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.
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was that there is No evidence that this individual meets
WP:GNG or has played in a professional football league. This remains valid.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
23:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete this article fails
NFOOTY as he has neither played in an international match as described, nor has he played in a fully professional league. The article doesnt meet GNG either, so I dont think it should be kept --
Kostas20142 (
talk)
14:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: Saw a link to this page (not directly to the RFD) on Faecbook so I'm not voting, but I want to comment that
WP:GNGACTOR is an essay, not a policy, however, even that clarifies that subject specific criteria more likely apply here. In this case that would be
WP:ENT's "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." or
WP:ARTIST. The question that may be appropriate then is how many is enough. To me, three = multiple.
IMDB LinkKopf1988 (
talk)
00:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
MissyGraham (
talk)
22:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC) I have updated the page to adhere to Wikipedia's formatting standards and included multiple sources to confirm the information on this page. I used Justin Briner and Sarah Wiedenheft's pages as examples, both which seem to pass Wikipedia's standards. I believe this person to be a notable person, not just for acting, but also for their contribution in script writing and ADR directing, as well as being a published author in the comics and art industry.reply
Assassination Classroom (TV) as Hinano Kurahashi - supporting
Castle Town Dandelion (TV) as Karen Ayugase - supporting
ēlDLIVE (TV) as Dolugh - main
Fuuka (TV) as Chitose Haruna - supporting
Keijo!!!!!!!! (TV) as Hanabi Kawai - supporting
Mikagura School Suite (TV) as Yuriko - supporting
Prison School (TV) as Chiyo Kurihara - main
ReLIFE (TV) as An Onoya - main
Sky Wizards Academy (TV) as Beach - supporting
Yuri!!! on Ice (TV) as Loop - supporting
So nothing I see on ANN that shows she has a lead role that carries a program to meet
WP:ENT
Her anime convention appearances are mostly local to Texas. There are a few that are a litlte further out but just to NerdaCon in Columbus, GA. and one visit to KuroNekoCon in Spokane, WA
[1]. She has gotten on to several projects as a ADR Script writer so that might be promising. Can you find some news articles that talk about her and not just a passing mention or cast/convention announcement?
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
03:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I think a real Otaku type would probably know better on whether or not those roles are supporting, but I do recognize Chiyo from Prison School as the main love interest, and I would call that a significant role.
Kopf1988 (
talk)
18:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Dolugh and An Onoya are both listed as "Main" characters on MyAnimeList. [
[2]] Anime News Networks even says "Morgan Berry and Kristen McGuire star" in this article. [
[3]] I know that animecons.com is not reliably updated and often sports outdated bios and even conventions, as there are several VAs who go to conventions that are not listed. For instance she has also been to Con Alt Delete in Chicago, Tokyo in Tulsa in Oklahoma, and GlitchCon in Arkansas, which are all cons outside of Texas. Hanabi Kawai and Chiyo Kurihara may be listed as "support" characters, but they are both integral characters who act as revolving plot devices in their respective shows. I don't think it's fair to say this actress is not notable just because these characters are not leads. They are significant parts regardless. I also found an article regarding not just her voice acting but also her drawing: [
[4]] As well as several pod-cast interviews such as this one: [
[5]] She has also posted about being an ADR Director at FUNimation. She is consistently booking larger roles every season. You may feel that she is a not notable actress right now, but she is definitely up and coming. Also upon reviewing the Wikipedia Notability requirements, it says the following:
Entertainers
Shortcuts:
WP:ENT
WP:ENTERTAINER
WP:NACTOR
WP:NMODEL
Actors, voice actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and celebrities:
Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.
See WP:MUSIC for guidelines on musicians, composers, groups, etc.
It doesn't actually say anything about having to have a lead role. It just says significant. If a character is in more than half the series, I would say that is significant. IE - Hinano Kurhashi from Assassination Classroom is in practically every episode of a 50+ episode series. Dolugh is in every episode of elDlive and is the driving force behind Chuta's super powers. An Onoya is part of the ReLIFE program and is in charge of making sure the lead stays on track with his program. What exactly does Wikipedia constitute as a significant role?
MissyGraham (
talk)
10:24, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Changed Dolugh ēlDLIVE An Onoya / ReLife and Chiyo / Prison School to main. Can you write into her biography about these roles and support this with reviews from secondary sources? That would help show she is getting significant roles. Also the English dubs should be notable; have any of the titles she is a main in made it onto television networks or services such as Hulu/Netflix or is it all just on the very specialized Funimation broadcast dubs? Arlington library writeup is promising. It's still kind of local but we need more sources that detail her career like that. I suggest the article be developed in Draft as a bare filmography supported halfway with cast announcements and the other half with self-pub / tweets isn't helping anyone for notability.
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
16:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, Otakus would know, but how would the general Wikipedia reader know that if it isn't described? (and please do not bold the roles in the filmography)
AngusWOOF (
bark •
sniff)
16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not seeing sufficient sources to satisfy
WP:GNG. Importantly, none of the discussion about what's considered lead/significant roles matters if there's no significant coverage.
WP:NACTOR is one of several more specific criteria that indicate when a subject is probably notable. It's not automatic, because we still need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject on which to base the actual article. We're not imdb, so a list of credits and basic biographical information isn't sufficient for the kind of article we want. In other words, if others find
reliable sources independent of the subject that constitute significant coverage, we can say the subject is notable. — Rhododendritestalk \\
20:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment On the note of significant sources, I'd like to point out that there are pages which have not been targeted for deletion which have the same if not fewer sources. I.E.
Sarah Wiedenheft. The standards do not seem to be universal. All of Sarah's sources come from the same sources I used, I know because I used Sarah's page as a template for making Kristen's. Upon looking on what counts as a reliable source I found the following from the
WP:GNG page: ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." If sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, then Funimation's anime (with English cast credits) as well as their cast announcements should count as a sufficient source. Surely if the company who licensed the product and wrote an official blog post announcing the cast, that should be considered reliable? AngusWoof suggests the shows may be more notable if they weren't limited to Funimation's streaming website, however once again I'd like to point out that Sarah's page does not include any shows which have existed outside of DVD or Funimation's streaming site. Also to be noted that most of these shows are or will be available for purchase on DVD. So it's not limited to strictly online viewing. Upon further research I found that the game "88 Heroes", which Kristen provided voices in, is actually a console game which can be purchased on the PS4, which should help the notability factor that AngusWoof has requested. I will edit the page and make the changes you requested, but I would like to point out that it seems like the requirements change from voice actor to voice actor, which can be rather confusing.
MissyGraham (
talk)
04:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
MissyGraham: What you're expressing is a common and valid frustration (common enough that there's a term for it, albeit somewhat dismissive: an "
other stuff exists" argument). It basically comes down to Wikipedia being a volunteer-run project. Ultimately, a volunteer familiar with the guidelines needs to come across the page and apply the policy/guideline in order for it to be applied. If you've come across another article that doesn't meet notability criteria, you could tag it for deletion yourself, or eventually (possibly years later) someone else will (or perhaps by then the subject will be notable). The standards are universal, but there aren't enough volunteers to apply them with perfect consistency. FWIW I've not looked at the other article at this point. If sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, then Funimation's anime (with English cast credits) - This conflicts with another part of the same page which explains that the sources should be independent of the subject.
Primary sources can be used for some purposes (list to verify that a person was in a certain movie), but doesn't contribute to notability because notability is based on what people who have nothing to do with the subject say about her. (As an aside, for most purposes other than verifying basic data, secondary sources are preferred. We want to know what a professional critic thinks about a movie, for example, more than we want to know what the movie studio says about its own movie.) In other words, they need to be reliable and independent of the subject. Sorry this is so confusing -- the deletion process on Wikipedia can be messy. When it comes down to it, the best thing to do is just to link to books, articles, magazines, journals, newspapers, etc. in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and provide something like "significant coverage". People who opine here will, ideally, look for sources themselves and evaluate what's already linked here before making a decision. When the discussion is closed, the closing editor (typically an administrator) will evaluate the merits of the policy-based arguments to determine consensus on what to do. — Rhododendritestalk \\
13:42, 16 April 2017 (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.
Recreation of an article previously deleted by PROD. Concern was Subject is a football/soccer coach who fails
WP:NFOOTBALL because he has neither played nor managed (been head coach) in a fully professional league or at senior international level. This remains valid.
Sir Sputnik (
talk)
23:20, 7 April 2017 (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.
Small 300 member society built around an admittedly notable author, but not apparently notable in its own right. There is some coverage in sources but I'm not seeing anything that passes trivial mention. They... have a podcast if your interested. Personally I'm not.
TimothyJosephWood23:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The NMS merits mention in Wikipedia by virtue of existing as a registered non-profit corporation in the State of New York. To delete the article would be to pretend the NMS does not exist.
Steven A Brown (
talk)
00:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC) Steven A. Brownreply
An organization merits mention in the encyclopedia when its notability is supported by extensive coverage by multiple
WP:RELIABLE sources. Otherwise there's no pretense that an entity 'does not exist', merely that it has not evidenced encyclopedic note. Thankfully, existential crises are not resolved here.
2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (
talk)
14:59, 9 April 2017 (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 references asserted in the previous AfD are press releases, as can be seen by the internal evidence of their identical phrasing. The only other argument from the contributor was that we have an article on a competitor--using such an argument proves the intent to be advertisement. There are many places for PR , but we're an encyclopedia DGG (
talk )
23:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This AfD is an unbelievable waste of time and I will have to consider quitting the project if an admin closes this as no consensus because no one votes for deletion. The bureaucratic nonsense that this was de-PRODed seven years ago and so can't go through a PROD again has got to stop and the process must be reconsidered.
Delete as no evidence of significant coverage of the musician in reliable sources so not passing
WP:BASIC. I agree the prod process can be frustrating but we all have to follow the rules as they stand, most of my prods are quickly deprodded even when they are obvious for delete.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
22:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as a Biography of a Living Person with no reliable, independent sourcing (BLPs are the only case I know of where the condition of the article IS a valid reason at AfD) or, if anyone pretends that my reason is wrong... GNG isn't met, no independent coverage, all sources are about him as part of a band & notability isn't inherited. McDonalds is notable but you don't see an article for every employee, do you?
Exemplo347 (
talk)
22:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment. I can't quite tell if Clo was an actual member of the bands mentioned in the lead or if he was an at-will employee/session-musician. I checked two of the groups' articles mentioned in this AFD candidate - in the
Superchick article, it is asserted that he was in the band but his name isn't listed in the
cited reference, Clo's name is also not mentioned at any of the online references for
All Star United as being a member of that particular group. At Clo's official website, he does not claim membership in any of the bands in his article, the text states only that he "recorded and toured extensively with Grammy® and Dove Award nominated artists".
Shearonink (
talk)
22:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete My initial impression was that he met
WP:MUSICBIO as a member of several notable bands, an impression I imagine that many have had, leaving this in place for years. As he wasn't a full member of any, he doesn't meet
WP:MUSICBIO and I could find nothing to meet
WP:GNG either.
Boleyn (
talk)
05:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable musician. Author of page has removed tags and twice reverted a redirect to the tenth season of the show she was on.
JTtheOG (
talk)
21:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Redirect and protect against recreation. Clearly not notable outside of the series they appeared in, but a redirect to the series is probably useful. The IP who continues to recreate the page has now been blocked for a year and I was going to protect this page today anyway if I saw it recreated (avoiding the need for AFD, I didn't really want to see the article existing for the duration!).
anemoneprojectors08:32, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: Insofar as this title is specifically about the company, the previous AfD about their product cannot be reused. However, the content of this article is predominantly about the product (and should be pruned if the article survives this AfD). Reviewing it strictly about the company, as per the title, it is little more than a statement that the company exists, sourced to a product release announcement. I added a ref confirming the firm's funding and relocation, but that is no more than a passing mention. I am seeing nothing to meet
WP:CORPDEPTH or
WP:GNG.
AllyD (
talk)
08:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
09:38, 31 August 2014 RoySmith (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Supranational (2nd nomination))
12:42, 18 December 2010 Dabomb87 (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement (CSDH))
13:08, 7 December 2010 Courcelles (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (Mass removal of pages added by Dhimasbayu; A7 and G11)
17:29, 7 September 2010 Fastily (talk | contribs) deleted page Miss Supranational (Expired PROD, concern was: This is not a notable beauty pageant. There are only 2 titleholders and barely any sources (none of which are from reliable third parties). Don't think this is notable enough to be listed on Wikipedia,)
Per WP:AGF we cannot assume this is the same author who pushes it all these years. But from the love the page was written with I smell WP:COI (may be mistaken, since this is not exactly and SPA).
Staszek Lem (
talk)
23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note to closer - might want to consider salting the article as well, in light of the continued vandalism and disruptive editing on the article.
Onel5969TT me17:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable script kiddies lacking significant coverage. Article was created and subsequently edited almost entirely by SPA which appear affiliated. Further, older revisions of article were largely unsourced (two refs failed verification) and advertorial in nature.
Single claim to fame is renting a botnet to DDoS Web sites associated with a small Nordic country. --
dsprc[talk]17:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - Lacks significant coverage. Very few search results in English (some in non-English that I was unable to evaluate). --
CNMall41 (
talk)
20:02, 12 April 2017 (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 only source for this article is a website that claims that "if shot in the head, a master of biokinesis could quickly repair the damage and dislodge the bullet" That doesn't quite jive with
WP:MEDRS.
Mduvekot (
talk)
17:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - A
WP:FRINGE topic with virtual no reliable sources discussing it. While the term does come up in searches, none of the results are anything that could remotely be considered a reliable source.
64.183.45.226 (
talk)
17:21, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
delete --FRINGE stuff that is not even notable enough to be discussed in RS. "videos of people tracking the progress of their change in eye color along with subliminal message videos that supposedly aid in doing just that" oy
Jytdog (
talk)
18:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Bonadea: I'm not sure, but I've just spotted that one of the article's links points to a $9 e-book. You may find your answer there. Now, I'm going back to the "change your eyes from brown to blue" video. It'll kick in any second now.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment Saw this AfD referenced on a discussion page on an unrelated topic. Obviously this article promotes a fringe theory. However, in doing a Google Books search I noticed a number of references to the topic. See
[6] So I wonder if perhaps the article could be re-created from scratch, acknowledging that this is a fringe theory. We do have articles on fringe theories. Just a suggestion; not favoring keep per se.
Coretheapple (
talk)
15:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The non-BS references there seem to all be fictional. If this is a common enough fantasy superpower it might be worth recreating this article in another form, but the current form of the article would have nothing to do with that and would deserve deletion – because, much as it would be fun to add it to my currently empty list of superpowers, this is not a real thing.
Double sharp (
talk)
16:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I just see a lot out there. Mind you, I realize that doesn't satisfy GNG, so I guess I will pile on with a delete.
Coretheapple (
talk)
16:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I just wanted to point out that the applicable notability guideline is
WP:NFRINGE. Apparently it does not meet the specifications of that guideline. I don't think MEDRS is relevant to this discussion.Coretheapple (
talk)
21:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'd ask if those could be repaired by biokinesis, but the joke's been practically run into the ground at this point. Though I wonder if we could all erase them from our memories by biokinesis and start using them again? ^_^
Double sharp (
talk)
14:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete as non-notable song. Creator should be investigated for sockpuppetry, as there are two accounts and several IPs recreating and editing several similar pages.
anemoneprojectors16:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has no sources and does not demonstrate that "It Looks Like Susie" has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label."
Eddie Blick (
talk)
01:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - sorry to pile on, but as stated, there's no claim of notability from a reliable source. Social media can be made (or faked) by anyone and doesn't count as a source.
YITYNRMy work •
What's wrong?22:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WWE Classics on Demand and later
WWE Network chat series. I have looked for substantial coverage in reliable sources but besides from the expected mentions on pro wrestling blogs and one or two very passing mentions elsewhere, there's nothing to indicate this series in itself has any inherent notability.
KaisaL (
talk)
04:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable
WWE Network series that aired for two months in 2014. It was one of the first to be announced and this may be why it has an article, but it's never gained any cultural relevance nor coverage substantial enough to justify an article. The only sources are a non-reliable niche source and a primary source.
KaisaL (
talk)
04:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Leadership of a borough council could potentially get a person over
WP:NPOL #2 — but passage or failure of that criterion is conditional on the depth of
reliable sourceability, not on the mere fact that the person exists. The depth of sourcing here is not adequate, however; it's referenced to just three fairly
WP:ROUTINE pieces of local media coverage, which is a volume and range of geographic coverage that any local councillor in pretty much any town or city could always expect to receive. To get in the door, he needs to be shown as significantly more notable than the norm, such as through nationalizing coverage (or at least considerably more local coverage than this.)
Bearcat (
talk)
18:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. I think leadership of a London borough council is sufficient for notability, although merely being on the council wouldn't be. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
15:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
If there were a much better depth of
reliable source coverage, then sure, it would be sufficient. But it's not a position that hands him an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of significantly better sourcing than this.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Hi
Andy Dingley, I accepting I made some citation which is not suitable to Wikipedia. Get punished for 72 hours and learned a lot to never use such sites as the citation in Wikipedia. Will not do that again. There is no issue with this article. You can check the notability and verify references.
Macrolancer (
talk)
08:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Passes
WP:GNG and is extremely thorough. Page gets daily average of 2,500 views showing strong demand. Widely known Youtube personality and a great place to summarize his background and bio for his fans.
Hierophantus (
talk)
02:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Thanks for finding that,
Clarityfiend. It provides some notability. Information is difficult to find because much of it will be in Russian and search is difficult because of the various permutations of the name. I'm not sure "Kazan Secondary School № 18" is the best search string. In any case, local media is likely to have much more information than we can find.
Jack N. Stock (
talk)
23:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Searches need to be conducted in Russian and perhaps using different phrasing. However, it has been shown to exist and the sourcing shows some notability.
AusLondonder (
talk)
17:20, 9 April 2017 (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.
Snow keep as per
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, and the precedent of keeping articles on degree-awarding institutions as long as they are verifiable by independent sources. This is also a reasonably old institution, and several articles in The Hindu and The Hans India has covered this college (e.g.,
[17],
[18],
[19],
[20],
[21],
[22], etc.). Just because the article is promotional (or has other issues) doesn't mean that it ought to be deleted; see
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Please stop nominating articles you don't like for deletion. — Stringy Acid (
talk)
19:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak delete per
WP:TNT, beginning "Kakaraparthi Bhavanarayana College is truly a dream come true for many..." and going on from there, it really is irredeemable in its current form, and there is really nothing much worth keeping, I'd say.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:12, 8 April 2017 (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. relisting has not helped in gathering consensus, defaults to procedural keep as a result of no consensus, without prejudice for a new nomination
Yamamoto Ichiro (
talk)
00:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
BLPPROD removed with no reason given; still an unreferenced biography of a living person. I couldn't establish that he is notable.
Boleyn (
talk)
13:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
delete handwavy google searches are not sufficient to show N. This is entirely promotional and there are insufficient RS with significant discussion with which to write a WP article.
Jytdog (
talk)
05:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)reply
User talk:Jytdog the words "He is positioned as one of Macedonia's most eminent practitioners of cardiovascular surgery" are mine, as deduced from reading online content regarding Mitrev, and submitted as a personal argument against deletion of the article. The links which I provided, however, come directly from the
medical center's own website, the
website of the Cardiothoracic Surgery Network and
google scholar. If, among those, are any self-published unreliable sources, then such sources should be clearly linked here for the purposes of this discussion and isolated from other sources which are acceptably reliable.
—Roman Spinner(talk)(contribs)00:27, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I've removed the majority of the article as unsourced as it relates to a
living person. If anyone can find anything reliable to back up any of what was there feel free.
Amortias (
T)(
C)
17:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Note that the article has been significantly pruned down compared to its state when it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America100002:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Note to closer: an RM has been closed as moving this title to
Zan Mitrev if the AfD closes as keep. There were no arguments to keep or delete at the RM, and this should not have an impact on the outcome of the AfD, but noting it here so it can be implemented if need be.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
05:25, 31 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I put this up as a PROD and it was contested. However, this is still not appropriate subject matter.
WP:LISTCRUFT is not official policy, but many of the common objections apply: there are no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion in the list, the list will become dated very quickly, and if any of the members of the list are noteworthy then they should be in a category
Category:Gaming computers rather than this list. It also inherently requires
original research since there are no definitive third-party lists that agree as to membership in this list (or
it's unverifiable). Alternatively,
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information but I think the listcruft essay does a better job explaining the issues.
49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (
talk)
06:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per above reasoning, but I would like to suggest that a List of gaming computer manufacturers would be a reasonable list. Eg no product details, but just company names that have been involved in making gaming computers that are also notable (past and present). That could be a category possibly. --
MASEM (
t)
02:42, 10 April 2017 (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. I'm probably going to catch some flak for this, but despite what would normally seem to be an inconclusive headcount, the arguments against keeping this as a standalone article far outweigh the "keep" arguments. Those in favor of keeping the page seem impressed by the size of the company, though in light of
WP:NOTINHERETED, this says little about the notability of its executives. With few or no examples of in-depth, reliable sources being produced,
WP:GHITS arguments were appropriately discounted, as were
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS assertions. I'm struggling to find any policy-based reasons for keeping the article in more than a month of open discussion, but several valid arguments for deletion have been presented. I'll temporarily restore the deleted content upon request to allow for the suggested merge. – Juliancolton |
Talk19:17, 19 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Harquail is a businessman of minor importance. A search for sources turned up some routine coverage but nothing suggesting he has actually reached accomplishments that are notable, that his coverage is more than routine, and it is debatable it is indepth enough in reliable 3rd party sources to pass the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:40, 15 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 -
[23]) which is part of Canada's main stock index -
S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by
user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable.
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That's faulty logic, if the Canadian stock market is dwarfed by the US and UK markets. We don't scale down the two largest stock markets to synthesize equivalents in minor markets, else we could do that for Singapore, Mexico, Hong Kong, and others that aren't significant. I'm not saying the guy isn't notable, but scaling the S&P 500 / FTSE 100 down to some other size and claiming it's equivalent doesn't make much sense to me. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
06:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
S&P/TSX-60 is a smaller index - 60 components - compared to 500 and 100 respectively. It is the leading stock index in the Canadian stock market. In most markets one wouldn't look at 500 companies. But if a company is one of the largest X in a notable publicaly traded market that adds some presumed notability. For the case in question - Seeing that he is covered in the news (some hits) + CEO of a large Canadian mining company (in the TSX-60 index) - is vastly different than some news + CEO of "Joe's mining supplies". The smallest S&P-500 component has a market cap of 4.3 Billion (
[24]) - Franco-Nevada is at 15.4 Billion - it would definitely be in the S&P-500 if it were an American company (which is needed for inclusion in the index).
Icewhiz (
talk)
06:43, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Market cap isn't a hard and fast notability criterion, though. Both bullet points of
WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE indicate that market cap means an article on a businessperson is "generally kept" although can be merged into the article about the company. Notability by virtue of market cap isn't automatic. Also,
notability is not inherited; just because the company may be notable doesn't necessarily mean that one of its executives is notable. I'd say the best gauge here is more-than-routine significant coverage in reliable sources. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
07:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
It isn't a hard and fast criterion - but it is a significant factor. With Harquail a quick Google-News check shows coverage from several reputable sources. Coupled with the fact he's a CEO of an 15.4 Billion dollar company (for the past 10 years - company size that would be included in S&P-500 (around 4 billion USD threshold) or FTSE-100 (around 2-3 billion pounds threshold)) - it's fairly safe to say he's notable. We're not talking about the CEO of a mom and pop store with some coverage we have to assess. Google-news -
[25] (with hits going back a few years - to 2008 (single) and several before 2014).
Icewhiz (
talk)
09:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - I added a few sources + a line on his philanthropy (namely a 10 million dollar donation for earth science research). Still a stub.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I know relisting a third time is unconventional but there has been no discussion on whether the new sources added by Icewhiz are sufficient to prove notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SoWhy06:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
NoteWP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE (adapted to Canada) is in play here - this is a CEO of 15.4 billion dollar company - well above the size threshold for fortune-500 or ftse100 (which are around 3-4 billion). It's not just the added sources (which are also there).
Icewhiz (
talk)
07:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Franco-Nevada. Based on my comments above, I am unconvinced that we need a stand-alone article about this person.
WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE is neither policy nor guideline; rather it's an explanatory essay about historical outcomes of deletion discussions. Referencing that in a new AFD discussion amounts to a
WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, in my view. There is no inclusion criterion based on market capitalization, for articles about company executives. Until such a criterion is defined, we need to go by
WP:SIGCOV, and as far as I can see, the coverage has been
WP:ROUTINE for a large-company executive. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
19:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep: I agree with IceWhiz who wrote:"Keep - He's the CEO of a 15.4 Billion dollar company (from 2007 - bringing it from around 1 Billion market cap to 15.4 -
[26]) which is part of Canada's main stock index -
S&P/TSX 60. There is coverage - 100+ google news hits, some from reputable sources. The article itself is poorly sourced and very brief (probably created by
user:QatarStarsLeague as part of a mining/oil who and who) - but this guy is notable." Increasing a companies worth by about 14 billion dollars is clearly notable. Also, I would made a correction. I am finding over 5,000 Google hits.
[27] Wikipedia lists businessmen who have achieved far less. I do think that greater efforts should be made to expand the article. He also has an extensive background in his industry and his Bloomberg.com profile reflects this matter.
[28]Dean Esmay (
talk)
Delete -- not every CEO is notable. I made an attempt to locate sources: nothing comes in Gbooks except for directory listings. No substantial coverage to be found in Gnews; hits are mostly the CEO discussing the company's financial results, which is routine coverage that does not count towards GNG. The company is notable, for sure, but its executive is not. I'm not seeing coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:58, 15 April 2017 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Comments on the sources listed by
Hmlarson?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kurykh (
talk)
06:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Common sense should indicate that a national athletics champion who competed at several major games is suitable for inclusion. --
Michig (
talk)
06:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
A guideline is a rule of thumb, and should never override common sense. Having said that, since Ovens was a national champion (2003 and 2006 1500m AAA indoor champion), satisfying criterion 5 of that guideline, and competed in the World Indoor Championships in 2003, satisfying criterion 1, she satisfies WP:NTRACK. --
Michig (
talk) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC) Actually she also won the 1500m AAA indoor in 2005 - see
this. So a 3-time national champion who also competed in the World Indoor Championships. --
Michig (
talk)
17:27, 10 April 2017 (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.
Poet and I am afraid, fails
WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of his work, some minor awards, very little coverage. Nothing in Google News, few mentions in Google Books but in passing, at least one source refers to Nigerian poet Hassanal Abdullah (b. 1967) (same subject or different?)... Another red flag - tried searching for info on his recent (2016) book, "Hollowness on the Horizon" by Naznin Seamon, and I get 4 google hits (in any case, it seems he was a translator here, not writer). Granted, we have to keep
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS in mind, there may be sources in non-English (Bangladeshi?), but
we cannot assume such sources exit. Ping
User:Cirt who nominated this for AfD few years back. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here07:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Keep I would say that he's relatively notable on the basis that he created "Swatantra Sonnets," and after all, he has won at least some awards.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
16:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
That being said, I think the list of his works should be condensed to just those that are notable because its current form looks fairly unprofessional.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
16:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Kamalthebest: Swatantra Sonnets are not a form, they are a book. The ref given is
[29], which looks pretty much like a blurb one writes when asked by an event organizers, i.e. it was likely written by the subject. Google search for " Swatantra Sonnets" is only 220 hits, mostly amazon and social media. No sign this work received any critical reception. Please note the publication date - 2017. Way too soon for them to be important. Also, Feral Press is an obscure publisher, possibly a vanity press.
ISBN search for the book yield little beyond Amazon page (
[30]) which doesn't even list publisher, further suggesting it is a very minor entity or a self-published work. Perhaps you may want to reconsider your argument. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here08:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, Hassanal Abdullah is a fine poet, translator, and editor of a world-renowned international bilingual (Bengali-English & Other Languages) magazine. He is also the author of 37 books of his own original poetry, many in bilingual format (Bengali-English). He has also been published widely in many parts of the world--Italy, Wales, Poland, India, Vietnam, Korea, China, Japan--and, of course, America and Bangladesh. I am Abdullah's publisher in the USA, and I note that there are many errors in the data above in the argument. For instance, he is not from Nigeria; he's from Bangladesh, currently living and working in New York. I nominated him for the Homer Medal, which was received in China at the Silk Road International Poetry Festival, last June, 2016, for which he was invited gratis by the Chinese government. I strongly suggest that Hassanal Abdullah's listing in Wikipedia be retained. --Stanley H. Barkan, Publisher, Cross-Cultural Communications, 1 April 2017[1]67.84.7.58 (
talk)
21:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete- World renowned yet not a single good citation, not a single reference found from using google news. Many of the keep votes seem to a case of sock puppetry.
Vinegarymass911 (
talk)
05:27, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - His outstanding contribution is not only creating a new sonnet form, he also wrote a 304-page epic, Nakkhotra O Manusher Prochhed, where he illustrated the relation between human beings and the universe using several scientific theories. The poet talks about this in an interview with a British poetry Journal, The Seventh Quarry. He said, “...I wrote it [the epic] on the scientific understanding of the relation between human beings and the universe.Poets, from more than ten languages, gathered at the Poets House, New York, to celebrated Hassanal Abdullah’s book publication ceremony, co-sponsored by Poets House and Cross-Cultural Communications. Later, Naoshi Karyama, a Japanese poet, praised the book as, “...a unique, remarkable book, ...that has powerful words and images.” Adel Gorgy, a renowned American painter, used several poems of Hassanal Abdullah to incorporate his artwork. Queens Public Library collaborated with him arranging a 3-day International Poetry Festival to mark the 15 years anniversary of the magazine, Shabdaguchha, of which he is the founder and the editor since 1998. Hassanal Abdullah translated more than 30 Bengali poets into English, 12 and a significant number of world poets including Charles Baudelaire, Nâzım Hikmet, Tomas Tranströmer, Nicanor Parra, and Wislawa Szymborska into Bengali. In addition, an entire issue of Anubhuti, a literary magazine from Bangladesh was published in 2015 to honor Hassanal Abdullah’s significant contribution to poetry.He was also invited by the Chinese government to attand the International Silk Road Poetry Festival in June of 2016 -first from Bengali . An Interview with Hassanal Abdullah at VOA (Voice Of American) Bangla Radio:
[32] -
kontrola (
talk)
21:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Please don't cast double votes... And seriously, Wikipedia is not a place to promote someone. If he is so oustanding, then he needs to get recognition from reputable institutions/publications first. And when you mention other sources, please cite or reference them properly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as the article doesn't establish notability adequately. I tried finding sources, but could only find primary sources closely connected to the subject. — Stringy Acid (
talk)
19:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep As a Bengali reader, I know the poet through his poetry. Recently, one of the famous poets of Bangladesh,
Nirmalendu Goon wrote about Hassanal Abdullah in a Daily news paper of Bangladesh, The Bhorer Kagoj, congratulating him on his 50th Birthday in advance by calling him "a significant Bengali poet".[1] I encourage English reader to read it in google translation. The same paper also published a review of his book. Presumably, it is the 2nd edition of his epic. The reviewer mentioned, "It is one of the best books of the present time."[2] --Rafi
67.250.81.148 (
talk)
23:06, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Bhorer Kagoj exists, through how reliable it is, I am not prepared to say. Google Translate fails badly, but I AGF what you say; through the first article is attributed to just Goon (according to GT). That Nirmalendu Goon writes about the subject in a positive manner is the best indicator of notability I've seen here so far. I'd hope we could hear more from Banladeshi editors on the significance of this source. How significant is this endorsement of the subject from
Nirmalendu Goon in [[Bhorer Kagoj]? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Recent reviews of Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry by the professors of five different universities in four different countries:
India:
1. Prof. Bishnupada Ray, Dept of English, Calcutta University: Reviewed Hassanal Abdullah's poetry in Ajker Kobita, October, 2014
2. Minakshi Datta, daughter of the great Bengali poet
Buddhadeb Bosu, who is currently an adjunct Professor at Rutgers University, Reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry in the Daily Ajkal, December, 2016
Japan:
3. Poet Naoshi Koriyama, former professor at Tokyo University, Reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s work in Pandora, a bilingual Literary Magazine, January, 2017
USA:
4. Prof. Joan Digby, Director of the Creative writing Dept at Long Island University, wrote the Preface for “Swatantra Sonnets: Bengali with English Translation by the author,” February, 2017
5. Prof. Nicholas Birns, Dept of English at New York University, reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry in Shabdaguchha, January-June, 2015
Bangladesh:
6.
Jyoti Prakash Dutta (writer), a well-known short story writer and the winner of the Ekushy Padak, the highest national award, Bangladesh, reviewed Hassanal Abdullah’s poetry in the Daily Bhorer Kagoj, April, 2016
Please note that these are just a few reviews of the poet’s work. To celebrate his 50th Birthday, Hassanal Abdullah: Poet Voyager, 240-page collection of the review of the poet’s work is about to be published by Puthiniloy Publishing House, Dhaka. --Stanley H. Barkan
67.84.7.58 (
talk)
22:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
This sounds nice, in light of
WP:SYSTEMICBIAS - but it is also a possible hoax (or at least, a bad failure of transliteration and referencing). Re 1. Dept of English, Calcutta University does not have a professor named Bishnupada Ray:
[33] Ajker Kobita does seem to exist, through I cannot find much about it. Unless a link can be provided, it seems like a undigitized, zero-impact publication. Re 2. I cannot find any source to confirm this claim. Re 3. I cannot find any source to confirm this claim. 4. Even if it is true, having a preface is not an indicator of notability. Re 5: this seems to be based on claim by the subject:
[34] in his self-published book. Re 6. I cannot find any source to confirm this claim; through perhaps you refer to
[35]; unfortunately Google Translate does not indicate who is the author (I can't find mention of Jyoti Prakash Dutta there, and our article on him does not contain his name spelled in Bangladeshi script, so I cannot search for it in the original article). I am sorry, but those claims seem to me like, well, hoaxes. To prove me wrong, please provide links, or if the sources are not digital, scans of the material. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here09:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. No pass of
WP:GNG is evident and the promotionalism apparent here makes the marginal sources of the article more suspect. The only one that looks plausibly reliable is the Queens Borough Poet Laureate Honorable Mention, and that gives only a passing mention, not enough nontrivial detail about the subject to be worth much. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
05:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is obviously a heated debate, but I really do not see enough evidence of notability here, as stated by some of the commentators above. If there is more media coverage about Abdullah in Bengali sources, then I recommend writing about him
Bengali Wikipedia and encouraging an English-language page to be translated after this article has already been established and verified by editors here.
Clawsyclaw (
talk)
05:18, 17 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I made a 18-page critical discussion on his epic, Nakkhotra O Manusher Prochhed (Star and Human Cantata), which was published in my book, Omar Khayyam and Other Poets (Labu Bhai Foundation, 2009) ISBN 984-70023-0011-7. Hassanal Abdullah is one of the significant figures of Post Modern Bengali poetry. I believe his Swatantra Sonnets and the epic are two important contributions to poetry among many of his other works. Dr.
Jyoti Prakash Dutta (writer) also wrote on this epic on the Daily Bhorer Kajog.[1]Mohammed A Rahman (
talk) 03:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Mohammed A Rahman (
talk)
03:33, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I can only assume you translated the book title, as no such book seems to exist. I also cannot find a book with such an ISBN title in
worldcat. While non-English references are accepted, we have to be able to judge their
reliability. You believe that this is an important work - but are you an expert? A professor of Bengali literature? Is Labu Bhai Foundation a reliable publisher, with peer review and such? All we have so far is a single newspaper article you cite in which one of the subject works is, AGF, reviewed by a notable writer/scholar. That's a good start, but more is needed. Also, as noted above, the fact that he does not yet have an article on Bengali Wikipedia is a red flag: if he is not important enough to have an article about him in Bengali, it is unlikely he is important enough for us. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here05:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This unfortunately failed to get deleted at AfD 2 years ago; but it was not notable then, and is not now. The lawsuit is trivial and there isn';t much else. The sources in the article are mainly PR, and the others listed at the previous afd were essentially mere mentions among many other similar and better known services. There was 1 case study, but that's not notability DGG (
talk )
05:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The
case study in the 2016 book The Lean Entrepreneur published by
John Wiley & Sons provides extensive coverage of the subject.
The Wired and
TechCrunch articles provide significant coverage about the subject and are not press releases. They are written by established journalists and published by reputable news organizations. I agree with Cavarrone at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kissmetrics that "I have never seen press releases opening about lawsuits against the companies they should promote."
Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley originally found that cookies stored in the browser’s “cache” of previously visited websites could be used to respawn cookies on Hulu’s website. Code responsible for this capability came from a company called Kissmetrics, which analyzes website-traffic data.
But the Kissmetrics code wasn’t limited to Hulu. Technology researchers Ashkan Soltani, who worked on the original Berkeley study, and Nick Doty analyzed the top 1 million websites and found that 515 of them were using the same Kissmetrics code. The “sole function” of that code was to “set a persistent identifier via the browser cache,” Soltani wrote.
...
The websites containing the code included music service Spotify.com, personal finance site Mint.com, crafts marketplace etsy.com, government site challenge.gov and profiles site about.me.
...
Kissmetrics has said that after the original study, it stopped using these types of cache cookies and will use only regular cookies in the future. The site also has an opt-out available. (Your Digits blogger had a bit of trouble finding it on the Kissmetrics site, but it can be found here or by Googling “Kissmetrics opt out.”)
Delete Notability not established. As a side note,
Cunard, you don't have to copy the entire text of references into AfD discussions (something you've been doing far too often), just post a link. Less is more.
Exemplo347 (
talk)
15:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete as I examined the source offered above now and it's not only a solely-specific publishing for the business trade, the information in fact says "Companies you should know about and about them", showing how's it's not simply a "anything where the company talks about itself, wherever published" (quoted by WP:CORPIND), but also it's a list of other "potential" companies, thus case closed for any confirmed notability. Our applied policy is WP:What Wikipedia is not, which is not interchangeable with guidelines. Unless other better coverage can then be offered, simply claiming we should keep alone, is something that should've actually occurred when the 1st AfD's claims of "it's notable", not if it still happens.
SwisterTwistertalk20:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A "curated" list of people who are said to be "outdoor personalities", without defining any criteria for inclusion. The list doesn't not appear to correspond to any category or intersection of several categories, like Hunters and Television personalities and as such does not aid in navigation.
Mduvekot (
talk)
04:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Weirdly specific and useless, the criteria is broad enough to cover every tv personality who either hosts or has guest-starred in an outdoors show.
ValarianB (
talk)
12:01, 7 April 2017 (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 sourcing here is fairly terrible, one interview in a non-notable publication and a fawning review of one of his movies. Additionally, this fails
WP:PORNBIO.
AniMate04:22, 7 April 2017 (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.
Since we apparently cannot simply redirect this bit player in a JFK conspiracy to the
trial in which he made a minor appearance, we'll have to discuss deleting it outright first. Anyway, the trial was a farce, the book which is the only non-primary source was roundly panned, and this fellow, whatever one can dig up from primary sources, is unimportant.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. One of a bazillion witness called by either the Warren Commission or Jim Garrison. The conspiracy-minded get off on his testimony because he said he saw Oswald escape Dealey Plaza with a possible co-conspirator, but despite this there is no significant coverage about him in reliable secondary sources. What we are left with is a form of a coat rack onto which one can hang links to various conspiracy books, websites, and You Tube videos. (I don't see anything to merge, but I'm fine with redirect/merge to
Trial of Clay Shaw or
John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories.) -
Location (
talk)
05:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The man's background and his involvement in the JFK Conspiracy Theory are sufficient grounds to warrant a separate article on himself. After all, he was an important witness in events leading-up to and during the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. It is my personal view that people should be allowed to formulate their own opinions, without undue interference in that process, especially in what is already privately well-known.
Davidbena (
talk)
13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Yes, I say "privately well-known," since there has been some effort to keep the knowledge of these things out of public schools, government printing presses, newspapers, etc., therefore, the knowledge of the affairs relating to JFK's assassination has been acquired by many, many individuals chiefly through private research, and is now known largely in the private sector.
Davidbena (
talk)
17:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The thing is that there's nothing here which says anything beyond "he was a guy in the sheriff's office who was a bystander at the JFK assassination". Presumably you're going to want to complain about all the material that was removed, but we're going to have severe problems with the website used as a source.
Mangoe (
talk)
22:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
You don't think that a witness who was questioned by the Warren Commission, and who was sought after by New Orleans' Attorney Jim Garrison, is worthy of a Wiki article explaining who he is and how he fits in to the JFK assassination conspiracy, whether it be theory or fact?
Davidbena (
talk)
19:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Besides the reasons I've given above, Roger D. Craig and his testimony have been written about in many books. As for
POV fork, since witnesses and their testimonies differ one from the other, separate articles on them (in the JFK assassination conspiracy theory) should not be considered a "fork" of some other similar article. Each article on each individual has its own merits.
Davidbena (
talk)
21:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is clearly a
WP:COATrack and there is zero justification for standalone articles. All of the content is currently being discussed in enough detail at other articles, in spite of the instance of the administrator who reversed the redirect.
jps (
talk)
12:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The classification of this article as infringing upon "Coatracking" is an allegation that is as absurd as I've heard anywhere, since there is no secret or hidden meaning why we have decided to write upon this man. Nothing here is construed for what it is not. Craig was an important witness in the JFK murder conspiracy theory, and deserves his rightful place in American history.
Davidbena (
talk)
17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Individual is sufficiently
WP:NOTABLE and otherwise a fairly well-known figure in the assassination who participated in the Warren Commission proceedings, the Clay Shaw trial, several documentaries, and various books on the subject.
Earl of Arundel (
talk)
19:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge into the trial article or the conspiracy theory article (or both)... per ONEEVENT. Not enough sourcing on the subject himself to merit a stand alone article.
Blueboar (
talk)
15:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually, when the article was first written, we brought down plenty of sourcing, but for some reason the article was considerably cut down in size and the sourcing deleted.
Davidbena (
talk)
19:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Jim Garrison's book, which is referred to as further reading in the Craig article, besides all the different mentions of him listed there in that section, also has a picture of Craig in the office of Dallas Police Sheriff Captain Will Fritz on the evening of November 22, 1963. The picture is among all pictures published by Garrison in his book between pages 218 and 219. The photo is there because Captain Fritz denied Craig's presence in the office on that day and at that time, until the photo was revealed years later. Has this photo been ever "debunked" by the deniers of any conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy? If it has not, this would be enough reason, in my view, to keep and expand/improve this article.
warshy(¥¥)22:22, 12 April 2017 (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. There is a majority (5v3) in favour of Delete here, but more importantly the majority of the Keep comments do not advance any policy-compliant reasons for that opinion (for example, the existence of verified social media platforms does not address any part of PORNBIO or GNG).
Black Kite (talk)16:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Unremarkable as either singer, model, actress, pornographic actress, aerialist, or writer. Significant RS coverage not found; only trivial mentions and / or tabloid-like coverage. The article has been previously deleted, per the 2013 AfD.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep someone clearly doesn't know what notabilty requirements are under
WP:PORNBIO in addition, documentation supplied showing Verification across all Social Media platforms and Music Platforms go specifically to items (2) and (3) listed under
WP:PORNBIO along with the vast amount of supporting documentation that was intentionally deleted from this page before the same editor nominated it for deletion, after it was approved as having already passed notability requirements by editors. (See BELOW)
Art javier (
talk)
16:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Ha ha ha. Go check the archives. I helped write pornbio old boy and have been involved in numerous discussions of its meaning, i think its safe to say that my grip on deletion issues is more secure than your grip on civility. Have a nice day now...
SpartazHumbug!17:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I am not an old boy, and your comment about "Someone not knowing...." was responded to with facts, simply stated, the article was reviewed already by
Devopam (
talk) and was found to have met Notability. Your comments won't change that, but thank you and I am having a nice day. If you wrote the
WP:PORNBIO guidelines then you already also know this to be true. Comments about my age or anything else won't change the facts at issue. Please keep your comments constructive, and feel free to add references to help with the article in order to improve it, rather than making statements that are already documented as not true. :)
Art javier (
talk)
17:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I would be far happier if you simply assisted in helping make the article better, since the strength for notability already exists, and since you have said that you have helped with the
WP:PORNBIO you would be in a great position to assist with this, and I for one would greatly appreciate the help, since I have watched the article have vast portions deleted despite other editors putting it up, helping with it, reviewing that it met notability etc. I think that would be a wonderful use of your time, and you are in a unique position to help. Would you please help? Thanks in advance if you will please do so as there has been a substantial time investment by a number of editors on this article.
Art javier (
talk)
18:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - the article has changed shape drastically from when I reviewed it last, yet I find this satisfies the notability criteria.
Devopam (
talk)
10:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - coverage appears to be of the routine variety. Cant find as the winner of any awards, only nominated. Being verified by various social media is not evidence of notability (its actually very easy to get verified by Twitter for example. Just create a load of impersonation accounts, use proxy IP's to post obscenities and actionable slander, claim Twitter's not taking action, ask for the 'tick', bob's your uncle).
Only in death does duty end (
talk)
10:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Respectfully, it is not easy to get verified on twitter at all with only 190,000 verified twitter accounts and 300 Million users thats about .06%. You can read about that here:
Also Twitter (as well as social media companies) have algorithms that make is easy to find fake accounts which is why they don't verify accounts with Bots or fake followers. More on topic though, simply searching the internet brings up far more notability for the page in question than a verified twitter (as seen below), and by links other editors have placed up here as well.
WP:PORNBIO is very specific about what the requirements are for notability, and winning award is just one of three potential avenues. As noted, she more than qualifies in the other 2 areas (not just one). I have taken the liberty of listing those below for everyone to read in order to make it easy for people to reference. Thank you so much for taking the time to become part of this discussion though, and I hope to talk with you more in the future! If you ever have any specific questions regarding social media just leave me a message on my talk page!
Art javier (
talk)
15:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete no notable recording as a musician, no notable awards as an actress. Nominations are not awards. No unique contributions--writing a self-published book is neither unique or significant. As for " featured multiple times in notable mainstream media." this means mainstream, not porn-specific. I don't see anything that's not trivial. DGG (
talk )
05:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
It is important that editors who are viewing this page have the opportunity to view the information that has been removed that specifically cite Notability. Any unbiased editor would want all facts available for anyone to read in order to make an informed decision regarding this article and the statements made by other editors as well as the fact that the article was already reviewed and found to meet notability under
WP:PORNBIO We should let EVERYONE else be the judge of the facts and not just one editors opinions.Art javier (
talk)
17:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Clearly this is a personal issue rather than actual fact.
1) this page had the Picture of Nikki Phoenix removed by various editors making false statements that were TOTALLY refuted by the OTRS process, and the picture was reinstated.
2) let us all look at what notability requirements are, which I took the liberty of posting on the talk page for this article:
Perhaps looking at his comment will help with a frame of reference.
Hi, I'm Devopam. Art javier, thanks for creating
Nikki Phoenix!
I've just tagged the page, using our
page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article has potential and passess
WP:PORNBIO. Need recommended improvements in order to make it a good read.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on
my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at
the Teahouse.
Devopam (
talk)
13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
to refresh everyones memory on what that is:
People involved in pornography:
Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starring in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or being a member of an industry hall of fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. (clearly shown from her music contributions; performances at AVN, Music Festivals and Nightclubs throughout the US; her beginning the trend for adult stars to become EDM musicians and DJs (Carter Cruise, DJ Darcie Dolce and others) of which she is the only one who is singing, writing, producing and performing as an aerialist while singing and performing her songs which hit #1 on Soundcloud and had documented radio play in Canada, the US and Europe; her 12 awards nominations including for Best Soundtrack for her own movie she produced and starred in (beginning another trend in pornography); the fact she is an owner producer of both movies and music and is concurrently and actively engaged in both clearly make her "Notable" as well as the person who started this particular trend in pornography; all of which have also been deleted off her page)
Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. (Clearly documented from all of the mainstream press, that has also been deleted off her page)
Perhaps that's why the page was already documented as having met notability per
WP:PORNBIO noted by
Devopam (
talk)
While I did not put this page back up on Wikipedia, I'm rather amused that people seek to delete the portions they know go specifically to her notability. --
Art javier (
talk)
00:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
3) the Statement "Unremarkable as either singer, model, actress, pornographic actress, aerialist, or writer. Significant RS coverage not found; only trivial mentions and / or tabloid-like coverage." shows the failure of any substantial research on Nikki Phoenix i.e.:
Lets note that she is the only person in the history of the adult business to be verified on Spotify and Shazam, as well as having a #1 single on Soundcloud with 14 Million Plays and documented radio play in Canada, US and Europe. That in itself is "Remarkable", however, the fact that she has met Notability requirements on all social media and music platforms, and has Verified Accounts on all of them shows specifically that she is in fact "Notable".
f) 12 time Mainstream Star of the Year Nominee, by AVN, XRCO and XBIZ, as well as Best Soundtrack, Best Website and Best New Imprint make her "Remarkable" in her adult endeavors.
From her website:
http://www.iamnikkiphoenix.com/
Not sure again, why a simple search on the internet by
K.e.coffman did not show all of the reference material available to everyone
AGAIN HOW THESE EASILY SEARCHED ARTICLES WERE MISSED OR WHY SOMEONE WOULD NOT SEE THEY CLEARLY FALL UNDER:
WP:PORNBIO simply shows bias by this editor.
Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Just to refresh everyone's memory on what that is.
Perhaps that's exactly why a previous editor already posted that her page was reviewed and had met Notability requirements which was left on the talk page for the article:
Hi, I'm Devopam. Art javier, thanks for creating
Nikki Phoenix!
I've just tagged the page, using our
page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Article has potential and passess
WP:PORNBIO. Need recommended improvements in order to make it a good read.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on
my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at
the Teahouse.
Devopam (
talk)
13:31, 4 January 2017 (UTC)reply
For
K.e.coffman to have intentionally removed parts of the article that specifically cite her notability, and then try to nominate the article for deletion after
Devopam already noted it met notability requirements and making statements using words like "Unremarkable" when a brief search of the internet shows otherwise would tend to indicate either a lack of research or a personal vendetta towards this particular page for whatever reason. However, Neither of those reasons are a valid justification for the deletion of the page, which according to other editors has already met notability requirements.
This type of vindictive behavior is precisely why I took a long break from Wikipedia, as I have found a number of editors who do not adhere to the concepts clearly listed:
Be polite, and welcoming to new usersAssume good faithAvoid personal attacksFor disputes, seek dispute resolution
And more importantly are not Editors, they are simply Deletors, who simply delete hard work made by other editors for whatever their own personal reasons may be. An Editor would do research and add relevant material, or ask for it to be researched and cited.
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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.
Those are heavily based on interview/PR materials; those Indian newspapers have really low standards, just a step above PR reporting. Third source mentions him in passing, and fourth, not at all. I am not impressed by those new sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here04:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The fourth does mention him - search. It isn't all interviews. Regarding Indian journalism standards - I won't argue, however Economic Times (which is why I selected it) is relatively high inside the Indian sphere. If you're going to throw out all Indian sources - there's a whole lot of Afds coming. Nanda has ongoing coverage - the article is with sources mostly up to 2011 - The sources I provided arc up to 2015.
Icewhiz (
talk)
05:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. The topic is notable. I'm not sure what the nom means exactly by "Theme not present in RS". The sources cited in the existing article are reliable. If they have been mishandled by a banned user (I didn't check other than to see that the topic is present in the works), that's not a reason to delete the article. The title should perhaps be changed to better describe the topic, maybe even the scope broadened to
Albanian–Montenegrin relations, but those are separate discussions to have.
Srnec (
talk)
18:14, 29 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment,
Srnec I do not see a series of clashes and battles between the Kingdom of Montenegro and Albanian highlanders and Ottoman irregulars, mostly from the Vilayet of Kosovo, and the League of Prizren. The conflicts stretched from the 1850s to 1945 in any of the works as a theme. It is a synthesization of Malissori rebellions with later unconnected conflicts (Balkan Wars and World War II), presenting Montenegro as an invader/occupier and Albanians as persecuted and patriots. The article is terribly off. It should not be kept.--
Zoupan04:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete. Original research and heavy POV present throughout the article, sources are used selectively and maliciously in order to support the author's bias. Also, as noted already, the article tries to connect entirely different and unrelated historical events into a single narrative which presents the two nations as enemies, with Montenegro being portrayed as a villain in the relation. In short, the article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever.
Sideshow Bob13:41, 30 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment -- While this is far from being a good article, I am not sure that it is so bad that it needs to be deleted. It ought to be possible to produce a NPOV article on this subject.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't think the grouping is a POV. I think it just follows from the sources. The period in question is one of upheaval in the Balkans. It is also the period in which Albania really comes into being and Montenegro joins the international community. To me, it doesn't make much sense to talk about Montenegrin–Albanian conflict in a period before there were clear Montenegrin and Albanian identities, or before the border between the two became a rigid international one. The article may need a lot of work, but I hate to see an article on obscure but real events (clashes between tribesmen and sometimes regular soldiers in the border region between Montenegro and Albania during the rise of Balkan nationalisms and the decline of the Ottoman Empire) deleted because it needs a lot of work and that work is hard to do.
Srnec (
talk)
00:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not an expert, but my concern is grouping conflicts between the Principality of Montenegro and the Albanians under Ottoman rule in the 1850s up to the 1880s, the Balkan War, WWI, WWII, and "Modern Times". I think it would be more sensible to write one article about the first, pre-Albanian independence period and a second, post-Albanian independence article about Montenegro-Albanian relations (similar to
Albania–Serbia relations or
Kosovo–Montenegro relations). The bulk of this article is the former, and such an article could end with mention of post-independence conflicts. I don't know if the Balkan War is more similar to the earlier conflicts or the later, but grouping the 1850s-1880 conflict seems to match fairly well with the Reid 2000 reference. I've struck my vote in anticipation of either your showing that the post-1912 conflicts are grouped with pre-1912 conflicts (as opposed to conflict just being a normal aspect of political relations between European neighbors) or your agreeing with focusing this article on the pre-1912 conflicts (and particularly c1850-c1880) and splitting the rest into an article about post-independence bilateral relations (in this case, I am happy/willing to help develop both articles). Let me know what you (or others) think.
Smmurphy(
Talk)01:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
For some reason I forgot your first proposal that the article perhaps be renamed "Montenegrin-Albanian relations". Rather than make a different proposal, I've struck what I just wrote. I !vote Keep, and if the article is kept, will develop and discussing the article's at the article. I'm fine if the outcome of the AfD is rename; even if it isn't I agree with Srnec that content issues can be dealt with within the regular editing process.
Smmurphy(
Talk)05:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I've been working on this article on my computer all day and I just can't seem to turn it into something NPOV without more or less rewriting it completely. As I said in my first struck comment, I'd be happy to help write an article on post-independence bilateral relations and possibly another on conflicts from the 1850s. But I don't think this article works for me as a starting point for either of those.
Smmurphy(
Talk)02:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I feel like this article fails
WP:NOTE as the event never was not very significant. Also, the article only contains one linked source that doesn't detail much actual action that occurred. I guess this also falls under
WP:NOTNEWS.
Kamalthebest (
talk)
04:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article does not demonstrate that "Six or Seven Times" has been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." It has only one source -- Catalog of Copyright Entries.
Eddie Blick (
talk)
01:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Song written by an iconic composer with recorded versions by at least two American Jazz icons. My google search finds the Calloway version of the song was in the Billboard charts (pre-“Top 40” era) for multiple weeks in 1931, peaking at #14. While it is true this article may not show significant evidence of “multiple, non-trivial, published works…etc…,” per our normal criteria (after all, were talking 1931 here) it’s worth remembering that WP guidelines are just that: guidelines. They are not rules meant to be seen as absolute, unbending standards. There is flexibility in determining a topic’s encyclopedic value, subject to these debates. My argument is that a wiki page for this song is of benefit to, say, someone doing deep background research on the discographies of two notable recording artists.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
15:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I am finding several books on Google Bools alone covering this song at least to some extent, such as
[49],
[50],
[51]],
[52] and
[53]. It seems extremely likely that alot more was written about it over the past 85 years that is not easily accessible.
Rlendog (
talk)
21:20, 31 March 2017 (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.
Train2104 It's both. The assignment was to
study the behavior of supposedly hostile Wikipedians towards newcomers. Note that the essay specifically highlights our
behavioral guideline on welcoming newcomers, but fails to mention our policy on
verifiability. Their purpose was not to make a contribution but to study our adherence to our guidelines and to do so without giving full disclosure intentions and methodology, and without gaining our consent. I
offered to help fix the problems with this article, but found that
Marinamano never responded to my offer, but now do acknowledge that they received it
while avoiding mentioning me directly. I only noticed the post because I found many similar pages by other participants in the course while I looked at their
contributions. Should they have been interested in addressing the issues with this article, they could have accepted my offer. By implicitly declining my offer, they have acknowledged that they are not interested in improving the article. This article has no realistic chance of ever being improved and should be deleted.
Mduvekot (
talk)
19:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Mduvekot: Interesting observations, I stand corrected. Also see
the syllabus. In light of the COI issues and weak notability I was planning on !voting delete anyway, but this solidifies it. I have no idea what the proper process to go through for human subjects "research" on WP users is (not that one user's experience is anywhere near a representative sample), but doing it in this manner just doesn't seem right. All of the pages created for this course should probably be looked at –
Train2104 (
t •
c)
19:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
delete Fails GNG by a mile. Please don't waste your time figuring out where this came from; the class has already wasted a ton of the community's time. Please just deal with this article here.
Jytdog (
talk) 20:14, 7 April 201
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Another weak 'reporter in big time market' article which doesn't even meet WP:RESUME (a relief for once) and just sources to his bio and the usual regional Emmy story. This needs much more to stay here. Nate•(
chatter)04:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm new here, so I could be wrong, but this doesn't seem to meet notability standards.
TheDracologist (
talk)
02:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
this is a list when there has only been one ever resident ambassador to North Korea, and that was only for 6 months. otherwise the ambassador has been located in Beijing, and we don't create lists of non resident ambassadors. any pertinent info can be
Australia–North Korea relations.
LibStar (
talk)
02:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
fails WP:GNG. nothing in gnews including for alternate name. gets 1 hit for travel book listing in gbooks for its name and alternate name. and 1 small mention in gscholar for alternate name. complete lack of significant coverage. those wanting to keep must demonstrate existence of coverage. this is not a clean up, this is a clear discussion of the notability of this museum.
LibStar (
talk)
02:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete: After multiple searches, I found no significant coverage. I do think you should be notifying page creators when you nominate stuff for deletion which I don't think you ever do.
SL93 (
talk)
06:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)reply
@
LibStar: As I indicated in the edit summary,
WP:WITHDRAWN clearly states that "if subsequent editors have added substantive comments in good faith, the discussion should not be closed simply because the nominator wishes to withdraw it". If you want to withdraw your nomination you should strike it out or leave a comment, not close the AfD. –
Joe (
talk)
11:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. Public museums are generally going to be notable; weaker articles should be tagged but usually not AFD'd. An AFD will usually turn out to be forcing a clean up, but
wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP and it is not right to impose upon the community of AFD editors in this way, in my opinion. Also I noted the AFD nominator has failed to notify article creators in other AFDs. --
doncram15:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)reply
I saw no reference in the sources to moving the Museum of Belize to Belmopan. If the national museum in Belmopan is ever built, the
Museum of Belize in Belize City is unlikely to close. Belize City is where the tourists are. I see the new one as being based on the Institute of Archaeology collection. There is
this source, which says the Belize City museum is inadequate and there is a need for a new National Museum in Belmopan, but I do not read that as saying the old Museum of Belize would be moved.
Aymatth2 (
talk)
01:57, 11 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I wasn't familiar with
WP:NOLYMPICS. I must scratch my head at that standard that every year a country participates in the Olympics constitutes a full article. With 196 countries and Olympics every 2-4 years, that is potentially a lot of articles about just the Olympics. --
David Tornheim (
talk)
19:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Every other nation has a 'x at the y z Games' article. Sourcing is good enough and I'm not willing to set a precedent that sees other countries lose articles just because their athletes didn't medal. Nate•(
chatter)04:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete or Userfy per nom. Topic itself may be suitable for inclusion, but the article's current form is not the way to do it. After reviewing
the talk page, it would appear neither of the instructors raised concern over neutrality, but rather encouraged such POV; which is both disconcerting and deeply unfortunate. One may wish to keep an eye on other sandboxed/draft articles emanating from
this Wiki Edu project as several waiting in the hopper are equally biased as this one up for discussion. --
dsprc[talk]23:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
TNT This entire topic is
WP:OR from nps.gov - the title "Financial Accessibility" is OR, article is full of unsourced POV like "Accessibility to national parks can decrease during this administration because President Trump has threatened to defund the National Parks Service. This would cause the National Parks to become more expensive to visit, through increase in entrance or yearly fees, or in some cases even shutting down National Parks. Our national parks are becoming increasingly vulnerable to destruction as climate change will negatively impact the ecosystems of many of our National Parks."
Seraphim System(
talk)05:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This article has been speedied twice under A7 and G11, but has now been recreated for the second time. Of the 4 sources now provided in the article, only one could be considered significant independent coverage, and this is only from a local news organisation (not sufficient under
WP:NCORP). Thoroughly unencyclopedic and not notable.
Triptothecottage (
talk)
00:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I have seen articles about this museum from multiple sources through the years. With a little research, it should easily pass notability guidelines.
Kinston eagle (
talk)
13:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This page is unnecessary because this character has only appeared in a few Family Guy episodes. The character does not deserve his own page.
Jayorz1205:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Keep - After reviewing the way other characters are handled, I agree with Chrislk02's assessment. It makes no sense for Cleveland Jr. to be limited to the
List of characters from Family Guy page when we have pages for each of the Goldmans and Joe Swanson's son.
→bobby←19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep Cleveland Jr. is much more minor than the Swanson son, who has been featured in specific episodes as being pivotal, so I have to vote weak on this. The article does jump around a bit (perhaps on purpose?), so the structure might need reworking. --
moe.RONLet's talk |
done01:31, 8 November 2006 (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.