Angeles and
representing it as a Pride Airways flight; and doing a similar thing with
this video, copied and re-presented as
this. There is a
Facebook page, that was linked to in the first incarnation article and that at the time consisted only of side drawings of aircraft; when I checked the Facebook page 12-14 hours ago I found these side drawings of aircraft had apparently been removed and replaced with two obviously-photoshopped digital photos of a Boeing 767 purportedly in Pride Airways livery. The only other web presence I could find - seven weeks ago or now - is
a page on Wikimapia, which was last modified the same day the first version of the article was created. The IATA airline Code originally listed in the first article's infobox was that of
Biman Bangladesh Airlines, while the ICAO Code displayed was PDA, which has not been assigned to any airline.
I am of the opinion that there is a connection with gay pride. My opinion is based on the name itself; the colours used on the logo of the "airline"; the person named as Managing Director in the original article (
Danton Remoto, who appears to be a gay activist); and the person originally named as CEO, who may be
this Facebook account with ties to
this Facebook account. The organization associated with the Facebook account is mentioned in the WP article
LGBT culture in the Philippines.
The above-mentioned things in the first incarnation of the article (cached version of first incarnation on a WP mirror site
here) have been sanitised from this version, perhaps in an effort to make the hoax less obvious. The salient points are that there is no website or any mention in any aviation-related media, or even any mention in Filipino media; all there is, is the Facebook page with faked images; the YouTube channel with faked videos; and the user-edited Wikimapia.
YSSYguy (
talk)
07:53, 18 June 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 was under the impression from reading Wikipedia's policies that this is not a newspaper. Sinkholes are common place and nothing makes this one special.
EditorDownUnder (
talk)
11:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Rideau Street where it should have gone in the first place. The utter banality of this event and routine news coverage would make me say delete if there weren't a suitable target. Incidentally, Ottawa is largely built on clay and has frequent sinkholes—2014, 2013, 2012, etc. etc.
[14].
Voceditenore (
talk)
17:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep or merge to
Confederation Line - this is not a single event, but an ongoing story of a major construction project error, extensive disruption at a major intersection of a capital city over weeks-to-months compounding what was already the most disruptive construction in the city's history, and an investigation that will turn into a legal case to assign blame and costs, complicated by the delay in shutting off the water flooding into the tunnel boring project. Subsequent developments can be expected for years to come. The story has just begun.
LeadSongDogcome howl!15:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment There is absolutely no way to prove that these subsequent events will occur, or that "the story has just begun",
WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. This may indeed be the start of something more, but until that time comes, there's no need for this article, which deals solely with this one solitary event, existing. I've changed my vote to a redirect to
Rideau Street or
Confederation Line, but that's the extent of it. -
SanAnMan (
talk)
18:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge. Nothing about this is so independently notable in its own right as to require a standalone article as a separate topic from its natural parents. It should certainly be mentioned in
Rideau Street and
Confederation Line as an aspect of those topics, and I'm torn as to which one should be the primary redirect target for the title (if we even keep a redirect at all) the title should be kept as a redirect to
Confederation Line (we can then minimize duplication of content by briefly summarizing the event in Rideau Street and allowing the line article to hold the substance), but this in no way needs its own article separately from the ones that already existed. If the significant effects that LeadSongDog suggests above actually do come to pass, then a new article can be created at that time — but the justification for a separate article will be after those effects have already come to pass, not right away on the basis of one user's
WP:CRYSTAL predictions about what might happen in the future.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm puzzled. If first-rank publishers in multiple countries do take note of an event, what cause do we have to think that it is not notable? Sure, we could put it on hold, then try to rewrite it later, but what's the value in that?
LeadSongDogcome howl!19:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
You seem to be missing the point. Nobody in this discussion has said that Wikipedia should entirely erase any acknowledgement at all of the fact that it happened from appearing anywhere at all in Wikipedia — but the standard for "notable enough to warrant a standalone article about it as an independent topic in its own right" is quite a lot higher than the standard for "notable enough to warrant mention in the existing articles about related topics". This clears bar #2, and nobody's said otherwise — but it doesn't clear bar #1 as long as long-term implications, passing the
ten year test, can only be speculated about rather than shown to already be true. It's a core principle of Wikipedia that we are
WP:NOTNEWS — every single thing that happens does not always automatically need its own standalone article. There was a minor earthquake in my hometown last week, for example — but there were no reports of any damage or injury, so it doesn't require anything more than a brief acknowledgement in the section of the city's main article that already covers the seismicity of the region. The ice-storm blackout in Toronto a couple of Christmases ago does not have its own separate article; it's simply discussed in the article on the storm as an aspect of that, rather than being its own standalone topic. And on and so forth.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
That 10YT essay is in no way representative of normal WP practice. We routinely write on topics more recent than ten years old. It's simply the exercise of editorial judgement that the topic will have enduring interest. Of course no one is claiming that this will have as much long-term interest as
Hurricane Katrina, but it will almost certainly be more impactful than a Pokémon, or a garage-band single release, or any number of other trivial topics we routinely accept. We have an
entire category of articles like
Etiwanda Fire. Perhaps the title is the issue here, so that editors here are thinking this is "just another sinkhole". Can you show me other examples that are more central to an urban core? Or is the issue just the absence of dead bodies?
LeadSongDogcome howl!19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Wrong. From
wp:OSE: These "other stuff exists" arguments can be valid or invalid. In otherwords, judge them on whether they make sense, not on whether they are OSE arguments. Even mundane things can be interesting in extreme examples.
LeadSongDogcome howl!15:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
You're missing the point of the ten-year test too, if you think the age of the topic has anything to do with it. There is not, and never has been, any rule that Wikipedia cannot write an article about something until ten years after it happens — what has to pass the ten-year test is the significance of the purported long-term effects of the incident, not the timing of when the incident happened.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
When, exactly, did we start treating essays as more important than policy? This is a simple matter of
common sense, but if you're prepared to do a thorough job of the merge, I'm prepared to be the one to drop the stick.
LeadSongDogcome howl!17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The ten-year test is completely consistent with my definition of "common sense" — just throwing that term around like a football does not automatically imbue your position with the Crown of Righteousness and everybody else with the sceptre of the fool. And IAR, which you hid under that "common sense" link, only applies insofar as you can make a compelling and credible case as to how ignoring the rule is actually improving the encyclopedia — it does not, for instance, mean that you could move
Barack Obama to the title
Mister Piffles just because you felt like ignoring the rule that an article's title has to reflect the topic, and then cite IAR as an exemption from the consequences. But you haven't demonstrated (or even really tried to demonstrate) how having a separate article about this, instead of discussing it in the existing articles about the related topics, is "improving the encyclopedia" — you're citing IAR as if it meant "I can do anything I want just because I want to, and don't need any real reason because IAR", which isn't what it means.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Here's the thing:
wp:AT actually is policy, including the
wp:NAMINGCRITERIA section, so, no, Mister Piffles would not be subject to editorial judgement. The community has spoken clearly on that. An essay such as OSE or 10YT is a completely different thing. Now is there any more grave dancing to be done, or would you like to actually answer a question for once?
LeadSongDogcome howl!01:16, 24 June 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 and
WP:POLITICIAN. Medical doctor who was a candidate in the
Philippine Senate election, 2010, but didn't win a seat.
I haven't found any reliable sources covering him, but I am not familiar with sources for Filipino politics, and searches are complicated by the fact that his name is shared with the Filipino fashion designer
Martin Bautista. So rather than PRODding it, I bring it to AFD in case anyone who good Filipino sources can establish notability.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. An unelected candidate for office does not get a Wikipedia article just for being a candidate — if you cannot demonstrate and properly source that they qualify for inclusion for some other reason independent of their candidacy, then they have to win the seat, not just run for it, to pass
WP:NPOL. But no preexisting notability for anything else has been shown here at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:10, 23 June 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 believe this is a case of WP:NOTCATALOG. This is a catalog of all films released on dvd by this label, not a list of films produced by them
Gbawden (
talk)
11:01, 17 June 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.
Lacks notability. References given in the article are grossly inadequate - a very brief (and likely self-written) contributor bio on HuffPo, and two other references to non-RS. An editor has provided some additional links on the article talk page, but in my opinion these do not demonstrate notability as none of them are actually about the article subject or discuss her more than in passing. Thparkth (
talk)23:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Spot on. Subject wrote the main citation and article has many places that lack the citations needed for wiki. Subject lacks notability even with proper citations
Allaboutjane8181 (
talk)
23:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you appreciate that problems with the article are not a valid reason to support deletion. Only your claim of lacking notability argues for deletion and I ask that you reevaluated that in the context of the new sources I have presented below. ~
Kvng (
talk)
00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep - Significant coverage in uncited reliable sources:
[15] "So I called Boulder's Brigitte Mars - an herbalist and author of The Desktop Guide to Herbal Medicine (Basic Health Publications, $19.95) and 11 other books on herbs and nutrition. Mars also holds workshops and seminars and teaches at Naropa (see brigittemars.com).",
[16] "Mars is the author of The Sexual Herbal and offered to make meals that contained a lot of cinnamon. The results? "After a week, she winked at me."",
[17] "Brigitte Mars, a Boulder-based herbalist and nutritional consultant, says natural medicine is ``going mainstream.",
[18] "herbalist Brigitte Mars, author of Beauty by Nature...believes that the most pampering thing a person can do for themself is to take a bath.",
[19] "Brigitte Mars, author of several books, including Herbs for Healthy Skin, Hair & Nails (Keats, 1998)",
[20] "Brigitte Mars co-authored "The Hemp Nut Cookbook," which includes recipes for scones, pasta and chocolate torte made with hemp.".
I can't read the entire articles on that site, but it doesn't look like any of them are actually about Brigitte Mars, or talk about her in any kind of depth. Am I wrong? Thparkth (
talk)14:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The coverage is mostly in the context of quotes from the subject in her capacity as a prominent herbalist. I have added excerpts of material about the subject to my post above. In sum, I believe this constitutes significant coverage and indicates she's considered by journalists to be a quotable expert on the subject ∴ notable. ~
Kvng (
talk)
00:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - Subject is mainly covered in HuffPost blogs and only mentioned in passing in reliable sources, thus lacking significant notability.
Meatsgains (
talk)
13:53, 17 June 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.
Note that per this
Locus RS reference, it appears that 2003 may have been the actual publication date.
Walter Jon Williams is certainly a notable author, so if there's no notability for this volume, then the content should be merged to
the series, or the author, rather than deleted outright.
Jclemens (
talk)
05:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
Dread Empire's Fall. I can't really find anything for this novel, not enough for it to really warrant its own article. I'd recommend redirecting this to the series page with history in case more sources are available that aren't on the Internet, but offhand the impression I've gotten from some of the sourcing is that the series is/was fairly popular in its specific niche but it never gained a foothold as far as RS coverage goes. There's enough out there to show that the series would merit an article, though.
Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。)09:28, 13 June 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 reliable sources for notability of this worthy lady. Of the 4 refs provided, "The Calcutta Newsletter" has no WP article and can't be found in Google, nor the book called "The Walia family of the successful" (no author, publisher or date), and the 4th ref is just a title. Article was previously created twice in March 2016, by an editor with no other surviving edits, and speedied: see
User talk:Harmanpreet 12. Current version created by a different editor, whose first and only edit this is; an IP added a note saying "NOTE:Maji's life events were recorded in a family book, therefore not many citations are available.", which supports her non-notability.
PamD20:21, 10 June 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.
Non-notable MMA fighter. Fails
WP:NMMA with just one top tier fight and that was a loss two years ago. Being signed to a developmental contract for NXT doesn't make him notable as a pro wrestler, either. The coverage consists of routine reporting of results or the promotional release about him signing a NXT contract, nothing that meets GNG.
Mdtemp (
talk)
17:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Definitely fails to meet the notability criteria for MMA fighters. I'm not a pro wrestling fan and there is no SNG for pro wrestlers, except for being entertainers, so I rely on
WP:GNG. I see fight results and some coverage of him signing with NXT, but that's just a training program for WWE. That means he isn't competing at the highest level, a requirement for athletes, and he doesn't meet
WP:GNG. I don't think appearing on TV guarantees notability. If someone can point me to some significant independent coverage then I'll reconsider my vote.
Papaursa (
talk)
00:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm removing my vote based on the sources below. The fact that I'm not sure about the reliability and independence of those sources is why I'm not changing my vote to keep. They are, however, enough to give me reasonable doubt about his notability. As for those who object to my mentioning the MMA criteria, it was to show that I had considered all SNG criteria.
Papaursa (
talk)
00:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Don't underestimate NXT despite it being developmental. It tours nationally and internationally, and it's
TV show is broadcast around the world. Its international outreach competes with the #2 American company
TNA because WWE is so successful.
starship.paint ~KO13:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. Not meeting
WP:NMMA is insufficient reason to delete, as he nit just an MMA fighter. Specific notability guidelines are always secondary to the GNG, which, as the anon notes, he passes. Also, while NXT is, in part, developmental for the main WWE roster, they do sell out 20,000 seat arenas for NXT shows. Not exactly "just a training program".
oknazevad (
talk)
11:28, 14 June 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.
Its been two years since the last clubbed AFD (where this article was part of a clubbed Afd and it was decided that each article should be discussed separately). I fail to see how this still passes
WP:NSONGS. The first 4 references all have passing mentions about the song, as well as what Perry thinks of it. There for it does not have an independent third party notability where a reliable source discusses on the song and its accompaniment. The next set of references (from 5 - 13) all have passable mentions about the song, like how they conduct in Album reviews and minor composition details from Musicnotes. Lastly, the song had obtained a feeble chart position in a minor market chart like that of South Korea. I fail to see how keeping this is of beneficial therefore this can easily be deleted. —
IB[
Poke ]10:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per WP:NSONGS since just about all the valuable content is already in
Prism (Katy Perry album), and this doesn't really have any quality independent coverage outside of album reviews. An artist's own commentary on works isn't enough by itself either as that would just be self-promotion.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits)
13:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per WP:NSONGS. Although I appreciate and respect all the hard work the editor has contributed to making this a very well written and substantial article (Thank you Aaron, for your outstanding work for the KP WikiProject!!), this ultimately comes down to a lack of notability. It was not leaked prior to album release, released as a promo or radio single, nor did it garner multiple in-depths reviews that really discuss the background, composition, or notability? I feel with proper editing, the information this article possesses would greatly contribute to the main "Prism" article. Giacobbetalk22:16, 17 June 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, probably to
List of Hindu temples in Kerala, if sufficient sourcing is not found during this AFD to keep this separate, although I tend to believe it is in fact significant. There is ongoing similar AFD
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilimarathukavu Temple where it is noted that another AFD found that merely being 200 years old is not sufficient to establish Wikipedia-notability of a church as a separate article (and I agree). But also there is current need to develop list-articles on temples in India, with inbound redirects from temple names, in part to head off zillions of separate article creations and AFDs (that seem to be picking up in pace). Redirects are cheap, and there is no problem with the redirect left behind. Merging may motivate discussion at
Talk:List of Hindu temples in Kerala about the notability standards for items in that list, which can be quite lower than standard for separate articles. Or perhaps discussion at
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject India is needed. The list-article in Kerala and others like it need to be developed and are not in great form now; good general sources should be found (perhaps like some suggested at the Kilimarathukavu Temple AFD). I !vote for more constructive processes, rather than complete eliminations of temples that are in fact probably very old and significant and which have photos and so on, Support emerging editors rather than squelching them. ;) --
doncram18:24, 10 June 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.
Non notable. WP:TOOSOON.
Most of the refs are primary or trivial mentions. Excessive refs from indiawest which seem press releases. not enough Independent reliable coverage.
Variation 25.2 (
talk)
06:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as there's still nothing better at all especially considering it was restarted and deleted within the past 10 days, my searches have found nothing better than a few links and her IMDb basically says it all. Nothing acceptable yet.
SwisterTwistertalk01:37, 9 June 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 searches noticeably found nothing better and there's nothing else particularly better to suggest there's the needed salvageability.
SwisterTwistertalk01:00, 9 June 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 prodded it last with the following rationale: "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. " It was deprodded by the creator with the following edit summary: "reliable information and secondary sources added". I am afraid I still don't see the references ans sufficient. This was at AfD last year and was closed as no consensus since nobody but me and the creator participated. As far as I am concerned, this fails notability today as much as it did last year Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)reply
(@
Pmedema: Could you say which sources are reliable? Because I don't see any, and I discussed them in more detail in RS. And could you quote the part or parts of
WP:N which say that government initiative are notable? Because I am sad to say that I think you do not understand that policy (because I am 100% sure there is nothing it that says "government initiatives are notable"), and your argument is unfortunately
WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here06:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
So you should educate me on the
European Commission that is not a
reliable source. If that is the case then I should be looking for the AFD for that article. I guess it is also your opinion that the Polish science and news/online magazines
[25],
[26],
[27],
[28] and
[29] are all not
reliable sources? If that is the case then I should follow your experience and capitulate. I am very sorry that there is no mention of Government Initiatives specifically in
WP:N. I guess we should get cracking and look for any articles that have notability mentions that are not specifically documented!
[30] is an awards agency... ok you got me... not sure if it's a notable award. -
Pmedema (
talk)
15:47, 20 June 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.
Delete - I couldn't find the sources to make it meet the
WP:GNG. Would be glad to reconsider if others provide sources though - I could have missed them, as the subject's name is a combination of three rather common/generic words, so there could be good sources in a see of false positives out there...
Sergecross73msg me12:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete –
This source provides significant coverage, but it's published by
Medium, which has been described as "an online publishing platform" that is blog-like in nature. As such, its reliability is questionable for Wikipedia's purposes. Additional searches are only providing mentions, such as in
this article from
ProgrammableWeb. North America100013:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - The article creator presented an
Swedish IGN source on my talk page. Consensus has been that any region of IGN is reliable, so I think this would be a usable source to put towards notability, though I can't tell what it says, so I can't be 100% sure, nor could I personally implement it into the article. The IP added some other sources on my talk page too, but the rest seemed to be more along the line of press releases...
Sergecross73msg me13:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I can confirm that the IGN article would be a useful source - it gives an overview of the site, and includes an interview with one of the people working on the site. I cannot find any other reliable sources that discuss IGDB, however, so I have to go with delete.--
IDVtalk10:31, 16 June 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. That it no longer exists is not a reason for deletion, but it never was notable--nor is its successor organization. DGG (
talk )
02:55, 23 June 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 for the closing administrator: I'd recommend salting this page, it keeps getting recreated (at least 2 times by the same user). Anarchyte(
work |
talk)07:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's among the most prominent commercial tourist attractions in Phuket, and its business operations have been covered in-depth multiple times by the Manager magazine and newspaper,
[31][32] as well as other news sources including The Nation.
[33] --
Paul_012 (
talk)
18:47, 15 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – Struck my !vote above. Appears to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH per sources provided above by
Paul 012. Google Translate is not working to translate the entire Thai webpages for me, so I had to translate these pages long form by copy and pasting into Google Translate bits at a time, to avoid the "too many characters" error, but from what I've seen, the topic appears to meet CORPDEPTH. North America100019:10, 15 June 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 comes across as an essay; note that most of the references are to a book co-authored by the article creator, who (surprise) removed the PROD without any reason given. So there is in all probability an element of promotion in this article, which is fundamentally a load of guff. Learning from your mistakes is hardly a new idea.
TheLongTone (
talk)
12:36, 3 June 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.
Delete. Much ado about nada. Absolutely no reason to have an article on a single character in a film. Already has a sizable section in the film article.
Softlavender (
talk)
10:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and cleanup, as the more targeted sources search seems to show more than adequate RS coverage. Yes, this isn't particularly encyclopedic, and yes, I'm sure the character is already covered in the movie article... but neither of those are deletion reasons, since they can be fixed by regular editing.
Jclemens (
talk)
21:17, 18 June 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 should be Deleted as it doesnt have any reliable sources and it appears to be made up by the Creator without any constructive thought.In fact this article should be nominated for
WP:Speedy Deletion.--Param Mudgaltalk?10:37, 11 June 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.
Does not meet notability guidelines (staff officer), nor
WP:SOLDIER, as no source for the Knight's Cross has been provided. The article has been tagged since march 2016. I found one RS mentioning Schönfelder as a "
close classmate" of
Jochen Peiper. This is a one-sentence mention and being an acquaintance of a famous person by itself does not appear to be notable.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
04:09, 10 June 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 somewhat spammy (now less spammy) article on a non-notable outfit--at least not notable according to the coverage I can find. There's a few mentions in Gay Star News and on the blogs of some publications, but nothing in-depth, nothing notable. Just another business.
Drmies (
talk)
04:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. considerably spammy--quitre repetitive because there's nothing much to say at this point. And consequently, not notable. DGG (
talk )
21:02, 16 June 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.
Declined prod. Automobile makers sometimes reuse "nameplates" for whatever reason (a logic to the numbers, like with BMW, or trying to capitalize the "mythical" status of some old model). This was previously deleted (long, long ago), and the current article does nothing to actually establish the notability of the subject (it happens and is verifiable, but with only these two criteria thousands of list articles can be made).
Fram (
talk)
12:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete somewhat reluctantly since it is interesting and represents a lot of work. However WP is not for putting together interesting collections of data when others have not remarked on their notability.
Kitfoxxe (
talk)
15:08, 2 June 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.
Non-notable book. No coverage in reliable sources. Prod tag and redirect have been reverted without edit summary or discussion on talk page, so here we are at AfD. Propose redirecting to author,
William Leonard Pickard. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
20:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment, is Packard actually notable - "one of two people convicted in the largest lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) manufacturing case in history."?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
13:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete - non-notable fringe. A mention in Pickard's biography would do. Barnrazor's comments (below) are unpersuasive, since the have included much material added to the book that seems undue and add no convincingly reliable sources.
Blythwood (
talk)
20:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I have found nothing better at all and there's no need to merge if there are chances there's nothing else apart from the obvious information mentioned at his own article.
SwisterTwistertalk06:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
This article should not be merged with Pickard's biography, because the subject is independent and likely to be extensively expanded, so that splitting will be required from the bio. Merging would create a lengthy and unrelated content in the bio, and would necessitate a split. Edits to this article are being done frequently. Nothing in the bio relates to this article, and this article does not duplicate content in the bio.
Comment,
Barnrazor "Merging would create a lengthy and unrelated content in the bio, and would necessitate a split.", a straight merge of the two articles would result in around 2500 words of readable prose, no need to split, see
WP:LENGTH - "A page of about 30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 4,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes."
Coolabahapple (
talk)
08:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that the length of the merged article is not the issue, but the relative complexity of content of the book narrative, which does not correlate to Pickard's bio. Merging both articles, while within the "average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes," would result in two distinctly disparate and unrelated issues in the same single article. Merging would reduce coherency of the now separate articles. Formatting is being adjusted and other articles linked. Strong keep. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Barnrazor (
talk •
contribs)
15:18, 22 June 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 relevant content to
Paul Cardall since he's the founder of this label. At least two artists associated with this label have charted on the Billboard Top New Age Album chart, but the coverage seems to be sparse (less than 10 reliable sources from a Google News search and all limited to Utah). ----
Patar knight - chat/contributions17:30, 17 June 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.
Doesn't meet
WP:ATHLETE, and he doesn't meet
WP:GNG. The sources he appears in are exactly that - sources he appears in. The "Nevada Union senior" isn't Podesta - it's his teammate; Podesta gets a mention once as team captain, and that's all he gets. The Pro Paintball is a throwaway article to get a team membership for Podesta. I can't get the video from where it's listed, but it's all of 5m47s outdoors on Youtube, so there's no way it's as in-depth as needed. He gets a mention in the Levitz article because it's one of the things the developer did - Podesta isn't the focus, and I can't get the Press-Democrat article, but I assume from the title it's the same thing. So he's got spot coverage in larger articles, and that's it. He hasn't seemed to have done much in pro paintball - you'd think if he was notable he'd get a cover at Splat Mag, but that apparently hasn't happened. He also got a blip on a gun debate because he owns a paintball store. There's no verifiable citation of his designs. In short, minimal coverage isn't met. Basically, a random niche-business individual.
MSJapan (
talk)
07:37, 17 June 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.
@
StAnselm: there's some confusion around which individual this is. The scorecard from Cricket Archive linked to his debut is
here. However, Cricinfo has
this scorecard linking to another person with the same name. Also see the note I posted at the foot of GreenCricket's talkpage. Any help on identifying the correct individual and their notability will be most welcome! Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead10:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Here's what I got from the
PCB:
this is the player born in 1996 (on 4 Jan, contrary to CA and CI), based on the U-19 record.
This is the player, born in 1987, whose matches CA has attributed to the younger player.
Here is his CA profile. The older player is a batsman and the younger a bowler, so it definitely looks like a mistake on CA's part. —
Raven42 (
talk)
00:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
OK, I agree that it was a mistake on CA's part. It does not look like the younger player has played any FC matches. I have changed my !vote accordingly.
StAnselm (
talk)
00:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment:
This is a forum discussion on the same issue. It looks possible that there is this 20-year-old batsman who has burst onto the scene and is averaging 50 in FC cricket, but in the absence of conclusive proof we should delete this article.
StAnselm (
talk)
00:15, 18 June 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 is going to be controversial, but I don't believe
Jo Cox's article length is sufficiently large enough to warrant a spinoff article, even though many improvements have been made in the last 18 hours or so. For an analogous article, compare and contrast with
Death of John Lennon. Discuss.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)06:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep This major crime attracted worldwide headlines and reactions. Per
WP:NCRIME "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines and those regarding reliable sources". See the category
Category:Assassinations and its many sub-categories including
Category:Assassination attempts. Issues surrounding the suspect, circumstances and motive should not be covered in the BIO of the victim. Rather disappointed we are going to be arguing about this.
AusLondonder (
talk)
07:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep It is inconceivable to me that the first assassination of a British MP in a quarter of a century, which received instant worldwide media attention, would not be notable. Certainly the nominator has better things to do with their (and our) time. Such as improving the article.
Cullen328Let's discuss it07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Which article would you like me to improve? Ironically enough, looking to improve the article (I put the lead blurb on ITN yesterday) is why I came here. I would rather work with people on one good article (not to be confused with a
good article) than dilute my efforts over several. However I figure it's impossible to have a conversation like this right now.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont)07:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Likely, but now it's too soon. If enough info becomes available for a standalone article and/or the main article becomes too large, then yes, I think.
Brandmeistertalk07:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep The first assassination of a British MP in a quarter of a century, as said before. There will be a trial to ought to be covered in detail. This particular AfD seem to be a misuse of process and the nominator could well be seen as filibustering.
Mootros (
talk)
07:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep This is currently getting a lot of media attention, as already said this is the first assassination of an MP in 25 years, the event will be in the news for a while as more information is known
Seasider91 (
talk)
07:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep (
edit conflict) Let it snowball for a week or two, and see then if it's notable for having it's own article. Her bio is very small, so it could probably fit in there well. —
Calvin99907:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge for now mainly because of
WP:BLPCRIME issues. "Murder of" isn't suitable until a trial has finished. UK law is strict on sub judice and I don't want to read about the defence or the judge at any trial or appeal complaining about things that were in the Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep This will be an ongoing event and removes the bloat from the main bio. As the alleged attacker is alive, there will be a trial and a knock-on affect from that, which will be used to expand the article further. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead08:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge -- per Ritchie. There is no reason why this should be a spin off of a very short existing article. The death is also very recent and not that complex when you compare it to other murder investigations. This can easily be incorporated into Cox's existing article. CassiantoTalk08:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep for now I agree with Calvin999. The article should be kept for now but reassessed in a few weeks once everything has died down and a better determination can be made as to if a separate article is warranted. I also agree with Cordless Larry that until a Murder conviction is obtained (even though that's pretty much certain) the article should be renamed as "Death of Jo Cox" or "Assassination of Jo Cox" as per the discussion on the talk page
Davethorp (
talk)
08:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep I think that this is a story that will still evolve, and the page already has some information that I think would best not be merged with her personal article, nor should be deleted.
Amelie poulain (
talk)
09:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge -- No need for a separate article when all relevant information can easily fit in her biographical article. She was notable as a politician as well as for her death, so (choosing one article over the other) only a bio article is needed at the moment. Details of the suspect should be keep to a minimum and we really don't need a long list of tributes.
Gaia Octavia AgrippaTalk09:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge. This is a discussion regarding article namespace, not notability. Nobody is suggesting that the event should not be recorded in WP (a little trimming of the unnecessary will happen in due course, we are not expecting some international figure to say it's a good job she's dead, are we?) If later the murder becomes notable for some reason (i.e. subsequent events outside the scope of the individual), or because of
WP:SIZE, then it can be split out again. Let's be honest, anybody who wants to read about the murder will also want/need details of poor Jo too, there is no logic to separation. --
Richhoncho (
talk)
09:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep High profile case occurring at a critical stage in British politics. There will definitely be an aftermath that will not fit into the bio article about Cox.
w.carter-Talk09:50, 17 June 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.
Almost entirely unreferenced, with no indication of notability per
WP:NMODEL or
WP:NACTOR. Won "Miss Teen India" in 2014, a beauty pageant of unknown notability, and was runner-up in a few others. I can't find anything online to support the claim that she appeared in a television show, and there's no significant coverage of her online from
WP:RS to support notability per
WP:BIO.
OnionRing (
talk)
06:27, 17 June 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.
Local Dental Society. The national dental society is notable, and I could if pressed make a case for a State Society, though we do not usually keep these except for State Bars. I can not even begin to understand why anyone should think this of the remotest encyclopedic significance, let alone notability,. The principle violated is NOT DIRECTORY, and this is an exceptionally clear example. I am not clear why the
ed. who removed the speedy thought otherwise. DGG (
talk )
05:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete Referenced only to primary sources. Lacking significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which is not surprising. After all, who cares about a local chapter of a dental society except local dentists? The nominator is correct.
Cullen328Let's discuss it06:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as I entirely concur with the speedy, there's nothing particularly convincing of a solidly notable article, a newly started organization for local dentists.
SwisterTwistertalk07:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete They aren't that new if they had 900 members in 1985, as reported in a
LA Times article. I found a few mentions on the web, but in primary sources such as the webpages of affiliated dentists, I didn't find coverage of the organisation itself in the wider media. Notability has not been established when judged against
WP:ORG or
WP:GNG.
Drchriswilliams (
talk)
08:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I agree that the local chapter of a dental society would have a hard time passing
WP:N, and there's nothing in any verifiable sources to suggest this organization is the exception. Concur with speedy. --
ERK talk08:41, 17 June 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.
Unsourced NN local paper.
WP:ENN. Notability not asserted, Prodded and deprodded in the past, I sent it to CSD as unremarkable, and it was declined because of length of existence satisfied A7. Still doesn't change the fact that it's a local paper with no particular claim to notability.
MSJapan (
talk)
05:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep in recognition of
WP:RECENTISM. I found
this 1936 mention in a paper two states away touting the subject's "wide reputation." I suspect if we where having this discussion in 1936, it wouldn't be difficult to establish notability. But, if we're collectively too lazy to do anything more than a web search for an institution that apparently originated in 1875, we should keep it for now. ~
Kvng (
talk)
23:07, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply - Confirmation bias, and totally off-track. The article subject is not being mentioned "two states away." The paper referred to in the article is the Scott County Democrat, not the Benton Democrat. That's a different paper; the Benton paper is the combination of two papers named Fowler, not Scott County. Now, since the source cited is a paper from Southeast Missouri (called The Southeast Missourian), I did a bit more looking around. The "Benton" mentioned in the source is likely the town of
Benton, Missouri, located in
Scott County, Missouri, (unsurprisingly) located in southeast Missouri. Scott County is repeatedly mentioned in this paper in several other articles. The Benton Democrat (from its article) does not serve a "Scott County". It serves five counties in NW Indiana, and before someone asks,
Scott County, Indiana is located in SE Indiana. So the assertion is incorrect, and this is just local news unrelated to the article topic.
MSJapan (
talk)
17:51, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
KeepWorldcat reports holdings in two libraries in Indiana.
Manta reports that the current business name is "Benton Review Newspaper".
A Google search on ["Benton Review" site:news.google.com/newspapers] returns a hit for a 1959 "Benton Review Pub Co.", which could be a search term to identify an older business name.
This is sufficient evidence to establish that the topic has attracted the attention of the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell). Further, topics about reliable sources are valuable to editors, so have a low threshold for inclusion.
Unscintillating (
talk)
03:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Really? So two libraries (because that Stjos search replicates WorldCat, where Mishawka already is listed) in the same state that the paper is published in have it (and those libraries are <20 miles apart from each other per WorldCat), no other library anywhere else in the world has it, and one of the two only has 2 years of microfiche
[35] from 1875-77, the other has microfiche from 1883-1891, and it's notable? That is a pretty low bar. Also, please do not conflate the business with the product; the article is not about the business.
MSJapan (
talk)
06:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I've hung around WT:V enough to know that the text you bolded has zero weight for whether or not a source is verifiable. If it is published, and the only copy is in a museum under a pyramid in Egypt, it is verifiable. Since there is no notability criteria like "Worldcat only reports two libraries with holdings", you'd have to explain how such a restriction improves the encyclopedia, and since a failure of WP:N allows the topic to remain a redirect and covered in the encyclopedia at Fowler, IN, it is still not a deletion argument. I wonder if you've checked Worldcat for the other three potential titles here, Benton Democrat, Fowler Leader, and the Fowler Republican.
Unscintillating (
talk)
01:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
You didn't talk about verifiability, and that's not the question here. The paper exists. You stated, however, that "the world at large has noticed" and cited notability. The "world at large" has to be greater than a 20 mile radius in the paper's home state. WorldCat is fine for existence, but
existence is not notability, and my point is that it's not a notable paper, as I stated in my nom.
MSJapan (
talk)
02:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
MSJapan: Would you mind citing some policy or guideline that the places that reference the Benton Review must be non-local? Thanks, pbp03:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
We're going ever further down the spiral of irrelevant minutiae. WorldCat is not a citation source; it's a library holdings catalog. It verifies existence, not "coverage" or notability, or anything else. What is required is a third-party source that discusses the topic, and that has not as yet been found. The fact that the paper is held in two libraries does not establish notability, because that isn't saying anything about the paper.
WP:GNG is pretty clear on what is required, and one of those things is reliable third-party sources that have significant coverage. So where are they?
MSJapan (
talk)
03:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It's all very thin.
MSJapan makes a decent case for deletion, and Unscintillating can't seem to latch on to a decent argument for keeping it. Of course there is no "lower bar" for newspapers. However, I would argue that a local paper is important, and that the sources (I added a few) agree that the thing existed. I found some circulation numbers, and I think that altogether we should let this scrape by, maybe with a little IAR flavor. Weak keep, therefore. Oh,
Nyttend, this isn't your state but it's not far--do you have anything to add? Thanks,
Drmies (
talk)
01:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep. I've always had a hard time with notability for publications: we use them all the time, but it's so often hard to find sources about them. As is, I have access to the newspaper itself through
newspaperarchive.com, but not to anything about this newspaper. The
newspaper guide from
Indiana University Libraries says to consult John W. Miller's Indiana Newspaper Bibliography, which provides historical accounts of all Indiana newspapers published between 1804 and 1980. It's not available online, even with a subscription, so you should have contacted me a week ago, when I was in
Bloomington; I could have gone on campus and consulted a printed copy :-) I'm going to advocate keeping because of the recommendation for this book from IU Libraries (three years of grad work there makes me highly confident that they know what they're talking about), but only weak because I've not seen the source in person.
Nyttend (
talk)
04:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
PS, quick note — newspaperarchive.com lists it as Fowler Benton Review (the URL will work only if you, too, have an active user account with IU), so perhaps that will work as an alternative search term.
Nyttend (
talk)
04:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Well, it's certainly looking better, although I feel that the historical info of the business is more on the side of
WP:V, and I'm vacillating on whether that meets
WP:CORPDEPTH. My general thought is that notability shouldn't be a struggle to meet, and if it is, then maybe the subject isn't notable. It is, however, sometimes a matter of finding the right source (which is a burden of proof that ideally should be met before an article is created).
Nevertheless, as we don't seem to have a bar, something is better than nothing, and these are secondary sources, so we're heading in the right direction. Is there any chance of actually getting the info out of the Indiana Newspaper Bibliography? If so, I would think that would be substantial enough to be considered significant coverage, and I'd be willing to withdraw the nom on the honor system.
MSJapan (
talk)
06:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I know another editor who's in Bloomington,
User:Vmenkov (he attended some IU meetup events), and asked him if he'd help by checking some or all of these books;
he repliedI'll try to take a look at these books some time next week. 12:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NN band. Claimed they charted in the Irish rock charts at #19 in late 2015, but I checked IRMA from Sept-Dec., and found nothing. I think they conflated real charts with iTunes, and that's a vendor chart we don't use. If an indie band hit #19 on a country-wide chart, they'd have a lot more than a Facebook page.
MSJapan (
talk)
05:23, 17 June 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.
Non notable and promotional .This is an advertisement, or more precisely an academic cv making do as an advertisement. The honors listed include every scholarhip from undergraduate years on,but nothing of major or national scope. The list of publications looks impressive, and the most cited has 107 cites a/c GScholar, but they are almost all of them unimportant review articles of the sort associate professors write and get cited in medicine, where everyone cites everything.
The article was written by "Mps doctor" who has written a number of similar now deleted articles on plastic surgeons. DGG (
talk ) 04:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC) DGG (
talk )
04:54, 17 June 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'm on the fence about this one.
Filibuster in the United States Senate would be a decent home for it, and I'm surprised that even Strom Thurman's filibuster doesn't have an article. At the same time, I could see an equally compelling argument to just create articles for those other filibusters.
EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{
re}}
04:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
The problem is the inherent pointlessness of the words. They're designed to waste time, so summarizing them (if even possible) just wastes space. The thing they're stalling is often meaningful, and the results can be, too. But everything about the thing itself is nothing. If it wasn't against the rules, they could hum the same tune (or
even not). Can't hum a real speech. It's why Wikipedia has
a ton of those.
InedibleHulk(talk)15:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete and Merge. I don't think Wikipedia needs new filibuster pages, although mentioning it briefly as part of describing some historical filibusters of note on the main page for the US Senate filibuster could be worthy, I would leave it up to the editors for that page. Honestly I would be just as supportive of doing so for the one filibuster page older than this one, but I am not so motivated as to nominate doing so. I think the majority of the content about this filibuster specifically that meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and ongoing editorial review process should be merged with
Reactions to the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting and further added there after the lifetime of this article. I even made a statement about how such a merger is one of the examples for why we actually need to keep that page, which is facing its own AfD, on its AfD page.
Sumstream (
talk)
05:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep for now There is a
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument here which should be avoided as there is nothing stopping anyone from creating articles for other notable events. This leaves
WP:NOTNEWS in the argument, I think we should wait and see before outright deletion. If this filibuster accomplishes anything notable then
WP:LASTING would apply. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk)
13:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
If I understand it correctly,
WP:OSE, it most is saying to avoid comparisons based solely on the existence or lack thereof of articles that are similar in some way. It mentions how it can be appropriate to consider, as only one factor, the total consistency within a category on the encyclopedia, here it would be "filibusters" while in
WP:OTHERSTUFF its example is Star Wars main characters. That was all I was trying to do and my delete and merge suggestion was based on this having its own article seeming to be recentism when all of its good information (I am not actually meaning anything currently on it would or should need to be trimmed) could be located between
the US Senate article the
Chris Murphy article the
shooting reactions page or
the shooting page itself if the reactions page does not survive. If this event became so notable and with an actual lasting impact such that the information for it could not fit on those pages, then even I would not mind it being kept either. I don't feel like the information is lost or hidden by this not having its own article and the information can be as readily accessed in those other locations, potentially even better so. Strom Thurmond's filibuster is described in detail on all three analogous pages, his
Biographical one, the US Senate one, and the article for the
Civil Rights Act of 1957. I think all of what Wikipedia needs to know about his filibuster can be satisfied on those three pages, and I feel it would be most appropriate to do the same with Chris Murphy's filibuster here.
Sumstream (
talk)
16:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep The impact of this filibuster is still unfolding. AS CNN noted in response to this AFD (kidding, just kidding), The changing politics of gun control[36] , this filibuster "forced a vote" on gun control measures that was unthinkable before Murphy stood up. This, moreover, is not the sort of "routine" event that falls under NOTNEWS. Here's some post-game analysis from Brookings Institute
[37], Politico
[38].
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note I created the article; with a really short stub. Almost instantly, experienced editors arrived and built a solid, unbiased, well-sourced article. I regard their edits as a kind of tacit endorsement of notability. And urge editors new to this page not to allow the AFD to discourage you from improving the article.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
15:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I mostly want to support this kind of initiative. My only concern is that I would want Wikipedia's coverage to be focused on factual descriptions and sourced relationships between events. I worry about something that could be more viewed as an "Agenda Timeline" when articles are created to group events by long term intent, like the described "Gun control in the United States since 2012" when the inclusion criteria starts to involve messier motivations and associations internally on the parts of the individuals involved. I similarly wouldn't want a "Ongoing efforts to fully repeal the USA PATRIOT Act" page even if I would be fine with all of the same information that would be put on that page being on Wikipedia spread across the relevant events and parties involved that were described.
Sumstream (
talk)
17:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge As it's only the 8th longest filibuster in US history and others don't have pages, I don't see how this can exist as a standalone at the moment because there is no indication of any lasting impact or significance. If it managed to persuade Congress to change its mind, then maybe but
WP:NOTNOW. Could probably be merged into
Gun control in the United States,
Filibuster, the Orlando shootings page or any other relevant page to preserve the core of it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (
talk)16:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep This article shouldn't be deleted. We shouldn't be using
WP:OTHERSTUFF as a basis for deletion. We should wait until the filibuster accomplishes anything notable before considering deletion.
Tom29739[
talk18:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that contrary to assertions here, this event is still unfolding (in today's headlines)
WP:RUSH. I have replaced the breaking news tag on the page. As per WP:RUSH I point out that over-zealous deletion, or in this case, an AFD that begins even as a breaking news story develops can DISRUPT the encyclopedia by discouraging editors from expanding/improving articles.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
05:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I can't find that we have any articles here about individual senate filibusters, even highly notable ones. The appropriate place for such material is in an article about the subject matter. So if this filibuster results in actual changes in gun law, it should have appropriate mention at
Gun politics in the United States. If it doesn't have any actual effect in law, then it is merely a one-day news item, suitable for mention at
Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician). P.S. If it is kept as a redirect, it needs a better title. --
MelanieN (
talk)
15:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep Gun violence is one of the biggest issues of this epoch now, and all along Congress has been ineffectual. That this filibuster took place at all is remarkable, not just notable. That the filibuster took place in response to the largest mass shooting attack from a sole shooter is also remarkable. That the filibuster ranks amongst the Top 10 filibusters is further remarkable.
Maslowsneeds (
talk)
23:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep@
E.M.Gregory:I've substantially expanded the article today, addressing some of the concerns regarding deletion. In addition, IMHO there should be more articles about historical filibusters: Thurmond's,
Wayne Morse's,
Robert Byrd's on the Civil Rights bill and the Iraq war resolution:
In 1953, Morse conducted a filibuster for 22 hours and 26 minutes protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation, which at the time was the longest one-person filibuster in U.S. Senate history (a record surpassed four years later by Strom Thurmond's 24-hour-18-minute filibuster in opposition of the Civil Rights Act of 1957).
WP:HEY Kudos to
User:Activist and others for improving article so that it meets concerns raised here by other editors. I heartily concur that our failure to cover previous major filibusters (except by comparative length) is an oversight that ought to be corrected.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong keep This was not your run-of-the-mill filibuster. It was a notable event for actually resulting in the log jammed opposition to relent and actually allow a vote to happen. That's almost become a once-in-a-generation event in the annals of the United States Senate. There are a lot of notable events that don't have articles at Wikipedia. Absence of such doesn't mean they aren't notable, just that someone never got around to writing them. This one was notable, and the article should be allowed to stand.
— Maile (
talk)
22:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong keep - Per other supporters. This is definitely not a typical filibuster and certainly is a unique event to occur in the history of the gun-control debate within the U.S.
Parsley Man (
talk)
03:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is not directed at any one specific user. I would want to encourage, generally, people to be careful here to avoid certain arguments such as sounding like the
NotabilityDiviner or saying that the article should be kept because
you just like gun control. Even though I disagree (but don't think this is the proper place to fully address the issue) regarding how to organize Wikipedia's coverage of filibusters, with
E.M.Gregory, I can respect at least the consistency in that argument and don't find it to be
WP:OTHERSTUFF just as describing my own views on the context of how this information is arranged (agreeing with how it is with most cases now, a 3 article inclusion setup of roughly politician/event/filibuster in that parliamentary body) is not either. Please fully discuss your rationale and think about it from the perspective of a detached encyclopedic arrangement of the information how it happened, not how it could benefit a specific political objective like gun control.
Sumstream (
talk)
06:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm going to show my rookie editor side and attempt a correction here. I think I may have actually been meaning
inheriting notability, and not
just liking gun control. I didn't mean that editors were arguing because of being fans of gun control, but that it seemed (to me) that there was an over attribution of notability of gun control to necessitating the existence of this article, not actually editors' liking of it, I apologize for that. I still think the information for this filibuster event itself is best located elsewhere as I've alredy stated.
Sumstream (
talk)
05:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Leaning keep but unsure. It does seem to pass
WP:NEVENT based on the way I'm reading it. Kinda hard to know about the "lasting effect" at this point, but it did accomplish the goal of obtaining votes on measures and has probably inspired today's sit-in by
John Lewis. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
17:57, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong keep The subject is notable and it seems to be part of a wider effort by Democratic Party members with regards to gun control (it has nothing to do with me either opposing or supporting the cause). It was followed up by House of Representatives sit-in led by Rep. John Lewis.
Overall, if we are discussing the notability of filibusters, especially those that lasted longest while being used as a political tool in decisive moments, wikipedians should create more filibuster articles (those that are notable and meet the criteria for inclusion) instead of deleting and/or merging of this particular filibuster. --
ReordCræft (
talk)
18:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree wholeheartedly, the lack of articles for historic filibusters is a void in this encyclopedia if anything. Removing a fairly well done article on a notable, and successful, filibuster (which can certainly be improved even further does nothing to improve the content of Wikipedia. If anything, this article could serve as an able model for the creation of articles on both future, and historic filibusters of note.--
Ministre d'État (
talk)
09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Merge/Redirect to
Chris Murphy (Connecticut politician). We need to see coverage over a period of time to satisfy
WP:GNG. No objection to recreation if we see that, but I'm quite sold that we will (except as a point of trivia or in the context of talking about Murphy or the Orlando shooting -- hence merging). — Rhododendritestalk \\
05:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that with past events ongoing coverage counts towards notability (although it is not required). But with recent events over the longue durée is obviously is not required.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
06:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course it is. Wikipedia is
WP:NOTNEWS and only covers things with lasting significance. That said, we do sometimes keep articles on current events when it's very clear there will be lasting significance. So by default we should not create/keep news stories, but in those rare cases when it's very clear that it would be a waste of time/effort to delete, passage of time can be dismissed as a formality. I'm not sold that this is one of those where we know where will be lasting significance. I appreciate that others disagree. — Rhododendritestalk \\
12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Really? Not only does that statement on its own seem very
WP:OSE the notability of the two events is incomparable. I would first point to how this entire filibuster event is best characterized (as this article itself does in its first sentence) as a
reaction to the
2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. There are other reasons, such as people there being killed in record breaking numbers, however an exhaustive listing of such reasoning is unnecessary because I do not see how you are not arguing
WP:OTHERSTUFF.
Sumstream (
talk)
18:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
@
E.M.Gregory: To make sense of this response I have to assume you only read part of my last comment, which could be summarized as "in rare cases we decide to keep articles because there's overwhelming evidence that there will be lasting coverage -- this is not one". Do you really think (a) I would not consider the Orlando shooting among those rare cases, or (b) that this is anywhere near the Orlando shooting in terms of certainty of lasting coverage? I also have to gripe about these bolded "Note:" tags. "Note:" implies that you are commenting for, say, a closer to read and not actually engaging with me in discussion. It has the effect of "look at the invalidity of the comment above" rather than a direct response. I know you don't intend it this way, and it's not against any rules I'm aware of, but I have to express that it's difficult not to resent a back-and-forth in which the other person is bolding their own responses as quasi metacommentary. — Rhododendritestalk \\
00:21, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Rhododentrites, as I see it, what you and I have here is a difference of opinion. I see the sources and supporting the notability of this event, i.e., as demonstrating that it is not "routine" and that it it is having a an impact on a national political conversation. You do not. But please note that
WP:LASTING states: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation."
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Note that
WP:NOTNEWS states: "As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." What is discouraged is "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities."
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
05:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Strong keep: The subject is notable, especially as a it played a large role in leading to
2016 United States House of Representatives sit-in, the amount of coverage it continues to generate, and the growing significance of guns as an issue in both the forthcoming presidential and congressional elections. This article has strong content as is, and could certainly be built-on and improved as well, I believe that Good Article status could certainly be attainable. That being said, the page should certainly be moved to something like "2016 US Senate gun control filibuster", or at the very least have "Senator Murphy" changed to "Chris Murphy"--
Ministre d'État (
talk)
09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Moved boldly to Chris Murphy gun control filibuster as per several comments above, and because it is usual to refer to filibusters by the name of the Senator.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
17:44, 23 June 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.
In addition to a grammatically incorrect title, the "sources" in this were all fake. One was the NatGeo main page, the other two were commercial links. None of them contained anything even remotely related to the article. We already have
Bioluminescence, and there is no value to a redirect from a grammatically incorrect title or a merge of unsourced information (which I'm reasonably sure we can't do anyway).
MSJapan (
talk)
04:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. The sources, which have been rather unhelpfully removed from the article, are not fake but were linked to the top level of the three web sites. It is very easy to find the three immediate sources.
[47][48][49] These are not great sources but the topic is a legitimate one.
[50] I suggest a better title would be
Bioluminescence in plankton which seems to be a topic we are not covering well at present (but see
Dinoflagellate#Bioluminescence). A previous PROD was correctly removed with the suggestion that the content was merged with
Bioluminescence or
Phytoplankton but I think an full article on a somewhat broader topic (linked to from both articles) would be more helpful to the reader. It is sad (and completely unsatisfactory) that there has been no attempt to discuss any of this on the talk page.
Thincat (
talk)
07:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: This is not an appropriate title, even for a redirect. The text is not usable for anything -- whether sourced or not, it is such terrible English that for anyone who knows the subject it would be easier to write a new article, and for anyone who doesn't know the subject, it would be necessary to find enough sources to write one, and in the end it would be easier not to look at this. Perhaps someone who does know the subject could create a stub titled whatever. (Is the reduplication of "bioluminescence" with "phytoplankton" really necessary? What's wrong with "luminescent phytoplankton"?)
Imaginatorium (
talk)
09:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: While I appreciate Thincat's argument that there might be a notable topic behind all this, neither the title nor the content are salvageable. I do not see the point of keeping, moving the page and blanking it. I know there is genuine debate among editors about whether a poor article is better than no article at all ("redlinks are an incentive to writers!") but the wrong title surely tips the balance towards
WP:TNT.
TigraanClick here to contact me16:14, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep and Movechange to Delete I agree that the title is grammatically incorrect, but it appears the science is correct. The article's creator is most likely a newbie and not familiar with Wikipedia's writing and editing standards. The intended topic appears to be notable because it has received significant coverage in the press, i.e, reliable sources. Also, User:Thincat showed that sources are available, which includes a peer reviewed article. On Wikipedia, I'm pretty sure it is recommended that if a topic is notable but the writing is poor that it should be kept. I am going to rewrite it into at least an acceptable stub and add sources. I just don't have time at the moment. If anyone wishes to jump in feel free ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
17:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
I am changing my Ivote to Delete because this topic has already been sufficiently covered on Wikipedia, as far as I can tell. This article is an attempt to redo what we already have such as
Bioluminescence,
dinoflagellates,
phytoplankton,
luciferin,
luciferase and so on. This article peripherally touches on the science, but our articles are already well written and (obviously) scientifically accurate, with plenty of coverage. Hence, there is no need for this article or its grammatically incorrect titling. I'm sorry to say this, but it is ridiculous having this article on Wikipedia. The newbie author that wrote this might wish to consider reading Wikipedia's
Five Pillars before doing any more editing (needs to start by). ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
17:29, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - I see it as a content fork with content that is of (much) less quality than what we already have in other articles. With the title being wrong, a redirect is also off the table.
DeVerm (
talk)
21:00, 17 June 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.
Weak keep per just meeting
WP:NF. While yes, a number of links show this 2010 Sri Lankan film as existing and view-able, I did find a few sources speaking toward the project itself. As I always welcome assistance, if anyone comes up with more English or
non-English sources, please let me know so they can be considered as well. And note: Not wishing to do just a
drive-by, the article is
now better than than brand new stub that was
first brought to AFD. Thanks, Schmidt, Michael Q.23:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - It looks better than the original stub. However one reference is from the film's website (
WP:Primary), another is a passing mention. The Sinhalese is a duplicate of the other reference. Still doesn't satisfy
WP:NFILM.
Dan arndt (
talk)
04:21, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Reply - Thanks for checking back. While not for asserted notability, the "official website" is okay for
WP:V under
WP:ABOUTSELF, and I was unable to determine the substantial
Sinhalese source as duplicating either
'Sunday Times or
Daily News. I will continue to look and will hope an editor from Australia (2010 premiere) or Sri Lanka (country of production) will come forward with sources I was unable to find. My 'keep' is so far weak only after all. Schmidt, Michael Q.05:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment - the Sunday Times & Daily News articles are hardly sufficient to establish notability. Appreciate your searches, I've tried myself but can't find anything that would justifying keeping this article.
Dan arndt (
talk)
10:29, 19 June 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.
Non-notable Austro-Hungarian firearm (made in modern-day Czech Republic), couldn't find any reliable sources. Created by distant-past sockmaster
User:Jetwave Dave, who (as far as I can tell) was blocked for stuff like this.
ansh66603:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
DELETE...made in small numbers, and the only reason it was made, was because it was the only gun available at the time. As soon as a better design appeared it was dropped.--
RAF910 (
talk)
10:12, 17 June 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.
WP:HOAX. There is no such thing as a "Captiva III" - according to the article on the
Chevrolet Captiva, the car has been in production since 2006, and has no numerical variants. The article is unsourced; it was "sourced" to a WP article on GM in Uzbekistan and a 2013 PDF owner's manual for the car, neither of which are even pertinent. "Captiva III" GHits are for a different product. No reason to redirect, nothing verifiable to merge.
MSJapan (
talk)
03:51, 17 June 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.
Non-notable British firearm; no reliable secondary sources found. Created by User:Ctway sock. Possible redirect to company article.
ansh66603:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete - The only sources I can find are listings or not reliable, so the article does not meet our notability guidelines.
DeVerm (
talk)
02:15, 22 June 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 and Salt as I myself had encountered this but waited for deletion in case it was immediately removed or improvements were made (which the latter only rarely happens of course), there's basically nothing different from the past AfDs thus I suggest salting considering we would certainly not wanted another (I would've basically suggested salting the last time). I should also note that the 2012 AfD clearly comparably shows there has been no other works or information since that time so there's of course presumably nothing else better at all.
SwisterTwistertalk03:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete: I have sought to source this as much as possible, but even if one was to use the self-contributed IMDB biography, the vast majority of this article would have BLP sourcing issues; presumably the
WP:SPA editor had access to primary information. As to the key question of notability, the 2013 press coverage of his announced intent to make a biopic of
Narendra Modi strikes me as passing coverage. Nor do the listed awards for "The Man in the Maze" (review found
here) seem notable in themselves, or inheritable. I don't think there is enough to meet
WP:FILMMAKER or any wider biographical notability criteria.
AllyD (
talk)
07:57, 17 June 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.
Keep. The subject certainly passes
WP:PROF, on several counts. Being an
IEEE Fellow is enough to satisfy
WP:PROF#C3. Very high GS citabilty results, several significant wards. Frequently mentioned in the news media as an expert on wireless communication. There are also examples of specific in-depth coverage, such as here
[51]. Regarding COI/copyvio issues, by looking at the article history and the article talk page, it is clear that last year somebody from the subject's department created this page, while being new to Wikipedia and not quite knowing what they were doing. So they just tried to copy-paste the material from the subject's bio profile page at the department, creating a copyvio issue. While that situation was frustrating, the editor in question has not edited since July 2015. If they do return and resume problematic editing, they should be given a hard slap first, and then a block. But hopefully that won't be necessary. The mistake here was a typical newbie mistake. The COI issue does remain, but since the subject is clearly notable, I think the article deserves to stay at the end.
Nsk92 (
talk)
09:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Easy keep due to h-index, IEEE Fellow designation. I noticed that he was promoted to full professor at Rice ten years ago. Rice is no mom-and-pop institution, and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many full professors there that fall short of
WP:PROF.
EricEnfermero (
Talk)
00:30, 18 June 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.
Contested prod. For the current references in the article as of nomination, the first three are self-published sources, the fourth is a blog, and the fifth does not even mention, let alone cover in any depth, the article subject. I've searched for better references, and expected it to at least be possible to find some, but have come up entirely empty. Accordingly, I believe that we
do not have any reference material to sustain this article.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Clearly a significant label with a roster of notable artists. There are sources out there, e.g.
[52],
[53], and several other briefer mentions. Not in-depth coverage by any means, but I think it's a shame if a significant-enough label can't be covered here (satisfying
WP:V) because of a guideline like GNG. --
Michig (
talk)
06:40, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep based on the roster of notable artists. Unless someone can point me to a notability guideline for record labels that says otherwise, I will assume that having several notable artists on a label makes a label notable.--
TonyTheTiger (
T /
C /
WP:FOUR /
WP:CHICAGO /
WP:WAWARD)
19:05, 17 June 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.
There's nothing currently to suggest any solid independent notability and the
Demographics at the community's artice shows it would've had about 100,000 residents or so at the time and my searches have found no better sources at all.
There is a Spanish Wiki article but that is also unsourced and not entirely informative, so unless native information and sources can be found, I'm not seeing anything noticeably convincing.
SwisterTwistertalk06:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think the mayor of such a major city (now with well over 1 million people) is notable no matter what its population at the time he was mayor. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
16:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. While Rosario is certainly a large enough place that a mayor would be eligible to keep a
properly sourced article, no city of any size, not even
Tokyo,
London or
New York City, ever hands its mayors an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find the proper sourcing for it, but he doesn't get to stick around in an entirely unsourced state.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:52, 13 June 2016 (UTC)reply
It takes more than simply being able to verify that a person existed, and genealogy sources don't assist notability at all. So in terms of what's needed for referencing, none of this is enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
05:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
We have a solid claim to notability by virtue of being mayor. There is one reliable source already presented for that claim. Other information on the page also needs reliable sources, such as the published genealogy sources, which give this article a fighting chance of having more than a stub of content, even if they don't make the notability any more solid. I would still like to see some further documentation of the subject's mayorship, but unless someone pulls up the
La Capital archives for the period in question, we may have some trouble doing so.
Avram (
talk)
07:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep According to Google Translate,
this source appears to include a biographical sketch that begins "Alfredo J. Rouillon (1875-1951) was also a native of Rosario where he worked as a stockbroker . He was municipal mayor ( 1922-1923 ), member of the board of the Stock Exchange and chairman or member of several companies . . ." All I can see is this brief snippet but it seems very likely that the full source verifies many of the claims in the article.
Cullen328Let's discuss it02:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep with the added reference, although the article needs more and some work, the person is notable enough to have a page.
Chase (
talk)
03:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep agreed that it needs work, but, aside from the evidence presented by
Cullen328, an online search found that there are streets, monuments, and institutions in Argentina named after the subject (
1,
2,
3,
4).
Aust331 (
talk)
12:21, 23 June 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.
Contested PROD. Appears to be an article about a non-notable soldier, who fails
WP:SOLDIER. I couldn't find much out there that could possibly save this article, and the subject has a lack of reliable coverage overall, failing
WP:GNG. Omni Flames (
talk)00:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep for now, at least. The article makes a strong claim of notability, namely that this person was a
Hero of the Soviet Union, that country's highest honor. That meets
WP:SOLDIER in my view. I think that we should
assume good faith of the new editor,
Runle031, and help them learn how to provide references for the series of unreferenced stubs they have created. I will support deletion if an experienced Russian speaking editor concludes that that the article is a hoax.
Cullen328Let's discuss it02:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's a little difficult for me to determine which are reliable sources, but there are several that attest to him being a
Hero of the Soviet Union,
[54][55][56][57][58] which would automatically satisfy SOLDIER. An Azerbaijani government site does note that there is a "memorial house" named for him in
Aggol National Park[59] and the State Art Gallery of Azerbaijan mentions a statue of him created by Zivar Mammadova.
[60]Clarityfiend (
talk)
02:58, 17 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep, because
Hero of the Soviet Union passes
WP:SOLDIER, but ask the editor who created it to stop creating unsourced stubs with images of dubious copyright status: the image in this article is uploaded as "Own work", which looks highly unlikely.
PamD12:14, 17 June 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.