The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Doesn't pass on SOLDIER. In terms of GNG - I see two (fairly short) book hits describing the mission in which he went missing.
Icewhiz (
talk)
13:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Fails
WP:SOLDIER. Junior officer with single award of fourth-level decoration. Does seem to have attracted some media attention in the non-English speaking world
[1][2] His story apparently gets mentioned in a book, "Sentinels in the Sky" (2014)
Hawkeye7(discuss)23:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A giant wad of
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR. While it is clear that Space Nazis are a recurring trope, nothing proves said trope is notable, rather than just TVTropes fodder. There are plenty of tropes that aren't sufficiently notable for Wikipedia, and in some cases this is just confused for "authoritarian species in space" regardless of their ideology. The previous deletion discussion cited no sources as to the claim that it is notable. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)23:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Obviously examples exist, but Delete per nom unless someone can link some decent literary study of the idea. /
edg☺☭00:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep[3] seems like substantial coverage of the trope, and I'm sure there are other sources. The existing article is bad enough I wouldn't object to a TNT deletion.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
01:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
You are welcome to rewrite the article and prove notability (per
WP:HEY), but just that journalistic fluff article certainly won't put it past the
WP:GNG threshold. It will need a number of significant examinations of the trope.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)02:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The problem I have with this proposal is acceptance of, for example, articles like
Headcrab. Space Nazis is a far broader and more broadly relevant topic, with solid base in 20th century popular literature, plus the article is technically better, infoboxes, etc. Would it make it in a "real encyclopedia?" with an aim for conciseness? Maybe not at 4Gb of compressed text. But upwards of 12Gb..
Corella (
talk)
13:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You are free to nominate those other articles for deletion if you think they're equally non notable. It may very well work, as people are now coming out against articles with far more sourcing than those.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)01:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
To clarify, I think this is a relatively bad and unpolished article about a relatively important subject, certainly one that romps
Wikipedia:PTEST for example. The general character infobox included has potential but could also be improved. Neglected article (as opposed to those other ones I quoted).
Corella (
talk)
14:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
MergeSpace Nazis →
Nazis in fiction, as per the proposal of Audiovideodiscoo. With that said, I believe that the "Nazis in space" trope can be important enough to stand on its own, but this article is poorly referenced and disorganized at this point, and does not do the topic justice. If several scholarly, published opinions can be introduced and cited regarding this fiction trope, I am willing to reconsider my present stance. But merging is, in my opinion, the best solution for the time being.
Mungo Kitsch (
talk)
05:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete does not seem to have significant coverage to establish notability. The Spanish Wikipedia article for him does not seem to have any additional information or references that could help to substantiate a notability claim. --
Fiftytwo thirty (
talk)
03:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Does not pass the
WP:NACTOR guideline which requires significant roles in multiple notable films. There are also little significant coverage. KingAndGod16:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. This article is quite stubby, and only has one source. Has no discernible evidence of notability, if article is to be taken at face value.
Mungo Kitsch (
talk)
05:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - according to the article the subject is semi-professional, and only professional footballers and/or national team players are eligible for articles. Clear failure of
WP:NFOOTY and
WP:GNG.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
19:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
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. It is clear that this discussion has been advertised externally in an attempt to influence the outcome. In this case, the strength of the "Delete" arguments is superior to the "Keep" side, which are largely
WP:PERX and vague assertions of notability without the high quality sources needed to back that up. No prejudice against the creation of an article on this topic in the future, provided it goes through
WP:AFC or some other process so that the community regulars can carefully assess its notability before it hits mainspace.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)11:49, 26 March 2018 (UTC)reply
This appears to be just another Bitcoin with very many references with not a single one adding to notability. Sure we can buy apps, see mentions and artilcles in very niche publications,read so very many press releases, get downloads from GitHub but where is notability supposed to be found ? Fails
WP:GNGVelellaVelella Talk 21:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Quote: "
LinguistManiac: inactive for 5 months."
Hrodvarsson spreading a little fake news here aren't we? Not everyone is active just in the English Wikipedia. I find the amount and kind of superficial arguing here with "modern Wikipedians" highly disturbing. The "number of edits" and "last activity" are suddenly used as indicators for another editors credibility or competence.
Hrodvarsson - You really want to go down that lane? How about we start looking at since when an editor is part of the Wikimedia family? Because if we do that, especially you - young one - look to me like a recently instantiated sockpuppet. 2017, "mostly edit biographies" ... yeah, sure. I see not a single crypto-related edit made by you, in short: not a single evidence you'd be able to participate in this discussion with anything of relevance.
User:Hrodvarsson an absolute redundancy of chess players missing even the most basic
WP:BIO requirements. IMHO sockpuppet trying to establish some "History" in Wikipedia. (
talk)
07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
You are right that editors can be active on other projects. Looking at your
global contributions, you were active on the German Wikipedia recently (after over a year of inactivity) to participate in the deletion discussion of Burstcoin there too. Regarding your comments about non-editing of crypto-related articles, it is not a requirement for someone to have edited an article to participate in its AfD discussion. For example, you have not edited any chess-related articles but were capable of
nominating a chess-related article for deletion.
Hrodvarsson (
talk)
19:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
They basically admit the lack of notability there. Some of them also show gross misunderstanding of Wikipedia rules and goals (conflict of interest editing, proposal to copy-paste later, conspiracy theory about bullying new editors etc).
Retimuko (
talk)
01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
"They"? Oh it is "us" against "them" then. How about you? Account created August, 1st 2017. Sock puppet aren't we? Show me where your self-confidence to even qualify for a discussion here comes from, because I am missing the
WP:RS for it.
LinguistManiac (
talk)
07:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete an absolute tour-de-force showing how to make something out of nothing, but when it comes down to it there are no independent sources, so no notability.
Smallbones(
smalltalk)23:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I know that there are plans in the Burstcoin community to improve the wikipedia page soon. I understand that this does not address 'notability' concerns, so I tried to find sources that might. (Apologies for the sloppy referencing, it will be fixed when we update the page.)
––– Mattila, J, (10.5.2016). 'The Blockchain Phenomenon – The Disruptive Potential of Distributed Consensus Architectures.' ETLA Working Papers No 38. <
http://pub.etla.fi/ETLA-Working-Papers-38.pdf> (Published simultaneously as a Berkeley Roundtable of the International Economy working paper).
Keep Burst is a notable coin due to the fact that it was the first cryptocurrency to implement the proof-of-capacity concensus method as well as smart contracts, a technology now used widely. It is not "just another Bitcoin" as stated, and such a statement displays a complete lack of understanding of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Burstcoin is neither a fork, or relateable to Bitcoin other than its use of blockchain.
MrPilotMan (
talk)
03:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Very good observation that this is not a
WP:VOTE. In this context, all deletion-votes/utterances without further evidence - I'm referring especially to the above
L3X1 and
Retimuko must be seen as such. You at least wrote "can't see".
LinguistManiac (
talk)
20:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
It is impossible to prove a negative. If an attempt to find articles in reputable media turns up virtually nothing, then I just say that there is no in-depth coverage. I see a lot of links have been dumped here since my last edit, but most of that is from a "mentioning in passing" or "obscure and unreliable sources" category. I still don't see in-depth coverage in serious sources.
Retimuko (
talk)
21:14, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I am aware of the reasons for presumption of innocence. You must excuse, that from the view of a linguist your statements look very informal. "Reputable media", "virtually nothing", "most of that", "serious sources". At least now you have there the "I still don't see" - I can live with that. I don't see how one can't see. How the 1st German state TV is either obscure or unreliable or not reputable or not serious evades me. Having a separate box in there about Burstcoin in contrast to Bitcoin (of all the 1500+ existing currencies) when it comes to energy consumption while being a mineable coin is not just "in passing". I have intentionally presented media coverage below from at least 3 different countries (please - pretty please: tell the Swiss
Basler_Zeitung it is obscure/unreliable/not serious).
WP:RS talks about how context matters. In the context of the Wikipedia in its present form the norm you try to apply here "in-depth coverage in serious sources" would mean to remove at least 40% of the articles currently present in the WP. If that is the goal, so be it.
LinguistManiac (
talk)
21:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Per MrPilotMan's comments. This is a notable blockchain in its unique consensus mechanism, proof of capacity. Over time the article's subject should get some more coverage.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk)
04:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Agree with both comments above. I would also add that burst is interesting also from a historical perspective as it was created in 2014 and at the time was the first to offer solutions to solve the energy consumption problem of blockchain. As this technology becomes more and more mainstream I would argue that there will be more traffic coming to this page in the future. I also believe you can count on Burst community to maintain this page up to date.
CNaerys (
talk)
09:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)—
CNaerys (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
I agree that it's a shame that the INTERESTING technology is not covered yet in depth good enough for us to include, it's a case of
WP:RECENTISM/
WP:TOOSOON with a lack of quality
WP:SECONDARY sources in a field that's exploding in different ways. We must be true to our standards as readers rely on us, but poor sourcing just doesn't pass GNG. We need quality sources with proven editorial standards (fact checking etc), and not PRIMARY close to the event. That rules out all these new techs apart from those with substantial coverage like bitcoin, Etherium etc. There is discussion about enforcing our standards as there's much enthusiasm for creating all these cryptocurrency articles that aren't backed by good enough sources. Widefox;
talk15:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia itself keeps Burstcoin as one of the coins in the
cryptocurrencies category, the single existing cryptocurrency using Proof of Capacity / Proof of Space. This is not "Just another Bitcoin", this is a unique, old cryptocurrency. Deletion of this article means WP can carve out all material about Proof of Space, including the research papers that also happen to mention Burstcoin (see refs brought up by
Jeranzarus)
Also please allow me a personal remark as someone who has been contributing to several Wikimedia projects since 2002. While I think that
Special:WhatLinksHere/Burstcoin and the references section should be self-explanatory: If it is consensus in the "new Wikipedia", to remove information of notable interest, then so be it. However, you will not be able to undo the fact, that Burstcoin had the first smart contract system and the first inter-currency ACCT
Smart_contract#Implementations. Even if Burstcoin ceased to exist, this information alone would justify presence of it in the WP. I can fully understand the need to keep WP free from cruft (
Titcoin,
Peercoin - which is not tagged for deletion consideration,
NuBits - seriously), but this discussion is a premier example in autoimmune disease of the WP project.
LinguistManiac (
talk)
18:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
>"Wikipedia itself keeps Burstcoin as one of the coins in the cryptocurrencies category"
Who is "Wikipedia itself"? Editors (like you and me) just did not object to keeping it there since the article still exists. This is an "other stuff exists" type of argument.
Retimuko (
talk)
21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes exactly. "Wikipedia itself" is Editors like you and me. And I intentionally presented the category box so "you can see" the unique position Burstcoin has. This category box was visible far beyond the scope of just the Burstcoin article for a very long time with no objections, no undo/edit war history. A given. And now you come along and say this is nothing. You must excuse if I consider the value system you use for your arguments to be very ... flexible.
LinguistManiac (
talk)
21:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Come on! You claim to have been around since 2002. You should know the rules better than this. The age of something is not an indication that it complies with the policy. This is an "other stuff exists" kind of argument. Let's consider the question at hand: is Burstcoin notable or not. So far I have seen very poor sources, and no in-depth coverage in mainstream media. If you can show otherwise, I will reconsider.
Retimuko (
talk)
01:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Correct: Come on! Suddenly the age is not an indication, because it suits you my fellow young Wikipedian. But - see above - the number of edits is? The time since last activity is? I suggest you young ones study
Wikipedia:Notability again, and in depth. "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article" observe the words no and the words should. You do have a position in stark contrast to that. Because you - allegedly - misunderstood that sentence for "If very poor third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it must not have a separate article". At least this is how you behave in this discussion. Your qualification of the 3rd party sources is highly debatable. I consider the Forbes article quite in-depth and there are other articles, in other languages (not sure you were able to research them) I have presented that are all pretty in-depth, especially when it comes to energy requirements. I do know the rules better.
WP:IS You build up the illusion "in-depth coverage in mainstream media" being required. Read the guidelines again. The problem is, that you just keep saying "I have seen very poor sources" no matter what. Then explain yourself (and this is not about proving a negative), or it is not worth the effort to point you - once again - to these sources.
https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/528.pdf - third party, independent, reliable (peer reviewed). Burst complete appendix B, and comparison to SpaceMint, because the only existing Proof-of-Capacity coin. And SpaceMint does not even exist to present day. What is "very poor" about this source:
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/bitcoin-stromverbrauch-101.html ? Please explain rather than just making the claim. The way you - and
Hrodvarsson put things, Wikipedia would be in the pervert situation to delete the Burstcoin article and add e.g. a Chia article instead, because the guy who does (rather: intends to do) Chia had some fame to start with and when he presented his intentions quite some media reported about this. So Wikipedia would have an article about something non-existing and instead kicked out something real-existing (and unique and significant), but you would be presumably satisfied, because there would be a lot of "independent 3rd-party sources". I am around since 2002 and I do have enough "Thank you" letters form the Wikimedia Foundation in my office. And yes, I do get slightly angry how "you youngsters" fuck Wikipedia up. With you having only best intentions of course.
LinguistManiac (
talk)
08:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I hope you're not referring to
Retimuko as a "monster" as you put it... I'm expecting that this discussion remains civil and free from
personal attacks; please do not engage in making them (if this is what you were doing). Keep calm, keep cool, keep civil - and discuss things peacefully :-)
~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)08:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Excuse me? "Monster"? I see no other mention of that term until you brought it up. Please do not make allegations of
personal attacks. I do consider - after some research - users Retimuko and Hrodvarsson as sock puppets (no offense, just stating results of my research). But I might be wrong and them are just new Wikipedians trying to get some merits here. Nothing wrong with that. I certainly do not want to "Bite the Newbies", but I do feel the need to decidedly refute "ignorant biting" done by the newbies. Peace. {{{
LinguistManiac}}} (
talk)
08:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete It is unique in that it uses disk space as the mining resource, but it is does not meet the notability guidelines. It could be merged to proof-of-space but a merge vote would imply that the content currently on this article to a significant extent should be moved over, which should not happen as this article is a total mess. Deleting this article and adding a couple lines at proof-of-space is enough.
Hrodvarsson (
talk)
22:58, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
––– "[...] Of the current keep/"Do not delete" votes, 4 out of 5 are likely the result of canvassing.",
Hrodvarsson. You fails at
WP:AGF and at
WP:NPA.
––– "[...] an absolute tour-de-force",
Smallbones. You fails at
WP:NPOV.
––– "[...] as this article is a total mess.",
Hrodvarsson. You fails at
WP:NPOV.
––– "I do consider - after some research - users Retimuko and Hrodvarsson as sock puppets",
LinguistManiac, You fails at
WP:AGF and at
WP:NPA.
I know that it is important to some people to delete or to keep this article, but everyone must respect the following policies (even if the policies were "designed" for articles) while writing comments/informations :
WP:NPOV,
WP:BITE,
WP:AGF,
WP:CIV. Also always remember : "facts before opinions".
Umbrellacorp03 (
talk)
02:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Not
reliably sourced as notable — one of the two "references" is to itself, but you don't make a thing notable by metasourcing it to its own existence, and the other reference is to the Google Books profile of a book about the general phenomenon of name-matching databases, offering no way to
verify whether this particular database is the subject of enough content in that book to count for anything toward meeting
WP:GNG — and even if it is, it still takes more than just one GNG-worthy source to pass GNG. So no, this sourcing simply isn't good enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep Company providing regular commuter service with plenty of reliable sources to establish notability.
[4][5][6]— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Whats new? (
talk •
contribs)
The first article is nothing like a travel guide, and the other two are examples I found through a simple gnews search to establish notability. --
Whats new?(talk)23:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable company. Most of the references in the article are to the company's own website. The Orlando Sentinel is a passing mention. GreenAutoMarket is a blog. The NYTimes article is a solid source, but by itself, not enough. My own searching only found routine press releases, and other non
WP:RS. --
RoySmith(talk)21:40, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment - Portions of some of the articles have been redacted due to copyvio. Of course, this means that there is less worth keeping and less to delete.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
22:16, 17 March 2018 (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.
Article was previously deleted by expired
WP:PROD, then restored at the request of the article's creator. Took it to AfD, where only one editor responded, so it was closed as
WP:SOFTDELETE. Thus the article was deleted and restored at the request of the article creator a second time. There have been virtually no edits to the article in the year since, so the same reasons for deletion from the first AfD still apply: homebrew video game with insufficient sources to indicate notability.
Martin IIIa (
talk)
16:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The first IGN link is just a passing mention, though the second one is a short dedicated review. Atari HQ is a dedicated preview too, though I'm surprised it'd be considered reliable - the layout screams old fansite/blog.
Sergecross73msg me14:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to think Atari HQ is reliable. I question whether coverage of a Lynx game on Atari HQ is notable, though, since it's an Atari-specific fan site.--
Martin IIIa (
talk)
14:24, 16 March 2018 (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.
Picking up where I left off, another "locality" which is a blank spot with a dirt road running through it, no references other than geographic clickbait.
Mangoe (
talk)
20:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, no sources other than one unreliable database (which doesn't even claim this is a populated place) and satellite imagery just shows a patch of desert with nothing. Hut 8.520:28, 17 March 2018 (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.
An ever-increasing number of important organizations seem to be involved in this program [1]; it is sponsored by the National Cyber Agency of Israel, BillGuard, and others. It seems to be an important program on the radar of the Israeli government.[2] They also just announced a partnership with Mobileye. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Microslayer (
talk •
contribs)
22:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per sources already on the page, the two sources brought by User:Microslayer above, and the sources that come up in a News searches. When a new article looks this plausible, it can be a better contribution to the project to tag it for improvement, and wait six months or a year before taking it to AfD.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
13:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. It isn't a college or educational facility, it is just a 'training program' - the type anyone can start. Let me guess how many of these there are in the UK.... 10,000. You pay someone, they train you. There are refs but nothing substantial. Szzuk (
talk)
16:07, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As opposed to E.M.Gregory's !vote, Szzuk's assertion that the references are there but are not substantial, encourages me to relist this AfD one last time to allow editors to decide what they'd like to do with this article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Lourdes19:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - per E.M. Gregorys improvements of the article. Clearly notable per Third party sources. These kind of articles doesn't have to include some major person or major event.
BabbaQ (
talk)
15:02, 21 March 2018 (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.
@
Econterms: Unless I'm very much mistaken notability is not inherited. I looked over the new sources do you mind pointing out which ones are in depth independent coverage as I can only see passing mentions in RS. The rest are associated sources.
Dom from Paris (
talk)
09:34, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Interesting concept that
WP:INHERITED means we should not argue that people are notable on account of the jobs they do. That's not my reading. My take is that, even if a job is notable, a person doing it is not notable unless they are personally covered in independent, reliable sources. For example.
[7][8][9]WP:GNG and
WP:ANYBIO do not discount local sources.
Thincat (
talk)
10:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
As it says "Inherited notability is the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects. This is usually phrased as "____ is notable, because it is associated with Important" there are a lot of very notable organisations for which the CEO is not considered as notable over and above his relation with that organisation. I would also say that readership does matter. The Californian has a distribution of something between 7and 10k. There is an essay that I can't pay my hands on that explains that distribution matters.
Dom from Paris (
talk)
13:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I agree essays are not.policy but would a piece in a local paper with a circulation of 10k be sufficient to show notability for all biographies? If it is then we are going to have a hard time in AfD debates because most local businessmen will pass that one. Authors require much stricter levels of notability as do actors. If you are saying that this article is good enough for GNG we might as well forget the topic specific guidelines because everyone will be able to pull up local news coverage for almost any subject.
Dom from Paris (
talk)
23:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep She passes GNG at least with profiles of her in several sources, however, she also passes CREATIVE with reviews of her work and her high-level jobs in the Museum world. Added sources to the article, including the reviews of the books.
Comment, Hello. Many thanks to all for your comments. This Eyerman submission is my first article for Wikipedia. As a participant at the Edit-a-Thon on March 17 at National Museum of Women in the Arts, I followed the assigned focus: women museum directors or gallerists. I had seen the exhibition Eyerman curated in Rome, Italy, was impressed on that one occasion I met her, and from afar have followed her trajectory. Wikipedia experts present at the Edit-a-Thon said that Eyerman would be a good candidate, but to build a case and find citations. The time constraints at the museum did not allow for all guidelines to be explained. All of your comments have helped to clarify. I may not be able to get back on Wikipedia again this week, but will add better citations and fill in as much as possible. Many thanks to those who have made additions; they are much appreciated. Agree that don't want to add any Tizio, Caio, or Sempronio to Wikipedia. I carefully considered this candidate before selecting and will gladly ferret out other material, but defer to your judgements as to whether I am on track with this. If this is in limbo, I'm glad to give it some boosts upward. Thank you! - these words added by article creator,
OnTheRoad21C, to the top of this afd, i have moved them here as a "comment".
Coolabahapple (
talk)
11:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. There is no need to denigrate contributors or subcontinents at AfD. ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)01:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: These kind of articles created by Indian editors seem to pop up once or twice a day. This one is unique in that it sounds like a essay, rather than a advert. --★Gooseflesh12★ (
talk)
19:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: The nomination and contributions so far seem to be relying rather too much on a view that essays of any type have no place in Wikipedia mainspace. But
WP:NOTESSAY does not talk about essays in general - it talks about personal essays, essays in which an editor puts forward their own unbacked personal opinion. In this case, when I do a GBooks search, I find quite a few sources (particularly ones over about four years old) which show only a verbal connection with the article subject - but I also find a number of recent sources that, at least at first sight, not only appear to be about this subject but to be usable sources for undercited parts of the article almost as they stand. On the whole, the article could do with a rewrite to make it more encyclopedic in style but does mostly seem to be presenting consensus (or at least common) positions on the subject. Having said that, I am not entirely convinced of the notability of the subject - it exists, seems to be getting written about to some extent, but also looks like something so totally of the moment that it could be completely forgotten in ten years. But we should be looking at that rather than the style in which the article is written.
PWilkinson (
talk)
00:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. First of all, the current name for this company is
Start Anima or "StartAnima" according to its own website so searches for sources are likely to be more productive under that name. Accoding to
the company website they have been winning national and international awards since 1972. That's a long time to have been around. At least two of their films have Wikipedia articles. Their latest feature film (Lino, the Film or Lino 3D) is getting a lot of attention both in Portuguese (
Revide,
Estadão) and English (
Variety[
Screen Daily). The translation of the Estadão article says "by raising more than $4 million in box office, Lino is the biggest animation in the history of Brazilian cinema". I think that must count as notable.
SpinningSpark01:43, 11 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: Does not meet
WP:NCORP /
WP:CORPDEPTH. In addition, this is a highly promotional article for which no effort has been taken to add any sources at all. We should expect better from our articles espcecially in areas prone to COI and promotion.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
01:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No. This isn't true. In any case, no matter how many sections it has, meeting GNG is sufficient for an article to be kept unless there's some extraordinary consensus not to keep it.
192.160.216.52 (
talk)
19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)reply
They're there for the same reason all those specific notability guidelines are there. To allow articles to be kept which don't meet the GNG. It says quite explicitly that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. It doesn't say anything about if there's a single-subject notability guideline then meeting the GNG isn't sufficient for it to be kept.
192.160.216.52 (
talk)
19:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. As I understand it CORPDEPTH is now the accepted interpretation of the GNG guideline for this sort of article. The provisions of GNG for "reliable" , "substantial", and "independent" are very general statements, and need interpretation. In practice, the effective guideline is what we actually do here. This evolves--When I joined 11 years ago we much more erratic but generally less demanding. One of the responses to promotional articles in this area has been, very reasonably, to insist on high standards. (the interpretation of the relationship between the general and special notability standards differs for each standard, and the general relationship remains disputed.) DGG (
talk )
18:53, 8 March 2018 (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.
Another nonexistent Somali "town". The source lists it as a "locality", which means people don't necessarily live there. The given coordinates are a featureless patch of desert in satellite imagery. No sources to satisfy
WP:V. Hut 8.519:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Not quite featureless - zoom in far enough in satellite imagery, and there seems to be some kind of irregular patterning which I can't identify but which only seems to exist in a few square kilometres roughly centred on this position. That suggests to me that GeoNames may not be being entirely random in attaching this name (as two words rather than one) to this locality - but if we can't find anything that tells us why, that doesn't give the basis for an article
Not sure I see which feature you're pointing to but it is entirely possible that "Laantamaxanka" is the name given to something in this area. There is some sort of track nearby and what looks like a river bed. However it obviously isn't a town and as you say we can't have an article about it without better sourcing. Hut 8.507:55, 19 March 2018 (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.
Another nonexistent Somali "town". The source lists it as a "locality", which means people don't necessarily live there. The given coordinates are a featureless patch of desert next to a road in satellite imagery. No sources to satisfy
WP:V. Hut 8.519:05, 17 March 2018 (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.
E. David Ellington is a notable entrepreneur in the SF Bay Area, and well known in the technology community.
Notability is not claimed based on SVBS or GridSpeak, but rather, the creation of one of the precursors to social networks and first African-American centered social network, NetNoir. A simple search for NetNoir on Google affirms that the entrepreneur meets the notability threshold.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wikipagecreator1 (
talk •
contribs)
20:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Correct, Ellington inherits notability from all of his other accomplishments, including NetNoir, Serving on the San Fransisco Employees Retirement System (Pension Fund) Board, and other awards and recognition and well-read publications such as Forbes and Black Enterprise — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Wikipagecreator1 (
talk •
contribs)
20:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Furthermore, Ellington is notable because of his status as one of the first African-American internet entrepreneurs, confirmed by various independent, notable sources such as:
Cabayi –– thank you for the clarification. Argument on notability rests on the fact that Ellington is one of the first successful African-American entrepreneurs in the internet 1.0 era.
Wikipagecreator1 (
talk)
21:03, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Deletethis is the closest thing I can find to a source that is not a passing mention, and does not seem to satisfy the notability requirements. Just being an African American involved with some early internet businesses does not automatically convey notability. Page also seems self promotional. --
Fiftytwo thirty (
talk)
04:09, 24 March 2018 (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.
Article is substantially based on a single primary source - labeled as problematic for such for ten years with no improvement. Two sections are original research. The neologism appears almost unused. There's a list of passing mentions at the end, but it's entirely unclear these are even about Freitas' notion. News search shows no hits, general Google search shows Freitas' usage. I PRODed this previously, but it was objected to; however, nothing more in the way of sourcing has come up since.
David Gerard (
talk)
18:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Nothing in Google Scholar that I would consider
WP:RS. The closest is "Stellivore Extraterrestrials? Binary Stars as Living Systems" (2016) (4 cites), which speculates that binary stars may be alive and weirdly takes the time to explain the concept of the sentience quotient on page 5, but then forgets to ever mention it or use the concept in any way in the rest of the paper. Not all peer-reviewed journals are created equal.
Rolf H Nelson (
talk)
06:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
My main concern was preserving the pre-hijack history, such as it is, but there's actually only a single bot edit from 2008, the rest are sock edits. So deleting the whole thing may be fine as well. The sock copied the contents back to the talk page anyway...
CrowCaw13:58, 20 March 2018 (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.
"If you want any information about the article please quickly search on Google, please see the before delegation who can request me to the create is added more source in the article
Also I tell you that iam going to added more source in the article thank you.
Area 1108 (
talk)
Done I am added more source in the article so iam requesting you can please removed Rdf notice. Than you.
Area 1108 (
talk)
There is no doubt in my mind that this is a sockpuppet creation so it will be eligible for speedy deletion once the SPI is done. But even if that were not the case, there's no sign of notability. The sources are press releases (two of them were copies of the same PR so I deleted one of them), and a local-interest article (the Hindi source, which incidentally freezes my browser) about the casting of a local kid for the series. Not even close to meeting notability criteria - delete. --bonadeacontributionstalk12:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet
WP:NACTOR /
WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; "GayVN award for Best Fetish Performer" does not qualify.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
17:51, 17 March 2018 (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.
List pages are supposed to show the same notability requirements as an article. This page has a mere 60 good links in a sea of red links (625 lines in total)
Ronhjones (Talk)17:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep not only is 60 articles enough to merit a list, just because there is no article does not mean the archives are not notable. I cannot ascertain to the notability of the archives, but many lists have large amounts of redlinks.
Eddie891TalkWork19:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
There's nothing in NOTLINKFARM that prohibits the website column. We'd have a problem if the list was nothing but those websites, or if the general article on
archive had an external inks section with 60 entries... Here it's up to editor consensus on that list as to whether it's appropriate. Same thing with the redlinks, there is no prohibition against having them in lists. postdlf (talk)
21:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - per those above. What the list needs is a clear inclusion criteria to allow for cleanup. At a glance, it doesn't seem correct to say that 60 links=60 relevant articles. Some link to related articles that aren't about archives. Regardless, there are certainly enough for a list and the criteria can be developed outside of AfD. I also tend to agree it should not have an external links column, but again, don't think that's something that needs to be argued in AfD. — Rhododendritestalk \\
15:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep, obviously. This was created in 2014 as a valid split out from world-wide
List of archives. Archives are things which sometimes have wikipedia articles, and list-articles can cover black-link (no article intended) and red-link items in addition to blue-link items. Please see
wp:CLT about the complementarity of having list-articles, categories, and navigation templates covering sets like here, in different ways. --
Doncram (
talk)
20:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I am working on the on the
equivalent page Archiverdict wiki (sign in and change to Monobook view if a WP like layout is preferred). I am correcting the websites as I go along.
This list needs to be put into alphabetical order, and possibly some entries on the list amalgamated - the various 'Anglican Church Diocese archives' being a particular example (with the actual page having the various dioceses as subheadings etc).
Keep. 60 blue links is more than enough to justify a list. Certainly some of the redlinks can and should be pruned, and list policy does allow us to impose a restriction that the article must already exist before a new entry can be added if a list is too prone to collecting "directory" entries for non-notables (see e.g.
List of bands from Canada, where such a restriction has been applied so that the list doesn't collect every high school band in North Battleford SK that have never played a single show outside the guitarist's dad's garage) — but some of them may indeed also be notable enough for articles that just don't actually exist yet, so pruning would have to be done with some caution. But if there are enough bluelinks to justify a list, which there are, then any discussion about whether we should strip the redlinks or not is a content matter which should be addressed through discussion on the talk page, not an AFD issue. `
Bearcat (
talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet
WP:NACTOR /
WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; "FICEB Ninfa Award winner - Best Supporting Actress" does not qualify.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
17:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete and redirect to
Lists of animals; ridiculously indiscriminate and duplicates shorter, more manageable lists. As this has existed since 2015 and changed significantly since then, not a CSD G4 candidate.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
19:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete and redirect I think the article should be deleted. but I think it would be useful for searches to redirect the article to the Lists of animals article that is a similar topic
72.73.117.105 (
talk)
23:19, 18 March 2018 (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.
Subject does not clear the notability guidelines for actors. Orphan article created 14 years ago without ever getting a single reliable source.
RetiredDuke (
talk)
16:11, 17 March 2018 (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.
Thank you for reviewing the page. As mentioned on
Talk:Ubiq, I am working on sourcing reliable third-party sources to add to this page and to conform to
WP:NPOV, to address possible issues with the sources. I would appreciate direct responses as to which refs are most problematic, as opposed to blanket statements about which sources are most problematic with
WP:IS. In addition, as cryptocurrency is an emerging field,
WP:GNG criteria may not be completely in concordance with degree of mainstream coverage - and would appreciate further guidance on which specific cryptocurrencies you have in mind that satify or fail
WP:GNG criteria. Thanks, awaiting further response.
Jimhsu774792 (
talk)
20:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Jimhsu774792:, this is not a review, this is a debate to delete the article, if you feel this article could be improved at a later date, take a copy of the source code now for your future reference. All the sources are a problem. As to the matter of which cryptocurrencies are notable, please note
my list, all the articles marked with crosses will be nominated in due course, the ones with ticks may well be nominated by other people with higher standards than me. I will examine the sources in detail below.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 21:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
sources examined
(pasted from article reflist, my comments in green, with the reason the source does not count towards notability.).
Fusion Wallet". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Releases · ubiq/go-ubiq · GitHub". GitHub. Retrieved 17 June 2017. user-generated therefore unreliable.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b c "Ubiq in one page - The Ubiq Report". Medium. Retrieved 17 June 2017. blog therefore unreliable.
Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Quarterly Report May 10th, 2017 - The Ubiq Report". Medium. Retrieved 17 June 2017. blog.
Stökkva upp ^ "jyap808 (Julian Y)". Github. Retrieved 17 June 2017. user-generated therefore unreliable.
Stökkva upp ^ "KryptoTech Blockchain Technologies". kryptotech.io. Retrieved 20 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Luke Williams - Fintech & AI Nigeria". Fintech Nigeria. Retrieved 17 June 2017. unreliable
Stökkva upp ^ "iquidus/explorer - An open source block explorer maintained by Krypto Tech". Github. Retrieved 17 June 2017. unreliable.
Stökkva upp ^ "kris-hansen (Kris Hansen)". Github. Retrieved 17 June 2017. user-generated therefore unreliable.
Stökkva upp ^ "Portag3 Ventures". Retrieved 17 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.
Stökkva upp ^ "#Blocktalk - Youtube". Youtube. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Youtube not reliable in this instance.
Stökkva upp ^ "ALEX STERK - Co-founder of Ubiq". Fintech 2017. Retrieved 17 June 2017. unrelaible.
Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq - AI Toronto Presentation". Youtube. Retrieved 20 June 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "ALDO BORRERO - Ubiq Developer". Medium. Retrieved 5 December 2017. blog.
Stökkva upp ^ "Introducing Pyrus - Open-Source & Client-Side Ubiq Wallet". Medium. Retrieved 17 June 2017. blog.
Stökkva upp ^ "Ledger Hardware Wallet". Retrieved 5 December 2017. closely related unreliable source.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b "FinTech Awards - 3rd Annual Canadian FinTech & AI Awards". Canadian Fintech Awards. Retrieved 28 January 2018. not mentioned in source
Stökkva upp ^ "Einstein Exchange". Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Einstein Capital Partners Ltd. announces strategic Blockchain partnership with Ubiq Technologies Inc". Cision. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Cryptopia Tokens". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "DOT Swap Instructions". Cryptopia. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Supported coins". CoinPayments Inc. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Introducing expanded cryptocurrency support in TREZOR firmware 1.6.0". Trezor Blog (Medium). Retrieved 23 December 2017. blog.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b "How to install and use Ubiq (UBQ) ?". Ledger Wallet. Retrieved 23 December 2017. primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Crypto010.nl". Crypto010 - Beer and Talk Crypto. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Crypto010 - February 2018 Edition". Crypto010 Meetup. Retrieved 28 January 2018. closely related unreliable source.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Bittrex.com - Bittrex, The Next Generation Digital Currency Exchange". Bittrex.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Cryptopia - Home". Cryptopia.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. closely related unreliable source.
Stökkva upp ^ "#Blocktalk - Ubiq w/ Julian Yap & Luke Williams". Youtube. #Blocktalk. Retrieved 16 June 2017. unreliable
Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Quarterly Report — February 2018 – The Ubiq Report". The Ubiq Report. 2018-03-01. Retrieved 2018-03-12. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq High Performance Mining Pool". Minerpool.net. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "HODLPOOL: UBIQ Mining Pool". HODLpool.com. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "MaxHash - mine Ubiq - Expanse - Musicoin". ubiqpool.maxhash.org. Retrieved 30 October 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Mining Pool". Ubiqpool.io. Retrieved 28 January 2018. Primary source.
^ Stökkva upp til: a b "Ubiq (UBQ) price, charts, market cap, and other metrics :: CryptoCurrency Market Capitalizations". coinmarketcap.com. Retrieved 5 December 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Ubiq Explorer - Ubiqscan.io". Ubiqscan.io. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "UBIQ.CC - Block Chain Explorer". UBIQ.CC. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "UBIQ EXPLORER". UBIQEXPLORER.COM. Retrieved 5 December 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "APX Ventures". apxv.org. Retrieved 17 June 2017.
Stökkva upp ^ "Qwark :: Next Generation Cryptocurrency". qwark.io. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Support for the GeoCoin [GEO] blockchain upgrade". Bittrex. Retrieved 26 Jan 2018.
Stökkva upp ^ "Cryptopia Tokens". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 10 Dec 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Pyrus - Open-Source & Client-Side Ubiq Wallet". Ubiqsmart.com. Retrieved 17 June 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "Pyrus CX - Chrome Web Store". Chrome Web Store. Retrieved 7 July 2017. Primary source.
Stökkva upp ^ "ubiq/sparrow-plugin: sparrow chrome extension". GitHub. Retrieved 28 January 2018. user-generated therefore unreliable.
Stökkva upp ^ "LiteBit - buy Ubiq". LiteBit.eu. Retrieved 27 July 2017. Primary source/advertising.
Stökkva upp ^ "Upbit - buy Ubiq". upbit.com. Retrieved 5 December 2017. Primary source/advertising.
Delete - I just took out a load of doubtful "sources" and don't have much confidence in the rest of the article.
Deb (
talk)
10:05, 18 March 2018 (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.
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete regardless of who wrote it, this fails
WP:GNG and is nowhere close to the point of passing it. The article describes it as some kind of experimental art project rather than an actual publishing house, but that does not help.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 15:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Delete without prejudice if someone can find the references to recreate in the future. I can't find much of anything on the open web, or in One Search, but looking at the list of poets and artists the press has worked with, I think it is likely that this press is actually historically important. But the references aren't there at present. I would push back on the idea that this is an art project, rather than a press. For the poets and artists of the 70s those lines were exceedingly blurry. I do think the article on Kabza is not as viable as this one; if this one sticks or is recreated later, we can have a few sentences about him here. --
Theredproject (
talk)
18:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
delete big pile of conflicted, promotional editing for this page as well as
Julian Kabza, clearly wanting to use WP to gain visibility for a subject who fails
WP:BIO criteria and his associated company which fails NCORP.
Jytdog (
talk)
07:45, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
delete big pile of conflicted, promotional editing for this page as well as
Annex Press, clearly wanting to use WP to gain visibility for a subject who fails
WP:BIO criteria and his associated company which fails NCORP.
Jytdog (
talk)
07:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another Somali "town" without sources to verify existence and which doesn't appear on satellite imagery at the location where it's supposed to be. "Guriasamo" does appear as a label on a few maps but that's all I've been able to find. Hut 8.514:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment:
Twosources, both in Italian, both referring to the place as El Guriasamo and both apparently originating in the 1950s. Unfortunately, I can't see enough of either to get an indication of how good they might be.
PWilkinson (
talk)
01:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The mentions in the first one translate (according to Google) as something being "East of El Guriasamo", "We took two days for the descent from El Guriasamo to...", "We set the camp just above El Guriasamo, at about 1700m...". None of these suggests that it is a town as claimed, it could easily be a hill or some other natural feature. That would fit in much better with the satellite imagery. Hut 8.507:47, 19 March 2018 (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.
My last Somali "locality" of the morning, pointing into an exceptionally blank spot, and no GHits or anything else talking about the place except the usual placename clickbait.
Mangoe (
talk)
14:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete no sources discussing the subject aside from the database used to create the article, no settlements on satellite imagery anywhere near where it's supposed to be and it's down in the source database as a "locality", which means that people don't necessarily live there. At best it's a name for a patch of desert. Hut 8.515:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete this is an article about a random patch of desert next to a road, it doesn't even claim to be anything else. Nothing there and no sources other than one database record. Hut 8.515:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Another Somali "town" which doesn't appear to exist. The
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the source cited for the town's existence, lists it under Jaan Adhicaddeeye as a "locality", a category which includes non-populated places. The coordinates given for the town are in the sea, so clearly nobody lives there. There is a settlement a bit to the north
here, however this is listed in various places as Dhariinbaar (e.g.
[10], p. 23). I can't find any other sources to support the existence of a populated place here, so this fails
WP:V. Hut 8.513:51, 17 March 2018 (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.
Deleteno sources to verify existence, the source database says that this is a "locality" which means people don't necessarily live there. Clearly there's no settlement at the place the coordinates point to or anywhere nearby. At best it's a name for a patch of desert and it certainly isn't a town. Hut 8.515:10, 17 March 2018 (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.
An agriculture scientist working in industry, PhD 2009. Has a consulting company (AgriLab), citability in GoogleScholar is minimal and not much else to indicate passing
WP:PROF. Too little coverage for passing
WP:GNG/
WP:BIO either. A PROD was declined by the article's creator.
Nsk92 (
talk)
13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence of coverage in independent, reliable sources; the series fails
WP:GNG. Further, the authors don't appear to be notable, which is another strike against it. —C.Fred (
talk)
19:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I am also nominating the following related page Best Friends Our Worst Enemies, because it is an album by
Royden, and I can find no sign of notability for it either.
Note to closer. If the article about the band Royden is deleted then:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The key markers that might establish notability are either unverifiable, or misleading at best. The two key items are the claim of a "Professional Development Grant from Creative Capital" and the KW show. Neither was verifiable. To my knowledge, there is no such thing as a PDG from CC. They give out major grants, and then they have professional development workshops, for which they may offer scholarships; these are not CC grants! And he shows up nowwhere on their website. The KW exhibition, appears to only have been a talk
[11] which I had to find via an obscure archive of berlin art events. Bixby does not appear on the KW website. Plus there are signs of COI editing, and clear Promo tone.
Theredproject (
talk)
23:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Lack of sources to estbalish notability. I found one mention through Gale: "SOUNDWAVES." Santa Fe New Mexican [Santa Fe, NM], 18 Sept. 2009, p. A-74. General OneFile,
http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A208101541/GPS?u=wikipedia&sid=GPS&xid=95dc1959. Accessed 17 Mar. 2018. All it has is "… a one-night-only exhibit titled Noise, featuring work by New Mexico artists Martin Back, Brian Bixby, Geoff White, and David Leigh, Maryland artist Mark Brown, and Spanish artist Blanca Rego Constela".
Mduvekot (
talk)
21:19, 17 March 2018 (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.
None of the "International Art Photo Contest" prizes are verifiable, so there is no way to assess whether they would establish
WP:Artist. The article history shows that it has been pruned down from waves of COI Promo cruft. The only real claim to notability is an exhibition at Museum of Biblical Art (Dallas). That is the decision to be made: does that establish notability. I don't think so, but I wonder what you all think.
Theredproject (
talk)
23:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Non-notable assistant professor / Ph.D. student. No GS profile, but a search turns up only a few hits that are likely to be him and they are not highly cited. Can't see any other path to meeting
WP:PROF.
EricEnfermero (
Talk)
11:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Google scholar search for his name turned up mostly papers from other people (subject or affiliation did not match this article), but even in the unlikely event that they are all his, they aren't cited well enough for
WP:PROF, and there seems nothing else. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
01:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Sources indicate that Shrawan has had numerous major (notable) roles. It suffers the problem of nearly all of our articles on Marathi-language pop culture in that the English-language sources about it are dreadful, but the solution to that (when the subject is notable) is a cleanup tag and attention from a Marathi-language speaker. This nomination is part of a mass-nomination of Marathi-language actresses with the same copied and pasted explanation - although a couple of them seem to have been actually non-notable, most of them had obvious claims to significance that had been lazily skimmed over.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
11:08, 4 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The sources already in the article indicate, with a bit of research, that she has had numerous notable roles. I don't speak Marathi, and the English-language sources about the whole area are universally-poor so the article needs someone who speaks the language. We don't delete articles on notable people just because their English-language coverage is poor - we fix the problem.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
11:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)reply
A detailed reply may be viewed over
here.In short, I don't buy your assumptions.I'm quasi-proficient (~Babel 2/3) in Marathi and did not manage to scrape anything non-substantial, barring non-reliable interviews and trivial name mentions.
~ Winged BladesGodric13:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NACTOR a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has had significant roles in "multiple notable" films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions and I can't find a single reliable source that support her role in any film or tv serials listed in the article except
What About Savarkar? which is not notable and nothing found to help her pass
general notability guideline either. I'm open to change my vote if anyone can provide some independent reliable sources to support any notability criteria.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
11:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete The article completely lacks sources, in English or any other language, about the biography of the subject, from which we'd be able to gauge whether the notability criteria are met. Mentions-in-passing in newspaper columns about new movies hardly does it. -
The Gnome (
talk)
20:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Neither being village president in a small town nor being a non-winning candidate in a still-upcoming congressional election is an
WP:NPOL pass in and of itself, but there's not nearly enough proper
reliable sourcing here to suggest that he passes
WP:GNG in lieu. Almost half of the 11 footnotes are to
primary sources, such as his own campaign website and the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, which are not notability-supporting sources — and while the other half is real media coverage, it's all local media coverage of the volume and range and depth that's merely expected to exist for all smalltown mayors and all aspiring House of Representatives candidates anywhere. So they do not constitute credible evidence that he's a special case over and above everybody else who's done the same things without getting a Wikipedia article for them: at these levels of significance, a person has to be demonstrably more notable than most other people at the same level, such as by having a significantly nationalized coverage profile. Obviously he'll qualify to have the article recreated if he wins the congressional seat in November, but nothing here already gets him over the notability bar today.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when it's possible to do much better than single-sourcing a one-sentence stub which just states that it exists, the end. It's possible in any country for anybody to simply declare that they've started a new political party — what makes a party notable is not just the fact that it exists, but actually competing in elections which actually get it coverage with which we can extract content about its ideology and its impact.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge and Redirect. There is enough encyclopedic content about this planet that it needs to be covered somewhere; but there isn't enough that a standalone article is really necessary. The number of Hainish Cycle planets which have any coverage in secondary sources is small. All the necessary information can be covered at
Planets of the Hainish Cycle; the only exception is
Gethen.
Vanamonde (
talk)
11:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Merge and Redirect. @
GwydionM: There is enough encyclopedic content about this planet that it needs to be covered somewhere; but there isn't enough that a standalone article is really necessary. The number of Hainish Cycle planets which have any coverage in secondary sources is small. All the necessary information can be covered at
Planets of the Hainish Cycle; the only exception is
Gethen.
Vanamonde (
talk)
10:59, 24 March 2018 (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.
Yet another article that is entirely plot summary with no indication of real-world notability. This one also has tangential, OR comparisons to real life.
LaundryPizza03 (
talk)
07:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Redirect to Alliance–Union universe. Merge "it was the discovery of sentient life that sent shock waves back to Earth, sparking off moral, religious, philosophical and policy debates. Then, to aggravate an already delicate situation, Pell Station became a source of agricultural goods and other luxuries, hitherto only available from Earth. This economic advantage disrupted the whole balance of power in the Alliance–Union universe, and became one of the main contributing factors to the outbreak of the Company Wars in 2300." The rest is in-universe plot details. Also redirect and merge
Downbelow to
Down Below (disambiguation).
Clarityfiend (
talk)
22:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. Not sure why you AfD'd and speedied, but, regardless, speedy deleted by RHaworth under
A2 ~ Amory(
u •
t •
c)11:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: A page by a
WP:SPA account, dumping what is presumably the content from the deleted and protected French Wikipedia page, without even a basic attempt to render into English, and sourced to the subject's Facebook, making claims only of social media popularity. Presumably
this is his YouTube page. No
evidence of attained
notability. See also another spawned page at
Abdou belazzoug. The protection applied after multiple deletions on the French WP may also be needed for the variously-named articles here?
AllyD (
talk)
07:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. The referencing is inadequate to show notability or to support the content. The Google hits are enough to show that the documentary exists but it is hard to find even a passing mention to it in RS. I think
this and
this are about as good as it gets and that is clearly not good enough as they are very passing mentions in articles about other subjects. IMDB lists no awards. It got no reviews in newspapers that I can see. Nobody even gave it a score on Rotten Tomatoes. I don't see any scope to rescue this. --
DanielRigal (
talk)
11:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Notable, massively so. The planet appears in multiple notable stories/novels by Isaac Asimov, Poul Anderson and others. This topic clearly passes criteria 5 of NBOOK. It also satisfies GNG (search for troas+planet, and for the stories and authors, etc in GBooks and elsewhere). Furthermore, this topic is not just a planet. It can be regarded as a 'series' of stories. This nomination is a classic example of 'salami tactics' whereby a nominator seeks to treat a single topic (a series of stories) as multiple topics (refusing to acknowledge the stories are a group) in a bid to try to make each of the alleged multiple topics look less notable. This approach cannot be tolerated because it would eventually result in the deletion of every single article in the encyclopedia. Even if this topic was not notable, it would still be ineligible for deletion on grounds of ATD and PRESERVE because it could be merged with the stories. There is no way we should even be thinking about deleting this.
James500 (
talk)
06:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete I'd be more convinced by James500's statement if he actually linked (or named) what the references are. Based on
[16], I don't think it's notable. NBOOK#5 is clearly not met; this is a fictional setting, not a work of literature (and the two works it is used in have separate pages).
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
17:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep won ABC Young Performers Award (1961), performed with a symphony orchestra at an open air concert which was recorded and broadcast by the national broadcaster (1962). Gained first Master of Music degree at University of Melbourne (1964).
shaidar cuebiyar (
talk)
04:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - I'm willing to change to Keep if evidence can be provided that he has won any prominent award (as claimed). Alternatively, I haven't been able to find anything to meet
WP:GNG.
London Hall (
talk)
09:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Up and coming Young Performers Awards is not a major award. Finishing a degree is extremely commonplace. Sourcing is entirely unconvincing, especially the vanity addition sourced to personal recollections. That performance is a good start but there is simply not enough.
duffbeerforme (
talk)
12:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - nom is I think right that this is a non-notable detail from a minor work. The reasoning is however incorrect - notability is a product of what exists in the world, not what is written in the article.
Chiswick Chap (
talk)
11:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: Looking at the discussion above, I rather suspect that the previous contributors are talking from ignorance, at least so far as Placet is a crazy place is concerned. A minor short story? At the time it was written, short stories were still the main form of science fiction, and Placet is a crazy place was repeatedly included in science fiction anthologies for over a generation after it was written. And
Fredric Brown's characterisation of Placet itself is one of the main reasons for this - remove the setting, and a short comic masterpiece would turn into an even shorter (and not particularly convincing) romantic farce. (And this is probably one reason why the story title redirects here rather than vice versa.) I am not particularly arguing for notability here, at least in Wikipedia terms - Wikipedia is indeed a crazy place, and one of the things that makes it that is the unfortunate but probability unavoidable necessity of using
performance indicators to provide a relatively objective definition of notability. It therefore does not help that short stories tend only to get discussed very briefly (such as
here,
here and
here), that it was published before any of the major science fiction awards existed, and that the nature of the story itself did not lend it to later expansion or inclusion into a novel. But if anyone can argue for a plausible alternative to deletion, I would certainly support it.
PWilkinson (
talk)
11:45, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Ignorance? I'm a science-fiction fan from way back and have read my share of Fredric Brown stories. It's not up there with "Arena" or even "Knock". The story itself doesn't have an article, yet you want the setting to?
Clarityfiend (
talk)
01:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm not seeing a good merge target for this, and I agree a standalone article for a fictional element from one short story is weird. Brown's article has no section into which this could be merged, and nor is there any substantial coverage in the Bibliography of his works.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep and rename to Placet is a Crazy Place and expand the coverage to encompass the entire short story, which I see enough secondary sourcing to support in the above find sources template Books section.
Jclemens (
talk)
06:36, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet
WP:NACTOR /
WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; "Grabby Awards — Wall of Fame" does not qualify.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
03:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - While Kush has certainly been in the news and is a public advocate as well as he has some sources from Stuff and One News, I don't think there is enough there to pass
WP:GNG,
WP:BIO as he has received significant coverage in multiple published reliable sources. While he was up for Young New Zealander award, the article
[17] is just his name in the list of nominees. NZFC(talk)04:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is more than 50 per cent dependent on
primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things — and while there are certainly a few pieces of
reliable source coverage about him shown as well, there aren't enough of those to get him over
WP:GNG, because none of them say anything about him that would make him "inherently" notable. If a person doesn't pass any subject-specific inclusion criterion, but instead you're going for "notable just because some media coverage exists", then it takes more media coverage than this to get him over the bar. And yes, nominator is correct that there's a definite "public relations profile" skew to the writing, suggestive of a possible
conflict of interest even if we can't definitively verify that.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:58, 18 March 2018 (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.
Clear promotionaoism, borderline notability at best, and created just before he was banned as one of the socks of a very prolific paid editor. The sources are essentially PR, either for the organization or its projects,and such sources are no longer considered as independent enough to justify an article. At the time of the previous AfD, the extensive nature of this and the related socks was not realized. Almost all of their other creations have been deleted, mostly by G5.. As there is some question whether G5 applies in this case, and there is still just a little remaining doubt over whether the violation of the TOU means that the article should never have been here and thus be suitable for speedy deletion, I'm being conservative and bringing it here. I would support any other admin who wants to use G5. DGG (
talk )
02:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I think it would be wholly wrong to redirect individual companies to a general article on the industry, or individual companies at a particular location to the location. If we did this, we would become a directory. DGG (
talk )
21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - significant coverage as noted by Kashmiri in previous AfD, it is govt organization to promote startup culture in Pakistan so, nothing wrong with it. Passes
WP:GNG.
Störm(talk)15:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The intrinsic merits of the organization are irrelevant to notability ; so is whether it is a private or government organization. Possibly it shouldn't be that way , and I am very open to an argument for changing our rules to be less dependent on coverage by independent sourcing and more on the actual nature and size (& perhaps even quality) of the organization, but that is just not our guideline for notability of organizations. In some special fields we do do this--competition in the Olympics for example--wbut these are ones where quality has an objective standard. DGG (
talk )
15:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Although may believe it is not perfect, the current criteria for establishing notability which requires quality sources is the best criteria we have. This topic does not meet the criteria. References are either based on company announcements or rely on company personnel for quotations, etc. References fail
WP:ORGIND and/or
WP:CORPDEPTH, topic fails GNG and
WP:NCORP.
HighKing++ 13:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A directory-like listing for an unremarkable performer. Significant RS coverage not found. Does not meet
WP:NACTOR /
WP:PORNBIO. Award category is not significant; GayVN Awards for "Best Newcomer of the Year" does not qualify.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Note: Failing this may I request that the article be drafted so I can work on it until the individual passes notability.
Abdotorg (
talk)
18:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Note that "may be notable" is not the same as "is notable", that meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. As you have started many articles on artists on Korean charts, perhaps you should consider adding more sources to show that these subjects meet
WP:GNG. A chart entry or two, particularly in low positions, should not be considered to be sufficient. Note also that these sources suggest he may actually be an American from New York -
[18][19], the biographical details given are therefore doubtful as they are poorly sourced, which is unacceptable for a biographical article per
WP:BLPSOURCES.
Hzh (
talk)
15:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep: I have added 2 major newspaper citations and a profile image. One article says the artist is currently residing in Long Island, but he is definitely South Korean, but maybe we're lacking a citation for the birthplace in Seoul. The Korea Herald article references a new EP release in January and I have asked page creator Abdotorg if they have time to update that information as I am traveling. I will continue to look for citations and add bio. information, as time allows me.--
Bonnielou2013 (
talk) 05:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC) I have added Arirang radio interview for citation of Korean birth and move to U.S. at age 12 or 13.--
Bonnielou2013 (
talk)
06:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I think it should be noted that place of birth does not equate nationality, for example
Bob Hope was born in England but he is generally considered American. If he has acquired American citizenship and considered himself American, then he should be described as Korean American. There is no source for his citizenship given, and I'm not sure what source it is that you gave, but it could be just my browser as something pops up but there is no sound when I clicked on AOD (therefore a short transcript could be useful).
Hzh (
talk)
13:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Hzh for persisting on accuracy of nationality. I have now added the bio from his recent appearance at
SXSW which states he is Korean American. About
Arirang Radio (and
ArirangTV), they are popular English language sources for Korean news and culture. I'm sorry your browser could not open the Arirang interview citation with him...another URL link for the transcript I had found was deadlinked. I will continue looking for a transcript to add. I use the Chrome browser and it opened immediately for me.--
Bonnielou2013 (
talk) 17:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Also, Re categories listing him as a Korean rapper, etc. - due to his work being done in South Korea; his rap combining Korean and English languages, and the possiblity that he has
dual citizenship where he could be labeled American or Korean - I did not delete those categories. Of course, a new category for Korean-American male rappers could be added.--
Bonnielou2013 (
talk)
18:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. A contestant at the 2018 IAAF but didn't reach the final. His 1500m pb is a long way from notable. There are 2 refs in the article one a blog and one to a news article about a race win. The article itself claims he ran a marathon in 1 hour 6 minutes, which is almost an hour faster than the world record!Szzuk (
talk)
20:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep meets
WP:NTRACK No. 1 by competing at world championships. Also has two decent half marathon wins that have some references provided. Also found these -
[20] (about a race he won at
Novi Sad listed on IAAF profile, but unable to translate) and this
[21] albeit not independent, it does state he set a national record. Also considering
WP:Bias as finding sources on non-
English language and non-
Latin languages is harder, so presumption should carry more weight.
RonSigPi (
talk)
15:46, 18 March 2018 (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.
An advertorially toned page on an unremarkable tech startup. Significant RS coverage not found; what comes up is passing mentions,
WP:SPIP, or routine corporate notices. The company is defunct, so no future opportunity for increased notability. It was not notable while in business, and is still non-notable.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
00:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment:
K.e.coffman, bit confused about your remark that "what comes up is passing mentions". It seems like it is the actual subject of a number of reliable sources. E.g., Financial Times (Comic fans flock to Graphicly"), Publishers Weekly (Graphicly Acquires Digital Comics Reader, Double Feature"), Forbes (Graphicly's Micah Baldwin: Why Storytelling Matters") and TechCrunch (Digital Comic Startup Graphic.ly Draws Up $3 Million To Take 2011 "Beyond The Page"). --
Usernameunique (
talk)
20:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: note blocked sock gets no weight so more input needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug!06:04, 9 March 2018 (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.
Highly
advertorialized article about a small film festival, not properly referenced as clearing
WP:GNG or
WP:ORGDEPTH. The referencing here is parked almost entirely on
blogs and the festival's own
primary source content about itself, which are not sources that can carry notability -- and the only two sources here that count as
reliable ones at all are both in the same city's local media rather than evincing the wider coverage that an organization has to have to clear ORGDEPTH. In addition, there's a possible
conflict of interest here, as about two weeks ago a newly-registered editor with no prior history named themself as "the new page moderator" who will be "monitoring" it from now on. But that's not how Wikipedia works: the article belongs to Wikipedia, not to the festival or to any individual editor who appoints themself as the "owner", and it has to follow Wikipedia's sourcing and content rules. There's simply not enough quality sourcing here, and far too much advertorialized text.
Bearcat (
talk)
03:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete -
Bearcat spells it out; just would add that the self-appointed "moderator" should be warned on their talk page about why their conduct is inappropriate.
Madg2011 (
talk)
06:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is not notable at all. All the references mentioned therein and those I could find online via indepedent search do not render this notable at all. In addition, the editor who claims as moderator doesn't understand how wiki works let alone understanding what notability means.
Xaxing (
talk)
06:40, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - A quick google search finds
this,
this and
this published in different years which should allow to pass
WP:GNG and make a small article. The referencing is also similar to other articles in
Category:Film festivals in Toronto, if this is not deemed notable merging them all should be considered. I don't think the article should be deleted, regardless of it's flaws, because people don't like a new editor (note, they did not create the article).
SpaceInnovader (
talk)
11:38, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:ORGDEPTH, something like this does not qualify for a Wikipedia article just because it's gotten some local coverage in its own local market — its media coverage has to expand beyond local. So just being able to show a couple of Toronto Star and Now links is not enough to get a Toronto-based event over the notability bar.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
To points addressed earlier, I will no longer be a moderator or owner of this page going forward. I was never owner of the page and was simply moderating to ensure false hoods were not reported. The entry is meant to inform interested parties about the festival in general and the work that has been done in the past. It was never intended that others in the wiki community could not contribute to the article going forward. You are correct in assuming that I am just learning how to edit and use Wikipedia, and would welcome feedback on how to improve. As for sources, you are correct obviously in stating most of the coverage is local as it is a Canadian Film Festival, but the festival does have some coverage from the United States as well in websites footnoted like Cinema Crazed and Cryptic Rock. Iwould also note that even though Toronto Based, Screen Anarchy is a worldwide recognized leader in film coverage that also employ people in markets like the UK and Japan in their editorial staff. I will also attempt to add more coverage in if I can. Hopefully, this addresses the concerns going forward, but if not I am willing to leave the Wikipedia community entirely if it is deemed necessary to do so. The article is meant as an educational piece, not an advertorial, as
Bearcat previous edits to the page have made me realize the page may have come off too much as. This was never the intention. To restate, I will no longer be moderating this page and I am not the owner. We welcome all members of the Wiki community to participate. I may add to the article going forward - but I am stating here I will not remove any edits going forward.
MovieJunkieTO —Preceding
undated comment added
13:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I'm not counting the blocked sock so a little bit more input is required to resolve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
SpartazHumbug!06:04, 9 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete -- just a person with a job; the sources offered above are
WP:SPIP, routine notices and / or not independent of the subject, as in "...seeks board seat..."; "...has big plans..."; "...exclusive Q&A..."; etc. This does not show
WP:SIGCOV focused on the subject.
K.e.coffman (
talk)
02:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete There's one really good RS I was able to find that's on him directly here:
[26] The other article which is about him that isn't in reference to the company is in reference to his misdemeanor plea deal, which is trivial in a completely different way.
SportingFlyertalk02:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Does not meet notability guidelines(
WP:ORG). All the sources offered are press releases, product announcements, or directory listings of this business;
WP:ORGDEPTH specifically calls out these sort of sources as not acceptable for establishing notability. No sources with in depth coverage of this business are offered. My search could only find sources like the ones offered.
331dot (
talk)
10:35, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I have tried and did my best to find a series of pretty independent and reliable resources mentioning Iqua in passing at least:
1.CNET put,"Though Iqua is quite an unknown brand in the U.S., it's popular in Europe and is known for making stylish, well-made Bluetooth products"
[27].
2.Realdeals.eu.com put,"……Finland-based Iqua designs headsets and hands-free devices for the mobile communications market"
[28] .And Iqua was introduced by this source deeply and minutely.
3.Iqua was deeply and minutely introduced by the Chinese channel of Deutsche Welle[29].And it is not press release.
4.Iqua was deeply and minutely introduced by the callcenterinfo.tmcnet.com[30].And it is not press release.
5.
Korea JoongAng Daily put,"……Iqua, a Finland-based maker of headsets and hands-free devices……"
[31].
6.Iqua does meet notability guidelines,because its product,Iqua SUN is World's First Solar-Powered Bluetooth Headset[32](
Gizmodo)
[33](
The Register).And more importantly,
TechCrunch'article introduced Iqua SUN to enter the US market
especially
[34].
7.
Twice put,"……Iqua is perhaps best known for its solar-powered Bluetooth headset, the Iqua Sun"
[35]. 07989Didyoueatanything (
talk)
18:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin:
07989Didyoueatanything (
talk •
contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this
XfD. reply
None of those sources are acceptable either. The first is a product review for one of this company's products and not about the company itself. Most of the rest are similar or are brief mentions of this company or reviews of its products(again, not the company itself).
331dot (
talk)
18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. I'm unwilling to vote delete unless you explain which criteria of RU notability clubs you think this club fails. For example, how do you know the club has never played in a national competition? I'm uncertain you have at hand the necessary information to fully conduct wp:before, although I accept the one ref in the article isn't worth much.
Szzuk (
talk)
18:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep. Their club website says they provided a player to the British Lions in the 1920s called William Wallace, so it passes Notability Clubs.
Szzuk (
talk)
18:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment I would take the claim that they supplied a lions player with a pinch of salt as there was only one William Wallace that played on the
1924 British Lions tour to South Africa and this club
Percy Park RFC claims that he was their player at the time. William Wallace is a common name or he may have played for both teams. And please don't forget that project guidelines do not trump NORG or GNG and neither seem to be met. --
Dom from Paris (
talk)
15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Seems to be pure
WP:FANCRUFT, entirely primary sourced. More suitable for Wikia but there is already an
article on it there. The name is also dubious as any searches go to articles talking about real life emotional spectrums. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)22:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm torn on this one. I think there's enough coverage within the comic news niche to support an article, especially if some of the various [color] lantern corps are merged into it. It's also referenced by numerous articles, and it makes sense (to me) to have a fan-crufty article with all the information in one place rather than explaining it in 50 or 100 plot summaries. That said, I'm not interested in putting any effort to actually making this article decent.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
14:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)reply
You are arguing that the concept is notable. In that case, it can be put in
Green Lantern Corps or
Power ring (DC Comics), there is no need for an entirely separate article with this much fancruft. If it is notable, it can be split off once that section is sufficiently large and referenced.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)08:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)reply
"This much" fancruft? If there's an acceptable level of fancruft, why not prune out the excess instead of deleting all of it? You don't seem to deny that reliable sources exist.
Argento Surfer (
talk)
14:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep The reality is this is an integral part of the GL mythos, and frankly if something THIS important to the story gets deleted then delete the whole thing. That's like removing all mention of the Force when it's literally the central driving force of every Star Wars movie. Yes there is a "real" emotional spectrum, but this one is real in that it's an integral part of a huge, decades old comics series. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
18-Till-I-Die (
talk •
contribs)
01:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The references are PR and notices from what i have been able to understand (some of them are in french which i know very little of and i don't trust google translate for large chunks of text). Pascal Lorne seems less notable then the companies that he worked for. The current one Gojob was created by the same editor as Pascal Lorne,
User:ABCreator who has been blocked for promotional editing and advertising, and was deleted for failing notability and was at best
WP:TOOSOON (see
here. the article Pascal Lorne was originally tagged with a
WP:PROD notice which was swiftly removed by ABCreator shortly after which can be assumed good faith but given his edit history/block log seems to be a way of advertising requesting further comments.
Lavalizard101 (
talk)
10:22, 9 March 2018 (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.
It would be nice if we could do a mass deletion of this block of mass creations, but there are some real places mixed in among the blank spots, and hey, if I have to look at each one to verify that it can't be verified as a town, everyone else has to do the same. Anyway, for the last of this morning's Somali not-towns we have another spot that geonames says is a locality, and whose coords drop us in a blank spot. And as is common the article creator seems to have run two words together but it doesn't matter: searching finds nothing but mirrors and clickbait, and no, I don't believe the site that says I can "chat with local people in Maqax Dameer."
Mangoe (
talk)
11:26, 9 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Geonames has it as Magax Dameer, and it shows up on OpenStreetMap in an area of clear human activity. I know that's not enough for verification normally, but these are really tough to do. I appreciate the AfD discussion.
SportingFlyertalk04:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)reply
OK, found it on geonames, but it's still just a "locality", and it's still just a spot in the middle of nowhere. I'm guessing that OpenStreetMap's "human activity" is just their spin on "locality".
Mangoe (
talk)
17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I actually looked at the satellite imagery on OpenStreetMap; the "human activity" is my own classification. Some of these are plopped down and there's not even a road within four miles; this town is at the intersection of a road and there appears to be cultivation very close by.
SportingFlyertalk18:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete we need actual sources on the subject to have an article on it. Entries in OpenStreetMap and GeoNames, combined with guesses from an editor that people might be doing something here aren't enough. Hut 8.522:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)reply
It's considered a populated place by several geodatabases and should be notable under
WP:GEOLAND. The difficulty is the fact it's in the hardest country in the world to
WP:V geographical information. I'm on the side of inclusion for all of these articles, but some simply do not make the cut. I don't think this is one of them.
SportingFlyertalk02:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Geonames says that a "locality" is not a populated place, and in any case interpreting
WP:GEOLAND as essentially saying that all placenames are notable is silly: it's the same as saying, "there aren't any standards."
Mangoe (
talk)
02:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I suspect these places are getting their information from the
National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency database, which is a more credible source than OpenStreetMap, and it lists this place as a "locality". It doesn't look like "locality" necessarily means a place where people actually live, certainly "Areas/Localities" includes many things which don't qualify (including fields, forests and mines).
WP:GEOLAND says that legally recognised places where people actually live are typically notable, and you do need reliable sources to prove this is met, even in Somalia. We don't have that here.
WP:GEOLAND also says that maps do not contribute to demonstrating notability as they don't establish more than the existence of the subject. Hut 8.508:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. There is no wiggle room around
WP:V. If we can't verify that something exists, then we can't have an article on it. We don't just make stuff up. --
RoySmith(talk)01:59, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment I think the event, and the fact that 900 people followed her into the volcano is notable! Perhaps this should be reworked about the event generally, with her story as part of it.
Deathlibrarian (
talk)
06:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I just want to add this article
The Volcano Suicides from Dr Romeo Vitelli which discusses this case in more detail. While it points to the Wiki article, it does have differences, and much more information. Not only does he give her age as 21, he reports that she was a student at Tokyo's Jissan College, it also mentions why she killed herself. Importantly, he says that "Mount Mihara was already a well-known suicide site since an observation post near the top of the volcanic cone allowed visitors to look straight down into the crater. Even as early as the 1920s, people could commit suicide by jumping into the volcano. The problem is that, while he is an academic, this is simply a blog entry with no clear references. Dr Vitelli has, on the other hand written books and articles on suicide and suicide clusters. I am tending towards the belief that it needs to be merged into other articles. There are notable reasons for this, for example, Dr Vitelli mentions that it was seen as a "lesbian suicide". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Everlong Day (
talk •
contribs)
16:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Hoping for more participation...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Too small time and niche to be notable, its a kids film production event, not a good use of tax payers money.
Szzuk (
talk)
16:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment. His "well known book" has all of 5 citations on Google scholar; I tried and failed to find published reviews of it. I'm not sure yet whether he might be notable for something else, but I'm pretty sure he isn't notable for this book. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete per Widfox and nom. Note that I've removed the ref to a Wikipedia article and a section on "news" where all the links were to the company's own website.
Smallbones(
smalltalk)18:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I believe the article should be kept. Ardor has been covered in Forbes, Mobile World Congress, CoinDesk, CryptoSlate, and a wide number of other secondary sources. I have updated references so that they no longer include the Jelurida website. The only link that must go to their website is for the white paper, which I believe is fair given this is technology and anyone reading this article should be able to verify the technical discussion by looking at the official white paper. The rest of the sources are secondary.
shurwitz — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.148.147.125 (
talk)
13:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Do not delete, It meets
WP:GNG. The article is not Advertising or direct reporting on the product, but an informational source on the unique technology. It is important the the Wikipedia audience has a reference to it. (
talk)
16:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Please don't just assert it, but be more specific: how exactly does it meet GNG? Also, editorial opinion on the merits of the technology must not count. Please have a look at
WP:ATA.
Retimuko (
talk)
23:43, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
According to GNG, there must be significant and reliable coverage/sourcing. Forbes has discussed Ardor in more than 5 separate articles (not all of them are cited in this Wikipedia page because it is duplicative). Mobile World Congress is the largest event of telecommunications companies and utilities in the world, and Jelurida (developers behind Ardor), were recently the only blockchain finalist at MWC's 4YFN start up event - covered on all of the Mobile World Congress official channels. Ardor has been covered several times in StockNewsGazette. It has been covered on TheNextWeb.com. There are also sources such as Medium where numerous authors have discussed it. It is incredibly easy to come up with verifiable, reliable sourcing around Ardor. This article is plainly informative and includes all necessary citations - it does not advertise a product or make outrageous claims. There is also a section included on the "cons" of the technology showing where competitors may overtake it. This article is written in as neutral a tone, with as notable and reliable sources as any wikipedia article.
shurwitz — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.148.147.125 (
talk)
08:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC)reply
This seems a little unfair/one sided. I have provided direct citations for reliable sources, as per the requirements of GNG. This is, in fact, a notable cryptocurrency. I explained that in my response above. Why can users simply flag this and say it doesn't meet requirements without providing any details on which aspects of the article fail to meet these requirements? Forbes is a reliable source. Mobile World Congress is a reliable source and major annual global event. I have provided very clear examples of how and why this is notable, and the sources are reliable. Why are we allowing users to simply say "lack of reliable sources." Which sources are not reliable? It would be helpful for you to articulate what the issue is so it can be addressed. As of now, I am just seeing sections cited with no indication of why. Shouldn't wikipedia be erring on the side of those providing clear, detailed, responses instead of just flagging things?
shurwitz — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.148.147.125 (
talk)
09:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Forbes is not a reliable source,
Mobile World Congress is an commercial exhibition, not an independent source. All the sources are in some way unusable, and the topic itself is promotional, so it is pointless trying to articulate the issue in any other way than we are. Editors at discussions like this generally expect you to read guidelines like
WP:GNG,
WP:CORP and
WP:PROMO to understand the issue for yourself, since it would be very long winded to quote everything in those pages here.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 16:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Your bias is showing quite clearly. There is nothing about this article that is promotional, particularly when you compare it to other crypto wikipedia pages. For example, you are allowing projects like Cardano to keep a wikipedia page despite the fact their technology CAN'T DO WHAT IT SAYS. They don't have side chains, and you can't actually stake any coins on Cardano yet. Ardor is the second generation of the 1st OPERATIONAL proof of stake technology. If you think the Cardano wiki qualifies, then surely Ardor qualifies since it can deliver right here, right now everything that is said in the wikipedia article. Furthermore, this article does not take shots at other cryptos - it sticks directly to the subject matter, whereas, for example, the Cardano wikipedia takes direct shots at Ethereum, despite the fact Cardano's functions aren't operational!
This article even includes cons of the project showing how competitors could overcome it. That shows it isn't a promo! I am literally noting the bad stuff about it! Everything else is just technological fact on how this thing works.
Why are you showing bias in favor of theoretical projects instead of live ones that have been invited to present at world competitions? The 4YFN competition at Mobile World Congress requires an invitation from a judge panel. You can't pay to be a part of it. Jelurida's Ardor was the only blockchain project invited to present at this major global telecommunications event. That is notable. Not theoretical, not a promise - that is a notable fact right here, right now.
For sources, I am adding more since they are very easy to come by - including Yahoo News and International Business Times. If the combination of Forbes, CoinCentral, 4YFN, and these additional sources are not considered enough - then I want details because right now you seem to be biased towards non-operational, theoretical crypto projects. This is dangerous to consumers as you are preventing them from understanding live tech - and instead pushing them towards nonexistent, speculative technology that is nothing but promises for tomorrow. This is disappointing for Wikipedia to push consumers towards untested technology instead of allowing operational, secure tech to have a well-researched and cited wikipedia page. These sources are reliable and the technology has been noted on a global stage. This article also addresses pros and cons. This addresses all issues with GNG, CORP, and Promo. [User:shurwitz|shurwitz] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
85.148.147.125 (
talk)
07:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Adding further to the above, note even the World Economic Forum considers Ardor a top 10 asset as of 2017, per their report here which directly mentions Ardor. If any other cryptocurrency is allowed to have a wikipedia page and be considered notable - then between directly being noted by the World Economic Forum and 4YFN at Mobile World Congress, this surely is notable enough. There is no place for this directly in the wikipedia article since this is more of a financial analysis, but still - it shows it is notable so I am leaving link here.
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Realizing_Potential_Blockchain.pdf — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shurwitz (
talk •
contribs)
08:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - I have just waded through the latest batch of "indpendent" and "reliable" sources only to find press releases, an article asking the prescient question "What are Jelurida, Ardor and Nxt?" - good question, and another bloggy piece in investing.com. No - none of this is notability. VelellaVelella Talk 08:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Can you provide details on why these same sources are considered valid for cryptocurrencies such as NEM and Cardano? The moderators of the cryptocurrency wikipedia pages are brazenly biased if any of those pages are able to remain while you flag this one for deletion. NEM cloned their technology from NXT in 2014 and simply changed its name. - go ahead and check - all the features were copied from NXT. Cardano has nothing live yet they have a wikipedia page. This is extreme bias against the team that developed the original, operational proof of stake. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shurwitz (
talk •
contribs)
10:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The same sources are not considered valid anywhere on Wikipedia and the only reason those other articles are not being deleted right now is because the deletion process can only cope with a few at a time. Please see
this list. Also I am not a moderator, nor is the nominating editor, that position does not even really exist here. --
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 10:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I am amazed Ethereum gets to stay posted even though Vitalik Buterin is developing Plasma network, which copies the architecture of Ardor but won't be ready for another year. Ardor is a live blockchain as a service solution. It works today. I hope to see NEM, Cardano, and many other cryptocurrencies taken down soon if you do not consider Ardor to be worthwhile. Speaking strictly from a technological perspective, it is mind blowing you would delete this given how unique and revolutionary the architecture is. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shurwitz (
talk •
contribs)
10:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Your list for deletion shows you allowed NEM to stay after checking. It also shows EOS was allowed to stay after checking. EOS doesn't even have a live mainnet! They are just a testnet built on top of Ethereum! As mentioned above, NEM copied NXT (Ardor's version 1.0) and just changed the name 3-4 years ago. Your bias is clearly showing. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shurwitz (
talk •
contribs)
10:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The fundamental issue is that we are keeping articles based on how much notice they have got in secondary sources that meet our guidelines, not based on any technical ideas or even if they work. If the BBC or NYT (or any national mainstream media outlet) said that it's architecture is unique and revolutionary, then it would be kept, because that would show notability. Generally speaking the guideline to read is
WP:CORP, and articles are reviewed mainly according to that.
Titcoin seems to gathered attention for its name of all things, which has been covered by reliable sources, although the debate there is ongoing and it may not be kept. EOS.IO has a blockchain used for
Everipedia and I am reluctant to nominate it mainly for that reason, although someone else may do so.
Ethereum is clearly more notable that most cryptocurrencies other than
Bitcoin because of the widespread attention paid to it. As far as
NEM (cryptocurrency) is concerned, I do not feel certain it would be deleted based on the sources I saw in my research, but again just because I won't nominate it for deletion at this point, does not mean it will not be nominated by another editor.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
This is where I am saying there is bias. NEM has many of the same sources - The Merkle, CoinDesk, and even their own website are used as the main points of reference. Also CoinTelegraph, which is primarily paid content from what I know. Point me to how this is more credible than Ardor being mentioned in the World Economic Forum's 2017 report on cryptocurrency assets. The WEF noting something sounds pretty notable...
The only additional reference I see on NEM is newsbtc.com and allcoinsnews.com so I added another article for Ardor from each of those sources since they are easy to come across.
All the sources here and in the NEM article are unreliable, primary, paid advertising or passing mentions. The WEF noting something is not enough and in my view does not count towards notability, newsbtc.com and allcoinsnews.com are both unreliable. The only reason I won't nominate NEM is because of
this BBC article.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 13:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Better to be hacked for $400 million to make BBC news than develop a unique technology that gains so much value in 1 year that it gets noted by WEF and invited to 4YFN at Mobile World Congress? Odd standard/message to push. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Shurwitz (
talk •
contribs)
13:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Do you not understand what an encyclopedia is? We document things that have happened and been reported on in secondary sources and are settled. "the next big thing" will never have a place here until it has happened. Did you know we once
deleted the article on the IPhone? And
Mac OS? (several times). There is no secondary sourcing to support this article right now. Period.
Prince of Thieves (
talk) 14:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC) — Striking per
WP: SOCKSTRIKE. --
Malcolmxl5 (
talk)
01:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - The Forbes sources are contributor blogs and not staff pieces, which means they are not subject to editorial oversight and are opinion rather than reporting. CoinCentral's piece finishes up with the caveat "CoinCentral's owners, writers, and/or guest post authors may or may not have a vested interest in any of the above projects and businesses." International Business Times looks like a good article, but Yahoo News is a replica of that piece. The CoinSpeaker piece is only a passing mention as is NewsBTC. The VentureBeat piece qualifies for
WP:RS. Then there is a slew of sketchy looking blogs or primary sources. The International Business News and VentureBeat pieces are not enough in my opinion to assert notability on their own, and the rest aren't of any value.
Isingness (
talk)
23:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep I've added a TechCrunch mention - which is a notable site in tech and one of the most visited news sites. I removed one section with a "steemit" reference, which I find generally questionable as source (it's a self-publishing site).
The
World Economic Forum seems to me surely influential, reliable and independent - though it only lists Ardor as important. If push comes to shove I would suggest rather moving the text to the draft stage - as the project is young and will likely gather further sources. So maybe in draft it could get more improvements - specifically I think there are more non-notable sources that could be removed.
-
Thomas (
talk)
01:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete (or draftify and AfC) - mentions and coverage in non-reliable sources are not sufficient to establish notability. It seems simply
WP:TOOSOON for this topic (and repeated
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are invalid for such discussions). I would support Thomas' alternative suggestion to draftify the article to improve it, when better sources become available with in-depth coverage. The entire article needs an almost complete rewrite though to remove all the trivia, irrelevant tangents, low-quality sources and non-neutral language - most of the current content is not suitable for a dispassionate non-promotional article. It should also go through AfC then to allow reviewing by an unbiased editor.
GermanJoe (
talk)
13:54, 24 March 2018 (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.
Weber was borderline notability before, with her coverage being mostly about her candidacy; now that she's announced that she's suspending her campaign for the NJ-7th House seat, she's unlikely to be notable in the future.
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
00:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Being a candidate wasn't enough for notability in and of itself the first time, and the debate closed no consensus rather than a clear keep — and there weren't, and still aren't, enough sources here that predate the routine campaign coverage to deem her as having had preexisting notability for her prior work. But if her candidacy's now been withdrawn, and even the person who was most vocal in the first debate that candidacy should be enough is himself the nominator this time around, then that effectively erases every single vote that kept it from being a delete consensus the first time.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:00, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete: this article failed
WP:NPOL when it was created, and it fails it now. I find it...odd...that the article's creator is the one nominating it for deletion now, as he vehemently opposed its deletion when I nominated it for deletion a month ago, arguing not only that it met
WP:NPOL but that Weber was "notable as a business executive" and "easily meets the general notability guideline." But now that she's no longer a candidate in a race, she's not notable after all? This is the exact reason for WP:NPOL; we need to be building a timeless encyclopedia, not serving as a temporary host for campaign literature.
Marquardtika (
talk)
03:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete- I'm not going to attack the nominator, but I just like to point out this is why she wasn't notable the first time. Someone's level of notability doesn't decrease over time. If we're going to create an article on a person, it should be someone who is going to have lasting notability, not just someone who shows up in the current news cycle.--
Rusf10 (
talk)
03:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. As the person who created the article, who then argued 'keep' during the previous AfD discussion, I'd say that at those times, yes, she was notable -- in the NJ-7th, an important hotly-contested congressional district attracting national coverage -- and she had enough coverage to put her into the 'keep' zone although I'd agree it was somewhat of a borderline case before. She met the GNG but didn't meet NPOL. So in March 2018, she drops out of the race -- who can predict that -- stuff happens -- and her act of dropping out, in a real sense, invalidates the previous references and her notability. It is like she lopped off her future potential? Like, if she had stayed the fight, and lost, she would have been still notable in my view. Regardless, I'd like to add that my experience here at Wikipedia has taught me to cultivate detachment, and not get one's eyeballs glued to a particular landscape; fixedness can cripple our minds -- fluidity is good since we live in a world which changes, and we do the best that we can. She was notable, now she's not, stuff happens.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
09:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Candidacy-related coverage does not help a person meet GNG while they're still a candidate, because if it did then every candidate in any election would always pass GNG and thus be exempted from having to pass NPOL. There are exceedingly rare exceptions for candidates on the order of
Christine O'Donnell, who got so much nationalized and internationalized coverage that her article is longer than, and cites three times as many distinct sources as, the article about the actual senator that she lost to — but every candidate does not get an automatic GNG pass just because some media coverage exists in the campaign context itself, because some media coverage always exists for all candidates in that context. And there's also no such thing as temporary notability on here, either: either a person stays notable forever, or they were never really notable enough in the first place.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:09, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Right. Also,
WP:NOTTEMPORARY. There's no Wikipedia policy that supports political candidates being notable qua candidates, and then no longer being notable once they are no longer candidates. In fact, our notability guidelines are designed precisely to avoid this. Someone is either notable or they are not, it doesn't depend on whether they are active candidates in a political campaign.
Marquardtika (
talk)
17:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
If you people feel so strongly that you're right, then consider rewriting the rules. Rewrite it so that NPOL takes precedence over the GNG.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
GNG is not, and never has been, as simple as "media coverage exists so we have to keep". Lots of people get some media coverage in contexts that don't count as notability claims — as I've pointed out before, if all we had to do to get an article kept was show that two pieces of media coverage exist, and the context of why it existed didn't have to clear a notability standard because its existence was enough in and of itself, then we would have to keep an article about my mother's neighbour who got into a couple of newspapers for finding a pig in her front yard. And by the same token, an otherwise non-notable person doesn't suddenly clear GNG just because her taste in interior design got her a "look at this person's lovely furniture" spread in the Homes section of the local newspaper (a thing which has also been attempted on Wikipedia more than a few times), or because she once wrote a letter to the newspaper's food section asking for a kale recipe (which has also been tried on Wikipedia...by you, in fact.) And again, no candidate in any election would ever fail GNG if candidacy-related coverage were enough — which would mean that NPOL's provision for the non-notability of candidates would be inherently eviscerated, because every single candidate in any election could always claim that the candidacy-related coverage met GNG and thus exempted them from having to pass NPOL. So no, "media coverage exists" is not, in and of itself, an exemption from having to pass an SNG: the context in which that media coverage exists is relevant to whether the person actually passes GNG or not.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the previous keep votes were built around flawed crystal ball arguments to keep the article. The coverage before was allroutine about the candidacy, and not as Tomwsulcer claimed showing that her previous actions rose to the level of notability. He continues to show that he does not in fact understand notability, since it is not temporary.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
04:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Just saying, I could use the whole "crystal ball" arguments against your "crystal ball" arguments -- that is, supposing Weber stuck in the race, and either won the primary, congressional seat, or even lost one or both -- then she would still be notable, and she would have passed the GNG (not NPOL), and Wikipedia would have voted to keep her in (imo) if another AfD happened in the future. Like it or not, all of us make guesses all the time about whether a subject is likely to be notable in the future. And Weber's decision to quit the race (as opposed to sticking it out and losing, or sticking it out and winning) invalidated her previously notable references. She "de-notable-ized" herself by dropping out.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
We don't keep or delete articles based on what might become true in the future; we keep or delete articles based on what's already true today, and then permit recreation in the future if and when things have changed. A candidate is not notable during the campaign just because campaign coverage exists — once the election is over she becomes notable if she won it, but the fact that she might win an election that's still in the future does not count as a notability claim in and of itself. We're
WP:NOTNEWS, so happening to be present in the current news cycle is not in and of itself grounds for inclusion — a person gets a Wikipedia article only if and when they have a credible claim to have passed the
ten year test: which means holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
You're saying
WP:NPOL trumps
WP:GNG. It's established that the GNG takes precedence (even NPOL says so). But if you want to change this, argue that on the NPOL/GNG talk pages.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk) 19:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC) Also, the
WP:10YT is an essay not official policy.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
19:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Nope, that's not what I'm saying at all. GNG is not automatically passed the moment a couple of media sources happen to exist in a purely local context, but is rather a complex balancing act between the number of sources, their depth, their geographic range and whether any of them actually verify anything that would even count as a notability claim in the first place — so it is not necessary to deprecate GNG, or pit it in a contest against a subject-specific notability standard, to deem some topics as not passing GNG just because "some media coverage exists". There's no candidate in any election who ever fails to have some media coverage. So to actually make a candidate notable enough for a Wikipedia article on "fails NPOL but still passes GNG on the strength of her media coverage", it does take substantial evidence that her candidacy is exponentially more notable than most other people's candidacies. By your standards, my mother's neighbour would pass GNG for the pig incident, because media coverage of it exists — but she doesn't, because her sourceability doesn't actually have the volume, the geographic range or the encyclopedic relevance needed to warrant one.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Hmmmm, who's your mother's neighbour -- I'm looking for new article topics. :) Also, as per
WP:MOS, in your posting, you're exceeding your limit of italicized words (11). My concern is that your interpretation of the rules lends itself to us overstepping our authority -- the idea should be that the sources determine who is and isn't notable, newspaper editors, journalists, etc, not us, and when we start picking and choosing which sources we like and which we don't, we end up inserting our POV into the encyclopedia. Like, us, trying to gauge which coverage is routine (sheesh -- you've got me doing it) and which isn't, well that's us making editorial decisions, and I don't think the encyclopedia improves that way. I recommend that you consider challenging the rules on NPOL and GNG if you continue to feel as you do; or at least push the rules-writer types to clarify what's what.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
21:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I sometimes think of notability like a vector, an arrow: it's not just the present, but the present mixed with a bit of the future, as if the term being is linked with the idea of becoming. If we take a snapshot of a person, it's a still photo, but it's linked with the idea that they're alive, smiling, and will keep living in the future, and this forms part of our basis of photographing them in the present; it's the same with BLP Wikipedia articles. To use other words, what a person might do, or might become, informs our idea of what they are now, if that makes any sense. In philosophy there's this notion that there's a benefit of not getting fixated on a particular viewing angle. Intellectual detachment is healthy: fluid thinking, seeing again with new eyes, being flexible, being willing to re-think things. Seeing things in black and white, either-or, notable or non-notable, can be problematic. We live in a world which changes, so we shouldn't knot up the mainsail. We build sandcastles on shifting sands.--
Tomwsulcer (
talk)
19:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
A non-notable documentary film, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject and no sign of passing
WP:NFILM. PROD-contested by an anonymous IP whom I'm assuming is the article creator.
GSS (
talk|
c|
em)
18:28, 9 March 2018 (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.
Strong Keep. There are is international coverage of this incident. And a double stabbing attack is still exceptional in Vienna.--
Greywin (
talk)
19:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - rare event for this country. Has recieved plenty of international and natinal coverage. WP:NOTNEW does not applyfor rare incidents for particular nations. WP:CRIME and WP:GNG pretty much covers it.
BabbaQ (
talk)
07:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Do you own a crystal ball? In case of a No, then what you have stated above are pure speculations. WP:NOTNEWS does not apply per coverage and rare event.
BabbaQ (
talk)
12:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - Rarity has never equaled notability, nor do I recall a "rarity clause" in our policies so those arguments are useless. The coverage, and the brevity of it, are the exact reasons why this falls under
NOTNEWS. As of now--and that is all we are assessing--there is no
lasting significance and it does not take a
crystal ball to see the coverage is dwindling. Go write for Wikinews or stop creating these articles
too soon in the first place.
TheGracefulSlick (
talk)
14:11, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
There is still ongoing coverage.
[36][37][38]... The Austrian chancellor just commented at the case:
[39] So this is simply wrong. And I doubt anyone goes anywhere else as Wikipedia is the right place for well sourced information.--
Greywin (
talk)
18:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep per
WP:RAPID. Wide international coverage of the event. Lasting impact and coverage hard to assess as the event is new, requiring a BALL.
Icewhiz (
talk) 19:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC) Withdrawing !vote as seems coverage did not persist past 8 March.
Icewhiz (
talk)
12:02, 12 March 2018 (UTC)reply
* Keep Not only as per
WP:RAPID and because of intense international coverage, but because Prime Minister
Sebastian Kurz has now weighed in in a manner that makes this crime a significant part of his Party's anti-immigration policy.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 23:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC)Looks like just another case of an angry migrant who failed to build a life for himself, picked up a knife, got addicted to drugs, went on a deadly stabbing spree (which included a drug dealer he blamed for his addiction and an innocent family of three), but the migrant failed even to attract more than an initial flurry of press attention. Withdraw iVote. No prejudice against re-creating article if, for whatever reason, his trial, his immigration status, or some other aspect of the case attract SIGCOV.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC) see new iVote below.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Why recreate when significant coverage is ongoing. Not only the Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has weighed in, the country takes the case as a reason to change its asylum policy! If that's not significant, what is significant for you?--
Greywin (
talk)
20:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: At present I think strength of policy/guideline arguments favor deletion but consensus is pretty weak. Relisting in the hopes of getting a more definitive consensus one way or the other.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk)
00:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep. There is ongoing coverage, and a change of the policy of a country is definitely a lasting impact, even if it's disliked by some. People who ignore this obviously want to ignore and delete unwanted information.--
Greywin (
talk)
13:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - An excellent case of
WP:LASTING: «On 13 March the Austrian Interior Minister Herbert Kickl announced that Austria will change its asylum policy because of this and other incidents». WP:LASTING reads «Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation». Also, the article clearly meets both WP:SIGCOV and WP:GEOSCOPE, with coverage cited in the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom. A clearer case for Keep is rarely seen.
XavierItzm (
talk)
19:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep changing iVote in light of announced change in government policy regarding asylum seekers, described by cabinet minister as a response to this and other recent criminal acts.
E.M.Gregory (
talk)
00:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. News-type content. If the significance of the event is a change in government policy, then write an article about that policy and mention the event. Yes, I know, it is more fun to write easily sourced news rehashes about exciting stabbings than boring, intellectual overviews of policy, but that's what distinguishes an encyclopedia from a newspaper. Sandstein 08:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I can't remember a guideline that demands "boring, intellectual overviews of policy" instead of articles on notable events basing on international, reputable sources.--
Greywin (
talk)
20:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:NOTNEWS. All murders are tragic, but not all are notable. Just because this is vaguely tied to "Islamic terror" doesn't make it notable either. I find it non-credible that this and
2018 Vienna embassy stabbing are both notable as a pretext for a minor policy change on asylum (the
FPÖalready opposed immigration, etc.)
power~enwiki (
π,
ν)
17:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
A policy change is major and affects international relations, when even the upcoming EU presidency will be used for it.--
Greywin (
talk)
20:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete Basically a contradictory mish-mosh of in-universe detail, details which the shows' producers couldn't bother to keep straight and which have no notability/importance outside of that. --
Calton |
Talk15:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Except that those sources are basically in-universe, and don't demonstrate that anyone OUTSIDE of unierse-building Star Trek fans knows about or cares about this fancruft. --
Calton |
Talk02:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep There is no question that this meets
WP:Notable. Time and time again people have tried to attack articles that satisfy
WP:Notable by trying to ignore or exclude so-called "in-universe" sources. Well, by that logic, we'll never have a Wikipedia article on the
Universe or the
Planet Earth as all sources are from within our planet. In any case, if you want a non-universe source, look no further than
File:Galactic Quadrant Star Trek.png, which is based on a map produced by the
Canadian Galactic Plane Survey, which, for fun, plotted various Star Trek civilizations and the Star Trek Galactic quadrants on their star map. I have seen countless non-Star Trek films/TV shows which may use the term "Alpha quadrant" as a nod to Star Trek in a similar manner. Finally, the simple fact that
this article is available in over a dozen different languages demonstrates that it is inherently notable. It would be ridiculous for an article to be available in so many languages but not in English. —
CodeHydro12:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Your form of logic is a rather bizarre misuse of the term "
in-universe". To help you out:
An in-universe perspective describes the narrative (or a fictional element of the narrative, such as characters, places, groups, and lore) from the vantage of characters within the
fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring
real-world context and sourced analysis. Many fan wikis and fan websites (see
below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles. An in-universe perspective can be misleading to the reader, who may have trouble differentiating between fact and fiction within the article. Furthermore, articles with an in-universe perspective are more likely to include
unverifiableoriginal research due to reliance on the primary source. Most importantly, in-universe perspective defies community consensus as to
what we do not want Wikipedia to be[emphasis added].
If the only evidence you're providing for "galactic quadrants" being noticed OUTSIDE of Star Trek fandom is an explicitly "for fun" (your term) reference to Star Trek on a map, then you're making my case for me. --
Calton |
Talk17:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Are we really comparing the actual UNIVERSE, REAL LIFE to a fictional concept and using that to negate the very concept of "in-universe sources"? I think you might need to get a reality check.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)17:49, 12 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The comment about in-universe was made in jest. In any case, you are choosing to ignoring the single most compelling argument is the fact that the Star Trek Galactic Quadrant has dedicated articles in over a dozen language Wikipedias. This by itself shows notability, and again, it would be absurd for something to appear in so many languages but not English. —
CodeHydro12:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
No, no it doesn't. In fact that's the very definition of
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The other language Wikipedias tend to be far more lenient about fancruft since there are simply less people to patrol them and source them. There is nothing odd about an article being deleted in English as it likely means the others should be deleted but haven't yet.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)21:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
I believe this used to be a cleaner article but at some point, looking at the
Talk:Galactic quadrant (Star Trek), another article was merged into it haphazardly which caused it to become cluttered the way it is today. It needs to be cleaned up and re-organized. I think this is too influential a concept in science fiction to be turned into a mere item on a list. —
CodeHydro12:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Your first claim, that it became a meme, has no proof. Just being placed on a shirt does not make something a meme, it has to actually have popularity notable enough to mention in the press, which it very likely doesn't. The second one is a contributor written article, meaning it's not a reliable source. The third isn't even related to quadrants used in Star Trek. The fourth is a single quote from a show, which is pure trivia. None of the added items count towards the article's notability.ZXCVBNM (
TALK)21:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable judge. Usually Wikipedia articles about circuit court judges exist only if the judge presided over a notable criminal case or went viral which Judge Roller did neither. Also the article is poorly sourced.
Otis the Texan (
talk) --
Otis the Texan (
talk)
03:06, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. Judges at the trial court level of the court system are not inherently notable, per
WP:JUDGE. The article has no sources other than the government press release announcing the subject's appointment as a judge. --
Metropolitan90(talk)05:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somebody can actually show much more solid
reliable sourcing. Judges are considered notable if they can be shown to pass
WP:GNG, but are not handed an automatic inclusion freebie, or an exemption from having to pass GNG, just because the government's press release announcing their appointment to the court technically verifies that they exist.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete Searches show only the sort of
WP:ROUTINE coverage that we would ordinarily expect of a circuit court judge. No indication that there is anything unusual to this judge's notability under GNG or the applicable SNG.
Eggishorn(talk)(contrib)23:12, 19 March 2018 (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.