Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 25
- A request for adminship is open for discussion.
- Administrator recall
- Review of the RfA discussion-only period
- ArbCom election RFC 2024
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim Wallerstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject in order to sufficiently establish notability. The subject has been in several non-notable bands. Unable to verify his role in the one band that he has been in (according to the article), Das Damen, that has a degree of notability because there are no reliable sources linking him to the band. The band's biography at Allmusic and in The Great Indie Discography don't even mention him. The only thing about the subject that is verifiable is his relationship with Bebe Buell, but notability is not inherited. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources for notability JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Das Damen. Every bit of writeup I can find really mentions him in passing as the husband of Buell. The reliable sources are behind pay walls but the snippets available from this Gnews search confirm he was previously with Das Damen. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anya Selecki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable actress lacking Ghits and GNews of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom's notability concerns. Article was created by a single purpose account, who was likely an alternate account of User:Anya selecki (see user page for an exact replica of this article). Most likely a self-promotional autobiography. SnottyWong chat 23:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ttonyb,
I know anya for many years, and I was the one who noticed that every bozo in Number96 has full wiki pages.
I suggested to her to to create something more complete then "non existing/no info available".
If you think that "no info available" is more valuable then Anya's bio, then I cant help it.
Your the Admin, your call
Regards, Ralf Rweger (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No sign of notability. - Darwinek (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
August 27, 2010
Dear Wikipedia Administration:
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: Deletion Discussion of Wiki Main Page: ‘Anya Selecki’
In all due respect, before I begin a point by point premise for your consideration, I would like to pose a poignant question: If after the seven day discussion, you do decide to delete the page, ‘Anya Selecki’, are you going to follow through by deleting Wiki Main Pages titled: ‘Dina Mann’, ‘Candy Raymond’, Harry Michaels’, ‘Michael Thompson’ ...? I could add more to this list but I do not wish to waste time by belaboring a point. These people (actors, writers, actors/writers/models) have their main pages in Wikipedia. They worked in Australia, in and for approximately the same time range as Anya Selecki. In fact some of them co starred with her in a number of the same top rating television shows i.e. ‘Number 96’, ‘The Paul Hogan Shows’, (where Anya Selecki (Saleky) was a repeated guest artist), ‘Alvin Purple’ as well as a number of other very well known nationally aired programs.
1. Anya Selecki (stage name Anya Saleky) was a ‘Number 96’ long standing, full time, five night per week/ an hour each night / contracted actor with a nation wide fan club (one that over the years has aged, but not forgotten their past T.V. friends)..
2. ‘Number 96’ has aired on American N.Y. Cable at the close of the last century, and more recently, in the past decade, it aired in Italy, making it a more or less ongoing, present day venture for ‘long standing’ encyclopedic entry.
3. In The Wiki pages, ‘Paul Hogan Shows’ and ‘Number 96’, the name Anya Saleky is noted, a description of her work is given, and a link on her name is made available, yet it leads to a non existent page ‘Anya Saleky’.
4. In early August 2010, I attempted to see how Wiki worked by creating a page: ‘Anya Selecki., stage name Anya Saleky’. This was a test. It was deleted by Tyrol5 on 08August, 2010. (for lack of citation issues)
5. I ‘talked’ with ‘Tyrol5’ on the talk page and received a kind response from ‘Rje’ to go ahead, keeping in mind the need for references, citations, neutrality and non promotion.
6. I followed this advice and created a page, ‘User: Anya Selecki’, with 30, (thirty) references.
7. I also made certain to include ‘live’ present day people references i.e. Mr. Kevin Sadlier, a very well known Australian entertainment journalist and columnist of many years standing who, (due to his professional visits to my home), knew of the caliber of my celebrity and of my real name, Anya Selecki.
8. On August 24, 2010, not wanting to double up on information, I redirected the non existent ‘Anya Saleky’ page, to the ‘User Anya Selecki (stage name Anya Saleky) page’. Even though I had been studying the Wiki guidelines and ‘help pages’ , I omitted to see that a redirect cannot be made to a user page. The 'Anya Saleky' page was deleted by Todst1 on 24 August, 2010. (due to redirect issues)
9. After reading Todst1’s reasoning and advisement, on August 25, 2010, I placed a ‘hang on template’ on the deleted ‘Saleky Page’ together with a note on the ‘tyrol5 talk space’ re the ‘Anya Selecki Talk page’. The note gives an alternate method, with textual explanation, for how I had thought of proceeding with the 'Anya Saleky' page, and asking for further administrative advisement. (this note has to date not been answered)
10. Todst1 on 24 August, 2010 (above #9) also made reference to BLP’s (Biographical Living People), that they are more appropriately written by people other than themselves.
11. Dr. Ralf Weger, (Wiki Editor: Rweger), a Doctor of Science, a Geophysicist at the Rosenstiel Campus of UM (The University of Miami), was in fact the person who supervised and indeed under -wrote the entire Anya Selecki (stage name Anya Saleky) project.
12. After seeing the problematic procedural issues that the project incurred, he took precious time from his heavy work load and accepted to come forth, to become a Wiki editor and actually submit the page himself, giving his credentials (his website and CV) along with his signature and his support.
13. As a result, on the 25 August , 2010, his article ‘Anya Selecki’, which he placed on the main page has been listed for a Deletion Discussion. ( as per administrator ttonyb for ‘non notable actress lacking Ghits and GNew‘, and per administrator, SnottyWong, for notability concerns as well as, ‘Article was created by a single purpose account, who was likely an alternate account of User; Anya selecki, (see user page for an exact replica of this article). Most likely a self promotional autobiography.’
14. Surely you do not plan to delete the other (above mentioned) main pages i.e. that of ‘Dina Mann’ etc. and other notable members of the ‘Number 96 ‘cast, of ‘The Paul Hogan Shows’, of the ‘Alvin Purple Series’ ... etc., (ref Ms. Snotty and ttonyb ‘non notability’ comments)
15. Surely you do not plan to delete every main page of an actor, writer or artist who places his/her web site as an external link, calling it self promotional?
16. Surely Mr. John Cornell (producer, actor and writer of Paul Hogan projects) who references and links his businessman’s website on the first paragraph of his Main page ‘John Cornell’, or Mr. Sylvester Stallone (ditto), with his informative tables, cannot be seen as self promotional?
17. Surely you would agree with the millions of Wiki users, world wide, that these personal websites links are in keeping with the helpful online nature of Wikipedia’s Encyclopedic format, and, that they, together with the expanded biographical CV’s give added ethical credence to these Wiki pages.
I have respect for Wikipedia.
Due to my administrative, editorial experience in educational institutions, (which were not listed on the ‘Anya Selecki’ page so as not to overly distract from the artistic content), I am confident, in view of all the above appropriate considerations, that you, who administer in the best interests of the community, including of course in the valid interests of its Australian readers and contributors, will find that the main page ‘Anya Selecki', (with its inbuilt redirection from the non existent page ‘Anya Saleky') is in keeping with Wikipedia’s Encyclopedic, ethical, honest and informative mission.
Sincerely,
Anya Selecki
Anya selecki (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)— Anya selecki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - This page provides some background.WP:ENTERTAINER indicates that significant roles in multiple works would establish notability. It's unclear how significant the #96 roles was, but as far as I can see, the others aren't significant. As an author, I can find no indication that the books have even been published. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Though she technically does not seem to meet the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER, I suspect many other once popular/publicised television actors that have wikipedia articles don't really meet the strict criteria either (off the top of my head Beth Maitland, Lisa Whelchel). Salecki played a leading regular role in popular night time serial Number 96 (TV series) for almost a year and made some appearances in The Paul Hogan Show. Salecki was considered a sex symbol and received publicity in magazines like TV Week. Format (talk) 05:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Considering the amount of trivial TV-related topics that have Wikipedia pages, I am stunned why this one in particular is flagged for deletion. Anya Saleky was a prominent performer in a prime-time TV series Number 96, which itself was a hugely successful and ground-breaking television production in Australia. I don't see why this article should be deleted and other more trivial pages are left unscathed. Andjb (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The existence of another article has no bearing on this AfD, each article must stand on it on merits. If those other articles do not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion you are more than welcome to nominate them for deletion; however, I would avoid doing this to make a point. ttonyb (talk) 06:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There does not seem to be consensus for deletion here. RJ4 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Funny, I see plenty of consensus. ttonyb (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jennifer Strahl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the information in this contested prod to sufficiently establish notability. The subject is the Department Chair of a prep school which is not sufficient for WP:PROF. Without available sources this WP:BLP does not appear to pass WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Lack of sources indicating notability JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. And I'm also jealous that she's had her picture taken with Jamie and Adam from Mythbusters. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only notability assertion seems to be that this person chairs the science dept in a secondary school – not notable per se. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian Association of Live Steamers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article originally deleted under A7 and challenged. Asserted to fail notability per WP:CLUB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 Andaman Islands earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am renominating this article for deletion per WP:NOTNEWS. This article is not of lasting significance or nobility. There were no deaths or injuries, but only "minor damages to buildings." This article is just another news report. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the all-but-unanimous outcome and sound analysis in the initial AFD discussion, which closed fewer than 90 days ago. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If it was notable 90 days ago, it's still notable now (notability is not temporay). Meets WP:GNG with the sources. Lugnuts (talk) 06:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per discussion at 1st AfD. and please do not re nominate without any NEW persuasive reasoning.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact is, there is no lasting significance; no deaths, damage, or injuries. What makes this remotely significant is its high magnitude, but that alone should not determine whether an earthquake is notable. Unlike the Haitian earthquake, earlier this year, there's no tragedy, there's nothing left by the earthquake, except memories of its occurrence and a few reports. Earthquakes are routinely reported by wire services. As you can see from the USGS map, the shaking caused by the 'quake was light in most areas, save one where it strong and about two where it was moderate. —Mikemoral♪♫ 00:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- and you think a reader researching earthquakes in that area 10 years from now would not be interested in this event ?? just because you personally think that this has no lasting impact or importance does not mean everyone else feels the same. notability is inherently subjective. their is no "notability meter" we can plug in and get an accurate reading everytime so we have to rely on what the consensus is.--Wikireader41 (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An earthquake researcher will always have geological institutions at his or her own side. The United States Geological Survey have an earthquake search feature, starting from 1994, it seems. Canadian researchers can use the Canadian Earthquake Database, the California Geological Survey offers a database of Californian earthquakes, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration offers a database of earthquakes significant to geographers and researches. As a side note, the NOAA's database would not have this Andaman earthquake; it states as it's criteria for determining significant earthquakes as more than 7.5 magnitude, more than US$1 million in damage, ten or more deaths, Modified Mercalli Intensity X or greater, or the 'quake generated a tsunami, only one of these true. Back to my original argument, an earthquake researcher would not use Wikipedia as his or her source but rather one of the many institutions for the research of such occurrences. An earthquake to be notable, should cause damage and/or human injury and death. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes but we want WP to be the best online resource that people have whether they are researching earthquakes or floods etc. for most topics with articles on WP just Googling will provide oodles of info. should we just shut down WP ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive listing of all events that have occurred. Wikipedia has notability criteria for a reason. Anything newsworthy is not necessarily noteworthy. There are certain things Wikinews is not and according to that list, Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a news agency. News articles are reserved for inclusion on sister project Wikinews. There are thousands of earthquakes each day. Should we just include an article for each earthquake from now on? Seems rather pointless when we have those aforementioned sources for geological studies. The Unites States Geological Survey is also a source for flood information. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all earthquakes. This one was 7.5 Richter which is pretty rare and notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. see Oakshade's comments below--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive listing of all events that have occurred. Wikipedia has notability criteria for a reason. Anything newsworthy is not necessarily noteworthy. There are certain things Wikinews is not and according to that list, Wikipedia is not the news, nor is it a news agency. News articles are reserved for inclusion on sister project Wikinews. There are thousands of earthquakes each day. Should we just include an article for each earthquake from now on? Seems rather pointless when we have those aforementioned sources for geological studies. The Unites States Geological Survey is also a source for flood information. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yes but we want WP to be the best online resource that people have whether they are researching earthquakes or floods etc. for most topics with articles on WP just Googling will provide oodles of info. should we just shut down WP ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment An earthquake researcher will always have geological institutions at his or her own side. The United States Geological Survey have an earthquake search feature, starting from 1994, it seems. Canadian researchers can use the Canadian Earthquake Database, the California Geological Survey offers a database of Californian earthquakes, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration offers a database of earthquakes significant to geographers and researches. As a side note, the NOAA's database would not have this Andaman earthquake; it states as it's criteria for determining significant earthquakes as more than 7.5 magnitude, more than US$1 million in damage, ten or more deaths, Modified Mercalli Intensity X or greater, or the 'quake generated a tsunami, only one of these true. Back to my original argument, an earthquake researcher would not use Wikipedia as his or her source but rather one of the many institutions for the research of such occurrences. An earthquake to be notable, should cause damage and/or human injury and death. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG. 7.5 is an extremely strong earthquake. There is no WP:MUSTBEDEATHS guideline in our notability standards.--Oakshade (talk) 05:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per WP:GNG. KuwarOnline Talk 06:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete It was notable once, probably that day, but not anymore. Earthquakes happen every day, and not many of them are notable. It is strong, but didn't cause damage and has no historical significance. And Wikipedia is not the news, use Wikinews for that. Diego Grez (talk) 02:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you a geophysicist or seismologist (presumably with the credentials) and have determined that this large seismic event is totally irrelevant to the study, recording and analysis of tectonics, geology and prediction of future activity, particularly in the Indian Plate? If so, please send your research and findings to various research institutions such as the Geological Survey of India, United States Geological Survey and Geoscience Australia, just to name a few so they won't have to spend valuable time and resources studying this event. They will be very interested in your work. I would also congratulate you on achieving such vast scientific knowledge and insight at age 16. --Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep even the guy !voting strong delete concedes that it was notable at one time; and notability is not temporary, hence it's still notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: At present the article only has two sources, both from the day after the event. To meet WP:EVENT it needs to show lasting coverage. Does any exist, and if so can someone present it here? Alzarian16 (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sulaimaniya hotel fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Yet another news report. Note: previously PROD'd —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Happened on the 15th, it's now the 29th and there has been no coverage for days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:54, 29 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 British Columbia avalanche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS and this is non-notable. Only two deaths, and written in a news-like style. This is just another news report. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable event. Submit these articles to Wikinews. Diego Grez (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per previous delete votes. Stuff like this should go on WikiNews, and there's lots in articles that are bona fide that's similarly more properly in WikiNews than here. As a side note, there were dozens of avalanches in British Columbia in the same winter, but none taking out so-called "victims" (these were people who were running snowmobiles around cornices as an extreme sport, something like kicking a grizzly and then complaining you got mauled...). If the avalanche had destroyed a town, or taken out a highway as with the Hope Slide, fine....but this is a non-notable and rather self-induced event, and only notable because it made headlines; it wasn't an act of god, but rather of human foible; not that that's the reason for deletion, exactly....but it's not like every single traffic pile-up in North America needs its own article....Skookum1 (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Comment A good guide for Wikinews vs Wikipedia (or both) as the home for a page about an event, is whether or not it is likely to receive subsequent coverage. This one seems unlikely to for now, so ought to go, but if it does end up getting substantial subsequent coverage (which is plausible) then it should be open to recreation. TheGrappler (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. The one keep argument has little grounding in policy, against the consensus that this violates several of them. Courcelles 20:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Nigel nursing home fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Fires are common occurrences. Just because this fire occurred does not make it significant. 22 deaths is tragic, but not necessarily notable. Not of lasting significance. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable event. Diego Grez (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - I respectfully disagree. Any fire in a nursing home that killed 22 residents, most of whom were "burned alive in their beds," is noteworthy. The blaze was reported in worldwide news sources, which increases its claim to notability. Had nobody died in the conflagration, or even just one or two persons, I would agree with Mikemoral. However, this high of a death toll rates an article on the subject, in my opinion. But this is just my opinion; nothing more.- Ecjmartin (talk) 23:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. The death of 22 humans is tragic and sad, but there is no evidence of lasting impact and Wikipedia is not memorial site. The event may be "newsworthy", but not "noteworthy". Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per above comments. - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If it was featured on DYK, it's notable. As for the claim that there was no lasting impact, the event only happened earlier this month.SPNic (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not necessarily notable. By that statement, it seems you'd be in favor of an article for each building fire, no matter the cause or consequences. —Mikemoral♪♫ 15:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant delete. It's a shame to have to delete a well developed article such as this, but there has simply not been enough coverage to sustain it. We're neither a news service nor a memorial site. The event, while tragic, has had no ongoing coverage and one small spike in news coverage is not enough to sustain an article on an event. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AIRES Flight 8250 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Just another news report on a plane crash. One death, not notable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable event. Diego Grez (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not the news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mergemove details to Boeing 737 Next Generation#Accidents and incidents and redirect there. Does not appear to meet criteria at WP:AIRCRASH. -fnlayson (talk) 00:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Accident is a hull loss. Considering the aircraft broke up and only one death occurred, the article probably should be kept. -fnlayson (talk) 15:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The fact that it led to the aircraft being written off, as well as the extensive coverage surrounding the incident, which would seem to be enough to meet WP:EVENT, WP:GNG, what have you, and the fact that an investigation into is under way, which would guarantee additional coverage of the incident in the future, meaning it's not just a single flurry of news reports, all seem to me to be enough to keep it. C628 (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - Accident is notable enough in that almost everyone survived despite the damage to the aircraft. Meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria A3 and (apparently also) L2. V x RS x many = N. Mjroots (talk) 05:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Aircraft written-off, one casualty despite the aircraft being broken into at least three pieces. Given that an investigation is underway, there should be continuing coverage in the future, but if not, an AFD could be re-filed in a few months. - BilCat (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:GNG with all the WP:RS in the article. Lugnuts (talk) 06:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Hull loss, international investigation, sufficient coverage is guaranteed LeadSongDog come howl! 14:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per BilCat--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The accident was notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a simple airplane crash. News services regularly report on airplane crashes. Since when is a simple airplane crash of historical significance? Do the news agencies' reports create notability? Will anyone care about or remember this crash one month from today? One year? A decade? A century? I doubt it. A loss of a human life is tragic, but not notable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:13, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Accident investigation agencies do reports and find flaws in training, procedure, and design. Each crash (even if it isn't fatal) is analyzed for possible clues on how to prevent it from happening. This process, and the coverage in news media, makes many crashes notable.
- "Will anyone care about or remember this crash one month from today? One year? A decade? A century? I doubt it" - Oh, yes they will. Track a major crash (JAL 123, etc. and the effect continues and continued and continues) - Even crashes with less fatalities have the same thing
- WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because airplane accident occurred, it should have an article irregardless of cause or consequence? Any plane crash is notable, according to you. Plane crashes may be tragic, but they lack notability. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Continuing, many news services report on crashes once. From what I see on Google News, there was two days of converge: August 16 and 17. Take a look at WP:109PAPERS. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of that article is that a news event alone is not automatically notable even if it is covered in 109 papers without other evidence of notability (analysis and connections to broader events). However, Mikemoral, plane crashes don't just get covered in 109 newspapers. They have accident reports written about them. Laws change. Airworthiness directives are passed. Changes in procedure occur. Lawsuits get filed and people may go to prison. Companies may go bankrupt. Almost all fatal air accidents have long-lasting consequences and non-trivial, non-news only coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't that also make automobile accidents notable? When there's crashes, police are called and write accident reports. Those reports make their way to the various government agencies and over time (using California as an example), an agency such as Caltrans may decide it is necessary to install a traffic signal or perhaps alter the speed limit. My point is the most accidents whether it be an aircraft or automobile is not automatically notable because reports are written; there must be direct effects to legislature and here it's not exactly the case. Notability cannot be determined within the week of the air crash, but within a year if there is still lasting significance to the incident, then it is most likely notable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it doesn't make automobile accidents automatically notable. This is because there are millions of those across the world every year, as opposed to airliner write-offs being numbered in the tens each year. Even if we include GA, Biz-jets and military losses (not saying we should), numbers would be unlikely to breach the low thousands at most. Mjroots (talk) 08:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: While it is not exactly the news, many news stories are certainly notable, like this one. Plus there will be continuing coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal A Wikipedia project should be set up to assess what articles and what article characteristics receive and do not receive sustained rather than transient independent IP address viewer hits to establish objective criteria for WP:NOTNEWS. In the case of an article like AIRES Flight 8250 where there are doubts, there should be an option to keep but subject to review in 12 months time that it receives more than a certain number of independent IP address view hits.--LittleHow (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but I fail to se how IP viewer hits are even relevant here. The subject hasn't even come up in the above discussions. - BilCat (talk) 19:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Hull-loss accident with deaths.--HyperSonic X (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, could you give more of a rationale behind this keep !vote? —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Furthermore, what makes hull loss accidents automatically notable? Can you point me to the policy? —Mikemoral♪♫ 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But there is an investigation under way and the aircraft was written off.--HyperSonic X (talk) 10:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep. This was the first hull loss of the 737-700 type, AND there is a focus on the fact that the low death count may have been due to the design of the aircraft. And unlike most similar accidents, the international coverage does go beyond simple wire reprints to focus on those aspects, albeit in the news values way of calling it a 'miracle' etc. That in my book adds up to historical signifance and notability. But this is only a week keep however, and I could easily be swayed into a merge, as the sources and the article still do not appear to be reflecting these aspects adequately to take the article beyond what is still is pretty much a news report. That and the fact that I do not want to endorse the flat-wrong opinions of those people arguing keep here simply because it was a hull loss, or that there is an investigation ongoing - these facts do not confer automatic notability or address NOT#NEWS concerns. If people disagree with that, then propose it as a guideline on VPP with a proper justification as to how such a guideline would not inherently violate NOT#NEWS or even NOT#INFO. MickMacNee (talk) 14:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep the whole shebang. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone in the Teeth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- The First Day of School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Keep the Ends Out (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- The Outsider (Rubicon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Connect the Dots (Rubicon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete all - individual episodes do not have independent reliable sources that establish notability separate from the series. The only sources are unreliable blogs. The pilot did get some coverage at the A.V. Club site but recent AFDs of Boondocks episodes seen here and here indicate that an AV Club review by itself does not establish notability. The articles also violate WP:PLOT as consisting almost entirely of plot summaries. The episodes are covered in appropriate detail at List of Rubicon episodes and since none of this material is referenced it is unsuitable for merger. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as in-depth coverage of individual episodes by reliable third party sources is available. That this coverage and critical reaction all need to be integrated into the articles is a matter for tagging, not deletion. I list some example sources below. - Dravecky (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1.01
- Roberts, Soraya (August 2, 2010). "'Rubicon' episode 1 series premiere: Will Travers is 'Gone in the Teeth' on AMC". New York Daily News. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Carabott, Chris (June 14, 2010). "Rubicon: "Pilot" Review; Can AMC find continued success with this fascinating new conspiracy thriller?". IGN. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Marnell, Blair (August 5, 2010). "RUBICON 1.01 & 1.02 'Gone In The Teeth'". CraveOnline. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Ray, Rachel (August 17, 2010). "Rubicon, AMC's masterful new espionage series, cracks the code for making intelligent TV". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- VanDerWerff, Todd (June 14, 2010). "Rubicon: Gone in the Teeth". The A.V. Club. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- 1.02
- Stanhope, Kate (August 2, 2010). "Rubicon Achieves Biggest Series Premiere in AMC History". TV Guide. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Greenwald, Andy (August 2, 2010). "Rubicon Recap: Crimson and Clover". New York. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Gilmor, Alison (August 14, 2010). "Boys vs. men: New conspiracy series delves into differences among boomers, Gen Xers and millennials". Winnipeg Free Press. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Carabott, Chris (August 2, 2010). "Rubicon: "The First Day of School" Review". IGN. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- VanDerWerff, Todd (August 1, 2010). "Rubicon: The First Day of School". The A.V. Club. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- 1.03
- Greenwald, Andy (August 8, 2010). "Rubicon Recap: Inside Baseball". New York. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Scott, Kelly (August 9, 2010). "'Rubicon': Hardly a rushing river". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Carabott, Chris (August 9, 2010). "Rubicon: "Keep the Ends Out" Review". IGN. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- VanDerWerff, Todd (August 8, 2010). "Rubicon: Keep the Ends Out". The A.V. Club. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- 1.04
- Scott, Kelly (August 16, 2010). "'Rubicon:' Taking a timeout from the central conspiracy". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Greenwald, Andy (August 16, 2010). "Rubicon Recap: Missile Crisis". New York. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Carabott, Chris (August 16, 2010). "Rubicon: "The Outsider" Review". IGN. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- VanDerWerff, Todd (August 15, 2010). "Rubicon: The Outsider". The A.V. Club. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- 1.05
- Strachan, Alex (August 22, 2010). "Rubicon -- spies for thinkers". Times-Colonist. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Greenwald, Andy (August 23, 2010). "Rubicon Recap: Tumbleweed Connection". New York. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- VanDerWerff, Todd (August 23, 2010). "Rubicon: Connect the Dots". The A.V. Club. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Scott, Kelly (August 23, 2010). "Rubicon: That's a lot of dots to connect". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 26, 2010.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all the above sources demonstrate that the nomination is simply factually inaccurate: there are plenty of sources to meet the GNG for each episode. Jclemens (talk) 17:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all per above sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but propose for merger on talkpage. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue, but WP:NOT#PLOT is. Tag appropriately and wait how the articles develop. – sgeureka t•c 08:10, 27 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- David L. Dunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no specific news references which discuss the bio of this individual as a person. He is just associated with notable clients. Wikipedia is not an advertising or promotional source and the creators seem to be single purpose accounts. Whereas many sports agents represent notable clientele only few rise to the level of notability themselves. Musketeer00 (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete At least until I find some stand alone articles about this subject and not just quotes from him about other notable clients. Musketeer00 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete an agent, not a player. Doesn't meet general notability guideline.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sourcing doesn't suggest notability requisite for a wikipedia article.--SephiusIV (talk) (SephiusIV (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2010 (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 -- Y not? 17:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Andrew Kessler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There are no specific news references which discuss the bio of this individual as a person. He is just associated with notable clients. Wikipedia is not an advertising or promotional source and the creators seem to be single purpose accounts. Whereas many sports agents represent notable clientele only few rise to the level of notability themselves. Musketeer00 (talk)
That is not true, there are numerous specific news references listed from reputable websites such as ESPN.Com, and Profootballtalk.com which specificlaly discuss the person and his notoriety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsmoothe (talk • contribs) 22:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cannot see his notability at Profootball as sugessted.
Victuallers (talk) 15:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Bigsmoothe you are correct but regrettably the articles (several needed) would have to be about the agent himself stand alone articles not quotes from him about other notable clients. Musketeer00 (talk)
- Delete 'cmon, tell me these aren't advertisements...--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Pro Football Talk article is mainly about Kessler himself and his impact on his company and his industry when he made the move there, it is not him talking about his clients. Also, the NFL.Com Article shown through Zoom (which only cannot be linked directly to NFL.Com because NFL Reporter Adam Schefter no longer works there and thus his articles are no longer up) has a part which is specifically about Kessler as well. Additionally, he has added notoriety because his father is so well known in the sports business world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigsmoothe (talk • contribs) 18:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Paul McDonald. The tone of article is self-promoting, written poorly and just not enough good sourcing to substantiate a wikipedia inclusion. (SephiusIV (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Delete A man doing a job. He negotiates contracts. The notability (if any) of his clients does not rub off. Peridon (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2010 (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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- Perry D Cox (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't seem notable, single-ref essay, main contributor is an SPA, etc. Note: has been PRODded before, but removed without explanation. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is a lot of cruft that needs to be cleaned from this article, but it does make some significant assertions of notability--for example the coverage of his work in Us and Forbes. There is a significant coterie of influential, notable Beatles experts who are primarily self-published (see, for example, Allan Kozin, "A Book Publisher, Beatlemaniacs? Why Don't You Do It on Your Own?", New York Times, December 26, 2006). However, Cox isn't mentioned in that NYT article and I am not sure that the 2 older articles mentioned above are enough to get him over the hump, WP:N-wise. Some additional reviews or coverage of him or his work in mainstream media might do it, though, if such could be found.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a notice of this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As written, a possible speedy as G11, promotional. It's possible an article could be written, but Idon't know the subject well enough to attempt it. I'd suggest starting over. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject (and as far as I can tell, his books) lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 13:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain. I think this subject is worthy of being retained in Wikipedia. It's obvious has established himself in the field of Beatles collectibles. I don't feel he should be deleted because many of his sources were prior to the digital age leaving him no choice but to rely on printed material for many of his verification sources. Forbes magazine and many others along with his many published works over the years should well justify his being here. 3 of his published books were published by Ballantine/Random House in New York City. No small feat there. Of his 8 books, only 3 were self published.Bingbing4321 (talk) 01:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Bingbing4321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep This Article My vote is to keep this page. One of the great things about our community is the fact that entrepreneurs like this subject can have a place where hard work and dedication in fields other than the USA today mainstream have a place to be recognized. I'm not suggesting we allow "the cleanest janitor" or "fastest cab drivers" to be posted here, but if authors of certain fields with this many credits and works to his name can't be appreciated here, then we find ourselves sticking with "Lincoln" and "Kennedy" text like the printed chronicles and tomes of old. I should hope that if I dedicated myself to this much fine work, there would be a place where people of like interests could learn of it.Kyderby4321 (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Kyderby4321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Retain. Since Wikipedia covers collectibles, since the Beatles are widely collected, since investors in Beatles records often make the news, and since Beatles collecting is already mentioned in Wikipedia as noteworthy, the principal author of the Beatles Price Guide is deserving of his own feature. Since Wikipedia has a feature on Overstreet (albeit a stub) -- one which is not being targeted for deletion despite citing no sources, Perry D. Cox deserves a similar article. British author Mark Lewisohn has only a few major books to his credit (along with interviews, forewords, and articles), but he is certainly noteworthy. Likewise Bruce Spizer, who often works with Cox, is noteworthy as a Beatles author. For almost 30 years, Cox's price guides have been the standard both for information about Beatles records, and for identifying counterfeits, and for pricing. He is referenced by hundreds of ads on eBay (that are not his own). Namralos (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not omit I see this is a valid article. Indeed, a few more modern sources would be nice, but as mentioned above, the subject of this article has clearly been writing and heavily involved with the subject for nearly 30 years. Perhaps, more than any other individual that I can think of after reading here. As such, I don't see this article as 'self promotion" either since he offers nothing for sale here. No links for purchases. It's a fine line between "self promotion" and "establishing notable qualification". If the article were just touting where to buy products, etc.., that would be one thing, but this is a case where I feel the article is establishing credibility and notability. I feel this page should be a welcome resource for Wikipedia.Pdjbb (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Promotional article about a non-notable figure. I can't find any sources on this gentleman that qualify under WP:N PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Retain -This subject is actually very notable in his field. A Google search brings up many references to his works. His name suffers from being the same as the TV show "Scrubs" character so the information by be harder to locate because of that, but it is there to be found and verified.Bingbing4321 (talk) 18:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Bingbing4321 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Keep - I have cleaned out the worst of the unsourced hype. In his field this guy seems notable enough. I think that the references, taken together, are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if kept, there will be a good more to remove : excessive use of his name (18 time in he article, not counting the notes & bibliography); paragraphs giving general explanation of autograph collecting and similar subjects serving to build up his importance; tributes to him on blog pages or DVD jackets; at least three completely unsourced paragraphs claiming him an expert in one or another facet. It is this sort of material that characterizes an article as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reduced the number of Cox's to 11 in the body of the article and removed two more instances of unsourced claims to be an expert. I think further editorial work is better done by someone with knowledge of the field. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if kept, there will be a good more to remove : excessive use of his name (18 time in he article, not counting the notes & bibliography); paragraphs giving general explanation of autograph collecting and similar subjects serving to build up his importance; tributes to him on blog pages or DVD jackets; at least three completely unsourced paragraphs claiming him an expert in one or another facet. It is this sort of material that characterizes an article as promotional. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. After reviewing most of the sources in the article, I have been unable to find nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. The sources are mostly unreliable/primary or don't even mention the subject in the body of the article (there is a brief mention in the caption of a picture). I haven't been able to find evidence that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability. Because most of the article is cited to passing mentions or to articles that don't mention the subject, Wikipedia:Verifiability is violated.
If, in the future, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources of this person can be found, I would support recreation. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My gut says Keep. Weak, but still keep it. Nolelover 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a policy-based reason for keeping the article. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I say that because I'm not sure how many of the sources are reliable ones. The article does appear to be fairly neutral, and the man notable within his field though, so I say weak keep. That better? Nolelover 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Many of the sources provided in the article are reliable (e.g. links to the newspaper clippings). However, of the ones I looked at, none provided significant coverage of the subject. Have any of the sources you looked at provided significant coverage of Perry D Cox? Cunard (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the sense that the NY Times hsn't done a full-page story on him - no. However, most of the article, specifically when you look at it sentence by sentence, instead of the whole thing at one time, is sourced reliably, and that's why I would keep it. "Significant coverage" is very subjective. For a guy like this, I'm surprised there's this much. Nolelover 14:31, 2 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pervez Bilgrami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find any evidence that a novelist by this name exists, which would seem to be a pretty good reason to delete the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've now found this, which suggests he might right online "novels". I doubt he meets WP:Notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. The awards he received are not significant. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alexandra Bradshaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable artist stub lacking reliable secondary sources. No assertion of notability per WP:ARTIST. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since the article is < 1 hour old, it's just a little hard to have done more than create a stub with a single source. A little help sifting G-hits would be appreciated. Since she died in 1981, the effort is a little more difficult. I got an edit conflict with Ucle G's adf nom just copyediting and adding cat's. Dlohcierekim 20:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I really tried to rescue this. I wanted it to be notable. The only thing I've got is the source the original creator copy pasted from. (Follow the link. If anyone thinks there's notability there I missed . . .) Willing to keep an open mind if I missed anything. Dlohcierekim 20:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - this is the only survivor of ten articles created within an hour yesterday by now-blocked Calwater (talk · contribs) on behalf of californiawatercolor.com where their works are displayed and reproductions may be bought. All the others were speedied as copyvios; Dlohcierekim stubbed this one in a valiant but, it seems, probably doomed effort to save it. JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral/Comment Google Books has some references, but basically they confirm her existence. Searching in more specialized historical news databases shows that her watercolors were exhibited during the WWII era, usually as parts of travelling exhibitions (Gnews will give you the cites; as for the articles themselves, email me - I'll be happy to provide to any interested). In my opinion, she falls squarely on the borderline as far as WP:ARTIST is concerned. RayTalk 04:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with Ray, but fall on the side of keep. The google books references attest to her existence, but the fact that her existence is preserved in books ought to confer some notabilty. Technically there's not enough here for WP:ARTIST or WP:N, but I'd like to see this one slip through. Her married name seems to be Hoag if that helps anyone find more sources...--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a stub - but it needs flesh, blood and bones...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep References indicated by Ray above tip the balance. Additionally, the availability of such material is indicative that more exists, just not online. See WP:HB. Ty 01:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It needs more time before being put up for AfD. Nolelover 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin close) Secret account 01:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Blastus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Though this individual is a biblical character, without provide additional scholarship which verifies the individual's importance (i.e. Reliable secondary sources which deal with the individual), this individual is not notable. The New Testament isn't so important in a scholarly/encyclopedic sense as to warrant articles on each named minor individual. A list perhaps, which contains individuals in said book, but not individual articles Sadads (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Bible and Qu'ran are significant enough, and covered by so many sources, that any person mentioned in either will be the subject of significant coverage (17,400 hits on Google Books alone, and while some are false-positives most aren't), and even a cursory look shows that there's clearly enough material about him for a substantive biography. There's even a book about the man. – iridescent 20:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So talk about his relevance in the article! Don't just state it with a inconsequential citation to a primary source (the Bible).Sadads (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The book isn't about him, No Comment Secret account 00:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So talk about his relevance in the article! Don't just state it with a inconsequential citation to a primary source (the Bible).Sadads (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Iridescent. There's enough sources as a standalone and he appears in dead tree encyclopedias. ThemFromSpace 20:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2 lines without context or real world importance. There simply isn't enough scholarship, Sadads (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per the above. The New Testament isn't so important in a scholarly/encyclopedic sense : is this serious? --Cyclopiatalk 21:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are missing the "every minor named character" part. It is as if I were to suggest that every character in the The Odyssey which has a name and a couple lines in the epic should have an article for himself. Instead the information about the character only makes sense in context of a list of other characters or in the context of the plot/events of the Odyssey. Though I agree he should be talked about somewhere, he does not deserve a whole article, Sadads (talk) 21:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is as if I were to suggest that every character in the The Odyssey which has a name and a couple lines in the epic should have an article for himself. : No reason why such a character shouldn't have an article. --Cyclopiatalk 22:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There has sometimes been reasonable argument over whether each Biblical individual in a long list of names about whom nothing whatever individual is stated is appropriate for a separate article, but this is very far from one of those instances. Another case to show why WP:BEFORE should be required. For those who think common sense is an adequate substitute, here's a counter-example. (And, yes, we'd use the same argument for the Odyssey as well ) DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, not common sense: nothing links to Blastus anywhere in Wikipedia (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Blastus) and a search of Wikipedia shows nothing about him (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=blastus&fulltext=1). The Google books search returns singular mentions in most of the books, with little contextual discussion except that he provides the example of a person drawn into "falling". Their is certainly not enough to write a bio. Again, you can't prove notability by simply checking how many returns you get from Google. Write me three 4-6 sentence paragraphs on him and put him in scholarly context and I would bow, but this is absolutely ridiculous, he simply isn't important, I am pretty sure their is no good way to do that.Sadads (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - invalid reasons for deletion, completely lacking sense. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep - a key figure in a minor, but important, Biblical narrative, and the subject of considerable scholarship over the centuries. Thparkth (talk) 02:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to section which is relevant - He should be integrated into the article of the narrative of the story, like any other individual that is notable for only one event, not a whole article by himself, merge, move it, do something, it is just not notable enough for his own article. It's like the various national guard members involved in the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal, they would be otherwise non-notable if they had not been involved in the activity (and most of their articles have been merged into the main one). similarly Blastus is non-notable unless you group him with Herod and the episode he participated in, the story is notable the characters not so much. We treat individual characters in novels and fiction the same way, unless of course they are the focus of a considerable body of work, like Spiderman (which, I point out again, Blastus is not). Note how the article is talking more about Herod's death and less about Blastus, —Sadads (talk) 02:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Sadads (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Sadads (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Sadads (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Iridescent. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep One, there's proof that reliable secondary sources exist. Two, AFD is not a tool to demand improvements. That's what request the talk page and WP:CHRISTIAN are for. Write me three 4-6 sentence paragraphs and I'll bow doesn't make a collaborative volunteer atmosphere. Actually I'm more than happy to edit the article but given the context of your demands, it's like I'm bowing to your will instead so I won't. See this afd where the nom was nice enough not to demand stuff and actually volunteered to close the afd on his own.--Lenticel (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of GB and GS hits. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A handy rule of thumb is this: people who lived before the Gutenberg era are notable if their names were written down in a text that's been preserved. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Per Iridescent and Lenticel. Joaquin008 (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Given that all !votes are "keep", this looks like WP:SNOW. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- This is a very minor Biblical character, but if I understand correctly the incident in which he is recorded is also mentioned by Josephus. Remove expand tag. There are no more primary sources, so that expansion is impossible save by WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redemption (2011 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Probable hoax, first 100% unsourced, I can't find anything reliable on Google, nothing related on IMDB, and nothing on Movie Guide or All Movie Nothing at http://www.skylinepix.com/ either.CTJF83 chat 19:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This claims it's only in "pre-production". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with no prejudice to recreate if/when additional reliable sources can be found about the film. As it stands, though, it's too much of a crystal ball. --Kinu t/c 08:36, 27 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Matthew Dugan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is an essentially unsourced Biography of a Living Person who does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). The "television news show" he co-anchors is only shown on YouTube, and the show he co-produces is only seen a local access cable channel. There are three refs, two to the "news show" web page, and one to IMDB (but his lists no credits in the entertainment industry). I first nominated this using WP:PROD and there were no new refs to reliable sources added, but the PROD was contested, so here we are. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notability per WP:BIO, probably self-promotional. --Kinu t/c 08:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - no coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2010 (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 kept. Nominations of this nature may have more success in future if they argued for transwiki rather than deletion were approached in a collaborative rather than combative fashion.Amended. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Filair plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Yet another aircrash article created with zero evidence it will have any historical significance, and which is simply turning Wikipedia into a competitor of wikinews, rather than a sister project. As ever, I've nothing against recreation if there are changes in circumnstances, but based on what is known right now (airline, plane, fatalities, crash situation) [1], it is unlikely. About the only remarkable thing is that the airline owner was the now dead pilot, but it was a two-plane airline anyway, so that's not so amazing after all. MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Give editors time to write an article before nominating at AfD. Accident has only just happened and it takes time for details to emerge. Twenty deaths would seem to give some notability to the accident. Mjroots (talk) 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, wikinews is the place for editors who want to write the headline first and fill in the details later. On Wikipedia, you are supposed to wait until you have the details to be able to write the article that you can already prove will be more than just news. And all the relevant details are already out there to be able to Afd this article on the grounds it is just news, and not a significant crash. I'll withdraw if something new emerges to mark it out as a historical event, but not just because editors want more time to make it a better news article about an insignificant aircrash. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)I'd[reply]
- Whilst I would not have posted the article in that state, I'd say that notability had already been established by the number of deaths. That said, a lack of deaths does not mean a lack of notability either. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if you could decide what the magic number actually is, and stick to it. So far this week I've seen it quoted as 20, 14, and even 8, all for basic air crashes where nobody has offered any proof their coverage here is anything other than news reporting. And yes, lack of deaths is not lack of notability, but this is simply not a reversible piece of logic. MickMacNee (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mjroots. 20 deaths indicates that it's probably going to get a bit more coverage, at least. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And? News coverage <> historical notability or significance. 20 deaths indicates there were 20 deaths, nothing more, nothing less. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "propably going to get a bit more coverage" is crystal ballin. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Article now expanded, reporting from US, UK and Belgium shows evidence of wide coverage outside immediate area of accident. 20 deaths should be more than enough to establish notability. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why should it be? Don't simply assert it, justify it. Coverage of any multi-death plane crash outside the immediate area is not a surprise, thanks to things called news wires. And per WP:109PAPERS, this isn't evidence of notability. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article meets WP:RS and WP:GNG. 20 deaths is notable. Lugnuts (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "20 deaths is notable". Prove it. Show me any Guideline or documented precedent that Wikipedia creates an article automatically any time 20 people die in an accident. Given that we are an encyclopoedia and not a newspaper, this assertion is simply unsupportable. MickMacNee (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Takes up the challenge - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/AfD record
- An aircraft accident with no deaths, nomination withdrawn at AfD.
- An aircraft accident with only four deaths, kept at AfD
- An aircraft accident with no deaths, kept at AfD
- Another aircraft accident with no deaths, kept at AfD
- Shall I go on? Mjroots (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can go on for as along as you like, as I haven't got the faintest idea what you are trying to prove with this list. MickMacNee (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the point is that by precedent, articles on airline incidents with few or no deaths are routinely created and kept if nominated for AfD. Another interesting thing is that all the incidents outlined above happened in Eurasia, and this one happened in Africa. A Boeing airplane crashing into the Empire State building in New York and killing 20 people would be no more unremarkable based on fatalities or the airline than a bushplane run by a small company crashing in the Congolese jungle. ~AH1(TCU) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "by precedent, articles on airline incidents with few or no deaths are routinely created and kept if nominated for AfD" - seriously? You think that list supports this statement? Did you read the particular articles and Afds? As for the rest, I really am lost as to what your intended point is. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those AfDs had few or no deaths yet the articles were created and eventually kept after going through AfD. My point is that were such an event to occur in North America, Europe or even Africa, it would almost certainly get an article. This plane crash is no less significant having taken place in Africa than it would be in the hypothetical Empire State Building scenario. ~AH1(TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I have absolutely no idea what your point is. Please restate it in clear and precise terms, so I can understand exactly what you are saying, and how it is relevant to this Afd, becuase as far as I can tell, those Afd's have nothing to do with this crash, they aren't remotely similar. If you think this accident is even remotely similar to a plane striking the Empire State Building, well, to be blunt, that's pure garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's the point. It really does not matter where the plane crash took place. Whether the plane crashed in Congo, or in a city in the United States makes almost no difference to notability. ~AH1(TCU) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Who said it did? I never have. Quite the opposite infact. In an earlier post below, I said, "if you find me any similar article that occured in the US or the UK with 20 deaths and did not prove to be a historically significant aircrash, and I'll put it up for deletion on the same grounds". [2] MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here's the point. It really does not matter where the plane crash took place. Whether the plane crashed in Congo, or in a city in the United States makes almost no difference to notability. ~AH1(TCU) 19:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, I have absolutely no idea what your point is. Please restate it in clear and precise terms, so I can understand exactly what you are saying, and how it is relevant to this Afd, becuase as far as I can tell, those Afd's have nothing to do with this crash, they aren't remotely similar. If you think this accident is even remotely similar to a plane striking the Empire State Building, well, to be blunt, that's pure garbage. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All of those AfDs had few or no deaths yet the articles were created and eventually kept after going through AfD. My point is that were such an event to occur in North America, Europe or even Africa, it would almost certainly get an article. This plane crash is no less significant having taken place in Africa than it would be in the hypothetical Empire State Building scenario. ~AH1(TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "by precedent, articles on airline incidents with few or no deaths are routinely created and kept if nominated for AfD" - seriously? You think that list supports this statement? Did you read the particular articles and Afds? As for the rest, I really am lost as to what your intended point is. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MickMacNee - Maybe you can explain why this article with 42 deaths is notable (and indeed frontpage material), yet 20 deaths isn't notable. Oh that's right, you can't. Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, yes I do believe I can. "The was the first hull-loss and the first accident with fatalities involving an Embraer E-190". This conveniently meets the WP:AVIATION essay clause A1, and the general common sense definition of what the word 'significant' actualy means in the context of historically notable aircrashes that are not simply news reports. So...have you got any more 'questions' you think I can't answer, and want to answer for me? MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This has significant coverage. Read the article. Lugnuts (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this odd fragment supposed to be in reply to? MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MickMacNee - Maybe you can explain why this article with 42 deaths is notable (and indeed frontpage material), yet 20 deaths isn't notable. Oh that's right, you can't. Lugnuts (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Classic WP:NOTNEWS, yet another sub-stub headline from the same editor quickly abandoned only to create more work for other editors. There is no guideline or policy that ≥N deaths = notable. At the end of the day, a small aircraft crashed and killed a comparatively small number of people. In a year's time it will be completely forgotten. This kind of crap really should be a speedy criterion. Just a very quick glance at today's P:CE shows a road accident with a similar death toll which certainly wouldn't be notable. These kinds of incidents are too common to all be notable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news reports. There is no evidence of lasting impact. The death of 20 humans is tragic but doesn't make the event notable and Wikipedia is not a memorial site. 21:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. The deaths of twenty people is tragic, though not notable. Accidents occur frequently and the fact they occur does no make them notable. This article is yet another news report, not meant for an encyclopedia. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Furthermore, this type of event is ideal material for sister project, Wikinews. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have noticed that this user MickMacNee seems to exhibit a hostile attitude in every comment that he or she has made on this Afd as well as the one for the Nepal crash. Can we please tone it down? This isn't sports. Nutmegger (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Mikemoral. Diego Grez (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Any significant crash with 5 or 10 deaths might get an article. The Air France Flight 358 incident did not get nominated for deletion even though there were zero fatalities, but the crash was also notable in its own right because there were no fatalities. However, a plane crash article covering an incident where 20 people were killed in the United States or England would almost certainly be kept
, and in this incident the death toll may yet rise. ~AH1(TCU) 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Can you prove that any crash with 5 or 10 deaths always gets an article? This is currently being discussed at the Aviation project, and they don't seem so sure tbh. And if you find me any similar article that occured in the US or the UK with 20 deaths and did not prove to be a historically significant aircrash, and I'll put it up for deletion on the same grounds. This is simply not an argument for keeping this at all. The circumnstances of Flight 358 have less than nothing to do with this crash, it is Other Crap, but the bad kind. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all minor crashes get an article, but many incidents with significant coverage do. Historical significance in this case is completely subjective, and so is any threshold for notability based on deaths. It's not the deaths that make a crash notable, it's the overall significance, and this crash took out half of an airline fleet killing its owner, and that in itself is notable. Your responses seem to be solely stating that you do not understand the point and then proclaiming that all the "keep" !votes are not "keep" arguments at all. ~AH1(TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "this crash took out half of an airline fleet killing its owner" - the airline had two planes, in a country of many many small operators, and the company was founded by a pilot! If your idea of subjectiveness is to simply ignore basic facts like these just to be able to make grandiose sounding statements to make the incident sound more significant than it really was, then I don't think it's a viewpoint that counts for anything. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another thing is that only one person from this crash survived. The EU deems these airplanes unsafe. Also notability is often highly subjective. ~AH1(TCU) 18:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The EU has banned all airlines in the Congo, this is wholly irrelevant to this one crash. And if the sole survivor aspect turns out to make this a historically significant accident, then as I've already said, I've no objection to recration. But by current accounts, it has not. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all minor crashes get an article, but many incidents with significant coverage do. Historical significance in this case is completely subjective, and so is any threshold for notability based on deaths. It's not the deaths that make a crash notable, it's the overall significance, and this crash took out half of an airline fleet killing its owner, and that in itself is notable. Your responses seem to be solely stating that you do not understand the point and then proclaiming that all the "keep" !votes are not "keep" arguments at all. ~AH1(TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, meets WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, IMO worldwide coverage, regardless of how it gains such coverage, is enough for it to be notable. C628 (talk) 23:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is a presumption that cannot over-ride NOT#NEWS. Believing that worldwide coverage equals automatic notability is not exactly a good argument, and it's certainly not accepted good practice when dealing with NOT#NEWS concerns. WP:109PAPERS shows what you need to demonstrate about that coverage. And I very much would be interested in the exact parts of EVENT you think are satisfied by this article's coverage. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Worldwide coverage=significant mention by numerous reliable sources, which means it passes pretty much every notability guideline in the book, WP:N, WP:EVENT, etc. Also, the fact that an investigation was begun means that coverage around it will not be a one-off thing, as results will be published, leading to more coverage of the incident, but focusing on a separate facet of it, and at a different time, which would also partially satisfy the "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" part of EVENT; investigation is significant, though not necessarily lasting. Investigation would also negate the 109PAPERS argument, as that refers specifically to coverage at a single point in time. C628 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your idea of notability is not correct. If you don't cite the exact portions of the policies and guidelines that you think mean that international coverage is a shoe-in, notability wise, then it's not particularly convincing to me, because I know for a fact that when you get into the detailed definitions and concepts, they say different, as already explained. And the fact that an investigation is being conducted is irrelevant, an accident investigation is normally held for almost any kind of aviation accident, certainly all the way down to incidents so insignificant they will certainly never get articles. Holding this up as a sign of automatic notability, or as an EVENT 'catalyst', is completely pointless and totally self-defeating. And it is entirely possible that the investigation's conclusion will merely refinforce the fact that no, this crash was not historically significant. Maybe the point is not being absorbed here, but it is a simple fact that Wikipedia does not, and should not, have an article on every single airliner aircrash that ever happens. This is just a fact, for basic policy reasons, but your points would produce a situation that completely violates that principle. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT," from WP:N. Right. So, two clauses there, GNG and NOT. Passes GNG. How? "Significant coverage." Check, just look at the references section. "Reliable [sources]." Ditto. "[Secondary] sources." Still passes. "Independent of the subject." Yep, the only two that could be considered possibly sort of close to violating this would be the two industry publications, which are a distinct minority in the article. "Presumed." Now this is the tricky one, and meshes with the "not excluded by WP:NOT" bit of WP:N. My opinion, for reasons I've stated above, is that it is not in violation of NOTNEWS, the applicable part in this case, which means that it passes the last clause regarding whether or not it's worthy of an article. There. That's my argument, and I've nothing more to add. Hmm... C628 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First off, nothing about my nomination questions the reliability or secondary nature of the sources, which by definition any WP:NEWS source is, so this is just an irrelevant line of debate as far as I'm concerned. Second, while the coverage is significant for the purposes of N (talks about the whole subject in detail), it is not significant for the purposes of NOT#NEWS (it is not lasting, it does not depart from normal wire coverage), so to figure out what you've done here to get to a keep, I will need a better explanation, because your argument appears circular to me, you have tried to defeat the presumption clause of WP:N by claiming that the reason it is not a NOT#NEWS violation is by virtue of the fact is is notable??. This makes no sense at all. And yes, I saw that other Afd, and I would just point out that even that crash will be investigated, and have a report, which shows exactly what I've been saying - in terms of notability of aircrashes, it means nothing. MickMacNee (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below and is not excluded by WP:NOT," from WP:N. Right. So, two clauses there, GNG and NOT. Passes GNG. How? "Significant coverage." Check, just look at the references section. "Reliable [sources]." Ditto. "[Secondary] sources." Still passes. "Independent of the subject." Yep, the only two that could be considered possibly sort of close to violating this would be the two industry publications, which are a distinct minority in the article. "Presumed." Now this is the tricky one, and meshes with the "not excluded by WP:NOT" bit of WP:N. My opinion, for reasons I've stated above, is that it is not in violation of NOTNEWS, the applicable part in this case, which means that it passes the last clause regarding whether or not it's worthy of an article. There. That's my argument, and I've nothing more to add. Hmm... C628 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your idea of notability is not correct. If you don't cite the exact portions of the policies and guidelines that you think mean that international coverage is a shoe-in, notability wise, then it's not particularly convincing to me, because I know for a fact that when you get into the detailed definitions and concepts, they say different, as already explained. And the fact that an investigation is being conducted is irrelevant, an accident investigation is normally held for almost any kind of aviation accident, certainly all the way down to incidents so insignificant they will certainly never get articles. Holding this up as a sign of automatic notability, or as an EVENT 'catalyst', is completely pointless and totally self-defeating. And it is entirely possible that the investigation's conclusion will merely refinforce the fact that no, this crash was not historically significant. Maybe the point is not being absorbed here, but it is a simple fact that Wikipedia does not, and should not, have an article on every single airliner aircrash that ever happens. This is just a fact, for basic policy reasons, but your points would produce a situation that completely violates that principle. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Worldwide coverage=significant mention by numerous reliable sources, which means it passes pretty much every notability guideline in the book, WP:N, WP:EVENT, etc. Also, the fact that an investigation was begun means that coverage around it will not be a one-off thing, as results will be published, leading to more coverage of the incident, but focusing on a separate facet of it, and at a different time, which would also partially satisfy the "precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" part of EVENT; investigation is significant, though not necessarily lasting. Investigation would also negate the 109PAPERS argument, as that refers specifically to coverage at a single point in time. C628 (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- GNG is a presumption that cannot over-ride NOT#NEWS. Believing that worldwide coverage equals automatic notability is not exactly a good argument, and it's certainly not accepted good practice when dealing with NOT#NEWS concerns. WP:109PAPERS shows what you need to demonstrate about that coverage. And I very much would be interested in the exact parts of EVENT you think are satisfied by this article's coverage. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per established practice, reliable sources[3] and this proposed guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability If unhappy with the proposed guideline, I suggest proposing its change or deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability --213.167.156.218 (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This IP has made no other edits to the project except to copy and paste this same vote across three Afds of wildly different crashes
- strong keep there are rubbish plane crashes with much lower fatalities and even smaller articles. sure, its not the biggest but some WikiProject Aviation (or something of the sort) must have monitoring for this. Come on, the russian crash recently wasnt even nominated for deleted (if memory serves), why is African crash deletable?(Lihaas (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
- I am seriously struggling to pick out what your actual argument for keeping this article is, beyond WP:OTHERSTUFF. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep, especially as the owner of the airline was at the controls and the passenger airliner ran out of fuel on approach to landing airport. This has a lot to say about the state of aviation in Congo. That 20 people died is also notable. --Mareklug talk 02:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What out of those two facts makes this a significant crash? Has it been marked out in any of the coverage as marking this crash out as significant, among aviation in Congo? The airline had two planes, and the Congo has several small airlines, so was it really that unusual for the pilot to be the owner? I think we've adequately covered the idea that there is a magic number of deaths which makes things notable, but as ever, if you have anything to add to this idea to actually explain what it is based on, then let's hear it, because it is wholly disputed. MickMacNee (talk)
- Strong keepand please stop these ridiculous AfDs--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you expect this non-vote to even be counted? Afd's will continue unless or until the defences of the articles gets a bit better than 'it's been in the news' or 'x number of people died'. MickMacNee (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way in hell that this article will be deleted. we will soon know who is clueless here. just wait and see.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. These disruptive edits/AfD nominiations will be heading for WP:ANI. Lugnuts (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you carry on with your personal attacks and other general bullshit in here, I'll take it there first, don't you worry about that. P.S. Read WP:VANDALISM, it appears to be just one of many pages you have not read before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What personal attacks? You're just using your bullshit as a smokescreen to mask your grasp of what is/isn't notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know. Clue:How do you spell my username? MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What personal attacks? You're just using your bullshit as a smokescreen to mask your grasp of what is/isn't notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you carry on with your personal attacks and other general bullshit in here, I'll take it there first, don't you worry about that. P.S. Read WP:VANDALISM, it appears to be just one of many pages you have not read before. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. These disruptive edits/AfD nominiations will be heading for WP:ANI. Lugnuts (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way in hell that this article will be deleted. we will soon know who is clueless here. just wait and see.--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- M... i... c... k... M... a... c... N... e... e... Don't you know? Now repeat that back to me nice and slowly so I know you understand. Lugnuts (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course I know, because I'm not the idiot you seem to think I am. You however, seemed to have had trouble spelling it in this edit, yet when you restored it here, you miraculously got it right second time around. You had my removal edit summary, and you clearly noticed it, yet you have still acted the fool.[4][5] MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest you assume good faith. It was a typo, which I corrected. I have no idea why I would think of dick when reading any of your amazing comments. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can suggest it, but I'm not such an idiot that I would believe you frankly, not given the evidence, and your continued lame attempts to be funny. I'm sure nobody else does either. MickMacNee (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well unless you can back up your claim, you are wrong (like most of your comments on here). Lugnuts (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, whatever you say Columbo. P.S. Calling someone retarded is a blockable offence. You have not been charged for this educational message. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Friendly bit of advice - you sure could use it. Lugnuts (talk) 13:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejection of the nominator's arguments is not vandalism nor a personal attack. ~AH1(TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was not talking about people's Afd arguments. Please do not comment on things you know nothing about. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rejection of the nominator's arguments is not vandalism nor a personal attack. ~AH1(TCU) 18:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well unless you can back up your claim, you are wrong (like most of your comments on here). Lugnuts (talk) 12:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can suggest it, but I'm not such an idiot that I would believe you frankly, not given the evidence, and your continued lame attempts to be funny. I'm sure nobody else does either. MickMacNee (talk) 12:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Classic news item. Brief coverage but quickly forgotten about. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep meets the guidelines; air crashes with this many casualties are part of the historical record and invariable commented on for many years after. DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What guidelines? And WP:CRYSTAL. We do not simply presume historical significance, not least when there is no accepted guideline for magic numbers of deaths in air accidents. If your claim about this accident being commented on for many years to come is even half true, then it will be a trivial exercise for someone to seek recreation when they have the actual evidence required. MickMacNee (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I would say it's notable enough. Nolelover 01:10, 2 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ethan Lerner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be non-notable, and unlikely to meet inclusion guidelines. Additionally, someone claiming to be the subject of the article requests deletion. Prodego talk 18:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet Wikipedia standards for notability. A search of Google Scholar for EA Lerner finds a random assortment of articles in which he is one of many authors; a few articles about leishmaniasis, for which the article cites him as an expert; nothing about SLE, which the article also claims is an area of expertise; and NOTHING about the "hairbrush" invention touted in the article. If it hasn't been published in the peer-reviewed literature it is almost by definition non-notable. About half the article should be immediately deleted as being about psoriasis, not about him. Subject's father is clearly notable, but he is not. --MelanieN (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability is not inherited. This article sounds like an advertisement for dermatological services. The subject has contributed some sholarship to the field, not not enough to meet notability standards for academics. Vartanza (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ryan and Sean's Not So Excellent Adventure (2008 Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has no content beyond an infobox, no sources, and thus no assertion of notability. BOVINEBOY2008 18:18, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Murdoch University Pilot Plant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP is not a hosting service to host a "ENG346 Semester 1 2010 project" report or findings. Codf1977 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No independant notability or coverage. One Murdoch-published item in Google Books proves you can get your thesis published. Wikipedia is not a place to stash course notes. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no meaningful sourced content. --Kinu t/c 08:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No meaningful sourced content. Joaquin008 (talk) 07:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete by Fastily (talk · contribs) at per G11. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Smart defrag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Software with no assertion of notability. Reads like a personal review of said software. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:43, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bare Machine Computing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete - Original synthesis. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Toally unreferenced. Original synthesis. Reads like an essay or a How to. Who is We ? --Kudpung (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, appears to be an essay. WP:SYN applies. Nothing to merge anywhere. --Kinu t/c 08:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above comments. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:35, 28 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- University of Oregon Investment Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This has been speedy deleted and prod-deleted, it's time to get a full community consensus. Ultimately, there are no reliable sources establishing the notability of an organization- in this case, a student club. There are two possible sources given: the first is from the school newspaper. the second (an article at thestreet.com) is certainly a great source for establishing notability and encyclopedic "fit" of the article. However, that doesn't mean that it meets the rule of "significant coverage". That means this article is hinging on one decent source (with respect to WP:V).
Let me use a poor argument to make my point: specifically, I'll use WP:BIG. That is, if this was a private investment group or fund, a million dollars wouldn't qualify for an article. It's effectively play money: each of the 30 members is responsible for about $33,000 of the fund. That's a tiny number.
It's possible that these university investment clubs would be notable if the (theoretical multiple) secondary sources were collected and an article about University investment clubs was written. That doesn't mean an individual club is encyclopedic, though. tedder (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 16:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or alternatively, merge and redirect to the university article. Tedder makes a clearly convincing argument that it doesn't quite meet notability standards for an organization, considering that the one source used with a reputation for fact checking and editorial structure (the school paper) is not independent of the subject. Steven Walling 17:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - University organization and I don't see any independent indication that it's notable. Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Completely non-notable student organization. Not even worthy of a merge. --Crunch (talk) 23:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable per WP:GROUP, with no WP:RS (the school paper is hardly independent) indicating otherwise. --Kinu t/c 08:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Agree with above no indication of notability (reason for speedy is creator has blanked the page, which I restored as per the AfD notice).Codf1977 (talk) 20:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stupidity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Dictionary definition, not an encyclopedia article. Wtshymanski (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it gives uses and varied sources, which distinguishes it from a WP:DICDEF. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep WP:SNOW. This article has existed since 2004. While it needs work and better references, it is clearly more than just a dictionary definition. SnottyWong speak 19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it can't be deleted. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But without stupidity would Wikipedia still be Wikipedia? ;-) Steve Dufour (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator. Just because it's old, doesn't mean it can't be deleted. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: Subject clearly notable, and the less-than-perfect state of the article is not a reason for deletion. Favonian (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- strong delete. Per the nom, this is a dictionary definition. The article simply applies the definition to several topics. The same could be done with any noun in the English language.173.8.11.157 (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep I respect the nominator's view of the current sorry condition of the article (which has been on my watchlist for a while), but I see other editors are jumping to the task of adding sources, and I expect to do so as well. The article is already more than a dictionary definition, and it is turning into a detailed discussion of the reliable secondary literature on stupidity, which is surprisingly vast. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Somebody went crazy with the flags on this one... This is pretty clearly an article that COULD be expanded into a really nice piece of work. We consider intelligence worthy of inclusion, this is merely the flipside of that concept... Carrite (talk) 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It's a highly poorly written article as of now. But it's still notable, certainly. I see no reason why sources could not be found in the future to fix it. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because the whole concept is so vague, besides the article being mainly about the word against WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There are articles on Human intelligence, I am sure, where the concept would be better covered. Example to show the how vague the word is: The Watergate scandal was very stupid, yet Richard Nixon was on the very high end of the IQ scale.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. You just can't have Wikipedia without stupidity. Reasonably notable concept, although not a very focused article. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it can be focused. Intelligence is a definate thing that can be discussed. Stupidity is a word that people use to mean lack of intelligence. It can apply to anything from a rock to President Nixon. Steve Dufour (talk) 11:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. None of the subsections (excluding etymology) would be found in a dictionary definition. Agree that the article isn't very good, but it definitely has encyclopedic content. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 17:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep More than a dictionary definition, potential for quite a nice article. Chzz ► 07:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Snotty Wong and Chzz Sandcat01 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Either delete or rework the article to actually be about lack of intelligence. Right now large segments of the "article" are about the word stupidity, not about stupidity itself, and thus is dictionary material. --Yair rand (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This one's a no-brainer. ... Uh, does that mean I should !vote delete or keep ...? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and continue to improve or redirect to Deletionism. --192.150.115.150 (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Human intelligence. This is notable, but pure topic duplication. I can't see how being stupid is different to being unintelligent - they are synonyms. Claritas § 16:18, 31 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Remember Me (2010 independent film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet any of the WP:NFILMS criteria and only has local secondary coverage. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It premiered at Hickory Grove Baptist Church to an audience of about 150. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, locally produced/screened, non-notable film. --Kinu t/c 08:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - pretty much self-nominating with only local coverage -- Whpq (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - same reasons as everyone above; completely non-notable. --V2Blast (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2010 (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. Feel free to make redirection as editorial decision, and/or first discussion on talk page of intended redirect target. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Create-a-wrestler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete... fan cruft, unencyclopedic and sources themselves are about games with the create-a-wrestler feature. Football, baseball and other real sports games have had 'create a player' for longer and they don't have their own article. Trim down and add to Create-a-player Endlessdan (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:GAMEGUIDE . Whose Your Guy (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It should be a section in each wrestling video game, not have its own seperate and insignificant article. --☯The Dark Lord of Wiki☯ (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and above. That's video game stuff, and it's just unnecessary. みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to character creation per nom's later comments. -- Θakster 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Character creation. Plausible search term, but not notable enough for its own article. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 01:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to WWE SmackDown vs. Raw (video game series). Feedback ☎ 09:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not warrant its own article. Spoke shook (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect -- to Character creation.Truco 503 15:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. This is one highly specialized aspect of character creation. And though some of it can be used for that article, it does not stand out on its own. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Redirect to Danish pre-school education. Mandsford 00:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 0th grade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find anything about this other than it is a Danish concept, but it appears to just be a direct translations of nulte klasse The Eskimo (talk) 15:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Kindergarten article. みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Danish pre-school education where the concept is already mentioned as "Pre-school classes". This is more accurate than Kindergarten. Favonian (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect as above TheGrappler (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect is cool. There is already an article on kindergarten, where the Danish version could or could not be covered. It seems like a minor topic to me. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less an English/Danish dictionary.Steve Dufour (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Danish pre-school education. -- Sandcat01 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. I'm not sure that a redirect to a specifically Danish article would be correct, as the concept is not exclusive to Denmark. For example the equivalent in Poland (Zerówka) would also be translated into American English as 0th grade, and I have no doubt that similar terminolgy exists in other countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mobile data intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am taking this one straight to AfD because I think it warrants discussion. This has been recreated after speedy deletion (WP:CSD#A7). This may or may not be a non-notable neologism, and may just be the latest version of Make Money Fast on Other People's Mobile Phones that Have "Apps" and are Otherwise Fancier than Mine. While it does appear to have references discussing this new TLA phrase, many of them would appear to be blogs, or relate to the now-deleted spam article Neuralitic (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuralitic)
The real issue is that this article's text is floridly promotional and non-neutral, and seems to have been largely compiled by the Neuralitic spammer:
- As an advanced business intelligence tool, it provides a sophisticated analysis of network, applications and content usage patterns to deliver critical business insights. These are used by mobile operators to optimize their marketing initiatives and increase subscribers, revenues and profitability.
- Armed with this knowledge, they tailor applications, services and device mixes at the right price to increase revenues and reduce costs.
- Standard Web analytics cannot provide a complete picture of subscriber usage. As such, operators are left with only a general understanding of the data traveling back and forth on their network, without the context needed to drive smarter marketing decisions.
- Mobile Data Intelligence however allows marketers to collect and link device, subscriber and service usage information through a single point of capture, without interfering with network performance. By capturing and linking disparate information, marketing professionals can gain a deeper insight into how subscribers are using mobile devices; build more relevant messaging; and target more strategically-defined groups at the right moment in time.
- Since Mobile Data Intelligence is designed for marketers, it provides a 360 degree of user behaviour, from devices and applications, to demographics and location, to enable the development of price plans, handset subsidies, promotions, direct marketing campaigns, etc.
It is, of course, written in that vague style that promises fabulous riches, claiming to be more specifically aligned to the needs of marketing personnel, without going into the kinds of detail about the method that would enable clever people to work out its operation without paying the promoter. As such, it resists fixing its promotional POV-pushing by editing. As far as I can see, we'd be better off wiping this text and not pretending to have an article on the subject, rather than to have this obviously promotional twaddle masquerading as an article. This remains so even if the underlying idea could support an article.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it This is written in marketingese not English. db-a2 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If this were an attributable term the article had to be largely shrunk to remove all the gibberish and hidden promotion of one particular company. However, I can find only a single what appears to be reliable source, and curiously it includes the term only in its preface resp. on its back cover. If anything, there may be an article on mobile intelligence. Delete. (BTW, the same author has placed the article also on the french wikipedia. I may post a message there after this AfD concludes.) Nageh (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1906 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been deleted at AfD twice before as failing WP:CRYSTAL. The article still fails WP:NFF as there is no reliable source evidence that principal filming has begun. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Article is fairly well-sourced, and at this point, the troubled production history of the film makes it notable even if principal photography has not begun. The article does need cleanup, however, as Jim Hill is a notoriously unreliable source for film production information. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep or perhaps merge to Brad Bird. On the one hand this is a project in pre-production that does not (yet) meet WP:NFF. On the other there are enough sources to support an article on the production even if the film never actually gets made. In such cases there is usually a better merge target but the book is redlinked and the notability of the project is mainly due to Bird's involvement so he is probably the best choice if a merge is desired. In either case there is no pressing need to delete the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I'm obviously biased because I wrote the article last time, but I'd been hoping that proof of initial photography, or at least preproduction, would pop up soon after reposting. So far no luck. Eluchil404's idea of merging to Brad Bird's page might be a good option, at least if the movie seems to be permanently on hiatus. I wouldn't like to delete the topic completely though. It's a massive potential project, with a chance it's still in the works. Sloggerbum (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep per continued coverage, perhaps specially due to its setbacks, which has allowed this one to be one of those very few allowed exceptions to WP:NFF in that the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines and through its meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:CRYSTAL's All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced) and in its otherwise surpassing the instructions per WP:GNG's If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Catherine Leclerc du Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reason Korruski (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Does not meet WP:BIO. No evidence of notability, almost unsourced, and I can find no further sources through my own searches.[reply]
- She is considered notable on French wp, as well as at several other language versions of wikipedia. On French wikipedia she is linked to a great number of articles. [[6]] Among them is the French version of this article: Molière's company, to which she will eventually be linked here as well, when that article is developed. She is further more already linked here. The members of Sociétaires of the Comédie-Française are all linked. Being a historical subject, it may be hard to find information in a search on the internet. I may also say that it is rude to accuse people of creating hoax-articles, which was an accusation originally put both on the motivation of the deletion-tag as well as at this page.--Aciram (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any more evidence of notability on the French article than I do on here, tbh. Regardless, though, the English article needs to show notability in its own right. Apologies for the hoax comment, though. It was my initial impression based on the fact that a biography was being added of a person with a lot of detail, but about whom I could find absolutely no other mention. Doesn't change my essential problem of notability, however. --Korruski (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She is considered notable on French wp, as well as at several other language versions of wikipedia. On French wikipedia she is linked to a great number of articles. [[6]] Among them is the French version of this article: Molière's company, to which she will eventually be linked here as well, when that article is developed. She is further more already linked here. The members of Sociétaires of the Comédie-Française are all linked. Being a historical subject, it may be hard to find information in a search on the internet. I may also say that it is rude to accuse people of creating hoax-articles, which was an accusation originally put both on the motivation of the deletion-tag as well as at this page.--Aciram (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. These sort of articles tend to have support of notability buried in some print only resources. I'm convinced this is legitimate. Agreed that the article needs to show notability in its own right, but I'm convinced that will happen. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Numerous non-trivial google books hits under various variations of her name, e.g, [7], [8], [9], [10]. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - just because someone lived before the advent of the internet doesn't mean that sources are impossible to find. AbbyKelley seems to have found some, many more undoubtably exist, even in English. Probably a lot more in French. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Hundreds of reliable sources are available here. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only Girl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another case of jumping the gun - popular music artist with supposed upcoming release. Fails WP:NSONGS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS. All "sources" are blogs, tweets and fan sites. Remove this info and the article is left with nothing. In a nutshell: TOO SOON. Note also that this was originally created at Only Girl (song), so that would need to be deleted as well, if no proper third-party sources can be found. - eo (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Anyone but me up for making "unreleased single" a CSD category? There's never a reason for these articles. Just nothing in them that can't be happily housed at the album or artist article.—Kww(talk) 14:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: And I just deleted a ref to one of these "reliable sources" that offered support for the fact (heh) that the song is named "One Girl". The CSD category could well be "unreleased recording", since I see quite a few albums with the same problem (if a name had leaked for Rihanna's fifth, I guarantee we'd be having the same argument about its article right now). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The song has been confirmed by Rihanna's record label and official fansite, Radio stations are ushually reliable, if radio stations lie, they ushally get sued. Also, since it is confirmed, theres really no point since the song will be release in a week, so deleting this and then when the song comes out you gonna have to do extra work just to make the page! i reccomend you save the page --74.44.86.7 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. — Legolas (talk2me) 04:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The most reliable here is Digital Spy, and it is not a reliable site. TbhotchTalk C. 04:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, it isn't attached to an album, it is not confirmed (all stories stem from defpen radio which has suddenly popped up on the web as an official music release source *skeptism implied here*), it serves no purpose by notability because of this. Also it had not charted, not covered by other artists, no awards etc. This is once again over-zealous fans jumping the gun. This page (and all varients) need deleting. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 23:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, sources are blogs. Candyo32 15:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No commercial release date. The radio release date doesn't seem to be covered by reliable sources. If it was going to be in the shops in a few days it might be different.--Michig (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep I think we should just wait and see. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 21:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait how long? To see what? Why should we wait? — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because, WTF DUDE is only coming out in 2 days... if the song doesnt come out then, then you can delete it. WTF some of ya is hard-headed people --74.44.86.7 (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I can't see why some artistes have an article for every single when there's nothing particularly special about them to differentiate them. Singles like 'MacArthur Park' and 'Layla' obviously have more case as there is interesting and/or important information in them. As to this one, it's not yet released so I feel that WP:CRYSTAL applies - even if the company have released rumours about it. I see this sort of thing is promotional, trying to build up a demand. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Peridon's comments are absolutely correct. Every released and charting single by an artist is NOT notable for an article. Articles should only be created where there is enough reliably sourced information about the song to create a detailed page which satisfies WP:NSONGS this song DOESNT! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 20:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, for reasons already well covered. "Wait and see" is never a good reason for keeping an entry. We're going to wait until it's notable? It may never be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The recent edits to the article demonstrate exactly why it should be deleted. I'm sensing a snow ball here. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 14:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PEOPLE LETS JUST DELETED IT... ONLY GIRL HAS BEEN SWITCHED TO CHEERS (ANOTHER SONG), SO ONLY GIRL MIGHT BE A SINGLE OR TRACK ON THE CD, BUT RIGHT NOW IT ISNT IMPORTANT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.87.251.184 (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:SNOW, not likely to become a full fledged article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:54, 31 August 2010 (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 merge to List of Jimmy Two-Shoes characters. - content already merged JForget 00:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jimmy Two-Shoes (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable fictional character and fails WP:GNG Derild4921☼ 14:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Jimmy Two-Shoes characters. Doesn't look to be enough here for a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Andrew Lenahan. There's really no reason for this to be at AfD unless the merge has been tried and reverted already, since this is a WP:SS breakout from that article. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into List of Jimmy Two-Shoes characters, which doesn't currently cover the character. The info should be retained there, no harm done. – sgeureka t•c 08:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. GregJackP Boomer! 23:46, 29 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- STARS (short film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nonnotable 13 minute short web film, no reliable sources indicating notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete couldn't this have been speedied as NN web content? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Already a contested prod, let's get a clear consensus. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Canoeing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' K1 slalom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable results of a non-notable sporting event Korruski (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac, too specific. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the fact that every single name is a redlink rather underscores that this isn't a notable event. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:Olympic conventions says all athletes should be redlinked until they can be bluelinked; many older senior Olympics event articles also have many redlinks. Doesn't mean those are not notable events either. Strange Passerby (talk) 14:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:NSPORT#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games which states: "Events at individual Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games are considered notable, e.g. Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics – Men's road race or Skeleton at the 2010 Winter Olympics – Women's" The Youth Olympics is the internationally recognised version for youngsters. Also, all the competetors are notable, per WP:ATHLETE. Just because they're red-linked, doesn't mean they're not notable. Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Youth Olympics is not the Summer or Winter, Olympic or Paralympic Games. It is a subsidiary of it, which would tend to mean that the events should be considered in groups rather than individually. As I said above, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Is there any evidence that the Youth Olympic Games are a "subsidiary" of the Summer and Winter Olympic Games? It seems to me that the IOC intended to create a new series of games in the spirit of the original Olympic Games: see [11] ("It was during its Session in Guatemala City in July 2007 that the IOC decided to create a new sporting event to educate, engage and influence young athletes inspiring them to play an active role in their communities." [emphasis added]). — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is nothing wrong with the article. It shows progression to the finals. Final table includes all the medalists, who are surely notable. The format of presentation can be changed to brackets and links to non-finalists removed if desired. No troll (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep at least until consensus emerges about how to deal with the Youth Olympics A specialist reference publication about the Olympics would include this information, so Wikipedia probably should too. However, youth sports are not always treated in the same way as adult-level sports; I would recommend that most of the competing athletes should be unredlinked for instance, since it is not clear that they will pass the notability criteria in the future and many of them currently do not do so. TheGrappler (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep; the Youth Olympics are hardly a "non-notable sporting event" (and definitely not non-notable by Wikipedia standards), so the nomination is flawed. Per individual event articles for all other Olympic events, this is notable. Strange Passerby (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but upmerge into "Canoeing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics": I think the sports at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics are notable enough for their own articles, but it is not necessary to have articles for individual events. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 15:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for now, until a broader consensus can be determined for the notability or not of the Youth Olympics. This AfD is not the place to determine that consensus; deleting a single article out of Category:2010 Summer Youth Olympics events is not a good result. Either they all stay, or all go. Yes, I know about OTHERSTUFF etc. but I think that these articles are essentially a summary-style treatment of main YOG articles, so a consistent treatment must be applied. I reject any statement that previous consensus for the "regular" Olympic Games should apply here. The YOG are clearly a new event with an entirely different criteria for competition, and a vastly different amount of media attention–and therefore, secondary sources. I have yet to see any significant secondary coverage at the event level, so my own opinion is that the set of per-sport articles in Category:2010 Summer Youth Olympics should be used, but the per-event articles should be deleted. (I am also unconvinced that the complete set of per-nation articles in Category:Nations at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics should exist.) In other words, the summary-style treatment of YOG is still necessary, just not to the same level of detail that we have for the summary-style treatment of the main Games. I make these comments even as a long-time WP:WikiProject Olympics member and a staunch supporter of per-event and per-nation articles for the main Games. I propose that a RfC be used to attain a broader YOG consensus before any action is taken here. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While the YOG is a worldwide event with importance yet to be established, it is of high potential for future reference. The page has information relevant for tomorrow's stars - i.e. detailed results that will be useful for future look up - for example, the stars mentioned will be in the next Olympics if not the following. For consistency, if this page is to be deleted, all sub pages of the YOG will likewise need to be reviewed. GreenB.live (talk) 08:34, 29 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Taylor Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Originally tagged for CSD by User:Ironholds: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Anderson&action=historysubmit&diff=369258977&oldid=369256821 template removed on 21 June without discussion or 'hangon' by creator or other editor. Article still has no WP:RS, or direct references within the requirements of WP:BLP. Kudpung (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7, and while we're at it the Destroyermen (book series) article looks extremely non-notable too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy declined Asserts significance. Previously
declinedremoved speedy. The decision as to notability should been made here, by consensus. In other words, if you come up with a consensus for a SNOW delete, great. If the subject is truly NN, then PROD would have been better than AFD. Otherwise, not so fast. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 19:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Comment if the books are NN, then I would suggest AFD or PROD. Just being a published author asserts significance, a lower standard than notability. Dlohcierekim 19:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while I've enjoyed the books, just being a published author doesn't necessitate a listing in Wikipedia. The series is probably covered in some reviews so may meet notablity guidelines, but the author probably doesn't. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The participants were divided between merging the content to the article about the highway, or keeping it as a separate article; some individuals suggested either alternative. Very few urged an outright delete. Within WP:EVENT, there is room for individuals to make a case concerning whether an event would have "enduring historical significance" or "a significant lasting effect"; the same guideline gives room to argue over whether an event has "widespread" (national or international) impact and is "widely" covered in diverse sources. Although it has been pointed out that the highway has problems with traffic jams, it was also pointed out that the unusual duration of the event was a factor in worldwide coverage. Mandsford 17:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- China National Highway 110 traffic jam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As others have said on the talk page WP:NOTNEWS. There is no way that this story meets the requirements of WP:EVENT. Wikinews is the right place for this. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree, this should be on Wikinews instead. Perhaps some mention could be made on the article on the freeway itself, but this doesn't need its own article.--Life in General, Master of Tropes 13:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- <ec>Weak Keep - This is a pretty big event and not very common though does not seem to meet WP:NOTNEWS. Derild4921☼ 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, I previously closed this AFD per Speedy Keep criterion #5. However, I have since removed the article from Template:In the news, so I am reopening the AFD. NW (Talk) 15:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, shouldn't we have had a discussion about whether to remove it from the In the News first before we have this discussion? This whole debate seems to jumping around a lot. Remember (talk) 15:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into China National Highway 110. I was under the impression that this was an extraordinary occurrence, but it appears that this isn't the case. However, it surely warrants inclusion in the highway's article. —David Levy 15:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per not#news and David. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge. This is a somewhat significant story, comparable to the traffic jams during the evacuation of New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina. However if the article cannot be significantly improved then it should be merged. ~AH1(TCU) 15:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- This isn't some tabloidy run of the mill story, of the kind that WP:NOTNEWS is referring to. This is a traffic jam for the history books. Just because its IN the news does not mean it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. A merge discussion can take place on whatever talk page is desired, but I feel the information belongs here. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - agree with Umbralcorax. Remember (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - This is not an unprecedented event, but something which has occurred multiple times on the same highway. This isn't news, it's just the norm. Most sources don't even discuss the event, but the issue of traffic congestion in China as a whole. Maybe you could merge this to China National Highway 110 or Transportation_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Road, but to single out this as a singular unique and notable event is disingenuous. - hahnchen 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into China National Highway 110; put it as its own section of "current issues." みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - We don't need to create a new page for every news topic or wikipedia would grow exponetially. I agree that this should be merged into China National Highway 110 as it isn't a unique event; it seems to happen often on that highway. We don't create a seperate article for each hurricane in a season, we merge all of them into one and only create articles for major hurricanes. --Jmanfffreak (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep But merge into China National Highway 110 before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Crosstown Traffic (song). Lugnuts (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whoa, hold on a second: Why would you want to redirect this to a non-Chinese song? みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugnuts enjoys wasting people's time with nonsense. —David Levy 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Esp. when you've got knobs debating something of little or no importance. Lugnuts (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugnuts enjoys wasting people's time with nonsense. —David Levy 23:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Whoa, hold on a second: Why would you want to redirect this to a non-Chinese song? みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. Edison (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. But this is not worth its own article. Some cities suffer basically perpetual traffic jams, hardly remarkable these days... -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 21:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification: as nominator, I also believe merging and redirecting is fine, as long as this is not a stand alone article.Qwyrxian (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand A lot of attention: see [12]. It is a notable event in many ways by itself, in terms of traffic engineering and global economics. hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 23:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into China National Highway 110; Not important enough as a stand-alone article. Seeyardee (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Transportation_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Road with the view that the traffic situation could be branched into a more complete article as the content becomes more mature. If the scope of this topic is wider than this one particular event, or highway, that is where the content should be allowed to grow. aliasd·U·T 01:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge into China National Highway 110. Mnmazur (talk)
- Keep or merge I think that this event is just a highly publicized jam that is not uncommon for that area/highway. However, it appears to have been getting quite a bit of coverage, and, though I can't tell if that will continue or if it will have a lasting impact, a merger is quite reasonable. —fetch·comms 04:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For anyone worried about whether or not this will continue, it's already been reported ([13]) to have "vanished." As to lasting impact...while I can agree that bad traffic overall may have a lasting impact in China (as it does in other countries), I don't see how this specific jam can have any lasting impact. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into parent article. Coverage of the topic is worthwhile, but the length of the parent article does not merit spinning off this as a seperate topic. Just move the text to the article on the highway, and both articles become better. --Jayron32 06:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or Merge into parent article. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, nothing encyclopedic of note in the article; or merge into parent article. Strange Passerby (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to China National Highway 110. HausTalk 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, seems to be only one notable sentence "...some drivers have reported being stuck in the traffic jam for five days.". --Kslotte (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename "2010 China National Highway 110 traffic jam". It, like 2005 levee failures in Greater New Orleans, is an incident that points to a failure of planning, in this case central planning by an authoritarian government. The chronic nature of the problem should be covered in China National Highway 110 and the underlying planning failure and remedial measures discussed in Transportation in the People's Republic of China. See the New York Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/28/world/asia/28china.html for an exploration of the underlying issues. Fred Talk 18:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you propose appending "2010" to the title? —David Levy 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because while this event is one of the first to be news worldwide it is a recurring event of varying severity, and will be until alternatives are built which reduce traffic on 110 in that area. Fred Talk 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation. Unless and until another China National Highway 110 traffic jam of comparable magnitude occurs, such disambiguation is unneeded (and illogical, as the lesser traffic congestion from which it's intended to differentiate surely has occurred in 2010 as well). —David Levy 10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sophisticated but this event is project to last for about a month, see the Wall Street Journal article "BEIJING—A 60-mile traffic jam near the Chinese capital could last until mid-September, officials say." Fred Talk 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't follow. What is the relevance? —David Levy 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here is coverage of a "second" or "extended" jam, "Monster jam is back, puts 2,000 vehicles to standstill" It could be treated as an extended jam or repeated acute jams. There is road construction. Notable event, even if it is only the first evidence of a continuing chronic problem. Fred Talk 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, does this pertain to the naming issue discussed above? —David Levy 09:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, here is coverage of a "second" or "extended" jam, "Monster jam is back, puts 2,000 vehicles to standstill" It could be treated as an extended jam or repeated acute jams. There is road construction. Notable event, even if it is only the first evidence of a continuing chronic problem. Fred Talk 08:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't follow. What is the relevance? —David Levy 02:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very sophisticated but this event is project to last for about a month, see the Wall Street Journal article "BEIJING—A 60-mile traffic jam near the Chinese capital could last until mid-September, officials say." Fred Talk 23:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see Wikipedia:Article titles#Precision and disambiguation. Unless and until another China National Highway 110 traffic jam of comparable magnitude occurs, such disambiguation is unneeded (and illogical, as the lesser traffic congestion from which it's intended to differentiate surely has occurred in 2010 as well). —David Levy 10:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because while this event is one of the first to be news worldwide it is a recurring event of varying severity, and will be until alternatives are built which reduce traffic on 110 in that area. Fred Talk 22:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you propose appending "2010" to the title? —David Levy 19:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This event is of such a magnitude and uniqueness that I have not problem seeing that this belongs as an encyclopedic article. __meco (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, garnered worldwide coverage because of its magnitude and uniqueness. Seems notable therefore. Malick78 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into China National Highway 110. Both are short articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge This got a lot of news coverage but there's not a ton to say about it beyond that, so it can be covered just as well in the main article. Besides, the Jingzang highway has had many other traffic jams like this, so it would make sense to cover them all in the same place. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This event is notable enough to be an article.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep Could become more important. and per Derild4921 -- Sandcat01 (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The nomination is quite mistaken as this meets most every requirement of WP:EVENT, being significant, covered globally in a wide variety of media &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and merge into main road article. Dr. Blofeld 21:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After hearing about the traffic jam BECAUSE of the Main Page, I've seen coverage from Canada's CBC News and other links. With a multitude of reliable sources and perhaps an entry in the Guinness Book of World Records, there is something quite unprecedented about this that should be covered as a separate article. MMetro (talk) 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I suggest to keep. If anyone insist to merge, it'd better be merged into Transportation in the People's Republic of China#Road. If keep, it'd better be renamed to "2010 Beijing–Tibet expressway and China National Highway 110 traffic jam". Because the traffic jam was mostly on China National Highway 110 (G110) AND Beijing–Tibet expressway (G6). Actually, Chinese media tend to call it "Beijing–Tibet expressway traffic jam"(京藏高速堵车). According to Chinese media, it seems that Beijing–Tibet expressway got worse situation than Highway 110, the longest queue was on Beijing–Tibet expressway, but the road maintenance is on National Highway 110. Here's a map, the black line is Beijing–Tibet expressway, the green is National Highway 110, the red is for the main traffic jam.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is quite a notable event. My second preference would be to merge into another article. Definitely not delete though. Themeparkgc Talk 10:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into China National Highway 110. Worthy of a section in the main article. I saw it on CNN and it was in the Los Angeles Times so it's notable enough at least for inclusion. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep or Strong merge per almost all of the above. Nolelover 01:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Strong Merge, same reason as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis, also if this event is notable, why the article is way too short? Qajar (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2010 (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 withdrawn/snow kept. –xenotalk 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Canada's Largest Ribfest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural nom - previously deleted prod, restored as contested, was prodded again. I think there's notability here, but the article needs love. –xenotalk 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI, I started this because I thought the person who prodded it twice would opine delete; but since they haven't, this can probably be SNOW closed sooner than the seven days. –xenotalk 23:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong soliloquize 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if and only if the article is cleaned up and sourced. If this is really an event that 175,000 people show up for, then it's certainly notable. But the article is abysmal, but I suspect it could be cleaned up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Seems notable. I found a few articles on it after a quick search. Article needs major work though. SnottyWong express 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. 175,000 is a huge number of attendees. I added a bunch of sources, and I am noticing that a lot of them are in French. Also, the festival seems to have only relatively recently changed its name to "Canada's Largest Ribfest." It seems to have been called variously simply as the "Ribfest," "Burlington Ribfest," "Burlington Rotary Ribfest," and even briefly the "Maple Leaf Pork Rotary Ribfest" based on one source... all those names combined give plenty of sources. —CodeHydro 03:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, thought I should mention that I reworked the article considerably... be back tomorrow for round 2 ;) —CodeHydro 03:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Silly and pointless but it does seem to have recvied some coverage over a number of years.Slatersteven (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I've attended this event a couple of times, and can attest to it being hugely attended. I am of course, not a reliable source though. But there does exist sufficient coverage from real reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Procedural keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There is no such thing as a procedural delete nomination. Don't waste time sending something to an AFD unless you honestly believe the article should be deleted. Then do a brief Google news search to make sure. That would've prevented this waste of time nomination. Google news shows coverage, plus any event with that many people showing up, is obviously notable. Dream Focus 21:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See [14], [15]. –xenotalk 21:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So the same guy prodded it twice, so you went ahead and sent it to AFD for him, instead of telling him how to do it himself. Don't call it a procedure nomination though. Just say hey, nominating it for a guy who messed up his attempt. Dream Focus 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the admin who restored it after being deleted via prod and deprodded it twice, I felt compelled to bring it here to avoid any appearance of impropriety and also break the prod-deprod-prod-deprod cycle. Whether a "procedural nom" was the ideal course of action remains to be seen. –xenotalk 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've withdrawn the AfD. –xenotalk 00:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As the admin who restored it after being deleted via prod and deprodded it twice, I felt compelled to bring it here to avoid any appearance of impropriety and also break the prod-deprod-prod-deprod cycle. Whether a "procedural nom" was the ideal course of action remains to be seen. –xenotalk 22:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So the same guy prodded it twice, so you went ahead and sent it to AFD for him, instead of telling him how to do it himself. Don't call it a procedure nomination though. Just say hey, nominating it for a guy who messed up his attempt. Dream Focus 22:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See [14], [15]. –xenotalk 21:22, 30 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jean Fares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Pure promotion. All references provided are from press releases published by the company or from blog posts (presumably also made by the company). No reliable sources to indicate that this is a notable company. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Spam. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as promotional spam - can find no reliable references. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. thefashionpatrol.com does not establish the notability of a couturier, it merely reflects that of the "models." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, appears to be promotional, with no reliable sources to indicate why the subject of the article (and not just the celebrities who wear said subject's dresses) is notable. --Kinu t/c 08:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete some important links are provided I dn't suggest removing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.91.114 (talk) 11:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The important links that were provided are either merely more spam links indicating that Fares exists, and presents at various fashion shows, or are broken links that verify nothing. No real coverage here. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. And the extra content is just puffery -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as spam. GregJackP Boomer! 22:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "JFC proudly raises its voice" etc. Oh dear. Why do people do things like this? Peridon (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Living Control (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find anything searching except for company pages; news archives produce no related references other than press-release info; thus company does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY Qwyrxian (talk) 12:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete. This is a business Offering integrated solutions to control audio, video, computer, IP and environmental systems. I gather they make fancy remotes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no evidence this company meets WP:CORP. --Kinu t/c 08:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence that this is notable. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keephighly visible on net86.150.60.68 (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2010 (UTC) — 86.150.60.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: That's not one of the notability criteria. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- response they are also quite prominent in the hi fi press I will provide reference 86.150.60.68 (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's not one of the notability criteria. --Kinu t/c 21:09, 29 August 2010 (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. . She is not notable as an athlete; being accused of murder is not notable, either. Being convicted of a particularly notable murder that attracts wide public attention mightwell be reason for an article, but before conviction I've never closed against the apparent majority before, but it's a matter for do no harm--and BLP trumps other considerations, If convicted, do no harm might well not be applicable, so if that happens, at that point, rewrite and reinstate. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keli Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No lasting encyclopedic value in this WP:BLP article. Mattinbgn (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There's certainly a lot of sensational press about her, and the alleged murder of her child. Many of the reports report her as a champion water polo player. For example, [16], and [17]. [18] notes that her intention was to be part of the water polo team at the Sydney Olympics. So there is some indication that she may meet WP:ATHLETE with respect to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep in line with the guideline at WP:BREAKING. I've searched around the best I can and I do not think this subject currently passes WP:ATHLETE or WP:EVENT, however, I cannot help but think there would be a large number of "keep" recommendations if she were an American. Given that she is in the middle of a well publicized trial in Australia, I am inclined to take a wait and see approach to "breaking news" articles. Location (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After a lot of digging around, as best as I can determine for WP:ATHLETE, this establishes that she was a member of a silver medal team at the Junior World Championships for water polo. Although a commendable accomplishment, that's not an indication that she is competing at the top level of her sport. So from the point of view of athletic accomplishments, she does not meet notability. On the other hand, coverage about her alleged crime has been noted by multiple major Australian dailies over a sustained period of time. I've found coverage from 2004 through to the present which demonstrates that this has transcended just being another news item. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, it seems clear from the above that she does not meet WP:ATHLETE, and the murder trial is a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E in my opinion, no matter how many papers it has been in. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - BLP1E includes the qualifier that "the significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." The coverage spanning literally years demonstrates that coverage has been quite persistent. -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite so. If BLP1E were applied literally, even Lee Harvey Oswald would not be notable. WWGB (talk) 11:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - BLP1E includes the qualifier that "the significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." The coverage spanning literally years demonstrates that coverage has been quite persistent. -- Whpq (talk) 10:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I agree that there has been a great deal of sensational reporting and that it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to pre-empt the outcome of the trial. However, whatever the outcome I think that this is a case that will be well remembered in the history of criminal law in Australia. Brens (talk) 14:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lane's water polo career is marginal. Concerning the alleged murder of her daughter, however, WP:BLP1E states that "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. ... The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Now "Keli Lane" Ghits number close to 200,000 [19] and interest in the case goes back almost six years [20], as demonstrated by User:Whpq. This is a keeper. WWGB (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Begg (Metal Expert) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
AFD template added with the comment "Non-notable entry"; AFD nom not completed, but the debate seems to have started anyway, so I'm placing the afd2 template here and adding this to the log. Hairhorn (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I was called away. The article reads like a CV and makes no claim to notability. No books, cited articles, invented alloys etc. One source says he found a body. Google shows no notable hits for him I can find. Victuallers (talk) 21:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was not written by him and this man has done more research and I am going to make the article longer in the future FreddyBlogs22 (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non notable resume with no reliable sources.TeapotgeorgeTalk 09:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence this fulfills a criterion of WP:PROF and the mention in the newspaper article is trivial. Hekerui (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7/person with no notability presented, and while "FreddyBlogs22" claims the article wasn't written by the subject he also claims the super-close-up picture is his own work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not notable. GregJackP Boomer! 04:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, does not meet WP:BIO. Use of the term "expert" aside, this article really contains no assertion of notability. --Kinu t/c 08:47, 27 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Greg Ammon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No individual notability, notable only as the son of Ted Ammon, where this page should be redirected. Hairhorn (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No claims to notability of this person. May get mention in father's article
- Delete notablity is not inherited, until he does something worthy of notice on his own, no need for a separate article. Redirect to father's article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 29 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Milestone Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only evidence of notability is claim in article to have "invested in projects worth more than US $1.0 billion". I've found no source of this information after a good-faith search. (Was originally going to WP:PROD, but this may benefit from discussion/other editors may find evidence of notability.) me_and (talk) 11:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
- Delete per nomination. Blatant advertising as well: premier independent Private Equity fund houses.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just cleaned up that bit. No point in leaving it there regardless of whether it's to be shortly deleted, and it was only a quick edit. me_and (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Minor bus operators in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A list of non-notable bus companies with no content information and which doesn't serve as a navigational aid. A while back I did some work to improve this, but looking at it again I'm fairly convinced it breaches WP:NOT#DIR. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The info on this page is sourced (there are like 40 or so references). trainfan01 August 25, 2010 (UTC)
- That's indeed true (although every reference is a primary source), but how does it meet WP:NOTDIR? It's a directory of the addresses of companies that don't have articles! Alzarian16 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep WP:LSC specifically contemplates such lists: "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of minor characters in Dilbert or List of paracetamol brand names." This leaves the question whether a comprehensive list of minor bus lines is notable. While I generally don't employ WP:OTHERSTUFF exists arguments, a list of actual minor bus lines in England seems to me to be at least as notable as a list of fictional minor characters in a work of art. The selection criteria are bounded and well-defined and self-published sources are considered WP:RS for information about themselves unless they are self-serving or there is some reason to doubt them. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 23:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per AbbyKellyite's reasoning, but consider expanding the scope to all bus operators. This appears to be the only article listing bus operators by region, and a list of all operators in the region might make more sense than a list that only include those that don't qualify for Wiki notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The information is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia and I don't see why the article should be deleted just to satisfy some narrow interpretation of the rules. Biscuittin (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Democratic Unionist Party (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has entries for only two articles and so can be dealt with by a hatnote. It is unlikely that the Independent Unionist Party will ever get an article. PatGallacher (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but suggest maybe dropping the "-ist". I just found and added six other similar parties. I also added hatnotes to those articles.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is a perfect disambiguation page. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw in view of additions, although it may still need to be tidied up. PatGallacher (talk) 13:33, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- William Smith (boxer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the information in the article and establish notability. This unsourced WP:BLP does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 09:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 09:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 09:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Boxing has been notified of this debate.—J04n(talk page) 09:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Markiewp (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't come up with anything to verify, especially the championships. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unverified. This would probably qualify as notable is these claims are backed up, but I can't find anything to support these claims other than Wiki mirrors. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No references. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:11, 28 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Skydrift Air Charter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is one of many small air charter companies and FBOs that exist, and there is nothing to suggest notability of this particular company. A Google search only turns up directory entries, lists of aircraft types or lists of airlines (and Skydrift is not an airline). The main editors appear to be persons with a connection to the company, in that they have not edited any other articles on WP. YSSYguy (talk) 09:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails WP:N as there is no independent coverage. Mjroots (talk) 10:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Fails to meet WP:CORP, non-notable company. - Ahunt (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (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 merge to Akatsuki no Kuruma. —fetch·comms 01:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Akatsuki No Kuruma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A free download cover version of the original Akatsuki no Kuruma - the cover fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG, because it didn't chart and has no independent coverage. Hekerui (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. As I suggested and templated the first time I removed the PROD. --Gwern (contribs) 09:28 25 August 2010 (GMT)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions -- Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Akatsuki no Kuruma I have no idea why there needs to be a branch out article with the same name here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why merge? It's a download cover version that was never commercially released and has no notability. The album that contained the song was already deleted. Hekerui (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the content is not so bad that it needs to be hidden from the sight of mankind, it's a useful redirect, and covers are worth mentioning. --Gwern (contribs) 12:50 29 August 2010 (GMT)
- Yeah, notable covers. Hekerui (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the content is not so bad that it needs to be hidden from the sight of mankind, it's a useful redirect, and covers are worth mentioning. --Gwern (contribs) 12:50 29 August 2010 (GMT)
- Merge. And by that I mean one line mentioning a cover of Akatsuki no Kuruma by a Spanish singer called Ailyn. Or just delete. Either way there's no helping this article. Raisin56 (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete This has nothing to do with the Akatsuki no Kuruma song page. Its just about someone releasing a free download where they song a cover of the song. Just because someone decides to sing someone else's song, and give it away free online, doesn't make it notable. Dream Focus 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean it has nothing to do with the song except being another version of the song? I see. --Gwern (contribs) 12:50 29 August 2010 (GMT)
- Mentioning someone sung someone else's song and released with other covers she did as a "Free album" downloaded from her website, which equals no album at all. Why would someone singing someone else's stuff, and letting people download it off their website, matter? Was this version ever played on radios, or used in anything at all? Dream Focus 17:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean it has nothing to do with the song except being another version of the song? I see. --Gwern (contribs) 12:50 29 August 2010 (GMT)
- Redirect to "Akatsuki no Kuruma" as an alternative capitalization. There is no evidence that this cover is particularly noteworthy. —Farix (t | c) 22:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, merge or delete in that order. Nolelover 01:15, 2 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brandon Richards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. みんな空の下 (トーク) 08:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:BIO which requires "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The one reference in the article is to a June 1996 article in a magazine that can be expected to eventually discuss every martial arts proponent, and cannot be used to establish notability. Searching fails to find other useful mentions. Johnuniq (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this article as I have just updated much of the information and provided outside links to articles written about Brandon Richards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 30brandon (talk • contribs) 09:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Do we need to check to see if he is active over the past couple of years or so, including today? みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 18:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence in independent sources that subject passes WP:MANOTE. Article also appears to have WP:COI issues. Jakejr (talk) 20:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Tagged 30brandon as possible COI issue. みんな空の下 (トーク) 23:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete "Master of Science in Martial Arts" with "Ameristate University". 8 ghits for this - 4 of them mentioning the subject of this article. From its own site (which didn't come up because it's not spelled that way) "Amerstate University is the first Graduate School of Martial Arts in the United States to provide a highly skilled Master of Science-Martial Arts Program." Ah well, 'science' does cover a wide field... Not enough references for the claims. Looks like a CV, and has distinct overtones of CoI. Otherwise, per Johnuniq. Peridon (talk) 21:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to lack of reliable sources indicating subject meets WP:BIO. --Kinu t/c 08:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with the previous comments about a lack of independent sources and a failure to meet WP:MANOTE. Papaursa (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Three Cheers For Who? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Today,Gone Tomorrow (book): except this book is not even out yet. Therefore no awards, reviews, etc., per WP:NBOOK, and nobody's writing about devoted fans waiting in line at bookstores for the release. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NBOOK Derild4921☼ 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge either to Author page, series page, or Katie Kazoo. Just because the individual book isn't notable doesn't mean it has to be eradicated completely, Sadads (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Today,Gone Tomorrow (book) Novaseminary (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Be Such A Turkey! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Today,Gone Tomorrow (book): Fails WP:NBOOK; no refs, no awards, no major motion picture starring Lindsey Lohan as Katie, no reviews, nothing special about book (although it's called "Super Special", it's the eighth" such one). Article creator is apparently not serious about fleshing out this article. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 06:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per WP:NBOOK Derild4921☼ 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge either to Author page, series page, or Katie Kazoo. Just because the individual book isn't notable doesn't mean it has to be eradicated completely, Sadads (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. The book is not notable in and of itself, and the author's page already has plenty of information about her. Chromancer (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair Today,Gone Tomorrow (book) Novaseminary (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio boys and the short wave mystery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
From the deleted PROD: Campus radio show with no evidence of notability Eeekster (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No evidence of notability. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not even so much as an attempt to show notability. If this is deleted, the even worse subarticles List of themes on the radio boys in the shortwave mystery radio program and List of Motion Picture Soundtracks on the Radio Boys in the Shortwave Mystery Radio Program should also go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just added both of them as "co-defendants" in this AfD. Incidentally, they were both created after this AfD was initiated. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of themes on the radio boys in the shortwave mystery radio program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of Motion Picture Soundtracks on the Radio Boys in the Shortwave Mystery Radio Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Delete all as lacking sources to establish notability. Edison (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ras Mo Moses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP PROD was contested with this singer's website. As non-trivial reliable third-party sources, all I could find is this, from a community newspaper geared towards Connecticut's Dominican community. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That's all I could find as well: delete as non-notable. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This was speedily deleted last time, I believe as G11 (advertising); it seems to be somewhat more neutral now, but doesn't appear to be notable, and the author appears to have a conflict of interest. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 08:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There's this from the New Haven Independent, but not much else - not enough to establish notability.--Michig (talk) 15:13, 26 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Harjot Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Man who was convicted of rape earlier today. No evidence of notability prior to that. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As previously stated, this was to disambiguate this Harjot Singh from many other people with the same name, as this is a common name in the Sikh religion. Melba1 (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. If one starts to disambiguate identities according to the given arguments, then wiki is bound to become a telephone directory! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockoprem (talk • contribs) 08:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - BLP 1E. Shadowjams (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news, the person is only notable for one event and article fails notability criteria for perpetrators. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for all the good reasons set out above. WWGB (talk) 03:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:BLP1E. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete - Per nom, as the person is only notable for one event. Joaquin008 (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Olesya Tarasykova (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unsourced BLP that fails to show the subject is notable. I found no reliable sources that show he meets any of the notability criteria. Jakejr (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Google News returns zip. Google Classic returns only blogs, and one of the hits just got blacklisted by my antivirus. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 17:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I found no documentation to show this person passes WP:MANOTE or WP:BIO. Papaursa (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Caesar Takeshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This BLP has been tagged as unsourced since January 2009. I found no reliable independent sources that show he meets notability criteria.
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 02:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The search string "シーザー武志" yields a few interesting results on Google News, though you have to pass them all through a machine translation if you can't read Japanese. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 05:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What might those interesting results be? Any indicate notability? Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Collectively, they do. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is the English Wikipedia, it would be good if you could put sources and translations into the article. Jakejr (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand that the article has to be in English, the sources do not, and that's why we have the {{jp icon}} template (and similar ones for just about every language in existence) to use in citations. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate you putting your findings into the article. My computer is not giving me an English translation so I don't know if these articles show notability or not. Jakejr (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google Translate is quite handy in situations like this. And it is generally fairly reliable too. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate you putting your findings into the article. My computer is not giving me an English translation so I don't know if these articles show notability or not. Jakejr (talk) 20:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While I understand that the article has to be in English, the sources do not, and that's why we have the {{jp icon}} template (and similar ones for just about every language in existence) to use in citations. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since this is the English Wikipedia, it would be good if you could put sources and translations into the article. Jakejr (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Collectively, they do. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 17:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep: Takeshi Caesar is more notable than Caesar Takeshi. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying Takeshi Caesar and Caesar Takeshi are the same person? Takeshi Caesar appears to be an actor while the article originally titled Caesar Takeshi makes no mention of an acting career. Papaursa (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, see: ja:シーザー武志#主な出演作. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It looks like enough evidence exists to show subject's notability, although the current article doesn't show it. The references that were added still don't show notability as a martial artist, but his acting career (which is totally ignored in the current article) boosts his notability. This article needs to be improved to show notability, but this discussion is about his notability, not the existing article. Hopefully someone will fix the article. Papaursa (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 Venezuela earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS. There was some damage and a few injured people, but no deaths. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the Rule of 7. Carrite (talk) 06:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although some quakes of less than 7.0 can establish notability under WP:GNG, this one got almost no coverage after a few days. I say "almost no coverage" because there's this [21], but I wouldn't consider it more than a mention. Mandsford 14:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the earthquake is not notable, but what is "the rule of 7" that Carrite mentions above, so, this article (magnitude 6.9) should be deleted per your rule. Certain Italy earthquake that almost destroyed a city, of magnitude 6,3-6,4 should be deleted too. Excuse me, but that's awkward. It depends on if the earthquake is notable, or not. If it causes major damage or casualties, etc. Diego Grez (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This out of place from my talk page...
- Hi, I have seen many of your keep/delete votes on earthquakes articles, that point out to a "rule of [moment magnitude] 7". That an earthquake reaches a magnitude 7 or higher does not make it inherently notable, the historical legacy does. There are plenty of earthquakes that are magnitude 5, 6, such as 2010 Pichilemu earthquake (magnitude 6.9), but they are notable because of the damage, or historical value they have. So, please disregard this stupid rule of the magnitude 7. Diego Grez (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- The rule of 7 may be "stupid," I will give you that, but it beats the alternative to an unending series of articles, challenged articles, debates, and conflict over whether to include or not include an earthquake. 7.0 quakes are sufficiently rare to be notable and it's a nice line in the stand that can be drawn to preempt the unproductive bickering between earthquake fans (for lack of a better word) and their deletionist foes. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi, I have seen many of your keep/delete votes on earthquakes articles, that point out to a "rule of [moment magnitude] 7". That an earthquake reaches a magnitude 7 or higher does not make it inherently notable, the historical legacy does. There are plenty of earthquakes that are magnitude 5, 6, such as 2010 Pichilemu earthquake (magnitude 6.9), but they are notable because of the damage, or historical value they have. So, please disregard this stupid rule of the magnitude 7. Diego Grez (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 Puebla earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS. Not of lasting significance. No deaths, injuries, or damage. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the Rule of 7. Carrite (talk) 06:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news. There is no evidence of lasting impact, no deaths or damage. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Although it made news when it happened, it didn't get mentioned at all afterward. [22], so I can't see any argument for historic notability. I note that we have no article at all about an earthquake that happened near there in 1973, or others in Mexico that would be historically significant. These are mentioned in List of earthquakes in Mexico, and perhaps that list can be expanded to make mention of minor events such as this one. Mandsford 14:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, but I laugh of "the rule of 7"'s awkwardness. Diego Grez (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whatever works, works. If an earthquake is under 7.0, it has to "squish lots of people or break lots of shit" to be included. Carrite (talk) 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 07:33, 28 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 Mexicali earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTNEWS. Not of lasting significance, no deaths, injuries, or damage. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the Rule of 7. Carrite (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news. There is no evidence of lasting impact, no deaths. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This could be mentioned in Laguna Salada Fault, but as Mike and Armbrust point out, there's no lasting significance to this event. Mandsford 14:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, but I laugh of "the rule of 7"'s awkwardness. Diego Grez (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We agree again, so far we're 3-for-3... Carrite (talk) 01:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Thee is no rule of 7, and we have many earthquakes of similar magnitude. Earthquakes necessarily have lasting geological effects on the natural world. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete because there is no reason to keep this and 5.8 is fairly regular around here and any earthquake that small should show some kind of damage and this really doesn't because they happen all the time and people sleep through them. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mile Cărpenişan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails to meet notability requirements. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NOTABILITY Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Blue Wing Airlines. Spartaz Humbug! 18:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 2010 Blue Wing Airlines Antonov An-28 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Its a routine news report-type article. Accidents occur many times, but the fact they occurred does not make them notable. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I don't see sufficient notability outside of routine news reports. Tragedy, but not notable in the WP:N sense. Shadowjams (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep or Redirect to Blue Wing Airlines. I think that there is plenty of evidence of lasting impact, more so than we would see in most airline crashes: [23] "Suriname's US Embassy bans staff from using local Blue Wing Airlines due to safety concerns" and "EU Adds Suriname's Blue Wing To List Of Banned Airlines". I'll offer a wishy-washy suggestion of a redirect, since I think that this would be the tragedy that is most likely to put this infamously unsafe carrier out of business. Mandsford 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An airliner was written off and eight lives were lost. That should be sufficient to establish notability. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Insignificant aircrash, the amount of blacklisted airlines out there is huge, whole countries are even blacklisted, and listing/delisting is not uncommon. Embassies simply giving good advice is also not significant. This happened three months ago and is still a classic news article which should never have been created in the first place without even considering these sorts of aspects of historical note, rather than just competing with wikinews. It's high time better standards were enforced at source, such as here and here. MickMacNee (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Textbook WP:NOTNEWS. Light aircraft, small number of fatalities, nothing exceptionally notable about it that suggests it will be remembered in a month or a year. The very fact that there are two other incidents very similar to this at AfD currently in itself suggests that they are not particularly uncommon. This kind of thing may have been notable 10 years ago, but air travel has become much more common across the world, thus, it's inevitable that, with more planes in the sky, more will fall out of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Light aircraft" refers to General Aviation, the AN-28 is an airliner. Mjroots (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Next time submit "Wikipedia is not a news source"'s articles to Wikinews, a sister project specially designed for news! Diego Grez (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per established practice, reliable sources[24] and this proposed guideline: Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability If unhappy with the guideline, I suggest proposing its change or deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Notability --213.167.156.218 (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. This IP has made no other edits to the project except to copy and paste this same vote across three Afds of wildly different crashes
- Redirect to Blue Wing Airlines. This one doesn't have enough coverage to meet WP:EVENT as far as I can see, and most of the content is at the airline page already. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it Sad but not enough death and airplanes that crash and kill eight people are common. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, largely per Mjroots and IP 213..., combination of eight dead, hull loss, commercial aviation, and many reports on it equals notability. C628 (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not a combo game. Eight dead is not automatically notable. Hull losses are not automatically notable. Commercial aviation crashes are not automatically notable. Many reports do not confer automatically notability. You cannot simply add a bunch of things that do not confer notability up to claim it equals notability. And not only is the IP currently blocked, his rationale is quite obviously invalid as he posted it without any consideration across three wildly different Afd's. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per Mjroots. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:13, 2 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 19 May 2010 Bucharest protests (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. Not even remotely remarkable enough for its own article. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news. There is no evidence of lasting impact. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree that there's no lasting impact shown. Mandsford 15:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Eugen Simion 14 should submit these articles to Wikinews, the free news source instead of the encyclopaedia. Diego Grez (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per above. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sinisa Ivanji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an unsourced BLP of someone who doesn't appear to meet WP:MANOTE. I found no independent sources that show notability. Jakejr (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Jakejr (talk) 02:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This article is an unsourced BLP with a lot of problems. I agree with the nominator. Papaursa (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete following the comments above. Janggeom (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous comments. Astudent0 (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- May 2010 Vanuatu earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Per WP:NOTNEWS. No deaths, injuries, or damage. Completely unremarkable, aside from the 7.1 magnitude. —Mikemoral♪♫ 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Passes the Rule of 7. To wit: an earthquake is automatically in if it measures 7.0 or greater, and automatically out if it is under 7.0, so long as it doesn't squish lots of people or break lots of stuff. Carrite (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: If they're under 7, stop creating these articles; if they're over 7, stop challenging them... Carrite (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for news. There is no evidence of lasting impact, no deaths.
(Maybe transwiki to WikiNews?).Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A transwiki to Wikinews cannot occur for two reasons: Wikinews is CC-BY 2.5 and the article would be stale on Wikinews. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: The "Rule of 7" is not an official Wikipedia policy or a guideline. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are just guidelines... Lines for inclusion and exclusion have to be drawn somewhere. This one seems functional, in that 7.0 quakes are sufficiently rare to be notable, of historical interest. There are, correct me if I'm wrong, scores or hundreds of earthquakes each week. One has to draw the line somewhere; size matters. Casualties and destruction also matter. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as you can see, there was no death/injuries or damage, so the logic behind the so-called "Rule of Seven" seems flawed if no damage to structures or people is caused or if there is no lasting significance. —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Guidelines are just guidelines... Lines for inclusion and exclusion have to be drawn somewhere. This one seems functional, in that 7.0 quakes are sufficiently rare to be notable, of historical interest. There are, correct me if I'm wrong, scores or hundreds of earthquakes each week. One has to draw the line somewhere; size matters. Casualties and destruction also matter. Carrite (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So why does the frontpage have a section called "In the news"? Lugnuts (talk) 17:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because we have a sister project called Wikinews from which we temporarily transclude content. "In the news" on the front page doesn't override that "newsworthy" doesn't equal "notable". Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Diego Grez (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it Passes rule of 7, but still didn't do anything and why does anyone need wiki article about it and having it forever. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sex Workers' Art Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to have any established notability beyond what is already present in the article, which isn't much. Laval (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unsourced non-event. Carrite (talk) 06:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete apparently caused a minor local stir when they showed up at a college in Virginia in 2008. Not enough to hang an article on though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Diego Grez (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- William Seemann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the information in the article and sufficiently establish notability. There are two generations of William Seemanns in this book, one of them may be this William Seemann or they could be his father and grandfather but no way to figure which because there are no dates in the article. Either way I don't think anything in the book reaches the level of notability. This inventor does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 01:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. —Mikemoral♪♫ 03:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Markiewp (talk) 05:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Diego Grez (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No references. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (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. —fetch·comms 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Babou Barro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - appears notable, as he was the topscorer in the 2007 UMEOA tournament (albeit for a B national side) and has drawn attention from French clubs. There are a few articles in French about his exploits so even if he fails NPSORTS, he may pass GNG. Jogurney (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Add some more sources and I'll re-consider. GiantSnowman 11:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unless more sources are added. Argyle 4 Lifetalk 19:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per WP:AGF, i agree that this article should be kept. The subject appears to be notable being a top scorer in the respective league. --Gian (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: fails the general notability guideline and the sub-guideline NSPORT. BigDom 07:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as non-notable, sort of failing WP:ATHLETE, and definitely failing WP:GNG. Nolelover 01:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Redirecting as an editorial decision. The consensus is to keep this article but I recommend leaving it as a redirect until he plays his first game in the bigs. At that point there will be no doubt that he meets WP:NSPORT. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Manny Machado (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 18. This article was deleted by the first AfD, recreated, and then deleted again by WP:CSD#G4. However, the DRV suggests that G4 had been inappropriately applied. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Baltimore Orioles. Since the prior AFD he has been signed. T o my knowledge, he has not played. Not notable till he plays. Thought the creator understood this. Dlohcierekim 00:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- According to the Baltimore Sun Sports news-blog, "will likely be introduced at Camden Yards during the Orioles-Tampa Bay Rays series on either Sept. 3 or Sept. 4." So I would not delete this. Dlohcierekim 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
also, Move the current article with it's edit history (the creator put a lot of work into this) back to userspace till subject becomes notable. Then move the article back. Dlohcierekim 02:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP Technically, does not necessarily meet the WP:GNG or WP:MLB/N. However, he will be unquestionably notable when he plays. The announced time for that is when the Rays visit the Orioles Sept 3 or 4. I'll be working, so I won't get to watch. To me, it's too fine a hair to split the two weeks and time to leave this in the article space. Dlohcierekim 14:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-direct to the Baltimore Orioles minor league players page like it was before. I'm not sure why the edit history had to be re-added...--Yankees10 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Query Was this moved from userspace to article space due to WP:DRV? Despite the improvements to the article, he still will not meet MLBN till he plays. Moving to article space was premature. Why could the creator not polish and update it there till the subject met notability? Dlohcierekim 01:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In looking over the article itself, I note that it mentions, very casually, that he happened to sign a contract for $5.25 million. Even the mlb.com article seems to throw that in as an "oh, by the way" type thing Orioles sign No. 3 overall pick Machado, kind of like "He had eggs and bacon for breakfast, he brushed his teeth, he signed a deal for five million dollars, he watched Judge Judy that night". He doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE, of course, having never played an MLB game, but I can see arguments in favor of WP:GNG on this one. Mandsford 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Significant local and national coverage in reliable sources spanning several years. Meets WP:GNG as I interpret it, so failure of WP:NSPORTS shouldn't matter on this occassion. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I rarely keep articles on minor league players, but his article currently meet WP:GNG, delete if he never reaches the majors. Secret account 16:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I think there is some confusion above; the Baltimore Sun link says that he is going to start with a minor-league club. It is exceedingly rare for an MLB draft pick to go straight to his Major League team, and it doesn't sound like that's happening here. I don't think it matters as much as some others might, though. Even though he doesn't meet athlete notability guidelines yet, there's clearly enough coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. The coverage isn't all locally-based, either; articles from USA Today and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette are already utilized as references. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, easily meets WP:GNG on its own. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 14:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Baltimore Orioles minor league players. His notability is questionable. He'll be forgotten if he turns out to be a bust. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 28 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tom Pagon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject has several claims to fame but I'm afraid that none of them grant sufficient notability to warrant an article. He was a pastor and a Sunday school teacher. He was a member of a notable band, Steppenwolf, but in an era that members put together ersatz versions of the band for touring purposes, and I can't find any reliable sources to verify that he was even in the band. He wrote for Billboard, not in itself notable and searching the Billboard archives with both spellings of his name received no hits. Lastly, he wrote a book, 40 Lessons I Should Have Learned in Sunday School, which I can find but I can find nothing written about it. It does not appear that he passes WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO, or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:51, 27 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Gareth McConnell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to fail WP:ARTIST. He has contributed to the NYT but the article was not about him and the rest of the sources are about exhibitions but do not address notability. A search on Google News shows only tangential mentions or information about exhibitions and buying his work, nothing to demonstrate impact or a notable award. Fæ (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indira Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability isn't inherited from her mother. The newspaper reference doesn't even refer to her by name, only as the daughter of Chaka Khan. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This could be easily merged with Chaka Khan. It could be just in a section or something. Other than being in bands, I think there is no other notablity in the article, but the fact that Indira Khan is the daughter of Chaka Khan is notable. That info should be on Chaka Khan's page, and it should be merged altogether. JeremyMcClean (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Subject does not appear to be notable under the criteria of WP:BAND. No significant releases or coverage. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Through a Glass, Darkly (I et speil, i en gåte) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable book. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep appears to have been made into a notable movie. I note the Norwegian WP article, from which it may be possible to expand ours a bit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep article for movie and author show that this is notable by association, I imagine their are plenty of sources, Sadads (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, imagination is a wonderful thing, but it doesn't produce references. A quick google produced no coverage although I freely admit searching is made difficult by common use of the phrase and that there are other books bearing the same title. Reads like an advert. Nuujinn (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for the following reasons:
- Contains copied material from Amazon which means the article cannot be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 as the contributor will not own the copyright to this text, Amazon will.
- Reads like an advert
- Manual of Style: no lead, important wikipedia link to author in Links section.
- Only external link is to imdb, a movie site , not a book site.
- No references.
- Link for movie leads to 1961 film Through a Glass Darkly (film), not the 2008 film that the article claims was based on this book. The article for the film mentioned does not state that it was based on a book.
- Title includes a translation into the book's original language
- The article is a stub which, upon addressing the points above, would be no longer than a paragraph and, I believe, could never be properly expanded due to lack of references.
- Being made into a film does not make a book notable. If users insist on keeping the article simply for this reason, I recommend merging it into an article for the 2008 film. In fact, films are not automatically notable. There'd need to be (preferably multiple) reliable external sources available confirming the notability of any film before we'd include it on Wikipedia.
- Just mentioning the policies and guidelines which this article fails: WP:OR, WP:Lead, WP:V, WP:ADS, WP:Names
--tb240904 Talk Contribs 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of these issues are easily repaired and are not valid grounds for deletion. An article fails WP:V and is WP:OR if sources cannot be found, but in this case they are found easily enough. --Lambiam 13:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A few clicks on the Norwegian wikipedia showed that the book won a national award in the year it was released. [25] The other problems, including a page move, can be fixed by normal editing. Edgepedia (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I found this link to the list of prize winners, the author is listed, but not the book. Perhaps a better source can be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [26] is a source for the film, giving international sales for the book of two million. Edgepedia (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that appears to be passing mention rather than significant coverage, and number of copies sold is not a criteron of WP:NB. I think the award is the best bet, but we lack a source that says the book won an award. Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A German translation won amongst others, the 1996 Buxtehude Bulle. I've also referenced a review of the film. According to WP:NB #3, if the film's notable, the book's notable but I see no reason for two articles at the moment. I've restructured it accordingly. Edgepedia (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, do you believe that you have established that the film is notable? I'm not sure it is, but I do like the notion of making this an article about the film, and including information about the book--that would seem to be a more substantial article all around. Nuujinn (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A German translation won amongst others, the 1996 Buxtehude Bulle. I've also referenced a review of the film. According to WP:NB #3, if the film's notable, the book's notable but I see no reason for two articles at the moment. I've restructured it accordingly. Edgepedia (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that appears to be passing mention rather than significant coverage, and number of copies sold is not a criteron of WP:NB. I think the award is the best bet, but we lack a source that says the book won an award. Nuujinn (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [26] is a source for the film, giving international sales for the book of two million. Edgepedia (talk) 15:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I found this link to the list of prize winners, the author is listed, but not the book. Perhaps a better source can be found. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't understand why a film that has won national award [27] as the best children's film would not be notable. Edgepedia (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I'm sorry to be so dense, but I don't see I et speil, i en gåte or Through a Glass Darkly listed in that link, and it appears that that list only goes up to 2006, while the film was released in 2009. And I don't read Norwegian very well (although I can read it a bit), so I'm not really in a position to evaluate what the Amanda award is in the first place. We need better sources to establish notability. Nuujinn (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't know why I gave you that link. This is an uptodate one. [28]
- Keep. It is easy enough to find sources in Norwegian for the claim that the book won the 1993 Booksellers prize: Bokhandlerforeningen (the Booksellers Association), Norsk Biografisk Leksikon (Norwegian Biographical Encyclopedia). Here is a link to a page (in Norwegian) on the website of the Norwegian Filmfestival showing that the film won the Amanda Award 2009 for Best Children and Youth Film, and another one (in English) by the Norwegian Film Institute. The book has also been published in an English translation: Jostein Gaarder (1999). Through a Glass, Darkly. Dolphin. ISBN 978-1-85881-769-9. And here is a link for the claim that the book won the 1996 Buxtehude Bull. --Lambiam 13:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Lambian, thank you, those will do nicely. Nuujinn 14:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Elope (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
The page is here since 2008, but this album has never been released, I think it should be redirected to the artist's page. No tracklisting, no release date. Things like this shouldn't stay on an enciclopedy. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 11:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The article is well-referenced and detailed. If it was 2008 or the article a stub or start, I would vote delete. Although I personally don't care if it every comes out, there appears to be a lot of anticipation for it this year in the news and searches. The album seems to fail WP:NALBUM though in regards to pre-release as nothing has been confirmed other than the title. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There was another AFD for this article as well in September 2009.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - As the article's primary contributor, I'm not really sure if this album will actually get released. It was on track, but after the singer's divorce (her now ex-husband produced the whole thing), it's status is up in the air. That being said, I've made sure to include as much referenced information as I can. While the album may not be released for a while, I don't see why this article couldn't be kept. It's well sourced and all of the information is still relevant, no matter when or under what name it gets released. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails WP:NALBUMS for no release date and no tracklisting. And wikipedia isnt a crystal ball, this page is well referenced but honestly, at the moment useless. The album won't probably be released, why keep an article about an unreleased album? ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 10:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well even WP:NALBUMS states that "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004." While there is no track-listing or release date, there still is enough properly referenced information about it. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 09:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice note Cornucopia! Ga Be 19 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well even WP:NALBUMS states that "In a few special cases, an unreleased album may qualify for an advance article if there is sufficient verifiable and properly referenced information about it—for example, Guns 'n Roses' 2008 album Chinese Democracy had an article as early as 2004." While there is no track-listing or release date, there still is enough properly referenced information about it. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 09:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Christina Milian. This one is tricky because so much reliable info exists on the album whether it's going to be released or not, and I'm not sure if the crystal ball rule totally applies. But we do need for the album to really exist in order to have a viable album article. As a fair compromise, the fact that the album is in the works, and the sources saying so, can be merged to the artist's article (and maybe moved back later if the album ever becomes a reality). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because the album has been delayed a lot, does not mean it should be merged. The article has a lot of useful information. I don't think it should be merged, at least not until we have further information on the status of the album. For now, I think it should remain an article. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're talking about an unexisting thing. This album will probably never be released, so it's unexisting. I dont think wikipedia needs articles even for unexisting things. It should be merged to the artist's page, but it shouldn't have an article all for it. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 22:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If definitely exists; whether or not it gets released soon is another question. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not another question, a page can be well referenced, but if there's no need for it to have a own page, it can be merged without any problems. You wrote this article two years ago, and now it's at the same point. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying that the album will never come out is considered to be original research, which is against Wikipedia rules. "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources." This is a very well references article that is full of information. ~ ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not another question, a page can be well referenced, but if there's no need for it to have a own page, it can be merged without any problems. You wrote this article two years ago, and now it's at the same point. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 20:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If definitely exists; whether or not it gets released soon is another question. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 06:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - the article is sourced well enough to be kept. As of now, the album is still scheduled to be released in the upcoming months, so even more details should surface soon. Corn.u.co.pia • Disc.us.sion 05:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - Enough sourcing and a well developed article, however the nom deserves credit for bringing it here rather than unilaterally making the change. Close issue, maybe deserving a merge later, but appears to have been discussed enough. Probably should be updated, or watched for that. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Strong delete unreleased album, doesnt need its own page. ׺°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια׺°”˜`”°º× 18:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep/Redirect - It's well sourced, and a long enough page to keep. Redirect for the time being. Ga Be 19 02:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SD Cinematografica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable Italian company. No reliable third-party sources found; Italian sources unchecked. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 14:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The company in question has been awarded notable prizes satisfying the WP:N criteria. --Gian (talk) 03:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Gian. Nolelover 01:12, 2 September 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lynn Singer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable voice coach, fails WP:BIO. Of the three references proffered, two are from her own website, and one is a reader-submitted quasi-blog. A Google search [29] turns up her own website, Linkedin and other self-referential and blog pages; it's quite devoid of reliable sources. Ravenswing 02:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Simply to compare thoughts, not to be argumentative: I see this as a problem area for Wikpedia. The WP entries for voice teacher and vocal coach deal only with those who teach singing. They are completely lacking in sources. It has been suggested that they be merged with vocal pedagogy, which also deals solely with singing. Essentially, the teaching of voice and vocal technique to actors doesn’t exist on Wikipedia – which I, at least, find astounding. Part of the problem, I think, may in fact have to do with the difficulty of sourcing per WP criteria. These are important areas in the arts – an area in which I believe it is generally accepted WP needs work. It seems to me that in an area of activity where notabiity in the real world is mostly word-of-mouth, there will indeed tend to be a scarcity of sources. In this case, it would seem to me that the reference in Back Stage establishes notability, and that the other sites provide additional information as to some particulars per Living Persons criteria. I certainly don’t see how calling for deletion as non-notable is appropriate unless vocal coaching for actors is in itself non-notable. That seems to me excessive. I think it’s an area that needs work, and time, for WP to flesh out, but it seems to me that while it may be appropriate to tag as to stub status or the desire for additional cites, to call for deletion is excessive. Other thoughts? AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just added an interview to the entry. AtomikWeasel (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- . . . also added cite in which she is noted as to authority and prominence in Acting: Advanced Techniques for the Actor, Director, and Teacher by Terry Schreiber, Mary Beth Barber, and Edward Norton (ISBN 9781581154184). AtomikWeasel (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, you're not being argumentative. This is a common issue on Wikipedia, and the answer is that since Wikipedia is not a publisher of first instance, it's not within our remit to be a vehicle for the popularization of various fields of endeavor; it is solely to report that which our culture deems to be notable, using detailed guidelines to do so. If you conclude that our society takes very little notice of vocal coaches for the spoken word, and has not given them the prominence and attention necessary to clear the bars of WP:V and WP:BIO, I certainly won't dispute you. I can only say that we are not, and cannot, be trailblazers here. Ravenswing 08:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I quite agree as to first instance – I meant, however clumsily and indirectly, to indicate that this is an area where I feel Wikipedia needs further development – thus my creation of the entry. As for this particular entry, it would seem to me that the cites added ought suffice to establish evidence per Wikipedia criteria as to notability – would you agree or disagree? AtomikWeasel (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't, I'm afraid. Singer's own website is debarred, since sources need to be "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," and are required to be completely independent of the subject. The Schreiber book only mentions Singer in passing, describes her not at all - as opposed to the "significant detail" required - and fails the independence bar seeing as the text explicitly states that Singer was working for Schreiber at the time. The Back Stage cite doesn't even give that much; it's a line of text. Presuming that Soul of An American Actor counts as a widely accepted source in the acting industry, that's the only one which passes the minimum bar to satisfy WP:V, which requires multiple sources. The much tougher bar is WP:BIO, which holds for creative professionals:
- The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
- The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
- The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
- The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
- If Singer has achieved any of these, the outside world hasn't apparently noticed. Ravenswing 18:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly, then, we differ as to the judgement call with respect to notability per Wikipedia criteria: I would argue that if a New York voice teacher is referred to at some length as an authority figure in the field in a book by a noted and respected teacher who runs a prominent school of acting that that fact alone should suffice to establish the fact, objectively, per Wikipedia criteria, that she is a prominent and notable vocal coach/voice teacher. We have that fact, readily verifiable, in Schreiber’s book on the subject, complete with foreword by Edward Norton. To my way of thinking, if a recognized authority in the broad field of acting identifies someone as an authority in the discipline of voice teaching, that’s definitive and objective as to the fact of their being notable in that field, in this instance voice teaching. The fact that Schreiber holds her in sufficiently high regard that he’s employed her in that capacity hardly renders the fact of the cite or its clear implication nonexistent or inappropriate per Wikipedia criteria. This cite, combined with The Soul of the American Actor seem to me clearly to satisfy Wikipedia criteria by any objective assessment, and the additional minor detail information from the subject’s own site(s) are in my understanding acceptable per Bio criteria as supplementary information. I fail to grasp any objectively valid reason for the assertion that the entry fails to meet Wikipedia criteria – perhaps I’m slow. AtomikWeasel (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you cannot use Schreiber for a source for the reasons I cited above, your case rests on the assertion that someone you claim to be a recognized authority in the field of acting has widespread recognized authority in the field of voice coaching, and the inference that because Schreiber states his regard for a teacher he himself employs it automatically follows that he claims that she is a prominent, notable coach. That's quite a stretch ... considering that Schreiber himself didn't have an article until you created one for him last month, and that aside from his own website, that month-old article represents the second largest hits to date for Schreiber on Google. I'm not challenging Schreiber's own article, but the premise that he is widely regarded as an authority in the field itself lacks backup by reliable sources. Ravenswing 05:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact of the matter, verifiably, is that the T. Schreiber Studio trained such folks as Edward Norton and Betty Buckley. The fact of the matter, verifiably, is that Terry Schreiber founded and runs that school. The fact of the matter, verifiably, is that in his book on acting Schreiber devotes two full pages to describing in detail Singer’s approach and refers to her as an expert. These are all verifiable objective facts. If in your judgement these plus the other cites adduced fail to satisfy your interpretation of notability per Wikipedia criteria then we differ as to our judgement as to the interpretation and applicability of those criteria and I suggest you request additional third party judgement in the matter or we simply await the judgement of the closing admin. I’ve attempted in this as in a number of instances to add entries to Wikipedia in areas which I felt were neglected but in which it was possible, at times with some difficulty, to satisfy Wikipedia criteria, such as the entry for Iseult Gonne. I judge this, and the entry for Terry Schreiber, to be similar instances in which, while it’s a challenge to satisfy Wikipedia’s criteria, it is in fact possible, and I’ve endeavored to do so. As our judgement as to Wikipedia criteria so clearly differs, I’m perfectly content to leave judgement to a neutral third party. AtomikWeasel (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale - Article is a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Article is bereft of reliable secondary sources that establish notability under WP:BIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mullah Piaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is an original research, and unsourced. As a website, it fails WP:WEBSITE: "The content itself should be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Farhikht (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article lacks reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- John Capra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another low-notability, poorly sourced negative BLP of a "crime family member". Attaching the word "mobster" to a criminal does not increase notability. Scott Mac 15:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the article - I removed the unreference material and added in references supporting the information on the page. (Book, News Articles, and a federal indictment) all naming him as a Capo within the Lucchese crime family operating in the Bronx, and Westchester. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyBR (talk • contribs) 23:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Still two problems. 1) the sourcing is not good. Primary justice sources hosted on third-party websites are not generally allowed. 2) How is he notable? He "participated" in a illegal gambling, he faced racketeering charges "along with dozens of others" and he was charged with extortion and fraud. This is just a non-notable criminal, putting "mobster" and an Italian surname doesn't change it.--Scott Mac 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've added a reference from a reliable third party source so it looks as though this person meets WP:GNG but they don't meet the notability guidelines for criminals by a long shot. Nothing to make this guy encyclopaedic. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lack of "persistent coverage" of crime to establish notability per WP:PERP. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Countin' Carl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is about a mini-series (maybe, don't know for sure), but no references were provided, nor notability asserted. BOVINEBOY2008 15:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not even entirely sure this actually exists. A TV show that supposedly aired on Nick Jr and yet isn't on IMDB? Doubtful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Stub article with no reliable sources to establish notability (or existence) of the subject. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (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. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Catafalque (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The band is unnotable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Can't find any sources except for fanzines, blogs and forums. NikFreak (leave message) 16:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, cant find any reliable sources. VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - as an unremarkable band. MJ94 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- declined speedy deletion as it was previously declined before. Dlohcierekim 03:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is difficult to find sources on a Turkish band. This article is better than the Turkish one Unless reliable sourcing can be found. I struck out. Dlohcierekim 03:31, 25 August 2010 (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. -- Cirt (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cognitive Triangulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Psychological theory. Neologism / original research. Even the author admits on the talk page that it "lacks widespread use because it is a new concept". — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a look at Dara V. Wakefield's list of publications, and I see no evidence that these claimed studies have been properly written up, peer reviewed, and published, and the same done for the resultant ideas. Certainly, the stark contrast between the "Wakefield D" citation in the article, which points to nothing, and the others, which point to identifiable literature, is quite telling. This appears to be an abuse of Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance, in violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a means to perform an end-run around the proper academic publication process. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, leeeenngthy Original Research. Blast Ulna (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research, and, well..... Cognition is superficially similar to Google™ as it searches a schema, but with a key difference: Cognition requires logical connections among search parameters. A Boolean Google™ search finds concepts, but does not logically connect them. The closest parallel might be the use of quotation marks in a search. A search of arctic zebra yields over a million hits (all cases of these two terms appearing on a single webpage), but entering “arctic zebra” (with quotation marks) yields approximately one hundred hits (all arctic zebra references). “Pancreatic buzzer” is a no-hitter on Google™. The amazing thing is that we can understand why “pancreatic buzzer” it is a no-hitter, yet imagine buzzers for pancreatic functions (as well as deduce a surefire way to find this manuscript on the Internet). - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as complete bollocks. It sounds smart, but is just nonsense. Bearian (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I disagree that it is nonsense. This original research or at least "original theorizing" makes as much sense as most theories in cognitive psychology, but Wikipedia is not a forum for publishing new scientific theories. One problem in getting it published in a quality journal of cognitive psychology is that no testable predictions are made, other than anecdotes about some class the author taught and no experiments are reported, other than an anecdote or two. To have an article here, the author's concept should have been published, in a reliable source, and preferably should have substantial discussion by others in the field in journals or textbooks. Edison (talk) 21:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. No reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep 85.211.126.241 (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's All I Can Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable single. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 22:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Charting single so it's a plausible search term, but with a peak of #41 and a difficult-to-Google title it's not likely to expand beyond this stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or merge, per WP:NSONG (charting single from a notable band). --Jmundo (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Why would we delete a charting single from a major artist? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but I think that article needs expansion in order to be "flourished" like other albums, such as Ayumi Hamasaki's "Secret" or (featured) Michael Jackson's "Thriller". みんな空の下 (トーク) 22:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- Big band, charting single, there ya go... Carrite (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2010 (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.