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 delete.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
21:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Frederick S. Goring (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Minimally sourced biography of a person notable primarily as the (lord) mayor of a small town. The town is not large enough to hand its (lord) mayors an automatic presumption of notability per
WP:NPOL, and the article is not
reliably sourced well enough to media coverage about him to get over the "who have received significant press coverage" part of our inclusion criteria for local officeholders -- the only source actually present here is a brief namecheck of his existence in a very general history of why this town gets to call its mayors "lord mayor". (And just for the record, it's not for the reasons why a British mayor would get that title.) Politicians at the local level, especially in small towns, don't automatically qualify for articles just because they can be nominally verified as existing; they need to be demonstrated and sourced as significantly more notable than the norm, but nothing here does that.
There's also a
conflict of interest here — I won't go into precise detail so I don't
out anyone, but I have been able to confirm that Goring did have relatives whose surname corresponds neatly to the usernames of both the article creator and the person who uploaded the "scanned from a family photo album" image in the infobox. (And then after writing that I discovered that the creator openly states the family relationship to Goring right on their own userpage. Leave it to me to make a one-step job five times harder than it needs to be!)
Bearcat (
talk)
23:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:24, 5 August 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.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it
01:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Cliff Gleaves (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Unreferenced (except for IMDb, which is not a reliable source) biography of a musician, whose only claim of notability is having been in an Elvis Presley film -- in a role so minor that his "character name" in the IMDb profile is literally, I'm not even kidding, "Minor role". As always, every person in every film does not get an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, and neither does every musician -- he must be the subject of enough
reliable source coverage about him in media to clear
WP:GNG.
Bearcat (
talk)
23:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
02:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
02:29, 6 August 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. All uninvolved editors agreed.
Cullen328
Let's discuss it
01:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Epicflow (
|
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 software, a Google search did not reveal any independent in-depth coverage. None of the 16 used sources (2 are duplicates) qualifies as a fully independent reliable source with in-depth coverage (I'll add a detailed source review below). A possible "conflict of interest" hasn't been clarified and disclosed yet.
GermanJoe (
talk)
12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Software-related deletion discussions.
GermanJoe (
talk)
12:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
A more detailed review of the used sources (reference numbering as of now, may change):
- Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.
- Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)
- Ref #5: self-published blog site by a "PMP Professional" with unclear expertise, offers sponsored advertising and reviews
- Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage
- Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source
- Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.
- Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).
- Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)
- Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers
- Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.
- Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).
In short: a lot of PR activities and professional marketing, but nothing to establish notability.
GermanJoe (
talk)
12:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Management-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
15:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Updated from July, 24 by Techforcatch
- Refs #1, 2, 3, 6, 14, 18 are self-published sources.
Even though the references are self-published, they were approved by our customers. The references were updated by reducing the number of mentions to one.
- Ref #4: broken link, but not an independent reliable source anyway (per main text)
Ref #4 is the link to the article in the group of project management professionals. Here’s the part of it, if you lack access to this group. The article shows that Flow MPM, an earlier version of Epicflow, helped Pilz Netherlands win National Business Success 2015 Award. LinkedIn members can get access to this group.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tv56mbcoantrzat/Screenshot%202017-07-24%2019.19.59.png?dl=0
- Ref #7: passing mention, no in-depth independent coverage
Ref#7 is a success story, based on the benefits Epicflow’s real clients get after using the software for three months.
- Ref #8: PR fluff parroting the company's interview statements, not an independent reliable source.
StartUs Magazine is an independent source. The article was autonomously written by Daniel Tanque after the Web Summit 2016, Lisbon. It does not include any advertising material, rather spreads the news about the release of a project management tool, pointing to its unique features that have not been developed before.
- Ref #9: Advertorial largely based on the company's own research - not independent.
Ref #9 (an article about Epicflow and MS Project) was approved by an independent editor of Project Accelerator with no costs spent for publishing.
- Ref #10: Listing on a marketing platform (company input is accepted, the listing is based on company information).
The content was written independently by Finances Online expert, after crediting Epicflow with two awards without pursuing any marketing goals.
- Refs #11 and 12: Not independent coverage (links to related publications)
Refs #11 and 12 prove scientific PM expertise of our researchers - Jan Willem Tromp and Albert Ponsteen. These are publications in Procedia, a reliable scientific source with peer-reviews under the responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.
- Ref #13: article by one of the involved researchers
The article was approved by an independent editor from Project-Management.com. Our researcher’s expertise in this domain has already been shown above, as he contributed to a reliable scientific journal under responsibility of Scientific Committee of IPMA 2014.
- Ref #15: dead link, unclear source (no author or publication details), seems to be about a wider topic and not specifically about this particular software.
Ref #15 was updated.
- Refs #16 and 17: Duplicates of previous sources (of ref #5 and #10).
Refs #16 and 17 were updated.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Techforcatch (
talk •
contribs)
- @
Techforcatch:. Thank you for your detailed response, but it seems we have vastly differing views on these sources, and on what constitutes an independent reliable source per Wikipedia's standards. Anyway, other uninvolved editors will offer additional feedback, so we don't have to start a lengthy 1v1 discussion just now. Aside from this article-related disagreement, please make sure to disclose your apparent "conflict of interest" (see your user talkpage for more information). You'll find the appropriate templates to add at
WP:DISCLOSE (unpaid COI) or
WP:COIPAYDISCLOSE (paid COI). Thank you for your consideration.
GermanJoe (
talk)
16:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: It is entirely obvious that the article has been chiefly written by an editor with a
conflict of interest and that many of the sources
are bunk. Could the post-relist discussion please determine if there are any good sources at all?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
A Train
talk
08:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment - A few more details regarding the objections against deletion, although comments by other uninvolved editors would obviously be more useful:
- Ref #8: Startus Magazine is a
trade magazine with limited objectivity and no journalistic distance to their topics (see also their
about page.
- Ref #9: Whether the article was placed cost-free or for a fee is irrelevant. The content is not independently written and serves a clear self-promotional purpose.
- Ref #10:
Here is the source's application page where companies can conveniently suggest their own products and specify their estimated advertising budget. Note the 4 "advantages" on top - pure marketing, and not a source of reliable independent information.
- While some of the sources (i.e. of the involved researchers) are possibly reliable, none of the given sources are independent and reliable. Such affiliated sources may be used to source uncontroversial content (with some caution), but they don't establish notability per
WP:GNG.
GermanJoe (
talk)
13:20, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Hi. First, I must mention that the analysis of GermanJoe is a notability analysis, not a merit analysis for each source. What I mean is, citation #1 (which the same as #2 and #3) is good enough for the purpose it is serving: Giving a simple launch date. However, the whole fate of the article hinges on citations #11 through #15, which does not correspond to our requirements set forth by
WP:NPOV and
WP:N. —Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
11:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - One included ref (
[1]) seems to work towards demonstrating notability. The requirement is for multiple such references. I was unable to find any more like this. I am prepared to change my !vote if that situation changes. ~
Kvng (
talk)
16:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
Kvng:, just for clarity: Jan Willem Tromp is working for GLOW Management (one of the developing companies). He is listed as a "Managing Partner" on Linkedin, and several times in central roles on the company's website. His own articles clearly fail the "independent" requirement to establish notability. I am not assessing "reliability" one way or the other, but sources need to meet both criteria at once per
WP:GNG.
GermanJoe (
talk)
18:50, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - Grudgingly - I like to give the benefit of the doubt, but while at first glance I thought there were a lot of scholarly sources for this, it turns out the name is used for different things and the "other" Epicflow" is really well represented, but not this one. Doesn't appear to be notable in sources I could find.
CodeCurmudgeon (
talk)
00:52, 10 August 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.
Sandstein
15:28, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
City National Arena (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Appears to fail
WP:GNG with only
WP:ROUTINE sources from the Las Vegas area and the primary tenant, the
Vegas Golden Knights. Could be integrated/merged into the Team information section of the Golden Knights' article but at this point because of the
WP:RECENTISM it appears to just be
WP:TOOSOON.
Yosemiter (
talk)
22:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Nevada-related deletion discussions.
MassiveYR
♠
22:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Candidates for deletion
194.28.127.53 (
talk)
02:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
03:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
03:27, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
Toohool: While it certainly could have one sentence in the team info section on the Golden Knights' page, I highly doubt it deserves its own section like the Leafs. Big difference when comparing a team that has yet to play vs. one that has played 100 seasons. I would assume (assume being the keyword in that it just my observational opinion) that 99% of readers and hockey fans looking into information on the team are not looking for info about the team's practices and offices. Most just care about where to find them when they play games (which is what that Leafs' section is primarily about as well, the practice facility gets four sentences).
Yosemiter (
talk)
19:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I think we're in agreement then that the arena should be mentioned in the team article (whether it be 1 sentence or 4 sentences). So why wouldn't we merge or redirect instead of delete?
Toohool (
talk)
20:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
Toohool: I said "it could have one sentence", but I am not convinced that it should. As for a redirect, what would link there other than the Golden Knights? (The UNLV Rebels are currently an independent Div I club team and is still a ways off from jumping to NCAA level. It is possible the WSHL LV Storm could move in sometime as the WSHL will use the facility in their midseason showcase this year. The important thing to note though for both those teams is that they are both unlikely to meet GNG either right now.) I am also not quite sure how to incorporate it into the article at this time (but that is not to say that wouldn't work better once the team info section is properly expanded).
Yosemiter (
talk)
21:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
Yosemiter: A redirect doesn't have to have links to be useful (it can be searched directly by users, and is also useful because it can be categorized), but it could linked from, for example,
Summerlin, Nevada,
Downtown Summerlin,
UNLV Rebels (if someone adds a section on the hockey team),
Western States Hockey League (if the Storm does end up moving there). And there's nothing difficult about integrating this info in the article,
I just did it.
Toohool (
talk)
07:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. As far as whether "the topic is significant to a comprehensive understanding of the team" ... huh?? Quite aside from that a redirect doesn't provide a "comprehensive" anything, what "understanding of the team" is conferred by anything about its practice rink? Teams practice places, full stop. An article about a team's practice rink gives you as much understanding about that team as (say) knowing that
Hilary Knight prefers
Bauer skates tells you about her.
Ravenswing
17:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- @
Ravenswing: Obviously a redirect doesn't contribute to an understanding of the topic, but my point is that info about the arena should be included in the team article. The redirect is just a natural consequence of that. This is not just their "practice rink", it's a $25-million standalone facility that the team built and operates, which is their headquarters, which is also open to the public as a community attraction, was considered important enough for a bank to buy the naming rights, and has been the sole subject of several in-depth news articles. What other article about a business would exclude such a facility from being mentioned?
Toohool (
talk)
18:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Ones where such facilities weren't particularly noteworthy. If the rink's been the sole subject of several indepth news articles, then the discussion's entirely moot, because it would meet the GNG, yes? But the rest? Team headquarters buildings aren't notable by definition, not even if millions are spent on them. Public attractions aren't notable just by way of them being open to the public. Businesses buy all manner of naming rights these days, all the way down to Little League teams and local 5k charity runs.
Ravenswing
18:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- There have been several news articles:
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]. IMO, they don't reach the level of GNG, but coverage that is less than GNG level can be an indicator that some information should be included in an article. You're arguing against a strawman. Nobody here is claiming that the arena is notable, and notability is not the standard for inclusion in an article.
Toohool (
talk)
19:15, 8 August 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.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
21:24, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Siavash Rad (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Most of these references (soundcloud, aquasound, etc.) are not references to independent sources, they are links to where music can be heard or to promotional material for the subject. No substantive discussion in reliable independent secondary published sources.
KDS4444 (
talk)
07:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Canada-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
07:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
07:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. None of the references here are
reliable sources for the purposes of establishing wikinotability, and nothing claimed in the article entitles him to an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of reliable sourcing support for it.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:19, 29 July 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.
So
Why
16:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
İlksen Şermin Özdemir (
|
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 person and fails Fails
WP:NHOCKEY.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
20:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
20:24, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
20:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
20:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep She officiated at the
2016 IIHF Women's World Championship Division II.
CeeGee
11:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per CeeGee. It is obvious from this and other mass nominations that nominator didn't bother to do a stitch of
WP:BEFORE. This is getting completely out of hand.
Smartyllama (
talk)
15:09, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete It is obvious to me that this player fails both
WP:NHOCKEY and
WP:GNG. However if experienced user
user:CeeGee can show a GNG pass from Turkish sources than I would be happy to change my mind. Nearly all of the "mass nominations" have been fails, I at a loss as to what the problem is with sportsfan spending a lot of effort to enforce wikipedia guidelines, and occasionally failing.
18abruce (
talk)
16:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Did you read the article? She's a referee, not a player.
Smartyllama (
talk)
16:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I watched games she officiated in, I assumed that someone who became an international official played as well and was hopeful there was some sort coverage of her bio. It is rather rare that an official would be notable, never mind one who gets assignments at the lowest levels of female competition. The sources listed as an official do nothing to support GNG, I do not believe that the figure skating ones do either, but I do not have much experience there. If I am missing something about the figure skating I apologize, but I did try several google searches in english and turkish with no luck.
User:Smartyllama you voted keep, on what basis, you failed to give any. And to that point neither did CeeGee, other than being an official at a low level tournament when officiating at the top level is not enough to support notability.
18abruce (
talk)
17:08, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. None at all, and were we going to take anyone to ANI, I'd just as soon it be the people tossing around
bad faith accusations when it's plain they've not taken so much as a cursory look at the sources involved. The GNG stipulates that a source provide the subject coverage in "significant detail" to qualify as supporting notability. Simple namedrops do not, and never have, qualified. As far as NHOCKEY goes, even if presumptive notability to any level of women's hockey was accorded (which it is not, save for participation at the Olympic Games, which falls under a different SNG), it provides no presumptive notability for men's play below the topmost pool at the Worlds. She has, of course, no presumptive notability as a figure skater,
WP:NSKATE not granting the same to junior-level competition. Would CeeGee or Smartyllama care to proffer a valid ground upon which to keep the article?
Ravenswing
15:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Doesn't come close to meeting NHOCKEY. So baring that needs to meet GNG. I can find no sources that indicate she meets GNG. -
DJSasso (
talk)
15:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Ravenswing and DJSasso.
Deadman137 (
talk)
22:45, 12 August 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 that this is really
WP:TOOSOON.
So
Why
16:04, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
2019–20 Formula E season (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Per
WP:TOOSOON. Sports season that is still two years away.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?
12:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Events-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Keep: although it is two years away, the arrival of Porsche and Mercedes is significant. Porsche will discontinue the
Porsche 919 Hybrid project—which uses hybrid technology—from the World Endurance Championship; with Audi having already left, Toyota is the only manufacturer in the WEC, so the full consequences of Porsche's defection to Formula E remain to be seen. Likewise, Mercedes compete in Formula 1, which also uses hybrid technology, and while they are committed to the series (for now), their announcement comes at a time when Formula 1 is negotiating the 2021 engine regulations. All of this has triggered a wider discussion about what the future of motorsport is going to look like as Formula E is becoming manufacters' preferred test bed, especially in light of announcements from the French and British governments that they will ban cars with combustion engines in the next few decades. The bottom line is that while it might be very early to create the article, it's incredibly significant in the context of global motorsport. As a precedent, the
2014 Formula One season article was created two years in advance of the season as the regulation changes that were introduced for 2014 were a massive overhaul of the engine formula.
Prisonermonkeys (
talk)
03:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
North America
1000
21:36, 6 August 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.
No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.
North America
1000
00:19, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Elizabeth Austin (writer) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I created the article in 2006 and it survived an AFD the same year. Standards can change over time, and I do not feel that the subject satisfies
WP:BIO She has worked as a journalist and has published things here and there, but what is needed are articles ABOUT her, not just BY her.
Edison (
talk)
17:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Women-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
17:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Edison, I think you were right the first time. I ran news archive searches, she did have a newspaper column. And a book that got a number of reviews. Some writing prizes. I think there's enough out there to create an article, (and I do give her credit not not editing her own page.)
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
22:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.
Coolabahapple (
talk)
05:55, 30 July 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.
No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.
North America
1000
00:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Mouchette.org (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
An article about an artist and their website. Other than self-sourced material and creator-supplied bios, sources are a few (mostly dead) blogs and a couple of paragraphs in books. While there is evidence that this artist has exhibited, the coverage falls very far short of "has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition", or the other criteria described at
WP:ARTIST. The site itself doesn't pass
WP:WEB. I don't believe there's any credible evidence that the general standard of
WP:GNG, that is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - what we have is trivial coverage, unreliable sources, and the subject as the source. --
Finlay McWalter··–·
Talk
13:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Artists-related deletion discussions.
Finlay McWalter··–·
Talk
13:52, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Websites-related deletion discussions.
Finlay McWalter··–·
Talk
13:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Article hasn't been substantially updated in several years, but there is more coverage in recent material - Girlhood and the Plastic Image by Heather Warren-Crow (Dartmouth College Press, 2014) in particular
[10]. Also
[11]
[12] and more testifying to the importance of the work as an innovative work of art. It has also been exhibited by one of the world's most prestigious modern art museums, the Stedelijk.
[13] --
Colapeninsula (
talk)
10:02, 24 July 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.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
15:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Eircom Spiders (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Kept at AfD in 2008 and PRODed recently by
Jytdog after it came to light that the article creator was part of a paid editing sock farm. The issue here is that this is a non-notable award stub that exists to promote the subject and that it should be deleted as such.
TonyBallioni (
talk)
14:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
16:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- addition of the following to the article is unacceptable. The quote is a) from a puff piece article and b) said by a guy who is selling how great his company is; and c) even on the surface is promotional as hell
Hailed as "the Oscars of the Irish web and online world"
(
ref) "Oscar of X" and "nobel of X " is classic promotional hype.
Jytdog (
talk)
14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Personally I abhor undisclosed COI editing, paid editing, and sock farm editing behaviours. However, its unclear to me if that's the rationale for the nomination - or if there are other material concerns with the subject itself (or content itself) that would directly meet deletion criteria. For myself, I see two discussion points in the AfD nom. That the creator was a
jerk, and that the content is somewhat
promotional. The first point I won't disagree with - but that doesn't meet our expectations for AfD criteria. The second point is perhaps also worth considering - but wouldn't normally meet the AfD criteria alone (Except of course where, once all the promo is addressed, no material content then remains). For myself there would seem to be sufficient independent coverage to meet
WP:GNG and
WP:WEBCRIT. I'm not aware of specific notability criteria for awards.
Guliolopez (
talk)
16:05, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- the basis of the nomination is that this fails N (and the reason why it was here at all was to promote it; that is relevant but not the core issue). Handwavy claims that there are enough independent, reliable sources with significant discussion of a subject, are not a valid basis for a keep !vote. Would you please present these independent, reliable sources with significant discussion that you believe exist? As I said I looked and I just found non-independent echochamber stuff.
Jytdog (
talk)
16:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- OK. To bolster my (apparently) "handwavy claims" that GNG is established, I would note that - yes - of the thousands of non-news results (and hundreds of news results) that return in a quick
WP:GOOGLETEST, a high percentage are of the "we won an award - aren't we great" press-release variety.
[14]
[15]
[16] Of these however, I would note that quite a few of these examples are from non-primary sources, which are otherwise typically reliable, hard-copy print media, with at least a national reach, and therefore at least partially contributory to the notability of the awards themselves. Beyond a limited web-only "echochamber" sphere.
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] I would also note that there is at least a reasonable amount of coverage of the awards themselves in similar outlets.
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] While at least some of this coverage might fall into the "republished-press-release-as-journalism" category, there is enough of it to meet my understanding of GNG. My contribution/recommendation hasn't changed.
Guliolopez (
talk)
16:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks for your response and for linking to the old AfD! I'll apologize for my short nominating statement: I thought this would be a relatively non-controversial deletion that was procedurally declined for PROD because of a 9 year old AfD when our standards were lower.The sources you provided don't meet my understanding of the GNG because they are either coverage of the recipients, not in reliable sources (business journals rarely count for notability), or read like recycled press releases. I still haven't seen substantial coverage in independent reliable sourcing. If this is notable, which I don't think it is, it is at most borderline in which case
WP:PROMO does become a factor in whether we keep or delete, and tips the balance here to deletion. Thanks again :)
TonyBallioni (
talk)
17:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Hiya. RE: 'Link to old AfD' - you are very welcome. RE: 'Didn't expand on AfD criteria as though it'd be non-controversial' - OK, that's likely fair. RE: 'Some sources are coverage of recipients' - per my note above, I don't disagree; However the volume of this type of coverage suggests the awards hold some cachet (if not broader notability). RE: 'Some sources are barely changed press-releases' - I'd highlighted the same myself. However, I would note that most "non-negative" coverage of companies and
related entities falls into this category in one way or another. And again, the volume, breadth and outlets picking-up these pieces represents non-trivial coverage IMO. In any event, of the many hundreds of AfDs I've contributed to over the years, I've probably leaned significantly more towards deletion than towards keep. As such I'd normally be the first to cry NN/COI/GNG/PROMO/SPAMO where I see it. In this case, I'm just not seeing it. Cheers.
Guliolopez (
talk)
01:27, 9 August 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. soft delete per
WP:NOQUORUM. ~
Rob13
Talk
18:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Earl Schuman (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Biography, resting on
IMDb and one single piece of
reliable source coverage, of a film and television actor known only for bit parts -- the roles posited in the introduction as his best known were as "Blake's valet", "Old Janitor" and "Elderly S&M Enthusiast", not as named characters; the only other role listed in his filmography here was a single episode of a sitcom; and while IMDb lists other roles, none of them are any closer to being "major" roles for the purposes of passing
WP:NACTOR (and IMDb isn't considered a
reliable source anyway, as its content is
user-generated and can contain uncaught errors.) As always, every actor who existed is not handed an automatic free notability pass just for having had roles -- he needs to be the subject of enough
reliable source coverage to actually pass an NACTOR criterion, but nothing written or sourced here accomplishes that at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
00:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Television-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
05:01, 29 July 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
03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Eric John Brock (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
I do not see how this guy passes
WP:GNG. It was created by the now-blocked
Billy Hathorn, who seemed to work in tandem with some other Shreveportian (?) contributors, eg: see the equally non-notable
Sarah Hudson-Pierce.
Sitush (
talk)
11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
MassiveYR
♠
14:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions.
MassiveYR
♠
14:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, appears to be a
WP:MEMORIAL for a man who wrote several books about his hometown of
Shreveport Louisiana. No
WP:RSes used or found, unless obit in the regional daily was written by a journalist; it has all of the hallmarks of a paid-for obit. But even if the obit was written by a Shreveport Times reporer, it's not enough to support notability.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
14:35, 6 August 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
03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Charlie Huber (
|
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 hockey player and fails
WP:NHOCKEY and
WP:GNG.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
05:59, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Keep Meets point 2. from
WP:NHOCKEY Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant by playing in
NZIHL and
Australian Ice Hockey League as well as playing for New Zealand National Team even if it wasn't in the top pool for World Championship, I think between the two things it is enough for him to have a page.
NZ Footballs Conscience
(talk)
01:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:NHOCKEY and
WP:GNG. The New Zealand League and the Australian League is not considered a professional league of the caliber to satisfy point 2 (see
WP:NHOCKEY/LA; "highest level of competition extant" means in the world, not in a country). Also, the consensus has long been established that it has to be in the top level for the World Championship to satisfy point 6 (which NHOCKEY explicitly states).
Ravendrop
06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Delete As per nom.
DerbyCountyinNZ (
Talk
Contribs)
06:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Lacks the significant coverage to meet
WP:GNG and the accomplishments to meet
WP:NHOCKEY. It's been stated many times that appearing at the lower tiers of the IIHF championships is insufficient to support a claim of notability.
Papaursa (
talk)
21:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete lack of the significant coverage to pass GNG, which must be met for an article, especially one on a living person, to be kept. That said the above debunking of the claim he meets the notability guidelines for hockey are persuasive. The notability guidelines for all sports are arguably over broad. The notion that an American football player can be considered notable for playing just a few minutes in the NFL is absurd. That we give the same defference to players in the Arena Football League is just not justifiable at all. However when we have individuals that do not even meet these very low standards, we need to delete the articles expeditiously.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Fails NHOCKEY (Ravendrop's explanations being accurate), no evidence the subject meets the GNG.
Ravenswing
14:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY as they did not play in a league that meets the second criteria. Also I can find nothing that shows they meet GNG. -
DJSasso (
talk)
15:43, 8 August 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
03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Kane Easterbrook (
|
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 hockey player and fails
WP:NHOCKEY and
WP:GNG.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
05:58, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:28, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Keep Meets point 2. from
WP:NHOCKEY Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant by playing in
NZIHL and
Australian Ice Hockey League as well as playing for New Zealand National Team even if it wasn't in the top pool for World Championship, I think between the two things it is enough for him to have a page.
NZ Footballs Conscience
(talk)
01:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:NHOCKEY and
WP:GNG. The New Zealand League and the Australian League is not considered a professional league of the caliber to satisfy point 2 (see
WP:NHOCKEY/LA; "highest level of competition extant" means in the world, not in a country). Also, the consensus has long been established that it has to be in the top level for the World Championship to satisfy point 6 (which NHOCKEY explicitly states).
Ravendrop
06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Delete As per nom.
DerbyCountyinNZ (
Talk
Contribs)
06:25, 30 July 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
03:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Rick Parry (ice hockey) (
|
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 hockey player and fails
WP:NHOCKEY and
WP:GNG.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
05:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Keep Meets point 2. from
WP:NHOCKEY Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant by playing in
NZIHL and
Australian Ice Hockey League as well as playing for New Zealand National Team even if it wasn't in the top pool for World Championship, I think between the two things it is enough for him to have a page.
NZ Footballs Conscience
(talk)
01:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails
WP:NHOCKEY and
WP:GNG. The New Zealand League nor the Australian League is not considered a professional league of the caliber to satisfy point 2 (see
WP:NHOCKEY/LA; "highest level of competition extant" means in the world, not in a country). Also, the consensus has long been established that it has to be in the top level for the World Championship to satisfy point 6 (which NHOCKEY explicitly states).
Ravendrop
06:56, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
Delete As per nom.
DerbyCountyinNZ (
Talk
Contribs)
06:25, 30 July 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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
08:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Strong (R3hab and KSHMR song) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
No significant indication of notability. We Got This Covered is a musical blog, The Bangin Beats isn't notable nor reliable either, hence fails
WP:NSONG. Article is also unlikely to grow beyond stub class considering there's very little information on the Internet.
Hayman30 (
talk)
10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - The Billboard source, the other sources and the chart are more than enough to establish notability. Unlike what the nominator said, those sources are likely to be reliable since they've been established for years, have their own staff crew and there hasn't been a bad review of these sites. Plus, no user generated content. It can also grow beyond a stub since the content added on the article is limited and there are other sources that haven't been checked yet. - The
Magnificentist
10:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
10:54, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The Billboard source alone and singe chart position does not establish notability, despite it being a notable and reliable source. To quote
WP:NSONG, "Songs and singles are probably notable if they have been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works". We Got This Covered is a blog, which is considered as a trivial source. Bangin Beats is another dodgy-looking music portal, and the provided article isn't even related to the subject, it's discussing another song. With these two excluded, there's only the Billboard source left, and I wouldn't say that it's enough considering the song has not charted outside Belgium. Pretty sure you found all these sources with a Google News search, and that's basically all sources available, hence it's very unlikely that the article could grow beyond stub class. Thus,
WP:NSONG has not been met.
Hayman30 (
talk)
12:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- We Got This Covered is an online entertainment website 'covering the world of film, gaming and television', not a blog. I just added another source from EDM Sauce, an established source for EDM since 2012. These sources and the chart are obvious "significant indication of notability." - The
Magnificentist
12:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- We Got This Covered is a blog as
they stated themselves, they started as a blog, and they're still a blog to date. They rebranded and got their own domain, but their nature has not been changed. Again, only one chart position does not establish notability, to quote
WP:NSONG, "1. Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts," that's why we need more sources. With only two valid sources I wouldn't consider the song as notable.
Hayman30 (
talk)
12:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- They were a blog, now they're not. "We need more sources", your opinion. I think the existing sources are fine and the chart legitimizes the notability. - The
Magnificentist
13:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- "They were a blog, now they're not." Prove it. No idea why you'd consider a song that has only charted in a single region as notable. Current sources are not fine, one is a blog source and the other is unrelated. "Multiple sources" doesn't necessarily mean two sources only, considering the song has only charted in Belgium, more sources are needed, and of course that's just my opinion. I think we should just stop here and wait for other's comments as this is just a back-and-fourth situation when we already know each other's stance.
Hayman30 (
talk)
13:23, 28 July 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. ♠
PMC♠
(talk)
08:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Taylan Anlar (
|
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:NHOCKEY.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
04:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
04:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: The Turkish league is not listed here
[26] as being part of that list. So therefore the player fails notability.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
14:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- That's not necessarily the ultimate notability checklist for ice hockey. The list was mostly written by a regular user "Ravenswing", probably based on their personal interest in the sport. — The
Magnificentist
14:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree that the list was probably written "based on their personal interest in the sport" Are you accusing @
Ravenswing: of bad faith?
Joeykai (
talk)
18:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Why, yes, indeed, I would not have initiated that list if I had no personal interest in the sport, and no one would've taken the effort seriously if I hadn't spent a decade on Wikipedia demonstrating that I knew what I was talking about. Would you rather such a list be created by someone with neither interest in, nor knowledge of, ice hockey? Do you have such interest or expertise yourself? If there is a league notability list you feel is more accurate, would you link to it, please, and explain why you feel it's more accurate?
The reason, by the bye, for the phrasing of Criterion #2 is twofold. First off, as happened with many team sports, ice hockey's top leagues predated the era of professional sports, and the first fully professional leagues didn't appear until the 20th century. Secondly, Iron Curtain nations such as the
Soviet Union and
Czechoslovakia did not permit "professional" leagues to exist, yet maintained high levels of play through their official "amateur" leagues. Criterion #2 was never meant to suggest (and indeed does not) the patently absurd premise that amateur level play is presumptively notable worldwide.
Ravenswing
22:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep played in the top-level national league in his country. Essays aren't authoritative and may be incomplete in terms of leagues possible. Guidelines trump them.
Smartyllama (
talk)
13:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Except the guidelines do not support this players inclusion, "top-level national national league in his country is not there", please take time to read the guidelines before basing your argument on them.
18abruce (
talk)
16:28, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- +1 to 18abruce. Beyond that, are you asserting that list is incomplete? If so,
upon what basis? Are you asserting that the Turkish hockey league generates so much media attention that every one of its players is automatically notable? If so, where is your evidence of this?
Ravenswing
22:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- And GNG trumps any sports-specific guideline (which were written with the intent that any that meet the SSG would also likely meet GNG. Finding some reliable independent sources would be the only way forward for this article (as well as building a case into adding any Turkish leagues to the SSG).
Yosemiter (
talk)
12:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per TheMagnificentist.
Zhangj1079 (
T|
C)
15:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete "top-level national league in his country" is irrelevant and not included in any criteria. To be a "top league" it has to demonstate that even a nominal player receives enough coverage to satisfy GNG. How can experienced editors vote keep for a criteria that is not included in
WP:NHOCKEY. The accompanying list provided is a detailed list, tested through consensus, that illustrates which leagues we should expect players to pass GNG. The Turkish league clearly is not among those we would expect that. It still remains possible that this player passes GNG, but I see no evidence of this.
18abruce (
talk)
16:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: I completely agree that "top-level national league in his country" is irrelevant, not included in any hockey-related notability criteria on Wikipedia, and any assertion to the contrary is sheer invention on the part of any editor making it. The reason we do have a supporting list of leagues which meet the criteria (something done by the other team-related sports Wikiprojects) is the painfully obvious fact that some levels of sport are more noteworthy than others. The reason we don't (and never have) asserted that the topmost league in any given nation-state confers presumptive notability on everyone is the equally painfully obvious fact that it would grant the same presumptive notability to beer league players in Peru or San Marino who've played a minute of action as to NHL or KHL players who've played five hundred games, an absurdity on any level. This particular player meets no notability criterion, nor has evidence he meets the GNG been proffered.
Ravenswing
22:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Nowhere does NHOCKEY mention "in a country" so he fails #1. He fails #2 because there is nothing that bars him from playing a higher professional league.Since this person fails NHOCKEY, he must stand or fall on GNG, and unless someone can find some solid articles, he fails.
Yosemiter (
talk)
12:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails NHOCKEY as NHOCKEY specifically refers to the list of leagues which meat each criteria. Criteria #2 refers to leagues which existed prior to the sport becoming professional. But regardless of that, it fails GNG which trumps NHOCKEY anyway. -
DJSasso (
talk)
10:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Playing in the top Turkish hockey league does not meet
WP:NHOCKEY, nor does appearing in lower level tiers of the IIHF championships. There's also no indication that he has the coverage necessary to meet
WP:GNG.
Papaursa (
talk)
23:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per everyone above. Playing in Turkey's top league establishes no credibility for inclusion. Clear
WP:GNG failure as well.
Deadman137 (
talk)
22:38, 12 August 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
03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Mahsum Akkuş (
|
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:NHOCKEY.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA
03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA
03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA
03:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep He plays in the top Turkish league. the criteria states "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant".
CeeGee
05:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: The Turkish league is not listed here
[27] as being part of that list. So therefore the player fails notability.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
14:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete There are many nearby higher profile professional leagues for this player to play in, so they in no way pass NHOCKEY. I don't know for absolute certain that turkish sources would not pass GNG, but cannot find anything myself.
18abruce (
talk)
16:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. As far as CeeGee's claim goes, that's not only completely inaccurate, the premise is flatout absurd; that would inevitably lead to beer leaguers in Peru or Nauru claiming presumptive notability. Criterion #2 pertains to two specific periods in hockey history: the pre-professional days of the 19th century Canadian top leagues, and the Cold War-era "amateur" leagues of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, where professional leagues were banned and the players not allowed to go elsewhere. NHOCKEY does not, and never has, presumed that amateur players all around the world are notable.
Ravenswing
14:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY as they did not play in a league that meets the second criteria. Also I can find nothing that shows they meet GNG. -
DJSasso (
talk)
15:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Coverage does not appear to meet
WP:GNG and no indication of meeting any criteria of
WP:NHOCKEY.
Papaursa (
talk)
23:50, 9 August 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
03:24, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
Batuhan Akay (
|
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:NHOCKEY.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
01:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA
03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA
03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Turkey-related deletion discussions.
FITINDIA
03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Keep He plays in the top Turkish league. the criteria states "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant".
CeeGee
05:47, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: The Turkish league is not listed here
[28] as being part of that list. So therefore the player fails notability.
Sportsfan 1234 (
talk)
14:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete The league he played in does not grant automatic notability, and coverage of him is not high enough to pass GNG.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails NHOCKEY, there is no impediment to him playing in a higher profile league if he was good enough so being in the top Turkish league is irrelevant. Needs to be some kind of effort to prove GNG, I can't find it.
18abruce (
talk)
14:29, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: No evidence the subject meets the GNG. As far as CeeGee's claim goes, that's not only completely inaccurate, the premise is flatout absurd; that would inevitably lead to beer leaguers in Peru or Nauru claiming presumptive notability. Criterion #2 pertains to two specific periods in hockey history: the pre-professional days of the 19th century Canadian top leagues, and the Cold War-era "amateur" leagues of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, where professional leagues were banned and the players not allowed to go elsewhere. NHOCKEY does not, and never has, presumed that amateur players all around the world are notable.
Ravenswing
14:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Fails to meet NHOCKEY as they did not play in a league that meets the second criteria. Also I can find nothing that shows they meet GNG. -
DJSasso (
talk)
15:41, 8 August 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.
Lankiveil (
speak to me)
08:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
-
The Leader (novel) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) – (
View AfD ·
Stats)
- (Find sources:
Google (
books ·
news ·
scholar ·
free images ·
WP refs) ·
FENS ·
JSTOR ·
TWL)
Article is a plot summary without stated sources apart from the book itself and therefore is original research. Cannot find any reviews. Happy to withdraw this nomination if commentary or reviews supporting the text are found.
Philafrenzy (
talk)
09:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of Literature-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
11:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Note: This debate has been included in the
list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.
CAPTAIN RAJU
(T)
11:23, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Alternative History in general and Alternative History featuring a victory (or near-victory, in this case) of the Nazis and their allies is a recognized area of interest for Wikipedia. There is not only a general page on this subject
[29], but numerous individual pages on specific works. his specific book has a new approach, which was not taken by earlier writers - despite this being an often repeated subject. The page can be of use to people who are interested in this field and look for information on Wikipedia - and there are many such. Technically, it might be possible to say that offering a summary of a book's plot by using the book itself as a source would constitute "original research". But if this was enforced strictly, I think there are tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages which will have to be removed, including the pages of many classical works of literature. I think that the absence of commentary or reviews is grounds for demanding an improvement of the page - not for deleting it.
Blanche of King's Lynn (
talk)
13:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- ? We only keep separate articles when the topic has
significant coverage in multiple
reliable,
independent sources. (
?) "demand an improvement" from whom with what sources? Burden of verifiability is on the editor who created the content. "there are tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages which will have to be removed"
Yes
czar
03:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The main argument offered is that writing about a book's plot based on the book itself is "Original Research". I think this is completley pedantic. As I said, you very often find pages about books - including major masterpieces of world literature - where the summary of the plot was made from the book itself. So all these pages on masterpieces of world literature should be removed as "original research"?
Blanche of King's Lynn (
talk)
12:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- The nom's comment on
original research reflects a WP policy—it's
fine to use the source itself for descriptive plot summary (at least as of now), but if that's all that exists on the page, then there are no
reliable, secondary sources with which to write an article.
czar
19:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- We need a
reliable source to have noticed and written in depth about the book. It's not enough for you to have read it and be able to summarise it. Please familiarise yourself with our policies.
Philafrenzy (
talk)
13:10, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete unless citations to reliable sources are added to the article before the expiration of this discussion.
bd2412
T
00:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - It's been mentioned that there are other "great works" that don't have
reliable sources but as per
Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary#Citations those articles should also be here for review unless there was some consensus using
WP:IAR, which I'm sure has happened at one point. -
Pmedema (
talk)
01:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete for being unsourced. Oddly, I was trying to remember the title of this book a few days ago, and here it is. The lack of reliable sources both here and elsewhere suggests that it's one of the myriad novels which don't merit their own articles.
BigHaz -
Schreit mich an
05:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete, does not meet
WP:NBOOK or
WP:GNG, have been unable to find any reviews from
reliable sources, which is surprising as
WorldCat shows
7 editions held by around 145 libraries, maybe a redirect from
the disambiguation page to the
author?
Coolabahapple (
talk)
07:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
reply
- Delete and redirect. Checked the physical volumes of
Book Review Index 2003 and 2004: nada. A redirect to the author's article
is sensible, but it's fine to delete first.
czar
19:15, 12 August 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.