- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
08:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
The Can Do Crew (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I came across this as an A7, however this doesn't look to be a webseries or website per se, rather it's an as of yet unreleased DVD series. If it has released I can find no record of it. There's nothing on the Internet about this project and from what I can gather from their
Facebook page, this is likely a very small production.
It has crossed my mind that this might be a hoax. For example,
their production company's website claims that it has various DVDs for sale, but none of them are actually posted in their storefront and I have to question their ability to sell episodes of Caillou, Little Bear, and Bananas in Pajamas, given that they're all licensed. If they are legitimate then they're treading on very dangerous ground because if they're selling DVDs they're making themselves (ie, not stuff they purchase from other sellers for resale), then they're running the risk of facing legal action as bootleggers. It's never really a good idea to go about advertising that sort of thing.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
08:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- If this is a small production, then I have to caution them that Wikipedia is not the place to raise awareness for your project and we can only have articles on content that has received enough coverage in independent, reliable sources per
WP:RS. Unreleased projects rarely get this sort of coverage and indie projects in general struggle to gain coverage even after they've released. I'm also concerned at the small edit war going on between
Emilyraeburn and
Lucindaconcell, the former of whom wants to remove names for legal reasons while the other wants them added. If the usernames are to be believed, it looks like at least one of the actors does not want their full name attached to the project and given that the cast pages on Facebook give off the impression that they're all minors, this gives it an extra oomph for deletion. I could just speedy this as a hoax of sorts and I doubt that few would contest this, but I figure that AfD would give the page a little protection against re-creation in the future without a lot of sourcing to justify an article.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
09:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
12:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
12:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
- Not sure I have seen on YouTube alot of video's from 'Can Do Crew' and uploads from 'Wizo Productions' it seems they have their own youtube page, both can do crew and wizo productions. Both pages show videos of the project stating 'Official Opening Titles' and their is a website for them as well. I have also noticed their is a website for one of the actors 'Sean Evans' that states he is working on the project. Also the fact they are working with Comic 'Andy Ford' and other stars of TV makes me wonder how this came about if it were not true. It stats on their facebook page that this Is true and 'exclusive' it also stats that the series was shot at 'JJ Locations' and after looking online this appears to be established. And to hire their studio, I'm guessing would have been very expensive for just a small project. Plus it stats this web series is exclusively for YouTube and DVD. This has not happened as yet, but may well happen, possible on a budget. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
77.99.42.247 (
talk)
20:54, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The only thing is that until it happens and gains coverage, all that we have is a website and a video that makes various claims. Anyone can claim anything on the internet and we've had plenty of claims on here of projects that had such and such a person involved, that they were filming at such and such location, only for things to never occur, either because it was a hoax or because things fell through. Now even if the project existed right here and now and there were a dozen episodes, that still wouldn't make the project automatically notable. (
WP:ITEXISTS) The bottom line here is that at best this seems to be something that a group of kids are making in their spare time. I do wish them well, but Wikipedia isn't the place to promote their work and in general they seem to need to get their stuff straight since the edit history shows that part of the project's people don't want their full names associated with it. Well, that and the whole possible bootleg video thing on their website. That's really an unwise way to raise money if you want to go into the business, at least doing it that publicly.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
13:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Also something I want to stress to these kids. In order to distribute something on DVD it has to either be in the public domain or you have to purchase the distribution rights from the rights holders. You cannot just put things on DVD and sell them, as that's considered to be bootlegging and can lead to fines and or jail time, depending on how much you've done and whether the rights holders want to pursue the matter. I need to stress again that it's not a good idea to make a website like that and advertise that you're making DVDs unless you have purchased the rights, which can run thousands of dollars. Given that the people I the group appear to be kids in their teens and preteens, I have to guess that it's a case of you making copies without purchasing the rights. Please be careful.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
22:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
08:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Center of Waste Management Indonesia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This commercial operation in Indonesia fails
WP:GNG. The references show that it organises seminars and releases press releases but little else. Almost certainly a very commendable company but searches found nothing substantive to support notability.
Velella
Velella Talk
08:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete the links provided don't really show notability. There are a couple of mentions including from metrotv but it is quite a short piece and only really shows existence rather than notability. Also to note the relevant page on the Bahasa Indonesia wiki is up for speedy deletion and the proponents of the page on the en wikipedia have removed the AfD tag on the page.
MLA (
talk)
09:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
There is no delete the link, just add some reliable information. Its valid information. Still confused whats going on some people want to delete this page?
Serpongpers (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
11:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
{{This information of Center of Waste Management Indonesia is valid. Valella, are you Indonesian or can understand Indonesia language, so you give that false opinion related to this organization? because mostly all reference on Bahasa Indonesia. Please also note that Center of Waste Management is not a company, but an non-profit organization on waste management research and activity in Indonesia. This small mistake from Valella shown that his/her comment is not reliable. Thanks |O}}
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
11:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
Yes agree, the deletion have been done inappropriately due to deletion discussion is still on going.
JamesG5, do you have any problem with the author? check the history of other article that you accused the author and act not careful many times. No need to offense and prejudice :) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
61.5.23.145 (
talk)
19:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I was the first one across this article, and the related article
Bayu Indrawan. Was planning to AFD this myself when I woke up, the Bayu article barely meets criteria and the SWMI one doesn't appear to at all. Searching shows pretty much nothing internal in Indonesian sources. Moreover there are serious
wp:coi issues with the account that created both pages and I see at least 2 ducks here as well as an unregistered IP that was in last night on top of the original single purpose account making it clear this is all
wp:promo for a non-notable organization.
JamesG5 (
talk)
13:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - as per nom and MLA, this does not meet GNG in the slightest. Moreover, the article is indeed very promotional in tone.
GAB
gab
14:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- And I've started a
sockpuppet investigation. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
09:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Fails
WP:GNG. I also tried to verify its physical existence. Their website gives some contact details in the footer, but it lacks an actual street name. It does say that the center is located in Giriloka 1&2, which is a pair of gated communities at coordinates
6°16′52″S 106°40′01″E / 6.281°S 106.667°E / -6.281; 106.667. Considering that notable offices are unlikely to be located in residential areas, I believe that CWMI is just a small club of environmentalists with their HQ at someones residence in that gated community. -
HyperGaruda (
talk)
14:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
08:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Mormon pornography (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
PROD removed, my searches have found nothing better at all and there's simply nothing actually convincing this can be its own independently notable article.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Religion-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
05:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been added to the
WikiProject Pornography
list of deletions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
05:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This article and the single cited (non-notable) source appears to be character assassination aimed at the Mormon Church, since no reliable sources indicate this subject is notable or even true. I recommend deleting as quickly as possible - I am guessing the Mormon Church will not be happy about this article being on Wikipedia, because it is inflammatory and appears to serve an agenda of some sort. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment The cited source is obviously an opinion piece and nothing more. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I blanked the page and tagged for Speedy Deletion G!0 - attack page. Feel free to read my comments in the page history and talk page history. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
- I don't believe the article falls under WP:ATTACK and have reverted you as such. The article describes a niche genre that exists. It may not be notable but the article treats the topic neutrally even if the church considers it blasphemous.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
06:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I don't know about "blasphemous" or anything like that. It is an article created by being based on unsubstantiated and inflammatory claims with no reliable sources to back it up. Wikipedia is not here to defame or attack - and that is all this page does. Did you remove the content from the Talk page? There was information there pertaining to the PROD and this AFD that should remain on the page. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Can you point exactly to what excerpts you consider as unsubstantiated,inflammatory, or even an attack? Remember that attack is a page that disparages the subject of the article. The subject of the article is mormon pornography. Not Mormons.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
06:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Apparently this is a genre that does exist and is supported by sources in addition to the fusion article.
[8]
[9]
[10]
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
07:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I perceived the title and the contents of the article as an unsubstantiated attack on this particular religion - which would also fit the definition of an attack page. I perceived as such because I didn't see any other sources that supported this subject. If I had tried different search terms and so on, I might have come across some. If the consensus here is that these new sources are acceptable then so be it. I would prefer this shows up in more mainstream publications - but whatever consensus says in the AfD is what it will be. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
15:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Can you point specifically the unsubstantiated attacks in the article as it is currently written? The vagueness of your arguments is not helping this discussion.
Morbidthoughts (
talk)
00:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
Peter Johann Nepomuk Geiger, watercolor, 1840]]
- I'll go ahead and add one more relevant source:
- Comment I believe the overall topic of religious porn should have a WP article, but not that we should have a stand-alone article for a specific religion like Mormonism, since it's not the only religion to have been featured in pornography (there's also
Islam,
Judaism,
Christianity, etc.). It's better to create an article titled "
Religious pornography" and have sections for specific religions within it. No reason to have a bunch of different articles like
Mormon pornography,
Muslim pornography,
Jewish pornography, etc. when a single article can easily encompass all that information. Rename to
Religious pornography, expand with info on other religious pornographic subgenres, and redirect
Mormon pornography to the specific section on the topic within the new article.
Rebecca1990 (
talk)
13:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete An interesting list of sources from NorthAmerica, interesting because they skew left-wing creating an interesting 21st century echo of the 17th - 19th vogue among left-wing intellectuals (some was translated into English, but it was usually written in Paris, Vienna and other Catholic places as a means of attacking the Catholic Church - I'm lookin' at you
Marquis de Sade). This can similarly be construed as a similar attack on the institution of the Mormon Church and on Mormons as an identity group. We are not, however, dealing with the extent or caliber of sourcing available to support
Convent pornography. Because I only find a handful of sources, this runs afoul of
WP:RECENTISM. Because sourcing is weak, no scholarship, no serious journalism, just color stories and
Gizmodo, a group blog - I do not see that this passes WP:GNG. Because sources skew leftist or leftish and are publications with an anti- or irreligious audience and slant (
Alternet,
Salt Lake City Weekly,
Vice (magazine), I think keeping it risks
WP:UNDUE and
WP:ATTACK.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 20:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
20:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Double-checking myself, I did find a scholarly article: [Foster, Craig L. "Victorian Pornographic Imagery in Anti-Mormon Literature." Journal of Mormon History 19, no. 1 (1993): 115-32.
[11]. One serious article doth not WP:GNG make. I would revisit if someone can produce serious journalism or scholarship on this as a contemporary phenomenon.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
20:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- User E.M. Gregory - thank you. Most of what you said, is what I wanted to say, but I didn't want to have a long (or short) debate with 4 or more other people - trying to show what is very clear to me. I am seeing the sourcing as not very high caliber. This article appears to be an attack (indirect or otherwise) on the Mormon religion and Mormons as an identity group. The writing in the sources is skewed anti-religious and some of it seems sarcastic.
- For this type of article, I think high caliber sources are needed- such as scholarly works - or serious journalism - such as in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, etc., and mainstream magazines. And, yes, based on the quality of the sources thus far, this subject appears to have been given undue weight
WP:UNDUE.
- Finally, I did not know, but should have guessed, that this type of behavior has shown up in the past - as it did in the 17th thru 19 centuries regarding some other religion, i.e., Catholicism. Additionally, the sources running afoul of
WP:RECENTISM is
related relevant to this discussion. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
23:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete., does not meet GNG for a stand alone article.
Kierzek (
talk)
22:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Several of the delete !votes are from people who seem to be upset that the subject of the article exists, and are taking these feelings out on the article about the subject. That would be akin to a pro-life activist trying to get the
abortion article deleted. This topic is written about in reliable sources and is notable, so we should have an article about it regardless of whether some find it offensive.
FiredanceThroughTheNight (
talk)
03:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable new sources added since nomination. ~
Kvng (
talk)
13:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. There's enough coverage in reliable sources to convince me that there's an article in here somewhere. The exact details can be hashed out on the talk page. I don't think
this article from
Queerty has been posted yet.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
03:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep There's plenty of RS coverage, so I don't understand what the delete !voters think. Ignoring
Rule 34 doesn't make it go away.
Jclemens (
talk)
07:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment If this AfD results in a Keep I think the two scholarly articles posted by
User:E.M.Gregory and
User:Morbidthoughts should be added as references in some way. User Morbidthoughts' article does not specifically discuss this topic, but its broad view approaches this subject from a different angle - and it is really well written. User E.M. Gregory's article also does not specifically discuss this topic, but it does approach this subject from a historical perspective - it is also well written.
- Also, upon reviewing the sources, this subject appears to be satisfactorily covered in a number of posted independent sources that are staffed with editors and reporters who are engaged in real journalism. The times they are a-changin'. In other words, --->
- I remember a time when any online based publication was suspect. I have just discovered that now we have many alternate reputable news sources. I am happy to say, in the area of communication and news reporting, it is a different world. I have never done this before, but I want to thank everyone for their contribution to this AfD - it's been a learning experience---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
16:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- ---By the way, both scholarly articles contributed by Moribunds and E M Gregory are worth reading:
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion.
North America
1000
07:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Nauman Chaudhry (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No indication of
notability. Written like a Resume and initial edit summary indicates it was originally speedy deleted for advertising. Only references are directory entries rather than significant coverage. Google searches not finding significant coverage.
noq (
talk)
20:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Cameron11598
(Converse)
06:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:GNG - sources are directories only, including the US News entry. Wikipedia is not a CV.
Scr★pIron
IV
18:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nothing at all for any applicable notability and improvements, simply not convincing. Notifying
DGG for analysis.
SwisterTwister
talk
04:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete
Uncertain We could delete as promotional , but he is actually somewhat notable as an expert under WP:PROF based on citations: 338, 102, 69, 61, 58 .... all in first rate specialty journals, most where's he's clearly the main author. I am not going to rewrite, but if someone does the article is fixable. The first step in evaluating an academic is to look in Google Scholar, and anyone can do it.
DGG (
talk )
03:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I'm not convinced that the notability here goes beyond writing a good many papers that were published in academic journals, and
WP:PROF tells us that this criterion alone is not sufficient for meeting its notability guidelines. Two comments about the Google Scholar results. First, there are several academics whose names are "Nauman Chaudhry", some of whom also share the same middle initial as the subject here. Of the five papers cited by
User:DGG, only three are by the subject. Second, the most widely-cited paper on the list (the one with 338 citations) is not one for which the subject was a primary author.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
16:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- You're right about that one.
DGG (
talk )
04:18, 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.
The result was delete. Uncontested.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Gellish database (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The concept of a "Gellish database", i.e. a database holding
Gellish data, doesn't seem to have any notability. This long article seems to consist mostly of an essay about
triplestores, and their superiority to
relational databases.
Yaron K. (
talk)
01:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
SwisterTwister
talk
22:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Searching my university's journal database yielded four hits, all spurious. Google Scholar yielded exactly two papers, both by the author van Renssen who is cited in the article. I can't support the notion that this is notable.
MisterRandomized (
talk)
07:29, 25 May 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 redirect to
Simon Chesterman. Clear consensus for this article to be redirected rather than deleted outright.
(non-admin closure)
st170e
talk
00:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Raising Arcadia (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is
WP:TOOSOON to have its own article. Doesn't pass
WP:GNG or
WP:BKCRIT. The only reliable source talking about this newly published book is
this article in
The Straits Times which was written by
Simon Chesterman himself. A small mention is already there in the author's article, and that should suffice for the moment.
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Singapore-related deletion discussions.
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
04:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Lemongirl942 (
talk)
04:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Simon Chesterman. I agree that it's too soon. There doesn't seem to be independent coverage in English-language Singaporean sources, which is where you'd expect to find coverage of an English-language novel. If anyone's curious, you can find a list at
List of newspapers in Singapore.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
05:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Redirect to
Simon_Chesterman#Bibliography or to the fiction section in his article - either one is fine, as long as it's with history intact. There's actually very little out there about the book in general and while the author's website says that it can be purchased directly from the publisher, the various sale websites give it a release date of October 2016. From what I gather, the May 2016 publication date was only for Singapore. It's possible that there's coverage in other languages, but until that's shown I have to assume that this is just too soon for an entry. I have no problem with this being restored from a redirect once more coverage becomes available.
Tokyogirl79
(。◕‿◕。)
05:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Something of a
WP:SNOW finish to this one.
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
00:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
List of major cities in the United States lacking an NFL franchise (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:LISTN. Grouping not discussed in independent reliable sources, and the selection criteria of "metro populations greater than 800,000" is completely arbitrary. —
Bagumba (
talk)
03:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of American football-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Lists-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Business-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Per
WP:NLIST
WP:SALAT: an arbitrary list criterion. Would support creation of a section of
National Football League addressing future expansion possibilities that have been discussed in reliable secondary sources, i.e.
Las Vegas,
San Antonio, Texas.
MisterRandomized (
talk)
04:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This list seems utterly pointless and unnecessary.--Rockchalk
717
06:57, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Majority of entries have "never hosted an NFL franchise", and I suspect there's little if any coverage on the absence of an NFL franchise for such entries. Likely fails
WP:SIGCOV. Potentially
POV given the recent Rams' recent move back to Los Angeles (St. Louis fans), and the possibility of a Raiders move (Oakland fans). Following up on Gonzo, whatever content does not belong in the defunct NFL teams list can probably find its way into the team or team-history articles for the Rams & Raiders.
Levdr1lp /
talk
10:46, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Pure trivia, because most major American cities don't have NFL franchises. Not even New York has one (the "New York" teams are both in New Jersey), and the article is clueless about US metropolitan areas, of which
there are 388. Those are WP:SOFIXIT problems, but this list has the fundamental problem that we don't maintain lists of things without X when the list of things with X is much smaller.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as
WP:INDISCRIMINATE when considered in conjunction with the sources. There is a group of cities that would pass
WP:LISTN as "cities regularly discussed as potential locations for NFL teams". This is not that group. It's not even close to that group. ~
Rob
Talk
12:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:SALAT.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
12:17, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - for several reasons, including
WP:INDISCRIMINATE and
WP:SALAT.
Rlendog
15:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:SALAT and
WP:OR; the items included in this list are not discussed in reliable sources. --
Notecardforfree (
talk)
20:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Insufficiently notable and cohesive as a stand-alone list.
Cbl62 (
talk)
- Delete a list of "stuff where something is not" has no value. It's simply the opposite of "a list of something" -- thin this case, a list of NFL teams. Any city not on one list is on the other. Duh. We already have
National Football League franchise moves and mergers and other relevant and worthwhile lists and articles. I see no value in this.--
Paul McDonald (
talk)
14:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
07:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Corey Ellis (Rapper) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unlikely to satisfy
WP:MUSICBIO. —
swpb
T
12:39, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
I feel as there are a lot of people looking for this artist right now and he is growing faster each day. This info has sources that confirm everything in the article and I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ktthatme (
talk •
contribs)
13:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Maine-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
Can I get a update on this? - Ktthatme — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ktthatme (
talk •
contribs)
02:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: So of the 11 "sources" provided, five of them are links to his music on Spotify or iTunes, which aren't really references, three are to his own social media sites on Facebook, Twitter and Nova Design Group, Ellis's media company, and another reference is to a blog. What we need is independent reliable sources. K.T. That Me, would you by any possible chance be related to Kyle Treadwell, Ellis's friend, manager and co-founder of Nova Design Group, and therefore having a COI in this deletion discussion? I genuinely wish Mr Ellis all success with his career, but being generous this is a serious case of
WP:TOOSOON and an editor with a vested interest in promoting the artist in question.
Richard3120 (
talk)
03:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete article lacks adequate sources.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
01:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
07:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Yogananth Andiappan (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article in its current form appears to not to pass
WP:BASIC.
Analyzing the references
-
this is about membership of a golf club
-
this is an indication that Mr Andiappan is a member of the
International Association of Yoga Therapists. Please do note that just the fact that it does not have a Wikipedia article does not mean it is not a reputable professional organization.
- This
BBC News
reference indicates that Mr Andiappan has a yoga practice in Hong Kong.
-
this is a page on the andiappanyoga.com website. While it may assist in locating Mr Andiappan within a family of yogis, it is not a reliable third-party source about the subject of the article.
-
this indicates that Mr Andiappan has had an article published in
Asana Journal.
Any number of non-notable people have written books, have written articles in scholarly journals, are yogis, and so on. Did I get this wrong? As always, please do prove me wrong about this. --
Shirt58 (
talk)
12:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:26, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
07:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Taylor Lianne Chandler (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Subject is only notable for one alleged event
WP:BLP1E, relationships both real and alleged do not confer notability
WP:INVALIDBIO, everything noted on subject is again from one alleged event
WP:SINGLEEVENT, page has been padded out with material that has no citations or is based from subjects interviews taken from facebook posts in order to create a pseudo biography which is common for bios that are only notable for a single event
WP:PSEUDO. I apologize for my newbie status however I have done a lot of reading in order to try to be respectful and helpful as I possibly can
Allaboutjane8181 (
talk)
02:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Hope you don't mind that I've reformatted your original writeup, since it reads easier this way. No complaints about being a newbie; we all were once.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
Thank you @Nyttend. I can see that you helped me! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Allaboutjane8181 (
talk •
contribs)
03:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
I would also add that OG page was started by a member who has been permanently banned
[1] subject lacks notability — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Allaboutjane8181 (
talk •
contribs)
04:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
12:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
12:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
12:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
12:22, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. The nomination has it spot on. I can find nothing notable about the subject of the article other than she was born an intersex person who became a short term girlfriend of Michael Phelps and subsequently has tried to capitalize on it. All the applicable Wikipedia pages are cited, including single event and relationships not conferring notability. Facebook posts are not good references; even if they were, they would not overcome the lack of notability here.
Donner60 (
talk)
08:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as within all of this information, there's nothing at all here for actual convincing notability for a separate article.
SwisterTwister
talk
07:06, 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.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
07:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Renegade Party (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't meet
WP:GNG. The sources that aren't blogs and twitter do not mention the subject. Can't find any other sources. At best, this appears to be
WP:TOOSOON.
Kolbasz (
talk)
08:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Kolbasz (
talk)
09:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politics-related deletion discussions.
Kolbasz (
talk)
09:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The sources included in the article do not establish notability as they are not third-party sources. Additionally, the only few included third-party sources due not mention the subject. —
Music1201
talk
21:41, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep More references have been added since the last poster and nominator posted here. Currently at least three references in the article do directly mention the article subject. See here, "Renegade Party: A New Home For Conservative Rebels"
[13], and here, "A Third Political Party is Born: 'The Renegade Party'", here,
[14], and here, "Bill Kristol Announces The Renegade Party to Oppose Trump and Clinton"
[15]. The article subject passes
WP:GNG because it has received significant coverage from numerous sources, as well, it has crossed the threshold of
WP:N Notability and should be retained at wikipedia.
Fouetté rond de jambe en tournant (
talk)
00:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Irrelevancy.--
Dribblingod (
talk)
02:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for sheer dearth of sources (I looked). We can revisit if this becomes a thing, but even then creator might do better to start it as a section of
Never Trump.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:06, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep I agree with the argument of Fouette above. There are the cited references listed above in the pathos, politistik, and the libertarian republic, that contain significant coverage to have the article pass GNG. Plus there are at this point nine references listed in the article. Those saying there are no mentions are not correct. Maybe their google is not working.
Maybeparaphrased (
talk)
21:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- There are nine references used in this article. Of these, one is Bill Kristol's Twitter and one is their official account on Twitter. These are primary sources and therefore not valid sources proving the notoriety of the Renegade Party. This makes seven sources usable for this discussion. Three of sources are not actually articles about the Renegade Party. While they may be valid sources for use in the article's content, they are not about the Renegade Party and do not prove its notability. All four articles that are actually about the Renegade Party are on sites which are not notable enough for Wikipedia articles, such as blogs, and are not reliable for determining if this is a notable political party, especially given they all seem to have partisan tendencies which I would associate to this Twitter account, just by glancing at their sites and looking at some of their headlines. In essence, this leaves zero valid sources proving the notability of the Renegade Party.
Nuke (
talk)
03:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete due to the fact this article is about a Twitter account, not a political party. I'm ordinarily not a fan of deleting articles and planned to abstain, but until they've applied to become a registered political party in at least one state, this should be regarded as, quite simply, a Twitter account.
Nuke (
talk)
03:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Revisiting. Searched. There really is nothing beyond the rather off-the-cuff (trial balloon?) announcement. Not even worth rolling into
Never Trump. I continue to suggest that we delete, with no prejudice against re-creation if it ever actually becomes, you know, a political party. Or even a think that outlasts the brief micro-flurry this generated.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
18:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
The Renagade Party has launched and there is a very strong movement behind it. On Sunday, May 29th, 2016, Bill Kristol announced: "There will be an independent candidate--an impressive one, with a strong team and a real chance."
[1]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus.
North America
1000
07:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Sayyar Jamil (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No evidence person meets
Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Only reference is not independent of the subject.
LukeSurl
t
c
14:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as nothing apparent for any applicable notability, WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Inviting
DGG for professors notability.
SwisterTwister
talk
04:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Judging by the not very helpful Google translation of the Arabic WP article,he appears to be significant as a writer and scholar. Unfortunately I do not have the language ability to read the sources, nor to look for additional ones, or even prepare a proper bibliography. this is an example of [[WP:Cultural bias}}, where we have difficulty determining notability by our standards for people in other cultures. The proper way to counter it is to be as inclusive as seems practical.
DGG (
talk )
06:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The Arabic article cites a few more sources, all in Arabic. One is his own site
[16], but the other seem quite reliable and somewhat independent. I don't have the language skills to figure out if the other sources are worth anything, but I suspect they might indeed be, so I am !voting keep as I think there is a reasonable chance he passes
GNG—
crh 23 (
Talk)
10:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of History-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:42, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment If "professor" is used in the European sense, he is almost certainly notable. Unfortunately I also do not read Arabic, so that I cannot judge.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:47, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Without proper sourcing (that we can read) we cannot definitively state the subject passes GNG or PROF and I see no reason to presume he does. I encourage Ar-wiki to develop this article and translate material across. Meanwhile, I'm not tripping over myself with foolishness about
"cultural bias"
. I decide based on facts.
Chris Troutman (
talk)
00:58, 1 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 keep.
(non-admin closure)
st170e
talk
00:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Jihmi Kennedy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Perhaps his only notable role was as Jupiter Sharts in the 1989 Civil War film
Glory (1989 film). Regardless, the sole source from
New York Times is a
dead link, thus the article is
unsourced. The article may qualify for
WP:NACTOR but it fails
WP:GNG.
Hitcher vs. Candyman (
talk)
18:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The New York Times article is not a dead link; even if it were the print edition would be a source.
Kablammo (
talk)
21:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep - he appears to have another notable role in 2007, but even if he never acted again, which he almost didn't, he was widely lauded for his supporting role in Glory. There's not much of a stub there, but it has potential. I found
several
good
sources with
a few clicks.
Bearian (
talk)
20:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and Redirect to film at best as I would be lenient to keeping for that, as we have for other people best known for one film and such, but this is all still questionable for own notability, as shown by his list of works.
SwisterTwister
talk
22:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
00:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
00:21, 18 May 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 no consensus. This article has been on AfD for three weeks and has been relisted twice and only one editor has contributed with a desire to keep the article, in contrast to the deletion nomination. There is no consensus on this article and relisting for a third time would not benefit the discussion in my opinion.
(non-admin closure)
st170e
talk
00:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Dirk Baberowski (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Baberowski meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an WP:ALTERNATIVE, exists, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, so its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.----
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Same case as in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).
Sandstein
19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Alexander Hayne (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
no coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Hayne meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
07:30, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete; no evidence for any substantial coverage. Two of the three sources give only a few stats, and the other one barely mentions him; substantial coverage is not a paragraph that mentions your name five times.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Same case as in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).
Sandstein
19:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Tsuyoshi Fujita (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Fujita meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Japan-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as although this is better sourced and informative than the other articles listed, it's still questionably better notable at best. There's nothing to suggest comfortably convincing to keep.
SwisterTwister
talk
22:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Same case as in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).
Sandstein
19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Ivan Floch (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
no coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Floch meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete at best as all of this still seems questionable for solid independent notability, there's nothing convincing to suggest this can be kept and better improved, should that have happened.
SwisterTwister
talk
22:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Same case as in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).
Sandstein
19:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Willy Edel (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
little coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Edel meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
08:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I don't see coverage in independent reliable sources. Google doesn't seem to have cataloged much of anything in terms of Portuguese-language coverage in reliable sources, but it's possible I missed something.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Same case as in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).
Sandstein
19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Alan Comer (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
no coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Comer meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
07:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
Sam Sailor
Talk!
07:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete perhaps at best instead as although he's part of the Hall of Fame apparently, the matter of solid independent notability is still currently questionable and I see nothing else convincing here.
SwisterTwister
talk
22:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Doesn't seem to have significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Like the others, this player seems to be a person who never made it into reliable sources despite his status as a champion.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Delete: While the player in question is somewhat notable, for the most part, there are no reliable, secondary sources at the moment that back up his notability. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Cyanhat (
talk •
contribs)
06:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Same case as in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).
Sandstein
19:44, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Jérémy Dezani (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Little coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Dezani meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of France-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Neutral: I agree with the nominator. There is virtually no coverage of the player outside of primary sources and that needs to be emphasized a lot. While the player can be slated to be notable per
WP:MTG guidelines, the article needs to reflect the player based off of more reliable and relevant sources too.
CycoPenguin (
talk)
01:56, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. There were a few trivial mentions scattered throughout French-language sources, such as
[18] in
fr:Jeuxvideo.com. However, I don't see significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which is what we need to satisfy the GNG. We can't just go by some WikiProject's local consensus on notability.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Limited discussion, but the one "keep" must be discounted because it merely asserts inherent notability without basis in a community-adopted guideline or policy, and does not address the sourcing problems.
Sandstein
19:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
no coverage outside primary sources and blogs
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Carvalho meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Portugal-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:50, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I got about 100 hits for "Marcio Carvalho" mtg, and none of the results looked like anything but fansites, primary sources, or blogs. There doesn't seem to be enough coverage here to justify an article, and a WikiProject's local consensus can't override the GNG.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
06:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- +1 for delete. There are many MtG players more notable that Carvalho and they do not have wikipedia pages (nor should they). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2401:fa00:9:1:a8c4:98cb:e181:c505 (
talk •
contribs)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Same case as in
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcio Carvalho (Magic: The Gathering player).
Sandstein
19:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Kamiel Cornelissen (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No coverage outside primary sources
Prisencolin (
talk)
23:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - It's been quite a while since this issue was meaningfully addressed at AfD. With overwhelming agreement across seven deletion discussions (see discussions on
Brian Selden,
Tommi Hovi,
Darwin Kastle,
Kai Budde,
Mike Long, and
Jon Finkel,
twice), it's fairly clear that there is a consensus that the top Magic: The Gathering players are notable. On that basis,
WP:MTG established some guidelines as to when an MTG player is notable, which Cornelissen meets.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
15:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The
WP:MTG guidelines allow for pages that don't otherwise meet GNG requirements. Many of these pro players articles just lack reliable, secondary sources, plain and simple and so shouldn't exist on WP as standalone articles. Note that per
WP:LOCALCONCENSUS "... unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. " Also note that an
WP:ALTERNATIVE, a fan wiki that covers the MTG pro scene, exists. So its not like this information would be lost if not for wikipedia.--
Prisencolin (
talk)
03:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of People-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Games-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
06:54, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. I see only around 100 Google hits for "Kamiel Cornelissen" in total. A few of them look like they might be reliable sources (it's tough to tell even with Google Translate), but they're just trivial mentions, anyway. There doesn't seem to be significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and, once again, I'll say that a WikiProject's local consensus can't override Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
07:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- @
NinjaRobotPirate: You may want to retry that search, because I'm getting about twenty thousand.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
03:13, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The initial number that Google reports is meaningless. Once you click through the results a few times by skipping to page 10 or so, you frequently find that there's less than 100 results total.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk)
03:41, 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.
The result was keep.
(non-admin closure)
st170e
talk
00:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
Axel: The Biggest Little Hero (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable film, no reliable independent coverage, does not meet
WP:NF
BOVINEBOY
2008
01:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
02:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Well I think that this article has some chance to get notice, the article just needs more time, besides, it's obvious that we're getting ahead of ourselves to delete this amazing article this soon, cause to be frank, it's too soon, ya know?! :/ NJOrozco 06:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: Then it would be covered under
WP:TOOSOON, wouldn't it be? Sources have yet to be found that demonstrate that the film in question is noteworthy.
Cyanhat (
talk)
07:02, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Reply: Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 07:11, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep ever though a film for toddlers, and more than the multiple reviews found under its current title, under its original title
Bonta 3D it is also sourcable. Needs more work not deletion.
Schmidt,
Michael Q.
09:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC).
reply
- Reply: Yeah, I agree, which is I suggest that we should marge the 2 articles instead of deleting this one, that way we have the info, and the sourse that we need for this article, ya know! ;) NJOrozco 16:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- Merge it with...what? --
Jpcase (
talk)
02:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- ok, so I don't that there's an article od this,
Bonta 3D, meaning merging the one that's about to be deleted, and the one that doesn't exist, it really isn't going to happen, so all we have to do is to fine some sources and hope for the best! :/ NJOrozco 02:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Reply: Exactly! ;) NJOrozco 18:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alt:(Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
-
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
Sarahj2107 (
talk)
07:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
One Love Party (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
The party simply isn't notable; see
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ankit Love (2nd nomination).
Magog the Ogre (
t •
c)
01:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: The party is not notable. Largely unrelated references that contribute nothing to demonstrating the notability of the party.
Cyanhat (
talk)
07:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I found a lot of sources giving this as an informal name for the
National Alliance for Reconstruction, taken from its campaign slogan.
Uncle G (
talk)
18:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: as per nom. Turn into a redirect to
National Alliance for Reconstruction.
Bondegezou (
talk)
07:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. Most of the blog posts and passing mentions are connected to the London mayoral election in which Ankit Love ran dead last for the "One Love Party." As others have noted, the term
"One Love Party" is an alternate name for the Trinidad and Tobago
National Alliance for Reconstruction party, an organization unconnected to Mr. Love's organization. Fails
WP:POLITICIAN and
WP:GNG.
Geoff |
Who, me?
14:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not enough coverage in
independent,
reliable sources to
verify or
sustian article. Fails
Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and
WP:NORG.
Jbh
Talk
16:47, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep for now I don't see who we are helping by deleting the article. It's a matter of record that the party stood in a fairly important election (and did badly) with a particular manifesto and candidate - why not summarise this in an article? It got some coverage in independent reliable sources (get west london, huck magazine, hackney gazette, official sites etc.) and due to the nature of the election being for a mayor this was always likely to be mostly about the candidate rather than detail about the party. The party hasn't had much chance to stand in any other elections since, maybe delete it in a year or two if the party doesn't do anything else in that time as then presumably we'd have notability only for a single event that could be summarised in the article about that event. I have no objection to this article being trimmed back for now, and the article about Ankit Love was obviously filled full of PR fluff that needed removal. N.B. The article was getting pretty decent pageviews around the time of the mayoral election, plenty higher than the Green Party for example, so the article seems to have been providing some kind of useful service.
JMiall
₰
20:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
JMiall (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD.
reply
- Reply to
User:JMiall's keep opinion. Wikipedia write articles about notable subjects and delete articles about non-notable subjects. To argue a non-notable article should be kept because it may do better in future is a
fundamental misunderstanding of the notability guidelines. You mention the number of page views as greater than the
Green Party during the mayoral election but that demonstrates exactly why we have a responsibility to delete the article. One Love is contesting the
Tooting by-election but has an article like other notable parties where other non-notable parties do not. This places
undue weight on One Love at the expense of other parties to the election which is likely why the page views fell the way they did during the mayoral campaign. If One Love is notable "in a year or two" then of course it can easily be remade but not until that time.
N4 (
talk)
21:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The party is now contesting the
Tooting parliamentary
by-election on June 16, 2016.--
Int Researcher (
talk)
01:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC) —
Int Researcher (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
reply
- Comment As a full disclosure, I am the editor who nominated
Ankit Love for deletion. The arguments for Love's deletion nomination cannot be carried over as an argument for deleting the One Love Party article - it must be assessed for it's own merit independently of the other deletion discussion. That said I would like to draw your attention to the
sockpuppetry comments made on that discussion as it is of relevance to this one. As for this AfD, I would come down on the side of...
- Delete. Non-notable flash-in-the-pan.
Softlavender (
talk)
05:45, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Ankit Love is the leader, treasurer, nominator and sole candidate of this party. It is clearly a vehicle to promote Ankit Love, not a serious party. If we exclude the unreliable sources (Twitter, oneloveparty.eu and ankitlove.com) and the sources which merely give election results, we are left with only a few sources, none of which offer in depth coverage of the party.--
obi2canibe
talk
contr
11:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete.
MBisanz
talk
16:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
-
IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Lack of relevant references. Searched for sources, could not find anything substantial which was not dependent on Wikipedia. Contested PROD.
SJK (
talk)
22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Question - Where did you search for sources? This is a 1970s piece of technology so a lack of any online references does not indicate a lack of notability. ~
Kvng (
talk)
22:42, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Lack of current sources is not cause for deletion when sources are expected to exist. The only issue here is that those sources are certainly going to be print-only, due to the subject at hand. This seems inherently notable to me, as a part of computing history. Sources needed, but I'm sure they exist. Alas, I'm not in a place where I can go hunt them out... I wonder if archive.org's library has some computing magazines from the day that might mention it?
Fieari (
talk)
01:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I looked extensively for online sources (Google, Google News, Google Books, Google Scholar, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library), and–putting aside Google Books snippet view, which I'll get to in a moment–I couldn't find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. I don't personally have access to any offline sources that might be relevant. But I should point out, the argument "don't delete this because offline sources to demonstrate notability could/might/probably exist" is really just a variant of
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. To survive an AFD, it shouldn't be enough to merely argue that offline sources might exist, or even to argue that (in your opinion) they probably do – someone has to identify specific offline sources which demonstrate notability, and no one has been able to do that. Note this is distinct from
WP:PAPERONLY/
WP:OSO–those are bad arguments when specific offline sources have been identified, but they don't apply when no one can individually identify relevant offline sources. (Finally, deletion isn't permanent – if someone identifies sufficient offline sources at some future date, the article can always be undeleted or recreated.)
- I did find a couple of Google Books snippet view resources, which I'll describe in a moment. The problem with snippet view, is you see so little of the text, it is very hard to judge whether the reference complies with
WP:RS and
WP:GNG or not. This is different from Google Books preview, where you can often see the entire page containing the search term hit, frequently adjacent pages, and often many other pages of the book as well, which makes it much easier to judge the reference's reliability and its individual contribution to notability.
- According to Google Books, Software World volume 6 (1976) page 20 mentions a "CICS DEVELOPMENT AID: Gemini UK have released a new product designed to help IBM CICS users. GEMINI OLIVER (On-Line Interactive Video Environment Resource) is an on-line testing aid and debugging package for all IBM System 360/370 DOS and OS users of CICS and CICSA/S. GEMINI OLIVER, is designed to allow application ..." ("CICSA/S" is probably an OCR error for "CICS/VS"). Probably this is the same package as described in this article, but it's hard to be 100% sure given the article never mentions a company called Gemini. However, I'd point out this is just a "snippet view" journal, so unless someone actually has a printed copy of this journal issue (or a scanned-in copy), I don't see how we can judge this reference against the
WP:RS and
WP:GNG criteria. (Software World doesn't appear to be a particularly notable journal.)
- Another reference found on Google Books is International Directory of Software, CUYB Publications, 1980, p. 268. But once again, it's only snippet view, and unless someone has a scanned-in or hardcopy of this publication, we don't have enough information to judge whether this source meets
WP:RS and
WP:GNG.
- If anyone here has access to these hardcopy publications, I think we should all be willing to accept their description of them in general, and of how they cover this particular product – but, we still need to evaluate that description against the relevant policies. But if no one in the discussion has seen those sources, we can't conclude that they are sufficient for this article to pass WP:GNG – we can't just assume, that because unseen sources A and B discuss this product, their discussion of it is substantial enough to meet GNG
- I don't deny
WP:ITEXISTS – this was a real commerical software product sold in the 1970s, and likely more recently than that as well. But, unless we start arguing that any and all commercial software products sold in the 1970s or earlier are automatically notable – we don't have enough evidence at present to judge it as meeting
WP:GNG. (Now, if someone was to propose – any commercial software product prior to date X is automatically notable – I would actually be inclined to support such a proposal, but that isn't Wikipedia's notability standards as they currently stand, and the purpose of WP:AFD is to implement the policies as they currently exist, not to introduce new ones.)
SJK (
talk)
07:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I also don't think mention in either Software World, or the International Directory of Software, is a good indication of notability, because they are both (I understand) non-selective publications – they aimed to include all commercially available software. As such, they are like the software equivalent of the telephone directory.
SJK (
talk)
08:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
SJK (
talk)
07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
SJK (
talk)
07:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- An additional comment–despite its title containing "IBM", I can find no evidence this was ever an IBM product – indeed, the article text seems to suggest it is the work of other companies. I suspect the article title is erroneous. The article title originally didn't have "IBM" in the name. There is an IP comment at
Talk:IBM OLIVER (CICS interactive test/debug) saying the article title is wrong.
SJK (
talk)
07:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and Move to Draft instead as my searches have found nothing and this is best deleted until it can be noticeably improved, nothing convincing for its own article at this time.
SwisterTwister
talk
07:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Keep or No consensus until we can find editors with access to offline sources to determine whether this is notable. Delete !votes based on empty internet search results should not be given weight here. ~
Kvng (
talk)
14:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Comment which specific offline sources are you referring to? If you don't have specific offline sources in mind, this argument just seems to be a slight variant of
WP:MUSTBESOURCES/
WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Since no one in this world can have a comprehensive selection of offline sources, by that standard everything from that time period must be notable, since you'd never be able to prove there aren't, somewhere out there, offline sources which demonstrate notability which no one has seen yet. It's essentially demanding to prove a negative (no one can ever prove that no offline sources exist, since no matter how many offline sources you check, there will always be more that you haven't)
SJK (
talk)
22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I follow your reasoning but I find the potential implications unacceptable. Anything that is unsourceable on the internet would be subject to persuasive Delete arguments from editors who come up with empty searches. I agree that I haven't made a strong Keep argument but I think my No consensus argument is reasonable (though admittedly unconventional). ~
Kvng (
talk)
23:43, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- If no one can present any sources for an article, then what is the harm in deleting it? If someone later identifies sufficient sources, the article can always be recreated. The article can be moved out of mainspace (into draftspace or userspace) – and then if someone one day finds sufficient offline sources to meet
WP:GNG the article can be moved back to mainspace.
SJK (
talk)
10:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I've heard arguments from others that anything unsourced should be removed from mainspace. I find the potential implications of that also unacceptable. There is no way sources are going to get added or any other improvements made if we delete or otherwise hide work in progress. See
Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. ~
Kvng (
talk)
14:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- I looked as well, with much the same paucity of results as above. It's clear who the creator of the article is, from this and an already deleted autobiography. Unfortunately, xe has taken the wrong approach to documenting xyr achievements. Please get it independently documented outwith Wikipedia beforehand, M. Dakin. We insist that Wikipedia articles be
verifiable from external reliable third-party published materials. This is not.
Uncle G (
talk)
17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - What seems to be a complete and utter lack of attention to this program even in terms of 1970s and 1980s era publications accessed through Google Books, plus that it's not mentioned in any retrospective materials looking back at the development of the Customer Information Control System framework, makes me think that the notability of this is weak at best. The talk about the article being in 'the process of being built' or that new material 'is just about to be found' or whatever is disingenuous. I'm typing this days and days after the article was first nominated for deletion, and still it looks like while there's so much in the page being claimed about the program, there's still no sourcing.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
16:42, 26 May 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.