Purge server cache
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to
Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. (
non-admin closure) —
Chevvin
22:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Academy (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Upgraded to AfD due to PROD removal. This is duplication of
Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy and the article isn't needed and doesn't need to be merged.
Govvy (
talk)
22:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Support, I had added a Merge proposal to this but it looks like all the info is already in the other article mentioned above, so a Deletion would suffice. It looks like the main reason behind creating the article was simply "but Arsenal have one" (I have also marked
that article to be merged into its
'relative' along with a few 'doublers' for other clubs).
Crowsus (
talk)
22:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Reply Because the creator of the article did the same when he straight copied reserve and academy page to
Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves which was deleted. And now that just directs back to what I created years before in 2006 was it? the same again happened, he copied parts to a new Academy page these are created in 2014!
Govvy (
talk)
22:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Football-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of England-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
00:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Hi I removed the deletion tag, but at that moment I did not notice that there was already an article at
Tottenham Hotspur F.C. Reserves and Academy. I apologize for my mistake, I should not have removed the deletion tag.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
03:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Question Why do you think we need a redirect? If the original article has the most links and use, then people are less likely to use the redirect or come across it.
Govvy (
talk)
19:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I can't off-hand think of an example where the article title is "A and B" where both "A" and "B" wouldn't be plausible search terms.
Nfitz (
talk)
23:45, 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 result was delete.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Vihang Sarnaik (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Bio that does not assert or show notability.
Vihang sarnaik has been deleted previously, and two separate drafts have been declined (
Draft:Vihang Sarnaik (2) and
Draft:Vihang Pratap Sarnaik, which are essentially identical), and a third draft,
Draft:Vihang Sarnaik, also exists but has not been submitted for review. Point is, there seems to be a concerted drive to add an article about this individual to Wikipedia.
As noted in the draft rejections, the individual is however not shown to be notable, as there are no reliable sources supporting notability. The sources are either primary or only mention Vihang Sarnaik in passing (or not at all!) - there is no
significant coverage of him.
bonadea
contributions
talk
21:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
01:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
01:20, 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.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Shadab Siddiqui (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable director of short film. Article lacks non-trivial support
reddogsix (
talk)
21:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete as
WP:TOSOON. He did make a single short film
Where Is Najeeb that appears to have gained a lot of attention in reliable sources, which might qualify him for notability under criterion #4 of
WP:DIRECTOR, but that criterion requires that his works (plural) or "work" (as in "body of work") has gained significant critical attention, and this is just one short film. I cannot tell from the non-English sources, even when translated, that they qualify as "significant critical attention" or are just reviews by non-notable reviewers. There are Google hits on the name but it's hard to find sources that qualify as reliable and independent. ~
Anachronist (
talk)
22:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
01:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
01:26, 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 redirect to
Behdad Sami#Behdad Sami Interactive. (
non-admin closure) —
MRD2014
📞
contribs
18:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Behdad Sami Interactive (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:TOOSOON as this video game company has only produced one game
Atlantic306 (
talk)
00:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
I'm not too sure how to respond to an AFD. I believe I did it incorrectly when I edited the Behdad Sami Interactive page last, so my apologies. I don't believe this page should be deleted because every company has to start somewhere, so by saying they only have one game is not a good enough reason to remove their company. Behdad Sami Interactive is an LLC, with its HQ in California. They have enough sources to find credible. This page was also created yesterday, despite this company being around for almost 3 years now, and there are other sources out there. I'm not sure what exactly what you would like we to show you, as far as sources go. I work closely with their CEO, and they have a few products waiting to be launched, and not just video games. Given how young the page is, I don't believe this company should be deleted especially for the reason of only having "one product".
Hipster Whale who has one of the biggest games in the world, only has 3 games, so nomination to delete this page based on it only having one product doesn't seem logical or fair, especially when they have other products in the works, in addition to global notoriety.--
Hoopindreams (
talk)
04:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I think you're missing the point of the deletion a little bit. The number of games isn't really the important part here. Its whether or not it meets the
WP:GNG - Wikipedia's rule for whether or not something should be able to have its own article or not. This is basically achieved by locating third party sources (so not from Behdad Sami or their
press releases) that cover the subject in significant detail. So, for example, if you could show that, a website like
IGN or
Wired had written an article centered around them, that would be a good argument not to delete the article. See
WP:VG/S for a list of commonly accepted or rejected sources for proving this sort of thing.
Sergecross73
msg me
16:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Actually, looking at the article itself, there's already a source,
this one from Vice which would be pretty useful towards showing notability. It's pretty long and centered around the developer. So this is a good example. If you can find more like this, I'd be inclined to !vote keep actually.
Sergecross73
msg me
16:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Video games-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Well, aside from
this Vice article which is just as big as Wired or IGN, there is also
this article from geek.com, which is a very reputable source. There is also
this article from the German tech blog Appgefahren, as well as
this article from the number 1 Apple web blog in Indonesia. I think the VICE article is the most globally reputable source, however the other three websites are very reputable and cover Behdad Sami Interactive and their first game. There is also a ton of other 3rd party websites, blogs, and youtubers that have covered this game/company, but as far as reputable sources go that I believe Wiki would be looking for, the four articles I have posted here I believe should allow this page to remain, and not be deleted. Not to mention, they could have a few other articles released soon.--
Hoopindreams (
talk)
03:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment' The Vice article is not "intellectually independent" and is a classic advertorial and relies solely on an interview with Behdad. Classic quote in that article which makes me chuckle is "Being the thorough journalist I am, I immediately got onto Google to check out the man behind the missive." so lots of independent fact checking went on for that article. The second article is also not "intellectually independent" and contains this "In his email to me, Sami said he believes Get ‘Em will “revolutionize not just mobile gaming, but gaming as a whole.”. The last two are blogs which are usually excluded from assessing notability.
-- HighKing
++
10:48, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - As per nominator and SW3 5DL,
WP:TOOSOON. Most references consists of reviews about the only game they made, little about the company itself. One game isn't enough for notability.
TheDeviantPro (
talk)
10:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - well seeing what
Sergecross73 said, "I think you're missing the point of the deletion a little bit. The number of games isn't really the important part here", your arguement about his "one game" not being enough shouldn't matter too much. Vice is covering his company and game, as well as other tech/app websites/blogs, regardless of it being a review, they are still talking about this company and it's game. I'd say with Vice covering it alone, it gives this tons of credibility, but in addition to that there is geek.com and the other blogs in Europe and Indonesia. That makes this company global in my opinion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
173.87.39.17 (
talk)
04:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The preceding comment is the only edit on wikipedia by this ip.
Atlantic306 (
talk)
00:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
*Keep - I stand very confident in what I said above. The Vice article, geek.com, and both articles in Europe and Indonesia, more than qualify this page from remaining. This game developer is known worldwide and has someone as major and credible as Vice discussing their game/developer. This is in my opinion enough reason to keep them, in addition to the other sources listed above. It's not too soon.
Hoopindreams (
talk)
18:56, 5 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.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:42, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Burak Davutoğlu (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Actor who doesn't appear to meet
WP:GNG or
WP:NACTOR. Provided sources (entirely in Turkish--evaluation based on machine translation) are entirely lists of credits, iMDB-type listings and passing mentions, with no articles found specifically about him. No idea about notability of claimed awards. Corresponding article on tr.wiki is by the same author with the same material and sourcing. --
Finngall
talk
15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. --
Finngall
talk
15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. --
Finngall
talk
15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --
Finngall
talk
15:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - First, even if it were his own Twitter account that had 900k followers, it would be irrelevant--the accounts of these others mean even less. The article on the Turkish Wiki means nothing, as different wikis operate independently and can have widely varying standards for inclusion.
- Looking at the first several listed references in detail:
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and the article in question does not mention the subject.
- Does not mention the subject.
- Does not mention the subject.
- Does not mention the subject.
- Does not mention the subject.
- Does not mention the subject.
- Passing mention.
- Does not mention the subject.
- Does not mention the subject.
- Passing mention.
- I haven't looked closely at the most recent batch of additions, but when I looked at the first couple of sets of references, there was nothing but irrelevant links, mentions in cast lists, other passing mentions, and nothing more substantial than a sentence or two about his performance as part of a larger theater review. There are no articles specifically about him, and nowhere is there the depth of coverage about him and his career which is required for the sourcing of a proper encyclopedia article about him. You could include a hundred more references like the ones provided so far, and it still would not add up to satisfy the standard of substantial coverage in reliable sources which we normally ask for. --
Finngall
talk
22:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The article has far too many sources but there are enough reliable, verifiable and accessible sources defining the subject, especially in French and Turkish. English grammar could be improved, but that is not a reason for deletion.--
Dthomsen8 (
talk)
12:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment this article has grown from when the AfD was proposed to 27,043 bytes, and incease of 15,425. --
Dthomsen8 (
talk)
01:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Appears potential socking is going on. With less weight given to potential socks, this needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Dane
talk
19:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I agree with Dane that sock puppets made comments. I posted welcomes and advice on commenting, and nothing happened there. If they contributed elsewhere, registered IP as users, or otherwise respondend, we could beleve they are real people. --
Dthomsen8 (
talk)
22:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - there are 68 references listed and when I start randomly looking at them, none meet criteria for significant coverage from an independent, reliable source. Maybe there's something in the ridiculously long list, but I doubt it. Multiple "keep" comments from unsigned sources makes me suspect someone is not acting in good faith.
Glendoremus (
talk)
19:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: With less/no weight given to socks and only two confirmed non-sock participants with contrasting views (other than nom) this definitely needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Winged Blades
Godric
16:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- DELETE - Fails
WP:NACTOR,
WP:BASIC and
WP:GNG. Since this article has been listed at AFD, it has been reference-bombed
WP:BOMBARD with over 50 new sources. Always a "red-flag". Very doubtful any editor is going to spend 1 - 2 hours to check all of them, (which i will do if there are 20 or less) nor should we have to. I have checked 10 random sources as follows:
- "Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Theaters Official web site"- subject not mentioned
- Jump up^ "Istanbul City Theatres celebrate 100th anniversary"- subject not mentioned
- "5th International Cyprus Theater Festival" - subject not mentioned
- Turkishdrama.com subject not mentioned and was sourced from Wikipedia and IMBD both of which are not reliable for sourcing per
WP:RS/IMDB and
WP:USERG
- "Intekam Drama On Geo Kahani" - TV type listing- pretty much a press release- not useful for notability, Not "Independent" per
WP:GNG and
WP:QS)
- "Vasfi Rıza Zobu Theater Awards, "Actor of the year -notes subject won best actor award given by a youth foundation to reward a young theater artist who makes a difference with the performance he has shown in the city / municipality / private theater in the past year.
- "Theater reviewer, Gülşen Bilge Kaya's article, "Psychologists suggest betrayal! - Review of a Harold Pinter's play"Deception". Trival mention in Turkish "Art" website, arsizsanat.com. Subject is mentioned twice in Turkish article. Strangely, if translated to English by Google it appears that he is mentioned 11 times, the exact same sentence repeated 10 time.
- "Koliba Film" - Link returns "Web Sitesi Yapım Aşamasında" (under construction) -useless
- "International İstanbul Theater Festival" - Annoucment of performance times of play at Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality City Theaters. Not useful to establish notability. subject not mentioned
- "Nov. 2016 87th issue of Yeni Tiyatro Dergisi (New Theater Magazine) has been released! - PR announcement for magazine and list places one can buy it. once again, subject not mentioned
- That's all I am willing to check particularly because over half of the "sources" don't even mention the subject. Since the creator has spent a lot of time on this article as well as this AFD I am willing to amend my vote if any of the keep votes can provide 3 sources that meet the requirements of
WP:BASIC and
WP:GNG -
- "Significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
CBS527
Talk
20:37, 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 delete.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Tristan Shields (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:BLP of a person with no strong notability claim and no strong sourcing to support passage of
WP:GNG. His "notability" as a musician is that he's a member of a band that competed in but did not win a reality show; his "notability" as a politician is that he's an as yet unelected candidate in a forthcoming election. And of the three sources here, one is a
primary source, one is a
blog and one is a purely
WP:ROUTINE piece of local coverage of his candidacy announcement. As always, a person is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because one piece of local media coverage verifies that they exist — to be considered notable as a musician, a person has to actually clear
WP:NMUSIC for something, and to be notable as a politician they have to clear
WP:NPOL, but nothing shown or sourced here does either of those things.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Musicians-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
Comment. What about NMUSIC criterion #10, since his performance was used in a notable album?
N I H I L I S T I C (
talk)
16:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- That criterion refers to the person being the primary credited performer of a track on a compilation album or soundtrack, not to being a session musician on another artist's studio album. And even if Shields did meet that criterion, the criterion still wouldn't be passed just for being asserted — it would still have to be
reliably sourced to media coverage about the criterion getting passed.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - The subject does not have consistent notable sources or a significant claim for an article. Depending on his upcoming election, Michaels may have a minor case for a recreated article but that is yet to be seen.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
20:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete.
WP:TOOSOON.
Guy (
Help!)
08:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Non-notable.
Beyond My Ken (
talk)
00:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Does not satisfy
WP:N. Being a candidate for a minor position and other ephemeral mentions is not sufficient.
Johnuniq (
talk)
02:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete possible TOOSOON, fails GNG
DarjeelingTea (
talk)
03:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - agree with nominator.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
00:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - As above; no evidence that the article subject meets the criteria within
WP:MUSICBIO,
WP:NPOL or
WP:GNG. If anything,
too soon. --
Jack Frost (
talk)
03:06, 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.
The result was Speedy Delete as
WP:G7 per creator's agreement below that article should be deleted. —
CactusWriter
(talk)
16:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Kadie Elder (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Advertorially pitched article about a band with no strong claim to passing
WP:NMUSIC, and no strong
WP:RS reliable sourcing to carry it. This is sourced entirely to unacceptable sources, namely the band's own
self-published Facebook page, the Amazon.com sales pages of their singles and the
IMDb profiles of film industry workers involved in the creation of the band's music videos -- there's not even one acceptable
reliable source here, let alone the several reliable sources that it would take to pass
WP:GNG. And for an actual notability claim all we really have here, once the advertorial bumf is stripped away, is that they exist. As always, existing is not enough in and of itself to get a band a Wikipedia article -- they must have actually achieved something that passes NMUSIC, and they must be reliably sourceable to media coverage about them, for an article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
19:44, 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 delete.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Christopher Zoukis (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
WP:BLP of a writer, not sourced to sufficient
reliable source coverage to clear
WP:GNG. This is based almost entirely on
primary sources, mostly content he wrote for various publications, and the only two sources that clear that bar are a namecheck of his existence as a provider of soundbite in an article about a concept and a Q&A interview -- both of which would be acceptable if the rest of the sourcing around them were more solid, but neither of which carry a GNG pass in and of themselves. A writer does not get a Wikipedia article just because directories of his writing on the publications he wrote for show that he exists; he must be the subject of coverage in reliable sources, not the author of it, for a Wikipedia article to become earned.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment. Maybe he's just a really humble, modest, self-effacing guy who likes to contribute to society without seizing the spotlight, because he finds it satisfaction enough to know that people benefit from his writings, even if it's without ever learning the story of the man behind the byline? Oh well, nice guys finish last, I guess!
N I H I L I S T I C (
talk)
16:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Wikipedia is not a directory of nice guys; it's an encyclopedia, on which notability has to be demonstrated by
reliable source coverage about the person.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
19:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
19:54, 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 delete.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Peralummoottil family (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:GNG. The entire article is about the history of
Saint Thomas Christians in India. Part of a plethora of family articles on Wikipedia which uses the same strategy of highlighting the actual family history at the end using their family websites. This article also talks about the history of Christianity in Kerala using many reputed sources, but slips in their family website in the end, to put in some details about their purported history as well.
Jupitus Smart
14:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of History-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Parts of it seem to be decently referenced and encyclopedia-worthy. However, these are not the parts that have anything to do with the namespace. If we already have have an article on this India Syriac Christian community, then I would suggest merging the relevant material into that article and delete the rest, because I see no indication the family is notable. If we don't, then rename this article to something having to do with the religious community and pare down the references to this one family. Either way, I don't see much need for the redirect from the current namespace.
Agricolae (
talk)
15:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Changed mind to Delete - If as Jupitus says the good (general, non-family) parts were taken from existing articles, then there is nothing here worth preserving. I don't see anything about the family themselves that makes them notable.
Agricolae (
talk)
02:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- For the fact there are detailed articles on
Christianity in Kerala and its various sub branches. The current article in question is however not a community but a family, who happen to be Christians. Merging/Redirecting/Changing the name of the article into one of the sub sects of
Christianity in Kerala (probably
Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the sub sect of the church followed by the said family, based on my reading) is not required as the article in question has copied and re-worded the encyclopedia worthy parts from the articles on
Christianity in Kerala and its various sub sects.
Jupitus Smart
05:01, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete -- The parts of the article that are adequately referenced are about Mar Thomas Christians generally. There is little in this about the family, of which little shows them notable. Unless the article is altered substantially to make it about the family, and shows they are notable, we cannot keep it. TNT is appropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:21, 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 result was delete. The arguments for deletion because the content is entirely unsourced original research is compelling in the light of
WP:V and
WP:NOR. There is consensus that the topic is potentially notable, so all are free to write an actual article about it.
Sandstein
12:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Railway station layout (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
As a railfan myself I feel a certain reluctance in this, but what we have here is pretty much a textbook case of
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Given the enormous numbers of stations constructed over the years, it is unsurprising that lots of them go beyond the classical terminal or through stations, and so what we get here is a long list of anything that someone or another found "interesting", and again, given the numbers, it's hardly surprising that the various expedients for odd cases got used more than once. But there's no system to it, and what system we see here didn't come from some authority; it's just what people made up on the spot. A (long) list of oddities is not an article on how stations are laid out.
Mangoe (
talk)
12:16, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Addendum: It's instructive to learn that this article was created specifically to fork off a growing list of trivia from
railroad station all the way back in 2004.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:09, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per
WP:TNT, as the content here is worthless.
- Although if I had a moment, I might then begin it again from scratch.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
13:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
20:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This is an article we should have, but in a more descriptive rather than list form. Starting again seems like a good idea, especially as there are a number of pages linking to it.
Rcsprinter123
(notify)
20:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I would agree with the comments above that a worthwhile article could be developed on railway station layouts, but this just reads like a random list with no logic to it and as such is of very little use.
Dunarc (
talk)
23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: This article does have useful information. It also has a lot of unnecessary examples, and other useless stuff. I would edit out most or all of the examples, and the sections about station naming, longest platforms and largest stations, but keep the rest. I would also try to find some references for what remains. The de.wiki article
de:Bahnhof has some references for its equivalents of the parts that I would keep (but those references are in German), and there are further possible references in
Station building#References (an article I have been translating from pl.wiki) (but I don't have easy access to those references). If it is regarded as acceptable to use German language references as at least a stopgap, I will modify this article as I have suggested and add some German language references to it.
Bahnfrend (
talk)
02:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This is an encyclopedic subject, and indeed, some of the above votes in favor of deletion acknowledge that the subject itself is deserving of an article, just think the current article is not a good one. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. To delete instead of improving an article on a notable subject is contrary to the Wikipedia's ethos of steady, collaborative improvement that builds on previous work. It makes no sense to start over from scratch instead of on improving on what has already been written. —
Lowellian (
reply)
08:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, but having said that, I can understand the delete argument completely... It needs work, if someone puts the work in, it is worth keeping. As it stands I understand the argument to delete
JarrahTree
10:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:TNT A discussion of the various types of railway stations, platform layouts, etc. is definitely encyclopedic. We have
side platform,
island platform,
Spanish solution,
balloon loop, etc. An article by this name should just briefly describe, include a {{
main}} tag, and maybe a couple examples for each type. There could also be a section on notable exceptions. But the current list of examples is too massive and too random to be useful. Some of the sections (platform numbering, joint/disjoint stations) are pure
WP:SYNTH which should be removed. I could go on. –
Train2104 (
t •
c)
18:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Article requires improvement, not deletion. Remember, folks,
AFD is not cleanup. And it's a notable topic, so the quality of the article is irrelevant.
Smartyllama (
talk)
17:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
WP:SOFIXIT. If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this. Personally, I think that for the most part what needs to be said about layout can be said in a short section in the main article, but even so, if there is to be an article here, I'm for
WP:TNT.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Re: "If you can't actually turn it into a decent article, you don't actually have an argument for keeping this." That's not in Wikipedia rules at all, and it's an absurd argument, as it would mean that no one could ever vote keep on any AFD unless they were expert enough in the subject to improve it to a good article. Again, AFD is not cleanup. —
Lowellian (
reply)
13:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Nonsense:
WP:TNT would not exist if this were so, and your argument is exaggerated. If you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion. The only improvement good enough for this article is to erase it and, if someone is up to the task, re-create it. My reasonably-informed opinion is that what is already said about station layouts in the main article is sufficient, and that this trivia list needs to go away entirely and not be merged back into the main article. People who are addressing the content of the article, thus far, have agreed with me, though some of them think a worthwhile article could be written instead. If someone manages to do so, I'm OK with that. But the argument that we have to keep the current crap around while we wait for someone to write a different article in its place is not policy and not a guideline.
Mangoe (
talk)
14:40, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- You're constructing a strawman in changing your argument to "if you aren't knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to tell whether the article is bosh or not, even if that knowledge is acquired-on-the-spot, then you shouldn't be a participant in the discussion", since that is not what you were originally claiming at all, which was that one cannot be in favor of keeping the article unless one can personally improve it to a decent one. That is not policy and not a guideline. —
Lowellian (
reply)
21:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The problem with "keep the current crap around" is that if someone does rewrite it properly, at some point they will delete that crap. And immediately afterwards, someone will restore it and they give them a {{
uw-v1}} template and a {{
welcome-idiot}} "welcome", just to rub in the point that pointlessly keeping totally worthless crap is the preservationist approach.
- This is crap. It can't bee "fixed".
Andy Dingley (
talk)
22:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- This is exactly why I keep going back to "sofixit" arguments. When the argument is that what we have is unsalvageable, the counter-argument is to salvage it; mere procedure and appeals to a poorly-named essay section will not cut it. AFD is, in the end, precisely about arguing for "clean-up".
Mangoe (
talk)
11:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. It should be possible to write something useful about this subject (e.g., the advantages and disadvantages of stub-end terminals, loops, and so on), but the current article is a rag-bag of indiscriminate examples, unrelated trivia ("Naming of stations far from served town" has nothing to do with "layout"), and the eye-poppingly obvious (sometimes stations are on curves!). Since the material in the "Configurations of stations" and "Terminus" sections of the current
train station article would make a far better basis for an article on railway station layout than current article content,
WP:TNT should be invoked.
Choess (
talk)
23:52, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I don't think
WP:SOFIXIT or
WP:TNT really apply here; anyway, the existence of an essay is no proof of its validity in a deletion argument. My !vote is based on the nom's application of
WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If any article were to attempt to catalogue this information, it would have to take an entirely different approach of summarising rather than randomly listing. In my view, that's deleting without prejudice to readdressing the subject, though you could call it TNT if you were that way inclined.
Triptothecottage (
talk)
09:32, 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.
The result was delete.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:44, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Bbrt Sharma (musical artist) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:NMUSIC and
WP:GNG.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
10:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
10:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
10:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Fails
WP:GNG. Spammy self promo looking page. --
Dane
talk
10:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Could probably CSD:A7.
I enjoy sandwiches (
talk)
11:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Delete per A7: No notability is established and non-complinant to our basic policies.
KGirlTrucker81
huh?
what I've been doing
11:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Speedied many times before
here and
here, failed undelete
here.
Yeryry (
talk)
11:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: A
WP:SPA article presumably created under this variant name because
Bbrt Sharma and
Bbrt Sharma (Musical Artist) are protected from re-creation. No verifiable claim to notability and nothing found in the Indian media search. Fails
WP:MUSICBIO,
WP:BASIC.
AllyD (
talk)
19:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and Salt - considering the lack of
notability and the frequent attempts at recreation,
salting may be required. -
Pmedema (
talk)
20:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not notable in the slightest. Fails
WP:MUSIC.
sixtynine
• speak up •
22:04, 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 keep. (
non-admin closure)
Anarchyte (
work |
talk)
13:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
A4086 road (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable road per
WP:N.
SL93 (
talk)
09:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Wales-related deletion discussions.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
14:42, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - Not just an
A road in name, but a main artery in northwest Wales being the primary, and frequently only, connector of multiple towns and villages including
Caernarfon,
Brynrefail and
Llanberis and on the south banks of
Llyn Padarn and
Llyn Peris.
WP:ROADOUTCOMES demonstrates the encyclopedic value of such roads. --
Oakshade (
talk)
00:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Satisfies
WP:ROADOUTCOMES. Clearly a notable road.
Smartyllama (
talk)
14:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Best known for being one of two roads - this one through the
Llanberis Pass - to the foot of
the highest mountain in Wales. The other being the more challenging ascents from the
A4085 road. At nearly 18 miles (29 km) long, I think it is a stretch to say it is minor. On the other hand, the route is neither primary or trunk, per
this image and
this list.
Fuebaey (
talk)
05:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as it satisfies
WP:ROADOUTCOMES --
Kostas20142 (
talk)
12:49, 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.
The result was delete.
North America
1000
22:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Jack Orswell (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Fails
WP:NPOL and
WP:GNG.
Kurykh (
talk)
07:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
11:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
11:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Promotional campaign brochure of non-notable unelected candidate for office. Fails
WP:NPOL.
AusLondonder (
talk)
12:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Subject is an unsuccessful candidate for Congress, failing
WP:NPOL. In addition, the subject did not, and does not hold an elected office, nor is the subject of significant news coverage independent of his congressional campaigns. --
Enos733 (
talk)
15:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Unsuccessful candidates for office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates, and the sourcing here — a mix of
primary sources and
routine campaign coverage no greater than what any candidate for any elected office could always show — is not showing him more notable than the norm.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - non-notable
WP:POLITICIAN.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
00:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Not notable per
WP:POLITICIAN or per
WP:GNG--
Kostas20142 (
talk)
12:46, 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.
The result was delete. After a bit of thinking, it seems like we have a consensus to delete. I've opted to ignore a few single-purpose accounts and drive-by IPs in part because they for the most part do not address the notability issues. That leaves Rollingcontributor's keep and HighKing's delete, and HighKing's delete is a bit more on-point at describing why the sources are inappropriate. Thus on balance this is a "delete", but with proper sourcing and a more dispassionate article toneit may be worth recreating later.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
09:09, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
GVK Biosciences (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unremarable business. Reeks of spam.
TheLongTone (
talk)
16:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Companies-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of India-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- We have way too many articles that aren't neutral, and we apparently cannot fix them all, the numbers are not decreasing. This article was made for promotion, and contains hidden and obvious neutrality problems, delete.
Burning Pillar (
talk)
23:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: Article is objective and the company is notable. A research company that is on the radar of the EMA, rightly or wrongly, is notable. A potential researcher on Data Tampering could find the page useful. This is not a promotion also, since the company is projected objectively.
Ankur Jain
- Delete The company fails
WP:CORP and GNG. I have looked at the references and not a single one is useful for the purposes of establishing notability. Either that are PR releases (therefore not independent) or interviews/quotes (therefore not independent) or announcements on funding (not acceptable). I suggest that the closing admin takes a good look at the arguments and editors, in particular editors such as Ravbjain (2 edits), BadhabiJane (20 edits, mostly on the article itself *after* this AfD) and Pramkuru (2 edits). Perhaps a closer look is warranted???
-- HighKing
++
11:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The article from The Hindu (regarding selection as one of the top 25 projects including IKEA) , Business Standard (Tarun Khanna, a Harvard professor joining the company), India Today article on the Indian CEOs take on Make in India to support Indian manufacturing sector, LiveMint article regarding the ban of drugs by EMA, Outsourced Pharma's article on how the FDA responded to the drugban and the overall idea of data manipulation by Indian pharmaceutics are covered in the article along with the timeline of tech company. So, my understanding is that the article can be called neutral in the approach. Please let me know if my understanding is not correct. I would look forward to improve.
BadhabiJane (
talk)
08:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- keeep the company is a renowned company and it is shown clearly in their content. they have followed Wikipedia criteria for neutrality and it is not promotional in any way.
Jamesflare (
talk)
14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- keep the links are veritable and the content follows Wikipedia policy about company profiles. it deserves a chance on Wikipedia.
Imaginemiah (
talk) 15:24, 15 April 2017 (UTC
- keep the content article is standard, neutral and the links are veriftable. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
197.210.226.242 (
talk)
- Comment. I'm starting to get worried about the sudden attention this discussion is getting from IPs and editors who are new or have done little work outside this.
RoCo
(talk)
16:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - This page seems fine to me. Looks as though some of the edits mentioned above have raised its standard and ensured that the tone is neutral and the sources are appropriate.
Clawsyclaw (
talk)
08:41, 17 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 keep.
(non-admin closure)
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
00:43, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Wooster School (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Non-notable promotional article.
ProgrammingGeek
talktome
13:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Keep: There seem to be quite a few sources supporting the school's notability. Secondary school notability is certainly a
hot-button topic, but I think this school is notable. The article certainly needs some work, but I don't think it is a lost cause.
bojo |
talk
13:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Delete: Upon further review and consideration, I think the subject may be non-notable. It's hard to separate a school from its notable alumni and the like. It is certainly tempting to say a school is notable due to its age, but this is a slippery slope. Subjects are not notable just because of their age. I'm changing my vote to a weak delete.
bojo |
talk
02:52, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Schools-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Source 1 is just statictics.
Source 2 is about a non-notable alum who plays guitar from 1990.
Source 3 is a primary source about above.
Source 5 is a deadlink
Source 6 is a deadlink
Source 7 is about another non-notable musician alum
Source 8 has only a passing reference
Source 9 has only a passing reference
Source 10 is GreatSchools, which documents every school in the nation
Sources 11 and 12 do nothing to establish notability
Source 13 is from the town's historical society
Source 15 is the school's website
Source 16 doesn't establish notability
Sources 17 and 18 are about a new expansion
Sources 19 through 21 are not establishing notability
Source 22 isn't really about the school
Source 23 is a grant to the school (doesn't make the school notable)
Source 24 is a website about a school organization.
The page simply doesn't pass notability guidelines.
ProgrammingGeek
talktome
15:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Still Keep: This school is over 90 years old and has notable alumni. By the way, source 2 and 3 refer to
Tracy Chapman who has won numerous awards for her music, including 4 Grammy Awards; as a result, she certainly qualifies as notable. This article was already nominated for deletion in 2007; the response was 7 Keeps and only 2 Comments against keeping. -
Xenxax (
talk)
17:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep as a secondary school per longstanding precedent and consensus. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Necrothesp this isn't really an argument, though. The outcome of a ten-year-old AFD doesn't affect this, this discussion is about the notability of this institution. Article should be deleted per actual arguments above.
- It's entirely an argument and has nothing to do with the previous AfD. Our consensus has long been that secondary schools are notable. It's a secondary school, ergo it's notable. --
Necrothesp (
talk)
13:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for lack of notability. Per
recently-reaffirmed community consensus, schools are held to the same standards as other organizations, see
NSCHOOLS, and, per longstanding precedent and consensus, significant coverage in reliable, independent sources—not age, association with notable subjects, or passing media mentions—is the touchstone of notability.
Rebb
ing
14:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. This is a a distinguished, highly rated secondary school with a raft of notable alumni and oft-mentioned "self-help" and diversity policies that enable some of those distinguished students to attend.
[6]
[7]
[8] Multiple coverage in sources like the New York Times
[9] and elsewhere
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] This is exactly the kind of school article that the RfC indicated should not start sucking up editor energies at AfD. Passes GNG and emphatically notable. --
Arxiloxos (
talk)
16:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per the New York Times.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
16:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Education-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
20:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - per Arxiloxos and TonyBallioni. I also agree that some of the delete voters are misrepresenting the outcome of the recent RfC. A read of the paragraph on schools under
WP:CORP would also be beneficial to those voting delete. I find it hard to imagine a legit school in the US or Britain not meeting that standard, which is the official standard for notability on schools, not the paragraph in the
school article guidelines on notability.
John from Idegon (
talk)
19:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - this is a 90-year-old institution amongst independent schools. As
DGG argued in the first AfD, ten years ago, a school can be considered notable in part by the notability of its alumni, since the whole purpose of a school is to educate and send out its graduates into the community and the larger world. FWIW, I have been a teacher at a proprietary college and am a public school teaching fellow.
Bearian (
talk)
00:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I find it understandable that because of the recent confusion about school notability , a school or really borderline importance might be listed at AfD, but this is a major US Independent school with a long history and notable alumni. The only explanation I can find for the nomination os the exceptionally gushy prose, which I am about to tone it down substantially
DGG (
talk )
02:35, 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.
The result was no consensus.
Sandstein
12:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Blaine Trump (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Doesn't pass
WP:GNG; only merits a passing mention in her ex-husband
Robert Trump's biography, unless he gets deleted too for lack of independent notability from his famous brother… —
JFG
talk
07:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Strong Keep - When somebody is related to somebody else more famous there is a often a rush to delete. Though it is has been mentioned. she is not a brief mention, she is the active vice chair of an important charity
God's Love We Deliver, which brings meals to homebound people with serious illnesses. Therein unlike the proposed cuts fo the meals for wheels program by he EX Brother in Law) as well as a fashion icon from her days in the spotlight. The article on Blaine Trump prexists the article on Robert and should not be contingent upon it.
Masterknighted (
talk)
10:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Delete Redirect - Unless more notable events supported by reliable sources allow editors to expand significantly the article. Is probably better mentioned as part of another Trump-related article otherwise.
PaleoNeonate (
talk)
11:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I have amended my vote to suggest redirecting to the main Trump person or family article.
PaleoNeonate (
talk)
07:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Comment - Blaine it on the name
Masterknighted (
talk) 17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Masterknighted (
talk)
17:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
11:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
11:37, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Coverage of her own merits could aptly be mentioned in her charity's page
God's Love We Deliver, and the article could possibly redirect there. The puff piece in
Women's Wear Daily does not equate mainstream coverage. —
JFG
talk
10:22, 13 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.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Matt Carriker (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Notability
GoldenSHK (
talk)
04:30, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Animal-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Internet-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Firearms-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment I see that a significant part of his notability is his internet videos of him shooting his many guns, and so I've added to the Firearms delsort page, too.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Non-notable internet personality. Sources therein are not suitable for Wikipedia (niche sites, blogs).
sixtynine
• speak up •
21:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- delete now we have
celebrity doctor veterinarians. OK then. Non-notably internet personality. Clearly promotional and it will not be worth the community's effort to maintain the neutrality of this article (if we could write one with sufficient independent RS with significant discussion) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jytdog (
talk •
contribs) 21:09, April 8, 2017 (UTC)
- Comment All the sources are of a decent nature and don't promote him in a celebrity sense. They merely state who he is and what he does. I think someone with almost 3 million subscribers is "notable" according to common sense and wikipedia's guidelines. It's reasonably well sourced and, as mentioned above, if a source about his age and date of birth arise in the near future, this article should not be deleted. The sources are separate from him (i.e. he didn't publish them), secondary and reliable. --
JC (
talk)
18:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- OBS: The Stinger is a student newspaper as well.
Saturnalia0 (
talk)
22:04, 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 result was delete. I must assume this obviously, almost frivolously useless article is an attempt at trolling by its creator
HistoricMN44. Please don't do this again.
Sandstein
12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
An Act to amend the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to modify the Pilot Project offices (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This is a non-notable bill. It was proposed on February 13, 2013 and I can find no evidence that the bill was even passed.
SL93 (
talk)
01:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.
Reach Out to the Truth
02:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Law-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
00:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment; I take no position on the bill's notability, but the article says it passed. The lede includes "(
H.R. 767;
Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States)
113–69 (text)
(PDF))"; the cite to "
Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States)
113–69 (text)
(PDF)" means it became Public Law no. 113-69 (i.e., 113th Congress, 69th public law). And the congress.gov page at
H.R. 767 says "Latest Action: 12/26/2013 Became Public Law No: 113-69."
- That being said, Congress enacts a lot of laws; this is just number 69 in a series of 295 statutes enacted by the 113th Congress. Not all enacted laws are WikiWorthy; the overwhelming majority of them are not. All of them get at least some media coverage, so it's easy to be misled into a sense of notability, just from searching. I have no particular position of whether this particular bill and statute is notable.
TJRC (
talk)
23:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Okay, I just took a look at the bill, and it's remarkably trivial. All it does is amend the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 to replace the names of the field offices taking part in a pilot with more complete versions of the field office's names: "Rawlins, Wyoming" becomes "Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming"; "Buffalo, Wyoming" becomes "High Plains District Office, Wyoming"; and so forth. It also apparently changed one field office, from Miles City, Montana to the Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana (which is in Billings, a much larger city), apparently because it was a busier field office. That's it; that's the entire content of the bill and statute. See the text at
Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States)
113–69 (text)
(PDF) and compare with the § 365(d) it replaced in
Pub. L.Tooltip Public Law (United States)
109–58 (text)
(PDF), if you want to check. It's not even worth rolling up into
Energy Policy Act of 2005.
- old text:
- (1) Rawlins, Wyoming.
- (2) Buffalo, Wyoming.
- (3) Miles City, Montana.
- (4) Farmington, New Mexico.
- (5) Carlsbad, New Mexico.
- (6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs, Colorado.
- (7) Vernal, Utah.
- Replacement text:
- (1) Rawlins Field Office, Wyoming.
- (2) High Plains District Office, Wyoming.
- (3) Montana/Dakotas State Office, Montana.
- (4) Farmington Field Office, New Mexico.
- (5) Carlsbad Field Office, New Mexico.
- (6) Grand Junction/Glenwood Springs Field Office, Colorado.
- (7) Vernal Field Office, Utah.
- Delete.
TJRC (
talk)
23:49, 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.
The result was redirect to
Renee Young.
(non-admin closure)
CAPTAIN RAJU
(✉)
01:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Unfiltered with Renee Young (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Like
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Monday Night War: WWE vs. WCW, this is a web-only, paywalled series that only airs on the
WWE Network. It's essentially a chat series featuring pro wrestlers and, sometimes, other celebrities. It lacks substantial coverage outside of primary sources (e.g. WWE). The article as it stands is a list of episodes with an infobox, woefully limited, and like most Network programming it doesn't justify an individual article.
KaisaL (
talk)
04:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:26, 4 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.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Cynefin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Majority of editors were for deletion or redirect in a newly created article (see talk page). No work has been done since the redirect was opposed by one editor back in January --
Snowded
TALK
06:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Yes - easiest all round I think ----
Snowded
TALK
09:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
Done. —
Godsy (
TALK
CONT)
10:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Language-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Wales-related deletion discussions.
NewYorkActuary (
talk)
23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. This was created as part of a dispute. It's a dictionary definition with a side order of word salad, e.g. "In Welsh words can reflect the lived experiences of the landscape".
SarahSV
(talk)
05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Hmmm, so @snowded suggested to delete the Cynefin page. Seems to me a clear breach of his Conflict of Interest on Cynefin model. Furthermore I see no majority of editors that was for deletion. It seemed to be just one, maybe two. Something weird is going on here. And NO this was not created as part of a dispute. Where is the proof for that statement? There seems to be an urge to remove something that hasn't got a proper chance to grow due to all pressure from people that want it to vanish. No wonder other editors don't step in .....
Hvgard (
talk)
08:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Hvgard, your creation of
Cynefin was a breach of
WP:COI and
WP:BLPCOI, and arguably a breach of
WP:HARASS because of the continuing focus on Snowded. See the
final warning about COI issued in 2015 by
Jytdog. Also pinging
Huon who commented there.
SarahSV
(talk)
14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Jytdog? Isn't that the guy that was later and still banned from discussing
WP:COI. I don't take that seriously. Sorry.
Hvgard (
talk)
19:34, 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.
The result was no consensus. See
WP:NPASR.
Kurykh (
talk)
21:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Comic Seer (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Can't find much of any independent reliable sources on this software to demonstrate
notability.
Sam Walton (
talk)
10:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak keep. The see references that review this comic book reading app so that is something. --
Frmorrison (
talk)
21:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Hmm. The first link seems to be a blog of some kind, they only appear to have one writer at any rate. The second might be ok, I don't know how reliable PC Advisor is. And the third is simply a download link, and doesn't constitute a reliable source of information.
Sam Walton (
talk)
22:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Weak delete - I found
this and
this, but I'm not convinced the subject is independently notable. I would suggest a merge to
Comparison of image viewers, but it looks like that only includes entries that have their own articles.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
14:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:47, 28 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 result was no consensus.
Bishonen |
talk
20:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Anita Short Metz Grossman (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Not notable per
WP:GNG. It seems she is best known for her role in music, but does not meet criteria for
WP:MUSICBIO. –
CaroleHenson (
talk)
02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
16:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep She was mentioned by name during the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings. Ref added. I see many notable activities in the text, and saw several mentions in Google Books under "Anita MetZ Grossman". meets basic
WP:GNG.
198.58.162.200 (
talk)
01:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Notability clearly established and
WP:GNG clearly met.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
02:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. per others. Article needs work and cleanup, but notability met.
Montanabw
(talk)
02:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment She was mentioned by name in the Hearings text mentioned above, but her name appears in only
two places in that text: the index on page 890, and as part of a question on page 864 towards the bottom of the page. The relevant section on page 864 consists of Mr. Arens asking Mr. Saidenberg, "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either.
Ca2james (
talk)
04:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Question - I am totally fine with her being considered "notable", but aside from the mention of the House Unamerican Activities Committee hearings, which seems to be a non-issue, I am not hearing a reason why she is considered notable. What in her career makes her notable?–
CaroleHenson (
talk)
13:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I see you removed that citation, and I have restored it. It's part of her story. The other refs tend to establish notability.
198.58.162.200 (
talk)
16:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Per the comment above, " "Do you know a person by the name of Anita Short Metz?", and after conferring with his counsel, Mr. Saidenberg said "No." Clearly the index mention does not establish notability and I think that the question mention, by itself, does not help to establish notability either." - this is not encyclopedic content and does not establish notability. For now, I won't remove the citation.–
CaroleHenson (
talk)
22:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- DeleteThe HUAC mentioned a large number of people, many of whom were not notable. I really don't see anything in her career that had national scope or had a significant impact on the arts.
Rogermx (
talk)
21:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I'm stunned by the "keep" votes. What am I missing? All I am seeing are references that are apparently local press mentions over a lifetime, many of them trivial, and a book that she self-published. This appears to be mostly original research by a SPA author. Surprised, too, editors are arguing "keep" based on being mentioned in a HUAC report. Is merely the accusation of being a communist a "notable" achievement? Anyway, I only came here because of the BANDS AND MUSICIANS criteria, which the subject clearly does not meet.
ShelbyMarion (
talk)
11:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of California-related deletion discussions.
• Gene93k (
talk)
01:52, 17 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. Proposed merge target inexistent.
Sandstein
12:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Nuclear Fatwa under International Law (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Found no sources that mention the book itself, so this book fails
WP:GNG.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk,
contribs)
01:46, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Military-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Islam-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Iran-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
03:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The first two links are copies of the same report. One of these sites is
Tasnim News Agency. The third link is a copy of this report
[20] by the
Fars News Agency. Both seem to be too closely affiliated with the Iranian government to count as RSs.
Eperoton (
talk)
04:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I posted that last night without having much of a chance to think it over. I agree with you. To go a bit further,
freedom of the press in Iran is not great, and there is not too much guidance on understanding RS in such cases. My feeling is that it is up to us to make such a call. That is, government-influenced press in Iran can be used to satisfy V, but probably not to satisfy NPOV, but editors should use their judgement (I think using judgement to handle Irani government-influenced sources is better than out-of-hand dismissal, for what it is worth). In this case, without an independent source in-depth about the book, I agree that this article has issues with
WP:ARTSPAM/
WP:COATRACK and should be deleted.
Smmurphy(
Talk)
16:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I would suggest further that if all the independent (of the author) coverage we have for a book are from outlets that can be considered mouthpieces of a government -- any government -- then having an article on it is rather close to channeling government propaganda. So, barring additional coverage, I would also go with delete.
Eperoton (
talk)
23:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- keep Hi. before of anything I have to tell something about the importance of book from international law. Regardless of the content of the book , which is arbitrary for readers to whether see it as a propaganda or not, I think if we have see the book from political view and its importance then there is no POV.Also we know that according to
Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article there is no challenge between quality of sources and notability of subject--
m,sharaf (
talk)
12:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- If we can find RSs to demonstrate the book's importance, then we can keep it. I've commented on what I see as insufficiency of the sources presented so far, and I haven't seen evidence that better sources exist.
Eperoton (
talk)
10:50, 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 delete.
MBisanz
talk
01:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
SyMenu (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Advertising, non-notable software product. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
00:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - poorly constructed page could simply be explained by a new editor, but I had no success finding news coverage. I did find some reviews, and while I think PC Advisor looks legitimate
[21], the others don't entirely convince me of their reliability:
[22],
[23],
[24], and
[25]. If those sources are more reliable than I realize, I'd of course be happy to change my vote to Keep.
Yvarta (
talk)
01:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - "Advertising". SyMenu is not searching for advertising because it's a freeware software, its web site has not advertising at all, it is a software that serves the community. Please read
here to understand what the real SyMenu approach is.
"Non-notable software product". We are talking about the USB launcher with the largest freeware program collection in the world (more than
1.200). Isn't it enough to classified the software as relevant in Wikipedia? Moreover SyMenu won a lot of
awards from several web site.
"No success finding news coverage". Please note that
PortableApps.com, the main SyMenu competitor, doesn't mention a lot of external references outside of self references to its web site (
http://portableapps.com). So what's the point? Is it better to remove the real external links and to add new links to the SyMenu own web site to be reliable at the same level?
Epikarma (
talk) 6:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
- References based on reliable sources (eg. reviews in published/online magazines) are needed to estabilish notability. That other article has bad sources too, is not good argument for AfD - quite otherwise...
Pavlor (
talk)
09:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Pavlor is right. So let's speak about the external sources reliability.
Yvarta asserts that PC Advisor looks legitimate and the other web sites are not. Let's try to define this concept through a measurable principle and not through a personal feeling.
Let's see the web sites global ranks thanks to
http://www.alexa.com:
- PC Advisor 2034
[26]
- BetaNews 11771
[27]
- cnet.com 154
[28]
- softpedia.com 1441
[29]
- pcauthority.com.au 80091
[30]
- According to Alexa except for PC Authority and BetaNews the other sources are more popular/reliable than PC Advisor.
Epikarma (
talk) 9:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- @
Epikarma: Popular≠reliable!!!! See
WP:RS.
Pavlor (
talk)
09:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
01:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions. -
CHAMPION (
talk) (
contributions) (
logs)
01:40, 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.
The result was keep. Consensus. The consensus here is in accord with our almost invariable practice: We do not normally keep places identified only as dots on a map, as many of them indicate individual structures or the like, but we do if there is any confirmation that it is a populated place, now or in the past.
DGG (
talk )
00:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Muleba, DRC (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
This article should be deleted as it is not notable under the
WP:GNG. This is because its only "source" is the subject (
Muleba, DRC) shown in a mapping program. A
WP:BEFORE search only found trivial mentions of the subject. -
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
00:13, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -
KAP03(
Talk •
Contributions •
Email)
00:22, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Geography-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
01:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, not sure why this was relisted when the only delete !vote hinged on "no coverage in reliable sources", which was quickly shown to be false in subsequent !votes... but sure, I guess I can repeat: Clearly passes
WP:GEOLAND.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
08:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per its existence on
this map
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs)
13:56, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Merge into
Kasaï-Central. We have no sources that give more than the location, the name, and the province it is in. Only trivial mentions here... not enough for a standalone article.
WP:ITEXISTS is not enough, because
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and this article is a dictionary entry with no good material for expansion.
Burning Pillar (
talk)
17:10, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
Burning Pillar: I don't think I will vote in this AfD, but I just wanted to point out that as per
WP:5P, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it is a gazetteer. The distinction is important for geographic locations. --
NoGhost (
talk)
20:33, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Yeah, but we don't have basic info like population, or other statistics... Currently, the article only contains location and name. That's not enough material for a standalone article. It is possible that more information exists, especially primary sources, but... most of the small places will likely be a stub for a long time, or forever(
WP:PERMASTUB); there is mostly local interest about those.
Burning Pillar (
talk)
23:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Merging this content into
Kasaï-Central, which currently does not cover constituent villages and towns, would lead to coverage that is out of
WP:PROPORTION in that article. It's what's kept me from inserting even a wikilink in the province article to resolve the "orphan" tag currently on display; creating a section, or even a paragraph, to call out this one village would look utterly bizarre. Besides which, maintaining a separate article encourages expansion; if you want to permanently limit the information contained on this subject, a good way to do it would be to hide it away in some other article. Other benefits of a separate article for geographic subjects include easier interfacing with
m:WikiMiniAtlas, WikiData, and foreign-language wikis. At the end of the day,
WP:PERMASTUB is an essay,
WP:GEOLAND is a guideline, and I think I'll stick with the latter.
Antepenultimate (
talk)
00:19, 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.