Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 November 8: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rybec (talk | contribs)
15,982 edits
Line 12: Line 12:
__TOC__
__TOC__
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyeprint Verification}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage share of operating systems}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage share of operating systems}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District}}

Revision as of 02:00, 8 November 2013

< 7 November 9 November >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wifione Message 04:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeprint Verification

Eyeprint Verification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

May not meet WP:NSOFT.

Note, article was contributed by someone whose username is the same as the company's name, but has been rewritten by me. —rybec 02:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, It does follow WP:NSOFT, it is being tried as an alternative to passports.JDgeek1729 (talk) 03:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JDgeek1729's version of the article was about iris recognition, which is is a widely-used technique that is distinct from Eyeprint Verification. As explained in the original version of the article, the latter is "exclusive" to one company, Eyeverify, and is based on scanning the whites of the eyes, not the irises. —rybec 03:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 8 November 2013 (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. v/r - TP 21:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Usage share of operating systems

Usage share of operating systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOT Information is by definition constantly out of date. Not an encyclopedic topic. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It might make sense to move info to pages on individual OSes/topics - e.g. it's reasonable in Windows 7 to discuss its comparable market share; same for Android, etc. But I think historical data on OS share would be an encyclopedic topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:32, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even when not up to the minute current, the article can show long term trends, and changes over history. The topic is by itself covered well enough to have its own article, and is an important aspect of our coverage of the topic of operating systems.  — daranz [ t ] 14:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article seems much more up to date and better sourced than average in this project, although that is not sufficient reason by itself. As above, historical data seems fine, and the OS-specific articles seem to get unwieldy pretty quickly. Although with the divergence in platforms over the past few years, there is a bit of subject creep in this one. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. W Nowicki (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is the least out of date for Web clients and Summary (I maintained it for years each month). I agree that we should complete with historical data and not only *spot* data. Should give benefit of the doubt to keep. 20:44, 8 November 2013 (CET) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.232.24.147 (talk)
  • Keep. Even if the article is a bit heavy on statistics and somewhat out-of-date, it can still be fixed. This is a common topic in tech journals, and it would be easy to write an article that went more in-depth. I hate make an WP:ITSUSEFUL argument, but even out-of-date statistics with limited commentary is pretty useful. At the very least, I think the usage stats should probably be merged into the appropriate articles (Linux, Microsoft Windows, OS X, etc). NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Article is inherently too close to the topic. Wikipedia was never intended to be a news site always reporting the latest statistics Useerup (talk) 17:42, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it can be re-written to incorporate both long term trends and the most recent data it may prove useful and of interest, at the moment it looks as though large parts are just whatever was the most up-to-date info available at the time, and is now somewhat out of date. I would volunteer to comprehensively re-structure it myself, but I have not been able to find sufficient reliable statistics, not knowing where to look. Alternatively, if it is too small and unecyclopaedic a topic to warrant its own article, perhaps a section within Operating System? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Intersting and useful! --91.229.57.240 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All Wikipedia articles are potentially out of date - but not nearly as badly so as in a print encyclopedia. There are many people who work together keeping this information as clear and as up to date as possible. As time goes by, the article becomes more interesting and encyclopedic as older information is condensed and summarised to make way for new, developing a background level that provides more richness and de[pth for the reader. --Nigelj (talk) 11:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Helpful information, lots of of sources - no reason for deletion. 92.225.88.125 (talk) 02:26, 15 November 2013 (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. Kind of withdrawn by nominator. Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 10:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District

Loma Prieta Joint Union Elementary School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Elementary schools are rarely notable, and the districts which they are a part of are actually less notable, as they are just an office for coordination of the various schools. not every govt org gets an article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Although I agree with nominator's assessment of the lack of notability of run-of-the-mill primary schools, l disagree regarding school districts. As the linked Google News archive search shows, these are elected bodies, often with hotly contested races, and they also often place multi-million dollar bond measures on the ballot, often highly controversial. Elementary school and middle school articles are often redirected to school district articles, so these articles help with Wikipedia's function as a gazeteer, which is mentioned specifically in the Five Pillars, our founding principles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:59, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Governments are inherently notable. In the US, school districts are governments and this district has been included in the most recent US Census of Governments (2012). This government will be mentioned in various budgets, educational studies, comparative analyses, and real estate analyses just like every other school district in the US. The baseline coverage of all school districts in the US exceeds Wikipedia notability standards. That erroneous assertions of government non-notability keep coming up seems to be showing a weakness in the guidelines. TMLutas (talk) 08:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . This does not fall within our practice of redirecting nn primary and middle schools. Besides which, we need somewhere to redirect them to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - these are effectively local government bodies that raise large sums of money. Positions are elected and school districts have a high community profile. These articles also are a convenient repository for information about their constituent schools which, if middle or elementary are likely separately nn. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Every school district in the U.S. is encyclopedic, as is every public school. WP:5 "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of ... gazetteers."--Hjal (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - School district articles are the target for redirects when the inevitable (horrible) elementary school articles pop up. While no one of these schools is notable under our established consensus at AfD, the collective entity is. Carrite (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as keep from nominator. i wasnt really sure what to do with elementary/middle school DISTRICTS, but it seems like they are keepers, esp. to redirect school articles to. I had thought only school districts which included high schools made the cut, but the snow consensus is i was wrong. im cool with that.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Note: Somebody please close this now as speedy keep. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 11 November 2013 (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. Secret account 18:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remember The 13th Hoax

Remember The 13th Hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

advertising through the backdoor The Banner talk 01:09, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be deleted. This article does not violate any Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines. Since this article has very recently been approved, Perhaps it needs more time to develop. Juiceentertainment (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Juiceentertainment (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Well... a promotional article can always be cleaned up. I'll go through and remove the worst of the promotional prose so we can judge it on whether or not it passes notability guidelines. As far as an article passing AfC, I'll have to warn you Juice that this isn't always a guarantee of passing notability guidelines. It's a little bit of a sore subject on Wikipedia that a lot of articles can pass AfC but not pass the main guidelines for notability. There does seem to be an assertion of notability, but the bigger problem here seems to be a depth of coverage since almost all of the coverage is from a very short period of time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:52, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/userfy. This did get some coverage, yes, but overall the coverage is fairly light. It spans a very brief point in time and much of the article coverage is brief in nature. A lot of it just repeats the same thing over and over again, which doesn't really give a depth of coverage regardless of how many brief articles you have. For comparison's sake, I'll hold up the AfD for the Ikea Monkey, something which easily received about 2-3 times the coverage that this website has, yet it didn't pass AfD either. The coverage just isn't here. I have no problem with someone userfying this for the time being, but I honestly doubt that this will gain any further coverage. What we have on the article currently seems to be the extent of the coverage in reliable sources and that's really only from a period of about 7 days. The internet seems to have largely ignored this website for the most part. It got attention and some views, but it's nowhere near as big as it'd need to be to really pass WP:GNG. I'd suggest a merge somewhere, but I don't really know any specific article that would really be appropriate. Viral marketing should really only have mentions that are overwhelmingly notable (ie, an article) and I'm a little leery about automatically adding every internet thing to List of Internet phenomena, as that turns it into an unwieldy and unmanageable list. It's not really an internet meme, so it can't be added to that list either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://popdust.com/2012/03/14/yasha-swag-go-go-go-viral-video/ http://www.dailydot.com/news/pickles-yasha-swag-cheating-youtube-views/ http://now.msn.com/will-yasha-swag-become-this-year%E2%80%99s-rebecca-black http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-12-07/okay-what-is-this-yasha-swag-pickles-video-all-about/ http://newmediarockstars.com/2012/12/internet-nonsense-yasha-swags-pickles-is-the-best-and-also-the-worst/ http://news.softpedia.com/news/Viral-of-the-Day-Yasha-Swag-Pickles-313398.shtml http://planet1051.com/yasha-swags-pickles-video-has-over-8-million-views-in-7-days-why-video/ http://entertainment.ie/wtf/Forget-Ultan-Sherry-say-hello-to-Yasha-Swag/155488.htm http://worldofwonder.net/terrible-viral-video-of-the-day-yasha-swags-pickles/ http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/music/beta-digital-column-29698038.html

It looks like he botted on his old videos but this time around he hoaxed the nasa website to get viral attention once again. I don't know if you guys think this is significant enough to add as an article? Or link it somehow with Remember The 13th?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) | Uncle Milty | talk | 01:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Scott-Taggart

John Scott-Taggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially unreferenced, no real notability ES&L 01:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A simple Google search returns quite a large number of hits, plus also two book mentions. The subject seems to be of historical value, as evidenced if nothing else on the single link provided in the article. Here is his bio entry/authority control in the Library of Congress. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 05:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, yes he doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER but WP:SOLDIER is WP:BOLLOCKS anyway. OBE, MC, entry in Who's Who: [1], crashed his plane into the sea on Christmas Eve 1929 (as reported in the Times)... Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have only just undeleted this poor chap. I'll be referencing and updating the article progressively over the next couple of weeks (I have to dig out the published articles on him)+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coherers (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If Asa Briggs and Brian Hennesey thought him notable, that should be enough for the rest of us. WP:SOLDIER is irrelevant here - that is really for career soldiers and those whose only claim to notability is in the fighting arm; his notability is as a technical expert in which capacity he served in the forces for part of his career, which his entirely different. --AJHingston (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The article needs wikifying and more detail. I would like to read more about "father of the transistor radio". If true, that alone would make him notable; similarly oversight of radar in Britain in WWII.
Sorry forgot to sign this. Peterkingiron (talk)
  • Keep -- (A. Carty (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]
  • {{trout}} nominator and keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The Hennesy and Brigs sources strongly suggest notability though they are not in depth and and only two. The article contained some serious WP:PUFF calling him a "father of wireless and radio" which no source even comes close to saying, and even if one source did it would not be enough to establish such a massive claim putting him alongside Marconi. In fact the sources seem to portray him as an authority in Britain on the "wireless valve" (whatever that is) and for his journalism work. The article should reflect what the sources say. Contrary to the wet trout, I think the nom was right to look at this one askew considering the condition it was in at the time and the incredulous claim "one of the fathers of wireless and transitor radios" completely unsourced. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and continue to fix it. An old aphorism goes, "AfD is not for cleanup." Bearian (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_November_8&oldid=580693513"