Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 27
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) at 01:20, 3 September 2009 (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Landau). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 01:20, 3 September 2009 by NuclearWarfare (talk | contribs) (Relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valerie Landau)
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable - only claim to notability is as a presumptive future Duke, and former Page of Honour. Unable to find any substantive references from Google (other than entries in peerage directories). Unsourced BLP, tagged since June. To the extent that coverage is merited, can be (and is) mentioned in Duke of Fife and Page of Honour. David(Talk) 23:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I dream of horses (T) @ 23:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete - does not meet WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Declined speedy, but I'm pretty sure this still qualifies under A7 and G11. It's pretty much just a resume. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ttonyb1 you just contradicted your self read your last two posts. Further more what you just said doesn't really make sense and is not truth. With all due respect your opinion doesnt help facts do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hangloose 42 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThere is no "walla" as you called it of any kind. all of this guys roles are legitimate and can be backed up. He has a lead role on a television show airing on a major network that has already been picked up for a second season. I visited the IMDB site and found the one mistake for the Spanish television show, keep in mind IMDB is a publicly contributed site, obviously someone made a mistake on that one section, that mistake has not been carried over to wiki. all you have to do is look up the projects on google or just type in Saperstein into a google search, this family in general is everywhere and involved in everything. Im talking Major league Sports investments, Television production, Real Estate, and College donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.42.129 (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC) — 75.82.42.129 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
|
The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only claim to notability is that the duchess currently lives there, but notability is not supposed to be temporary. There are only a few hits on Google — in fact there are many more for the eponymous hotels. Article was PRODed, but the tag was removed without explanation, so here we are. Favonian (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Play that has only had a reading; full production doesn't debut for more than a month. Gsearch and gnews not turning up notability; possible WP:COI issues. Prod contested by original author. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. I was able to dig up this news article which mentions it, but unfortunately, there still isn't enough notability. There are nothing but passing mentions. Maybe some day in the future. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 04:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (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 redirect to Lainz Angels of Death. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Waltraud Wagner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Replace with redirect to Lainz Angels of Death same as the other members. This article contains no information specific to her, lacks sources, and is an orphan. — JediRogue (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect - To Lainz Angels of Death. However, if more information does become available, I could see individual articles on the participants, as we do on other serial killers. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 23:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:54, 30 August 2009 (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) 01:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge unless significantly more information becomes available on this one person. --AlanI (talk • contribs) 03:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Lainz Angels of Death. The article being discussed here is little more than a retelling of the information there included, with no specific information about the person it is dedicated to. McMarcoP (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Close of AfD and Redirect to Lainz Angels of Death. No rationale given for deletion by nominator, redirects can be done by simple editing. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:54, 3 September 2009 (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 result was redirect to Institute of Business and Finance. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be the syllabus of a course offered by some company. Doesn't seem notable, in fact it looks like advertisement. A very similar article, Certified Annuity Specialist is likewise being nominated for deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Institute of Business and Finance. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to be the syllabus of a course offered by some company. Doesn't seem notable, in fact it looks like advertisement. A very similar article, Certified fund specialist is likewise being nominated for deletion. Favonian (talk) 21:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete. Hoax NW (Talk) 02:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No indication whatsoever that this is a notable film, and the entire article looks like self-promotion (see also the nomination on its director, Trent Tepesz) Dahn (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Enigmamsg 06:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely no indication of notability (not even contextually), likely shameless self-promotion. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good-faith search turned up no signs of notability for this record label. No notable artists or releases on the label. Unreferenced for nearly 3 years Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only nine Google hits besides this article, the article gives no means of verification and really no indication of notability outside of the author's adoration of the article's subject. Are there any reliable sources anywhere on this person? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The introductory sentence of this list presents it as part of the Lists of wars series; however, it is in reality the only list of its kind and not part of any established series—there is no List of wars in the Christian world, List of wars in the Buddhist world, or any other listing of wars by cultural region. A stand-alone list should have a clearly-defined, non-arbitrary, and (relatively) objective scope, which this list does not, and individual items included in the list must share a significant common element. The scope of this list is problematic for five reasons:
Note: Article creator notified using {{adw}}. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no indication of notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete - falls far from basic notability requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure what the notability of free promotional DVDs found inside boxes of cookies and cereal are, going to assume very low. This article seems broken in the worst way, cleanup is required as is verification through reliable sources and of course, notability establishment. I can't see a future in this article, even a merge sounds incredibly ludicrous. treelo radda 07:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
No indication of notability. Hard to find specific sources given the name's genericness... but even after searching I've found nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Assertion of notability, but no proof. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable. Also, article appears to be written autobiographically John 07:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to nLite and vLite. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable sub-distribution of nlite. Was redirected to nlite then restored to a full article. Nothing to merge here, just get rid of it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 07:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Delete as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:Athlete Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to identify any significant coverage despite searching under entire and first-last only (see above {{find sources}} links). I would be delighted to withdraw this nomination if anyone comes up with something. Bongomatic 07:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unable to find reliable third party sources about this individual. His books do not appear to have been reviewed. Bongomatic 08:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2009 (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 no consensus. no consensus on notability JForget 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plotutils (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I questioned the notability of this topic, to which I got a few "I think it's notable" type comments. A couple of people did some useful research and managed to find some sources mentioning the program which have now been added to the article as sources and external links. However, none of the sources provide significant coverage as required by Wikipedia:Notability. Rather, the sources show that some people have used the software in research, but so what: it would be more surprising if the software had NEVER been used and these mentions are clearly trivial. I also cannot see how inclusion of the software in some Linux distributions, along with the thousands of other standard routines and libraries, in any way establishes notability, nor has any evidence been given to show that it does beyond the aforesaid "I think it's notable" comments.
In summary, this software gets a lot of hits and is mentioned in presumably reliable sources, but such mentions all appear entirely trivial and insufficient to establity notability. GDallimore (Talk) 09:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "It's used in <some work>" requires editors to count and pass judgement...need someone else to say "this is used my many others in their work" to be a WP:RS of its importance unless we have it used as the cornerstone component of a monumental work (analogy: not every employee of a concert production is notable by virtue of working on that concert until recognized for that work by an entity not part of the tour). "It's included in <list of distros>" is definitely not a source of notability, since many distros allow anyone to submit any useless non-notable unused-by-anyone package and get it accepted: the criteria are solely technical packaging issues. DMacks (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: I think you are allowed to count without doing OR but I guess you could argue about the extent of the contribution made by this piece of software to the works in which it is mentioned. If there is some feature of the software that made it a compelling choice for the larger work, even if only mentioned in passing, that would give you some independent coverage on which to base the article. I guess at worst you could put this into a list of related pieces of software but I'd have a hard time arguing for delete based on quick check of the citations. To the comment " it would be more surprising..." , notability doesn't have to be sensational or particularly impressive to each editor, and while indiscriminate collection of facts or trivia could be an issue, I think that "mundane but notable" is possible just as "obscure but notable" may mean that you have to dig or find dead-tree sources. I guess one thing to think about is the encyclopedic value of other mundane things that may be mentioned in "materials and methods" sections and consider criteria more generally. Naming a specific chemical vendor may not make that vendor notable based just on that coverage ( " company Z provided compound X to experiment Y" probably wouldn't be included in article on Z even if significant coverage existed elsewhere ) unless it has some specific attribute. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with what you're saying about considering whether the software was important to the project in question. Although I haven't looked through all the google scholar hits, none of the ones I did look at seemed to say more than "when generating these graphs we used Plotutils, which is a simple graphing utility". So, they aren't completely silent about why they chose this particular program, but I don't think saying something is simple is anything more than a trivial mention.
- As for the "more surprising" comment, that was just intended to highlight that simply because several people have used a piece of software doesn't make it notable. I'm not saying it would automatically be notable if nobody had used it, but that would at least have been interesting! Basically, it was an attempt at light-hearted humour, something that never really works in typed text. The important bit was that the sources that do mention the software do not provide significant discussion on which a verifiable article could be based, and I'm sorry if my poor joke hid the important stuff. GDallimore (Talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand, I guess I'm just contrasting notable with "profound" or "disruptive" or etc etc. I guess my point is that had a few of the articles said, " and then we used plot mode X we discovered cold fusion" and plot mode X was only previously mentioned on the software author's website, that could argue for notability as then you could perhaps say " this software contains an implementation of mode X that has been used to discover fusion[], foo[], bar[]
" without needing CNN to do an article on the software. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I came here to close or relist the discussion, but it seems to me that sourcing may not be enough for WP:N. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sources such as this Google Books result indicate that this software is notable. The introduction of this software begins on page 316 and ends on page 320. I cannot see pages 317-319 because they are not part of the Google Books preview; however, they most likely cover this software, since page 320 discusses the software in-depth. I was also able to discover this page by Ph.D. student from the University of Osnabrück. These sources indicate that there are more off-line sources that could be used to source and expand the article. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how these sources are discussing the software in detail. The first is just instructions for installing it so it can then be used to study GIFs and other image file formats - ie it is not about the software at all, but about image file formats. The second is a pie chart that has been created using the software and a mention that Plotutils was used to make it. How can that possibly be classed as a significant mention? GDallimore (Talk) 10:02, 9 September 2009 (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 result was redirect to Awake (Dream Theater album). NW (Talk) 21:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. This article occupies a space between album and song: it is about a three song suite on Dream Theater's album Awake. Nevertheless, awesomeness is not an inclusion category; an article about three contiguous songs on an album that are designed to dovetail and function as one song is still functionally an article about a song, and it fails WP:NSONGS. "Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article" and that even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song kicks ass, but it doesn't shoulder its burden under NSONGS. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does not appear to satisfy WP:N or WP:PROF. The article itself is somewhat of a substub. It could very well be notable, but I can't find any indication so. (count this nom as a neutral !vote.) TimothyRias (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unnotable dog "actor" maybe - no source to even prove the dog was named Ben. Fails WP:N. Speedy declined in may because he is not a person, and second speedy declined because it survived the first speedy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no real notability shown outside band. rumoured to be dating someone seems to be the only outside claim, not what I see as making him notable. redirect is not appropriate due to title being not a reasonable search term. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was baleet. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The writer feels " even the littlest of things, have the quality to be in books. Or online Encyclopedias". Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia has a different standard. The subject of this article fails WP:N by a long run, as it does not have "substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject". Delete, please. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no reliable third-party references that establish the notability of this subject. There is one NY Times reference that only verifies a fact in the article and does nothing to help with notability. The other sources are primary sources and aren't enough to establish reliability. There's a template for this article too, which should be deleted if this AfD results in a delete vote. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was baleet. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The writer feels " even the littlest of things, have the quality to be in books. Or online Encyclopedias". Unfortunately for him, Wikipedia has a different standard. The subject of this article fails WP:N by a long run, as it does not have "substantial coverage in reliable third-party sources independent of the subject". Delete, please. Ironholds (talk) 18:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Footballer for Bangor City FC, the article states it's a "semi-professional" league. Does that pass WP:ATHLETE? If not, there's Category:Bangor City F.C. players. Lara 18:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Captain Jack (band). Cirt (talk) 23:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:MUSICBIO. Some of the info may be worth merging into Captain Jack (band). Lara 19:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 17:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a game that was apparently "announced" in 2005, despite there being absolutely no information on it. The only citation is a blank IGN page. The developer has no information available. There has been no update on this game in 4 years. Publisher: TBA, Release Date: TBA. I am more than comfortable with saying that this game does not seriously exist and thus this page can and should be removed. Re-add the article if the game ends up being real years from now. Stump (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. I'm not going to merge, considering that there will always be mods for PC games; if they don't have notability, there's no point in listing them. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:GNG - non notable bit of software. Ironholds (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original PROD removed citing the reason being "Phil Jones will be making his 1st team debut in League Cup vs Gillingham tomorrow. Not to mention he was today given a 1st shirt no." — which is/was crystal ballery. He did not play against Gillingham [16] [17] and has not played in a fully-professional league/cup, thus the article fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG as there is no significant independent coverage. --Jimbo[online] 20:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article was originally PROD'ed with the rationale "Footballer who does not meet the WP:ATHLETE or WP:N guidelines." then contested with the rationale "Rushden and Diamonds is a pro side, so Wooding meets the letter of WP:ATHELETE. Whether he meets the spirit of it is something else entirely." However, what WP:ATHLETE actually says is that a player has to have competed at a fully professional level of the sport. Wooding only ever played for Rushden in the Football Conference which was not then, is not now, and never has been, a fully professional league. I'm not 100% sure that Rushden themselves were even full-time professionals during his time with the club. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. With no prejudice against merging following some discussion. Some indication that a merger is preferred over a standalone article below. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This person has not done anything on his own yet. Being a descendant of a notable person does not make one notable. ArcAngel (talk) 19:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Redirect to Randy Couture Cheers, I'mperator 20:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is an amateur mixed martial arts fighter only given coverage because he's son of Randy Couture. I'm unsure if the coverage he's received is substantial enough to meet WP:BIO as most of it seems to be routine coverage of the type "Hey, did you know Couture's son is fighting? He just won his latest fight, making him 3-1 as an amateur". I'm nominating even though I'm neutral because as someone who's interested in how he'll develop as a fighter I'm probably not the best judge of notability. --aktsu (t / c) 18:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article whose notability is in question; improperly sourced article lacking in-line citations and whose only "sources" are shaky. Corporation that operates this website is questioned as a data-mining service or large-scale spamming system —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Acting roles mostly uncredited. Unable to find independent support for championships. Ghits lacking substance and no GNEWS coverage other than a couple of one line mentions. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to The Paradiso Girls. NW (Talk) 21:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this album is not sourced properly, relies hevaily on blogs and does not fully meet WP:Notability (music) because the group have only had one charted song. The page contains way to much speculation and according to the rules for an album to be considered notable it must have a cover, tracklisting and singles as well as background information. This page has one of the 4 criteria and the name is even sourced dubiously from twitter (how reliable is that source?), should be deleted until a firm title and release date are announced. Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Skomorokh 18:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Though it consider a non-notable game, it doesn't classify the notability and it is clearly unverifiable source. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] - i just figured since i first found their puzzles in a professional magazine i buy reguarly and then found out they were becoming known internationally for their specialty subject puzzles especially amoungst pop culture fans that it was warranted, and was a bit surprised that they weren't under the category of 'puzzle makers' already. I guess it'd have to be an american magazine then? i am only new so don't know how this works. there is also a category for professional bloggers, does that not apply here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dennyroxmysox (talk • contribs) 10:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few references found mentioning him at minor art galleries; featured publications he's been in don't have pages Falcon8765 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete" yeas he has been covered in commercial tourist magazines not "art mags"- If every artist who had a shallow showing resume and spotty write ups could be qualify as a wiki subject then , open the flood gates!, but i don't think Mr Gentle claims on his infomercial are nothing more than his artist statements with a few writes ups to back him up, maybe this all it takes to get on here, wiki want general information, like advertisement does that count? if so than keep him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.65.155.89 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC) "Delete" per nom. Clearly fails WP:ARTIST. Eusebeus (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Wizardman 01:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional group. 146 Google hits, no Google News hits, no Google Books hits and no Google Scholar hits. The term does not appear in a Google Books search, which suggests that the book does not actually contain the term, so a merge or redirect cannot properly be contemplated, as it runs afoul of WP:Verifiability. Deprodded by an admin without explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Valley2city‽ 04:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Completely unverifiable via reliable secondary sources. Likely madeup. MuZemike 03:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Skomorokh 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tennis player/Football coach - ATP.com [19] has no record of him, which, if he ever had a ranking, as the article claims, would not be the case. The article's ranking claim, including date, seems to have been made up. It claims he was ranked on January 16, 2001, but the ATP did not release a list on that day - a list of ranked Canadian players for January 15 [20] and January 29 [21] (two closest ATP ranking release dates) does not list him. He did play in qualifying for ITF Futures tournaments twice it seems [22], without ever winning a match. Without winning a main draw match he would not ever be ATP ranked, explaining the absence of a ranking and as well as an ATP.com profile page (without a ranking player s aren t profiled). As for football, being an associate coach of a CIS football team, if true, is not, surely, WP:Notable. Mayumashu (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable film. Lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM ttonyb1 (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned since 2006, unedited since 2007, one-line unsourced stub with no claims for notability. Only edit by the initial author. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Skomorokh 18:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
non-notable website - notability is not inherited from parent organisations. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Skomorokh 18:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP with no reliable sources given (or found) about an individual who does not meet WP:BIO in their own right. The information about the movie "My Little Eye" seems to refer to a different David Hilton who was active professionally in 1983 when the subject of the article was 10. TheSmuel (talk) 09:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Omgpop. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable individual. Lacks GNEWS coverage and no GHits of substance. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to Peermusic. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:BIO - while I can find sources, none of them fulfil the requirements (third-party, reliable, detailed coverage). Indeed, the one third-party source I can find is a direct copy and paste from his biography on the peermusic website. Ironholds (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Editors favouring deletion with one exception offered nothing to support their arguments, and the coverage cited in support of keeping the article is convincing. Skomorokh 18:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to lack any evidence of notability, they don't even have an album out yet. Whole article seems to be a little speculative and rather spammy. magnius (talk) 13:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect both. Consensus that the topics are not notable, but no reason offered as to why the pages ought not to be redirected. Skomorokh 18:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't assert notability, is a song in an album, and La posada de los muertos was previously nominated for speedy deletion (it's not clear to me whether it was speedily deleted and then subsequenty recreated) LjL (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] I am also nominating Satania for the same reasons. --LjL (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete, with regrets. In light of the cogent nomination, the burden of proof is on the asserters of notability to prove their case, and unfortunately the sources produced in this instance do not support retaining a biography of a living person. Skomorokh 18:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Prodded by me and contested. Does not appear to satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO. Google Web, News, Books, and Scholar searches for "Alex [or Alexander] Kade +"General Motors" establish that, yes, he has received or shared some patents but turn up no information at all about the person, so that the biographical information in the article seems basically unverifiable. Of the two references supplied in the article, the first contains no mention of his name, and the second is one of those self-supplied what-I'm-doing-now alumnus notes in a university magazine. Other than the in-house GM ones, the "awards" listed seem to be for GM innovations rather than for him personally (though I'm just guessing, since I can't find any evidence of them online). Deor (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing but etymology, which is dictionary content. Also includes unrelated section on the word "Wicca". Powers T 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. As fences &*windows says, this is borderline WP:BLP1E. tedder (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see how he is particularly notable. There are millions of journalists out there, many who can refer to famous people they have interviewed, so why is this one so notable? Andrew Duffell (talk) 09:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence of notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the Les Davies nom. Iwan seems to fail WP:ATHLETE for not playing in a professional league or for a professional team. Most of the coverage I could find is trivial at best. Spiderone 15:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was merge to The Culture. Redirected for now. An editor can reach into the history in order to merge content per the below. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable fictional group. Some searching using the authors name revealed no Google News hits, no Google Books hits and no Google Scholar hits. This searching also reveals that the title is not appropriate for redirecting. Deprodded by an admin without explanation. Abductive (reasoning) 23:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC);:[reply]
|
The result was keep. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Images and Words.
- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Can create redirect if you want. Wizardman 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established. This is a brand name not a generic product. There are 2 news articles available on google news and both of these old articles only mention the product in passing rather than establishing any notability. Sources for notability unlikely to be found and as the page has been tagged for improvement for 15 months without addressing the issues, this counts as a near hopeless case. Ash (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article is unreferenced and is about an athlete who has not played in a fully-pro league. Prod was removed by editor claiming that he has played for professional clubs (Cartagena and Hercules), but he played for them in the Segunda B which is a regionalized and not fully-pro league. Article fails general notability guideline as well. Jogurney (talk) 15:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural nomination / contested prod. Prodder's concern was: "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: (links omitted) Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." As prodder is an admin, I removed a subsequent CSD A7 tag and am bringing this here. No opinion on the merits. Tim Song (talk) 15:11, 27 August 2009 (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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Symfony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This product appears to be non-notable. While there is non-trivial coverage of it, it all appears to be in sources that are either not reliable, not independent, or neither. Bongomatic 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A cursory search of Google books for "Symfony" [29] turns up significant coverage in numerous published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the ones that have significant coverage of this Symfony are not independent of the subject. They are written by the developers. Bongomatic 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found plenty of books that give adequate coverage to the framework (which is what this article is about). I'm not confusing this with the Symfony CMS. The book The Definitive Guide to Symfony [30] ISBN 1590597869 meets WP:RS. I even find mention of the Symfony framework in quite a number of O'Reilly books such as Adding Ajax [31] ISBN 0596529368 which given their editorial process, means this subject is more than notable. Put simply, I find nothing to indicate that this is not a notable subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the coverage in reliable sources is either:
- insignificant, as in the O'Reilly book you mentioned; or
- in sources not independent of the subject, as in The Definitive Guide to Symfony, which is co-written by the director of the Symfony project and a former developer of the project, according to the project website.
- So, there does not appear to be any significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, despite there being both (a) significant coverage in non-independent reliable sources; and (b) insignificant coverage in independent reliable sources. Bongomatic 02:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree with that assessment at all. The reliable sources guideline states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". While The Definitive Guide to Symfony is not a self-published book (published by Apress), Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources also states: "When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". Considering all the other books I continue to find via Google Books, I see nothing at all that would indicate that this is not a notable subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about WP:RS. This is about WP:GNG, which defines, for the purpose of establishing notability, "independent" as:
- exclud[ing] works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.
- It goes on to note that:
- Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them [Bongo's note: such as the chief product developers], are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large.
- As pointed out above, I am not contesting the reliability of the sources in which the product is given significant coverage, nor am I suggesting that they are "self-published" in a technical sense. "Produced" is a much broader concept and is covered by authorship, so the sources are not "independent" as the term is used in the notability guideline. Bongomatic 03:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've stated above and as can be clearly checked by others [32] there are a large number of books in Google Books that cover this subject. The The Definitive Guide to Symfony book isn't being used to establish notability (although IMO it certainly could be used that way). At present the book is listed in the Further reading section of the article. If you think the article needs improvements to its references, a {{refimprove}} template might have been a better approach than this AfD. Even Google Scholar [33] turns up quite a bit of information and journals that have covered this subject. Your continued assertion that this subject just isn't notable does not hold water when this subject has been covered in depth by so many published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about WP:RS. This is about WP:GNG, which defines, for the purpose of establishing notability, "independent" as:
- I don't agree with that assessment at all. The reliable sources guideline states: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.". While The Definitive Guide to Symfony is not a self-published book (published by Apress), Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources also states: "When produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". Considering all the other books I continue to find via Google Books, I see nothing at all that would indicate that this is not a notable subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the coverage in reliable sources is either:
- I found plenty of books that give adequate coverage to the framework (which is what this article is about). I'm not confusing this with the Symfony CMS. The book The Definitive Guide to Symfony [30] ISBN 1590597869 meets WP:RS. I even find mention of the Symfony framework in quite a number of O'Reilly books such as Adding Ajax [31] ISBN 0596529368 which given their editorial process, means this subject is more than notable. Put simply, I find nothing to indicate that this is not a notable subject. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the ones that have significant coverage of this Symfony are not independent of the subject. They are written by the developers. Bongomatic 01:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can find nothing noteworthy about this project online —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.36.114 (talk • contribs)
- Keep. Or delete articles on every other PHP framework (CakePHP, CodeIgniter etc.) as well, with the possible exception of Zend Framework. I am frankly stunned that someone considers Symfony not "noteworthy" enough. It is an extremely well known PHP framework, as any web programmer would tell you. It's pretty much my means for making a living at the moment. What kind of "non-trivial coverage" do you need? It's a web framework. It just quetly works and powers websites. They typically don't write "Powered by Symfony" in big letters, but it's there alright. There are perfectly adequate reference manuals and books on it. Okay, I know "reference manuals" and "any web programmer" are not reliable sources, but come on, people, have some common sense! There are FAR more genuinely non-notable OSS projects which have Wikipedia articles on them. I have been using Wikipedia since 2003, and this is literally the first time I find myself disagreeing with its deletion policy. 77.223.72.46 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC) — 77.223.72.46 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. Of course Symfony is notable. By a cursory search, it was a finalist in the SourceForge's Annual Community Choice Awards '09. Here's a SitePoint article about it. A book by independent authors (AFAICS) will be coming out soon. It's a silly nomination, especially if you're familiar with the world of PHP. Symfony is one of the most notable frameworks there are. Reinistalk 08:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Just for good measure, here are some more books: 2 books in Japanese: symfony×PHP and symfony徹底攻略, also 1 book in Japanese that compares the most well-known PHP frameworks PHPフレームワーク入門—CakePHP/Zend Framework/symfony/CodeIgniter対応, and 1 German book Das Symfony Framework: Enterprise Anwendungen mit PHP. Oh, by the way, symfony is used by some of the most well-known web companies like Yahoo! (Yahoo! Bookmarks, Yahoo! Answers, and delicious.com). They have even acknowledged their usage of symfony for more than 3 years (see http://www.ysearchblog.com/2006/11/08/under-the-covers-and-across-the-pond-with-yahoo-bookmarks/ for instance). You can also find a lot of presentations of symfony made by Yahoo! evangelists. Also, it it can help, just have a look at the number of jobs requiring symfony knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.192.205.147 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC) — 61.192.205.147 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep. I'm completely shocking. I'm been using Symfony for 2 years, there's a plenty of information about it in the web, and it almost as known as any other framework. Moreover, Symfony is an open source project. If you think that Symfony is irrelevant, you must think that other articles about small or only-for-experts open source projects should be deleted. It's crazy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.0.38.34 (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2009 (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 result was keep. No arguments for deletion, not even from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article asserts no notability. Subject fails wp:prof, having only written a few papers. Article's references are poor. Bonewah (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable mixtape; fails WP:SONG, download-only prelude to unreleased album; unreferenced Chzz ► 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply] WHAT?I spend a long time doing this and this it should STAY! It is not just 1 mixtape but 2 and also many more to come also. Alot of people would like to know about them and dont know where to go, Well in this page we are telling them. The 1st mixtape was a free mixtape on her website but the new mixtape "The Cure For Wynter" is going for sale on I-Tunes. THAT IS A LEGAL ALBUM. Not only that but they are releasing a WORLD WIDE SINGLE!! "Renegade" is to be an official single and the video has been shot. This page is not just a little page that nobody will visit or will never be updates cos there is no info. This will be very active and is IMPORTANT! Why is brooke hogan and many more allowed one?
Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mepolo (talk • contribs) 12:06, 27 August 2009 (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) 05:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ground Xero Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable local promotion company. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news search on the title brings up zero hits. RadioFan (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided. The inclusion in Pro Wrestling Illustrated seems to be giving some depth to the notability claim, but I was unable to find a reference to this organization in PWI's pages. More sources need to be provided. If they can be presented, I'll be more than happy to suggest a keep, but at the moment I don't think I have a reason to. McMarcoP (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it would be helpful if this claimed reference could be verified in the print edition. Even with that though, additional references in 3rd party sources would be necessary to bring this topic up to notability standards.--RadioFan (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The PWI rankings appeared in the double issue featuring Tara/Victoria on the cover. I will try to find the exact month/issue. Patricksu (talk) 1:49, 28 August 2009
- Comment GXW has as many or more article under Google news as other promotions with articles including Ultimate Pro Wrestling, World League Wrestling, United Wrestling Federation, Empire Wrestling Federation, Independent Wrestling Association Mid-South. Patricksu (talk) 1:49, 28 August 2009
- Comment I'm not following you. Are you saying that the company is referred to as GWX in news coverage and thats why its difficult to find? Could you provide some links to these articles? Better yet, improve the article with citations to these articles.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentWhen you ask for sources, do you want specific newspaper, TV, and books or will blogs and chat room stuff do? Patricksu (talk) 2:38, 28 August 2009
- Comment I'm afraid that blogs and chat rooms wouldn't be enough, anyone can fake them (not that I am implying that you are faking them or would do so). Newspapers and books (online editions are easier to verify, as you can understand) would be much more helpful to your claim. McMarcoP (talk) 08:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC) [edited to fix my own mistype McMarcoP (talk) 08:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)][reply]
- Comment No, blogs and message boards are not reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'right, same thing I meant myself, tried to avoid being negative and maybe I was a bit confusing. McMarcoP (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added some sources, let me know which would count as "acceptable" Patricksu (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2009
- Comment none of these appear to be very reliable sources. I'm no wrestling expert but these appear to be blogs or produced by the company itself. Hasn't there been any press coverage? There are dozens of wrestling magazines on the newstands, haven't any of them written about this company?--RadioFan (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a comment, but delete, per nom: lack of coverage to pass WP:GNG. --aktsu (t / c) 10:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable. Sources are limited and questionable. No mainstream coverage and nothing else to make it notable. !! Justa Punk !! 00:19, 4 September 2009 (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 result was keep. Discussion on the talk page is free to lead to a redirect into a parent article if that is desired. NW (Talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2009 (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 no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ArticleAlley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Website where people post articles. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article does give evidence of notability under WP:WEB, where it states
The Google Books citations, of which there are several, cite ArticleAlley.Com as a source. Each of these books were published by independent sources. 34pin6 (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations."
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Tend to agree with 34pin6. It's probably borderline, but okay. --AlanI (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Eliminate the Alexa rank and the other one, as well as company website, and you have the Google Books. On there, it seems to have a good number of resources that mention them, but they don't seem to be the subject of multiple non-trivial published works that I can tell. I could be wrong, but a cursory examination of the (albeit indirect) sources seems to lead me to this conclusion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- rebuttal. I think you're splitting hairs here. The fact that the site has been noted so often, bespeaks of its noteworthiness and, by extension, its notability. See this statement by User:Uncle G, where this admin says that,
from user:Uncle G, posted by 34pin6 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]"The rationale that underpins the primary notability criterion is that the fact that something has been noted demonstrates that it is notable."
- I could very well be splitting hairs and not knowing I'm doing so. =) I'm pretty much using a straight interp of the notability guidelines here. In any event, I've poked User:Uncle G on the subject and am hoping for his note. It's this that will potentially change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dennisthe2's point is that there's a difference between a book that simply points to a page on a WWW site when discussing some other subject, as (say) ISBN 9780470222799 page 219 does, and a book that actually talks about this subject. Here's another thing that I should probably write up one day: A Google search result is not a source citation. What you have in the article is a Google search result, from which the article is drawing an original conclusion made firsthand by a Wikipedia editor, moreover. There's is not, actually, a citation of a specific book anywhere in the article at hand as it currently stands.
If you go back to my page that you pointed to and read from the top, you'll find non-triviality discussed. What is needed for notability is sources that are actually about the subject, that document it in depth. (In Wikipedia:Notability, you'll find this concept expressed as "significant coverage".) The aforecited book isn't about the subject, for example. It doesn't say one single thing about this subject at all. There's not one single fact on that page, about this subject, that can be taken and added to this article.
If you want to change Dennisthe2's mind — and xe is a reasonable editor whose mind can be changed — show that multiple published works, independent of the subject and from people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, document this subject in depth. It's that last part that you aren't addressing. A published work that simply mentions this subject in passing, or that doesn't even give any facts about this subject at all, is not contributing to documenting the subject in depth. Find some sources that do, cite them, and you'll make a case that can potentially change Dennisthe2's mind. Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- rebuttal. I think you're splitting hairs here. The fact that the site has been noted so often, bespeaks of its noteworthiness and, by extension, its notability. See this statement by User:Uncle G, where this admin says that,
- Delete. No evidence whatsoever of any significant coverage by anything remotely WP:RS that I can find. Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test for why Alexa, Google Books and other rankings are irrelevant for this discussion. Flowanda | Talk 07:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A few references that (might?) be used to make a rebuttal of Flowanda's/Uncle G's notability challenge
- Washington Post mention of articlealley.com
- Philly.Com, blog commenter cites articlealley.com
- Business Exchange, subsidiary of BusinessWeek, lists an Article Alley article in its "Other useful pages, Web sites and tools" reference section
- Will these help my case? 34pin6 (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also have another question, albeit a slight digression. But its answer would help me to understand a bit more the notability issue. In my mind, there is no substantive difference between ArticlesBase website and ArticleAlley. They are the same type of site, both have lots of mentions. The only difference I can see, is that articles base has more Google News mentions than ArticleAlley. However, both are widely known and highly trafficked. It seems to me a bit myopic to only view WP:RS as the chief criteria for notability, in this particular case. It also seems to me that, lots of people - authors, bloggers, journalists - citing ArticleAlley, has to count for something - regardless of whether one can find tons of reliable sources, in the strict, Wikipedia sense of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34pin6 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, these won't work. The WA Post link refers to a bad search result, the second one is a comment in an article about AIG, and the third one is a link to something on ArticleAlley. All of these have links to it, but a link to it is not the subject of it. This comes back to mention versus subject - in no case presented are these articles actually about ArticleAlley, they only point to articles stored on it. To put it forthright, we need articles about ArticleAlley as a subject, and we have been presented with nothing of the sort, and in summary, if it only mentions it, it's not an article about it. If you can find articles (yes, please, note the plural here) about ArticleAlley (not merely mentioning, but actually discussing in detail), then we will have a winner. Conversely, if you can't turn up anything, then we will need to delete. Please, please, PLEASE review the notability guidelines. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Two more notes. One, please see also WP:OSE - yes, there's ArticlesBase, but it appears to have other resources backing this, aside from just mentions. If I'm wrong, then it, too, comes up here to AFD. Two, WP:RS may seem myopic, but we have these standards in place for varying reasons. Granted, we have WP:IAR, but we also have WP:WIARM as an explanation to it. This is one of these things that we can't ignore the rules for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is a tough one. I just got through scouring all my Internet marketing, SEO and Web design books, for ArticleAlley citations. Found a couple, but still trivial. Also scoured Library Cat, News Cat, Google Scholar, and Google News archives. I did find these news mentions:
- News mentions of ArticleAlley, 2006-2008. The last one I translated from Hebrew to English; it mentions ArticleAlley as one of the best article marketing directories - as do many of the others - but still the citations do not constitute "significant coverage" in Dennis The Tiger's sense. ugh!
- How would I fare with a merge to the article marketing article? 34pin6 (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this is a tough one. I just got through scouring all my Internet marketing, SEO and Web design books, for ArticleAlley citations. Found a couple, but still trivial. Also scoured Library Cat, News Cat, Google Scholar, and Google News archives. I did find these news mentions:
- I also have another question, albeit a slight digression. But its answer would help me to understand a bit more the notability issue. In my mind, there is no substantive difference between ArticlesBase website and ArticleAlley. They are the same type of site, both have lots of mentions. The only difference I can see, is that articles base has more Google News mentions than ArticleAlley. However, both are widely known and highly trafficked. It seems to me a bit myopic to only view WP:RS as the chief criteria for notability, in this particular case. It also seems to me that, lots of people - authors, bloggers, journalists - citing ArticleAlley, has to count for something - regardless of whether one can find tons of reliable sources, in the strict, Wikipedia sense of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 34pin6 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum. Look at these particular references to ArticleAlley in Google Books:
- http://books.google.com/books?id=PXTx1q2AvR0C&pg=PA216&dq=articlealley&ei=SYChSs9IqejKBJSwnOIO#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false is a reference directly to AA
- http://books.google.com/books?id=yq3_hokFYoUC&pg=PA277&dq=articlealley&ei=SYChSs9IqejKBJSwnOIO#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=nWMeatE2fpQC&pg=PA105&dq=articlealley&ei=SYChSs9IqejKBJSwnOIO#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false Refers to AA with examples of articles rather than the article itself
- http://books.google.com/books?id=qnxnHkq2FkAC&pg=PA241&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false Refers to AA directly
- http://books.google.com/books?id=HmUli0em_McC&pg=PT183&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false AA direct reference
- http://books.google.com/books?id=1_HE9Woh9AcC&pg=PA69&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=4D6O-85x9zwC&pg=PT123&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=pIGhSvzIN5iQyQSggeWJCA#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
- http://books.google.com/books?id=yX3nTY3Syp4C&pg=PA64&dq=articlealley&lr=&ei=FoKhSp7uGpKgygTg-L36Bw#v=onepage&q=articlealley&f=false
- http://www.sitepronews.com/archives/2006/nov/8.html
- Now, while I agree that most of these are what you would call trivial mentions. However, Example 2 includes a screenshot of an ArticleAlley web page, in a chapter about article marketing. I'm sure that at least a few of these books goes into some detail on how to submit articles to ArticleAlley, as well as other sites.
- So, it seems to me that - taken as a whole - these citations, descriptions and this screenshot prove that ArticleAlley is considered somewhat of an authority in the arena of article marketing - regardless of whether each individual mention is "trivial".
34pin6 (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked them all. Still no dice. In most of them, you have a note to look at ArticleAlley - anything from a direct statement to go there all the way to the web address for AA. The screenshots in there unfortunately don't help - those are for point of illustration. In a nutshell - and Dream Focus, pay attention here - these are still not books about ArticleAlley, they merely mention or point to them. We still need something discussing ArticleAlley. Also, pay attention to WP:WEB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If these books consider it a legitimate reference for information, that makes it clearly notable. Do you think various unrelated books would mention it otherwise? Plus you have news sources as well. Dream Focus 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream, the news mentions don't meet notability because they are only news mentions. WP:N does not account for news mentions, it accounts for news subjects, and this is not something that appears to be the general subject of a news article - only a mention. There is a significant difference between subject and mention, thus the emphasis that I'm inserting. Unrelated books merely mentioning it don't enter into the picture for this purpose - I've already covered that part. The problem remains that there's nothing really about the site in particular as per WP:WEB, so for all intents and purposes, yes, I do, indeed, not only think, but ardently declare with no personal doubt that various unrelated books would mention it, and such a mention would still not make it notable as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. You are welcome to discuss these guidelines at the talk page for the guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those guidelines were never passed in a general vote, nor by a reasonable number of people. They were slipped in without many people noticing, and defended by those who use them as an excuse to mass delete articles they don't like. The question of AFD is whether you believe something is notable, and meet the policies, not whether you believe they meet the guidelines, since a guideline is nothing more than a suggestion, not a law. Dream Focus 08:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Every guideline Wikipedia is there for reason. There are some of them I don't like either but I still see the reason for them. The notability guidelines are there in part to preserve people's privacy. They're also there to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. Finally, they are there to keep up the general quality of the articles; people generally are unwilling to collaborate to improve an article about something they've never heard of, and they can't improve it if there is no reliable information on the subject.--RDBury (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream, there was no vote because we're not a democracy. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Those guidelines were never passed in a general vote, nor by a reasonable number of people. They were slipped in without many people noticing, and defended by those who use them as an excuse to mass delete articles they don't like. The question of AFD is whether you believe something is notable, and meet the policies, not whether you believe they meet the guidelines, since a guideline is nothing more than a suggestion, not a law. Dream Focus 08:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream, the news mentions don't meet notability because they are only news mentions. WP:N does not account for news mentions, it accounts for news subjects, and this is not something that appears to be the general subject of a news article - only a mention. There is a significant difference between subject and mention, thus the emphasis that I'm inserting. Unrelated books merely mentioning it don't enter into the picture for this purpose - I've already covered that part. The problem remains that there's nothing really about the site in particular as per WP:WEB, so for all intents and purposes, yes, I do, indeed, not only think, but ardently declare with no personal doubt that various unrelated books would mention it, and such a mention would still not make it notable as per the Wikipedia notability guidelines. You are welcome to discuss these guidelines at the talk page for the guideline. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If these books consider it a legitimate reference for information, that makes it clearly notable. Do you think various unrelated books would mention it otherwise? Plus you have news sources as well. Dream Focus 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked them all. Still no dice. In most of them, you have a note to look at ArticleAlley - anything from a direct statement to go there all the way to the web address for AA. The screenshots in there unfortunately don't help - those are for point of illustration. In a nutshell - and Dream Focus, pay attention here - these are still not books about ArticleAlley, they merely mention or point to them. We still need something discussing ArticleAlley. Also, pay attention to WP:WEB. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The books prove its notable. Dream Focus 14:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article was speedied A7 last week, and 34pin6 had commented to the deleting admin. This was brought back after a speedy delete.
Forgive me for sounding like I'm not assuming good faith, but it makes me wonder if there's some conflict of interest going here.--Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at by conflict of interest, but I will say that I worked damn hard on this article, doing my best to follow the notability and reliability rules, etc. I happen to like ArticleAlley, have used it for years, and think it's worthy of inclusion. Is that a conflict of interest?? The comment I placed on the first admin who prodded the article upset me, yes. Because, I felt s/he was not following civility and proper procedure, I felt s/he dind't even take any time whatsoever to read the article or look at my citations, because, I've seen a LOT of Wikipedia articles with NO reliable sources at LEAST get a proper AfD hearing. So, yes, I was upset, and I told the admin so. I did not attack the admin, I wasn't crude, and if you look at the comment you'll see the comment was restored. I merely stated that admins aren't dictators (though some seem to think they are) and that they, just like we, have to follow "the rules" too. 34pin6 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That does alleviate my concerns for COI - my apologies for this, 34. I recognize there is an effort, but the effort needs to turn another direction to find things that, as I stated, are about ArticleAlley, not merely pointers to it. See my comment below. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As a complete outsider to this, I don't follow your train of logic. I have found on wikipedia, that in most cases, unless you know something for certain, it is better not to speculate. A more established veteran would probably be screaming bloody murder by such accusations. Ikip (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what exactly you're getting at by conflict of interest, but I will say that I worked damn hard on this article, doing my best to follow the notability and reliability rules, etc. I happen to like ArticleAlley, have used it for years, and think it's worthy of inclusion. Is that a conflict of interest?? The comment I placed on the first admin who prodded the article upset me, yes. Because, I felt s/he was not following civility and proper procedure, I felt s/he dind't even take any time whatsoever to read the article or look at my citations, because, I've seen a LOT of Wikipedia articles with NO reliable sources at LEAST get a proper AfD hearing. So, yes, I was upset, and I told the admin so. I did not attack the admin, I wasn't crude, and if you look at the comment you'll see the comment was restored. I merely stated that admins aren't dictators (though some seem to think they are) and that they, just like we, have to follow "the rules" too. 34pin6 (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the google books seem to seal the deal for me. Ikip (talk) 21:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The fact that it's cited does not mean that it is notable. We need independent sources giving indepth coverage of the source. Taemyr (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Ikip, the books appear to be nn self-published internet marketing ebooks that include Article Alley in very similar lists of links, but nothing remotely resembling "significant coverage". You need to provide better justification than just a general "keep" and think it should stick. 34pin6, please don't be discouraged...it may just be you created this article before the website could meet Wikipedia notability requirements. Flowanda | Talk 03:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT TO CLOSING ADMIN - if the conclusion is delete, I'd recommend a WP:USERFY of the article for user:34pin6 to allow for further refinement and later review. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: None of the cited sources are usable for notability. To break it down: The Article Ally ref. is self-published. Alexa is raw data. I've seen people try to use this kind of thing before, there can be all sorts of factors that influence these numbers and interpreting them can be tricky, even if it seems it's not. CrunchBase is a combination of raw data and user content, the first was just covered and the second disqualifies it from being reliable. Finally, Google Books just lists some books where it's being used as a reference or it has a brief mention. The quote at the start of this discussion says "... content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works..." and let me emphasize the words "the subject of". Someone could a book that uses the Picayune Daily Mailer as a source about something that happened in Picayune County, but that doesn't make the Picayune Daily Mailer notable in itself. You need someone to write the book (or at least a chapter) about the Picayune Daily Mailer for it to become notable. The same goes for Article Ally, you need to produce an article or a book about the web site for it to be evidence of notability. Brief mention, use as a reference, and use as an example don't count. I wouldn't make such a big deal about this but there several people here who seem to think the Google Books result is a clincher. It's not if you read the guidelines carefully. Chances are if something is notable then someone will have made a note of it that satisfies the guidelines; if someone can find it then they should add it to the article and mention it here.--RDBury (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Of the three main sections in the article, two are completely unreferenced. Of the few references the article does have, most aren't considered to be reliable. But mostly, I can't—and nobody else seems to be able to either—find any sources that are about ArticleAlley. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Very Week Keep. This is a tough one because I think it comes down to the difference between "the spirit of the law" and the "letter of the law". Yes, the letter says delete because most of the mentions are what you might call "trivial". However, the spirit of the notability requirement is that a subject is notable by virtue of having received significant coverage in a reliable, third-party publications.
- Now, it seems clear that one or two, or even three, trivial mentions of a subject in Google Books, would not be significant coverage, but rather would be trivial. However, if several authors of several different books - each book relating to the subject of Internet marketing or SEO or some other recognized industry - all mention this one website, then that means a good deal more than a trivial citation here or there.
- Put another way: There is certainly a qualitative difference in the worthiness of a source that only one or two people cite in passing, compared to one where 10 or 20 people cite it in passing. In the latter case, it is clear the subject has penetrated the mind of a certain collective substantially more than in the former case.
- This appears to me to be the crux of the dispute. After all, "significant coverage" is a bit subjective in itself. And I'm certain we could all come up with a list of subjects about which no one has written elaborately or exhaustively, but which we would nonetheless consider as notable. Artemis84 (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" is defined perfectly well in Wikipedia guidelines. The problem with all these citations you keep bringing up is they don't contain any information about the subject; you can't use them to write an article. Keep in mind also that ArticleAlly is basically a warehouse for articles written by outside people, so if ArticleAlly appears in a cite then the it's really the person who wrote the article that's being cited and not ArticleAlly which happens to be in the web address.--RDBury (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is getting ridiculous. Is this the future of any AfD flagged by Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron members? Tag teaming is not an effective or attractive approach, especially when the article is clearly nn. Flowanda | Talk 06:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" is defined perfectly well in Wikipedia guidelines. The problem with all these citations you keep bringing up is they don't contain any information about the subject; you can't use them to write an article. Keep in mind also that ArticleAlly is basically a warehouse for articles written by outside people, so if ArticleAlly appears in a cite then the it's really the person who wrote the article that's being cited and not ArticleAlly which happens to be in the web address.--RDBury (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No discussion at all in any of the gbooks results. There is nothing to build an article with here. Quantpole (talk) 11:32, 11 September 2009 (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 result was keep. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No WP:RS at all, and no evidence of WP:NOTE. Verbal chat 09:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Deleted as A7 by Fribbler. NW (Talk) 03:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominate this article with sadness as the subject sounds like a fine upstanding gentleman - but sadly not notable. His wartime decoration, the Africa Star requires only one day's service in North Africa and there must have been hundreds of thousands of them issued. This is not enough, in my opinion, to meet WP:BIO. His status as a politician is only at the village level (if I have understood the term Panchayat correctly) and so fails WP:POLITICIAN. Nothing else in the article amounts to a claim to notability and there are no references, failing WP:N. SpinningSpark 09:00, 27 August 2009 (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 no consensus. editors are split in regards to the notability of the individual JForget 22:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Romapada Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability criteria. No secondary reliable source to support material of the article. Wikidas© 08:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This topic was disscussed on previous AfD debates on ISKCON personalities. One of the opinions that was given by Wikipedia editors, is that
we have articles on the leadership of other religious groups, and that ISKCON are sufficiently well known -- and their swamis are sufficiently small in number and sufficiently important in their religion -- to justify notability.
Another criteria for notability is a membership in the Governing Body Commission. Romapada Swami is a swami, initiating guru, and a member of the Governing Body Commission of ISKCON. In other words, he's a member of a highly selective small group of religious leaders. I've made some research into the topic. Presently, there're 85 swamis in ISKCON, but only 50 of them are initiating gurus, out of those, only 22 swamis are initiating gurus and governing body commissioners at the same time. Being just a swami or an initiating guru in ISKCON doesn't make one notable, but being both at the same time does. More so if one is a member of the Governing Body Commission (which is the case here). Another opinion expressed in previous AfD debates (with which I tend to agree),
It's true that the subject is only coincidentally mentioned in sources outside of the religious hierarchy he belongs to. But he is verifiably (including according to 3rd party sources) part of that religious hierarchy. In theory this alone should not make him notable. But in practice every Catholic cardinal is, even though most pages of that kind have no references other than Catholic ones. In the absence of any explicit notability guidelines regarding religious figures, this is a de facto guideline for inclusion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gets IAR'd here). Unless you want to delete 90% of the cardinals of course. Frankly, I think that something similar to Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) should be drafted for religious figures as well, i.e. they should somehow stand out amongst their peers. Being part of the highest level (under the top figure) of a religious hierarchy would qualify as the religious equivalent of "elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association".
ISKCON leaders can have notability established from ISKCON's sources due to ISKCON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and Wikipedia's general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Re: Gaura79 comment: Membership or being a member of the Governing Body Commission does not seem to be a sufficient merit. Moreover no third party source mentions it (there are some 80 members in and out over the years of the Governing Body Commission) , if this is the real notability criteria, merge it to Governing Body Commission article. There is no requirement to promote advertisement of one particular GBC member over the others (note that even some of the members of the Governing Body Commission who have third party mention of the membership were recently merged or redirected to the Governing Body Commission article. Previous AfD was closed without consensus. I hope to reach consensus on this one. Wikidas© 11:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some previous AfD debates were closed with consensus to keep, some with no consensus. Let me again explain my point. Being just a member of the Governing Body Commission doesn't make one notable. Being just a sannyasi doesn't make one notable. Being just an initiating guru doesn't make one notable. The combination of those things does make one notable. If Romapada Swami would be a member of GBC and nothing more, this article should have been merged with the GBC article. If he would be just a sannyasi OR initiating guru OR governing body commissioner, he would deserve an article in Wikipedia only if he would get a significant coverage in RS outside of ISKCON. Also to become sannyasi or initiating guru in ISKCON is much more difficult than to become a governing body commissioner. Hence, the group of guru/sanyasis is more selective and important. Each of 50 ISKCON leaders, belonging to this group of guru/sannyasi does deserve an article in Wikipedia just as leaders of any other notable religious denomination. What to speak of group of guru/sannyasi/GBC, which presently has only 22 members. Every member of this group is notable.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 13:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus as to why a guru/sannyasi/gbc to have a separate page. Example is the summary bio of Param Gati Swami (you made it) on the Governing Body Commission article. No separate sources as to notability exist for this guru/sannyasi/gbc as well, and it is not a policy to keep unsourced BLPs on Wiki. Gaura79 - you have agreed to it.Wikidas©
- Yes, I agreed with you on Pragosha Dasa, Malati Devi Dasi and Bhakti Dhira Damodara Swami. None of them is a guru in ISKCON, and only one of them is a sannyasi. There're some sources on Param Gati Swami online in Portuguese. He preaches mainly in Brazil, so I'm sure he got quite some coverage there over the years, but we just don't have acces to everething through Internet, right? --Gaura79 (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no consensus as to why a guru/sannyasi/gbc to have a separate page. Example is the summary bio of Param Gati Swami (you made it) on the Governing Body Commission article. No separate sources as to notability exist for this guru/sannyasi/gbc as well, and it is not a policy to keep unsourced BLPs on Wiki. Gaura79 - you have agreed to it.Wikidas©
- You have agreed for the following list:
- Bhakti Dhira Damodara Swami
- Smita Krishna Swami
- Pragosha Dasa
- Ramai Swami
- Param Gati Swami
- Kadamba Kanana Swami
- Romapada Swami
- Malati Devi Dasi
- Prahladananda Swami-- at 11:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)it your words
- There is nothing magical about combination of guru/sannyasi/gbc that lets it pass the basic guidelines of notability and third party checking and coverage? Wikidas© 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This combination creates a notable senior religious leader.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be prepared to accept this, in approximate comparison with other religious groups. It's a rational criterion. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This combination creates a notable senior religious leader.--Gaura79 (talk) 14:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Subject does not meet notability criteria. In addition, there is a lack of secondary reliable sources to support the material in the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He gets coverage here and in this 1978 book in portuguese, where some details of his life are given. He also gets some coverage here, here (he was representing ISKCON in a major court case), and here, This mention appears to be trivial. There must be more coverage of him, it is a fact that not everything is available online. He's one of the less known leaders of ISCKON, so he gets less coverage than others. I still think that any individual from a small group of about 50 religious leaders of ISKCON, who are gurus and sannyasis, deserves to have a page on Wiki. Let's not forget that senior leaders of other religious denominations are present here and nobody puts up their articles for deletion every few month. And most of those articles are solely based on religious sources. --Gaura79 (talk) 10:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Just because one is a sannyasi or a guru, it is not a sufficient ground for inclusion. One has to be notable, like every other article on Wikipedia. Just because someone sometimes gives talks in universities it does not make him or her notable. There has to be substantial coverage by the third party sources that are independent of the subject -- ie text of the promotional leaflets or blurbs is not acceptable. The list of 'references' in this sometimes does not even mention the person by his name or does not even talk about him. Every significant religious leader would have a third party source that at least calls him 'leader'. This is not the case here. Wikidas© 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? Maybe you take a better look?--Gaura79 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]The list of 'references' in this sometimes does not even mention the person by his name or does not even talk about him.
- Just because one is a sannyasi or a guru, it is not a sufficient ground for inclusion. One has to be notable, like every other article on Wikipedia. Just because someone sometimes gives talks in universities it does not make him or her notable. There has to be substantial coverage by the third party sources that are independent of the subject -- ie text of the promotional leaflets or blurbs is not acceptable. The list of 'references' in this sometimes does not even mention the person by his name or does not even talk about him. Every significant religious leader would have a third party source that at least calls him 'leader'. This is not the case here. Wikidas© 17:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Checked again - in Graham Dwyer, Richard J. Cole 2007 (a good source) there is no mention of Romapada Swami. Are you confusing him with Romapada dasa? All other sources also do not refer to him being a swami or a leader? Are we just to assume it based on some OR or self published promotional lecture material? Wikidas© 01:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This trivial mention was of another Romapada so I removed it. Practically all the independent sources cited in the article are from the period before he took sannyasa and therefore refer to him as Romapada Das or Roma Pada or Ramapada Das. He receives significant coverage in this book in portuguese, there's an article about him here (Where he's refered as His Holiness Romapada Swami by the way). He receives some coverage in 3-4 other sources. Also he was a plaintiff in a courtcase that went to the US Supreme Court, which also makes him notable. And ISKCON sources cited in the article are quite reliable when his position in ISKCON's religious hierarchy is concerned. I think this article deserves a keep.--Gaura79 (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Highly influential ISKCON figure.Pectoretalk 15:27, 9 September 2009 (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 result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 21:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
non-notable youtube creations - fails WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 08:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was speedy delete, no showing of minimal importance and obvious advertising to boot: solutions company established ... to develop and manage web sites that help customer to communicate there message, products and services to potential clients and existing customers - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
completely non-notable company/website - fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is based entirely on its assertion that a desert state is comprised of at least 50% desert. However, there is nothing to support this - nor could I find anything. Therefore, the whole thing appears to fail WP:V. I42 (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. — Jake Wartenberg 04:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:ENT , simply appearing in a notable TV show does not guarantee notability. hardly any indepth coverage of this actress. [38]. LibStar (talk) 07:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally fails WP:MUSIC; no coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources... all that can be found are the likes of Myspace, Last.fm, forums, and entertainingly, Stormfront. No releases even on notable indie labels, no significant tours, not even a website. There is a claim to notability ("the best known RAC band in Finland") hence me bringing it here rather than slapping a speedy on it, but without a source, this is just spam. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Non notable swami - primary sources article. was already deleted and AfD is on record, no other publications since. All recently added references do not refer or support notability. Has to be deleted and redirected to ISKCON. Wikidas© 07:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional criteria for notability was membership in Governing Body Commission. Bhakti Vikasa Swami is a swami and initiating guru in ISKCON, which makes him a member of a highly selective small group of religious leaders. I've made some research into the topic. Presently, there're 85 swamis in ISKCON, but only 50 of them are initiating gurus. Being just a swami or an initiating guru in ISKCON doesn't make one notable, but being both at the same time does. More so if one is a member of the Governing Body Commission (which is not the case here). Another opinion expressed in previous AfD debates (with which I tend to agree),
ISKCON leaders can have notability established from ISKCON's sources due to ISKCON's status as a significant, recognized stream of Hinduism in the West and Wikipedia's general practice of permitting use of religious sources to establish the notability of a religion's senior leaders.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable business, references provided do not satisfy WP:RS. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this was my first editorial, so please take it easy on me. I am open to suggestions and willing to listen, so long as the other party is open minded. Fact: CedarPC managed to develop a Multi-Million dollar corporation in the worst recession in what some would say since the great depression; creating new jobs, all while helping young people through apprenticeship and training programs. Sournce - http://static.mgnetwork.com/vab/pdf/fan50.pdf Source - http://www.bizjournals.com/washington/stories/2008/10/20/daily34.html Source - http://www.myskillsource.org/home/documents/EYEProgramFinalReportPresentation2008.NVWIBMeeting.pdf
Why don't you develop a multi-million dollar corporation and win #11 out 50 of the fastest growing companies during this economic crisis, since you see this "every day". Copyright: I asked management at CedarPC for permission to use their logo and trademark for Wikipedia through their "Contact Management", they agreed, and are going to get their corporate attorney to draft a written authorization. If I had put the wrong terms of usage, that can be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anetineer (talk • contribs) 04:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This article isn't needed until the athlete goes pro. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable neolgism, invented. Talk page says "This word has been added as a protologism" but that is a justification for deletion, not keeping the page. Also nominating:
|
- 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) 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Paired journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable neologism, prod declined. Entry itself notes that this was coined only in March. Zero Google news hits, one or two relevant Google web hits but none that look independent of the subject. Hairhorn (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Not for things made up one day.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It is an essay (therefore against the policies) on a non-relevant topic (therefore once again against the policies). McMarcoP (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no sources to suggest the term is used by anyone. Google shows nothing. --AlanI (talk • contribs) 03:52, 3 September 2009 (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 result was delete. Cirt (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no third party reliable sources to attest to his notability Theserialcomma (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is written like an advertisement. There is asserted notability, but it is unsourced. All of the sources listed are from the producer, so they can't be used. — Dædαlus Contribs 03:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable YouTube video. Prod declined without comment. The "reception" section speaks for itself in terms of lack of notability: " over 200 hits as of mid 2009". Delete. Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that this is a POV fork. NW (Talk) 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
...et cetera, et cetera. Since the material is already present at other articles, and since we already have a valid content fork of Russian apartment bombings (Theories of Russian apartment bombings) I see absolutely no need for this kind of POV article. Offliner (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, nothing had changed since the previous AfD discussion of this article (one could read it).Biophys (talk) 01:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
un-notable unofficial holiday Abc518 (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy Delete G3. Admrboltz (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has no sources and may well be a hoax. It provides no evidence of notability. Grahame (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
User creating huge number of unreferenced stubs. No references to establish notability and Baronets are not automatically notable. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this band does not meet the notability criteria. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim to notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2009 (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 no consensus. After three relists and many sources being revealed, there is no consensus here, even among later contributors, as to whether or not the sources provided confer notability on the topic. Closing without prejudice against renomination or merging. Skomorokh 11:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- It's Still Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this album bootleg. Joe Chill (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there is significant coverage if you look - check Allmusic or Discogs for a start - will work on populating the article with suitable references etc. Dan arndt (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Album did not chart nor did it receive significant coverage from secondary reliable sources; no indication of notability. — Σxplicit 04:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - have provided detailed references & external links - expanded article & wikified. Dan arndt (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:NSONG, no significant coverage in external reliable sources. LK (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Undecided. Not so sure. I think the sources cited by the author could rise to the level of "significant coverage." I think more discussion on this is needed. Each of the sites cited has its own individual Wikipedia article. Additionally, each of the sites receives an enormous amount of monthly traffic in its venue.
- However, I think that a Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL is in order. I suggest that the author check WP:MUSICBIO and try to meet one or two of those other criterion. Artemis84 (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added additional references, each of which are 'notable' sources, which I believe is sufficient to justify the retention of the article. It should also be noted that this is an offical release by the band, whilst not sanctioned by the band, it was released by a major label, Virgin Records, and it is not a bootleg - therefore addressing WP:MUSICBIO (if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia). Dan arndt (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You haven't shown notability. All that you have shown is verifablity. Just because the band is notable, doesn't mean that their albums are automatically notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have added additional references, each of which are 'notable' sources, which I believe is sufficient to justify the retention of the article. It should also be noted that this is an offical release by the band, whilst not sanctioned by the band, it was released by a major label, Virgin Records, and it is not a bootleg - therefore addressing WP:MUSICBIO (if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia). Dan arndt (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sources review:
- A search engine
- An image description
- An Amazon page
- A record listing
- An Allmusic page which is almost like IMDB except with music
- A discography
- A one sentence mention
- Another one sentence mention
- Ticket information
- An overview of concert dates
- How the heck is that significant coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No significant coverage or other indication that this is notable. — Jake Wartenberg 03:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the sourced info - and there is some - to the band's page. Not sufficiently notable for a separate page. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; clearly notable. The Allmusic review alone suffices to established "significant coverage". Hesperian 03:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The album's unusual release history is soundly and sufficiently sourced. Given the structure of the band's own article, the more significant content can't be merged without unbalancing that article. Despite the nominator's claim, the album is clearly not a mere bootleg, since it was rereleased on a legit label. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge? Most of the coverage is incidental to the bootleg. I don't know WP:MUSIC very well so I'll refrain from some more confident statement. Protonk (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Trouserpress, Salon and Allmusic citations provide genuine commentary - and have differing perspectives, views and expression, so they have not been spammed. --Philcha (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2009 (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 result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
This is all that I can find for significant coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be a WP:RS to show notability for this photographer. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Discounting the "per x", it's notable, "not notable", and "number of employees" arguments and the exploratory nomination, we have two editors who maintain that the cited sources confer notability, and one editor, Whpq, who gives a more detailed analysis to the contrary. There is insufficient discussion between these two perspectives to determine consensus, and a third relist would be inappropriate, so I close this now without prejudice against recreation at a later date. Skomorokh 18:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More of advertisement. Might fail WP:N Srikanth (speak) 06:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional league Spiderone (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a trivial list of canceled toys with absolutely nothing to verify their existence. TTN (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect. There is consensus that a standalone article is not justified, the nominator was amenable to a redirect/merge, and the two editors favouring deletion did not indicate why a redirect would be inappropriate, so following Cunard's rationale. Editors are free to take whatever useful material in the history of the redirected article and use it elsewhere if appropriate. Skomorokh 17:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Images and Words.
- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:03, 14 August 2009 (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 keep. JForget 22:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Pull Me Under (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NSONG tells us three things relevant to this nomination. First, "[m]ost songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article." Second, songs must must the requirements of WP:GNG, although placement on "national or significant music charts ... [or winning] significant awards or honors" establishes a presumption of notability. And third, even if a song is notable, it should only be treated in a separate article "when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...." This song fails to clear that hurdle and should be deleted or merged into Images and Words.
A procedural note, hatted by the author.
|
|---|
|
This article was previously nominated for deletion in a batch with ten other Dream Theater songs, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pull Me Under. The closing admin, user:SilkTork, concluded that since the multiple listing was complex, the nominated articles agreed as the least notable should be redirected, and the rest should be relisted individually. Per this and my 21:56, 12 August comment at the previous nomination, I have redirected The Silent Man, Hollow Years, Home, A Right of Passage, and Forsaken, as there appeared to be rough consensus to delete them, and am individually relisting Pull Me Under, Take the Time, Another Day, Lie, Through Her Eyes, and Constant Motion |
- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the most recognised and highest-charting single by a very notable band is clearly going to be sourceable and expandable - although I agree it's quite waffly and unsourced at the moment. If all these rogue Dream Theater singles are really causing you such a problem, I don't have any particular issue with redirecting it with history intact for now, but I very much doubt deletion is the answer here - even if the single was entirely non-notable it would be better to redirect as a likely search term. ~ mazca talk 07:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I think the bizarre ending alone (see the article, it "simply stops, mid-note,") in a major release makes it pretty notable. New listeners will get to the end and wonder if their CD/MP3 is damaged, inspiring a search to learn more about the song (this is what happened to me, anyway). If people want to know about it, then it's probably sufficiently notable. -- stillnotelf is invisible 14:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is an astonishingly flawed theory of notability. "If people"--in context, necessarily read anyone, since there's no way to quantify demand--"want to know about it, then it's probably sufficiently notable"? Really? A subject is notable simply because it is conceivable that someone might want to know about it? That is not the standard of WP:GNG or any other guideline. I have never heard of it, and it directly contradicts the text, purpose, spirit, indeed concept of the notability policy.
- Nor is it true, by the way, that it "stops mid-note." Count it out. That section is in common time, and the last note of the recording is the fourth note of a bar of four. How is that "stopping mid-note"? Come to think of it, since there is no theoretical limit on the number of times the beat can be divided, the concept that music can ever stop "mid-note" is nonsense. Even if the band continued to play three 64th notes into the next bar and then stopped, that would be stopping mid-bar -- and only then on the dubious assumption that we'd say the time signature remained in 4/4 and just stopped, rather than changing to 3/64 for the last bar of the song or writing it off as rubato. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS. Article claims the single charted on a lesser Billboard chart, but Billboard shows the song as never charting with them. [46]. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The chart position is sourced in the article to Allmusic, which is generally considered a reliable source here; and the fact that Pull Me Under actually charted reasonably highly is a commonly-cited fact in many Dream Theater biographies. Are you entirely confident in the completeness of the new Billboard website, particularly in respect of lesser charts from 17 years ago? ~ mazca talk 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm comfortable taking Billboards word over what charted on their own charts. There are also a lot of editors that do not feel that charting on the lesser charts is really charting. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, some archive information on the Billboard.com site has not been accessable since the site redseign. So allmusic is the best source for the charting information at this point. And in this case, the article contains a link to an article on Billboard's site that confirms the chart position per allmusic. And the Mainstream Rock Chart is hardly a "lesser chart". Rlendog (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 04:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have added a reference from a Billboard feature article that confirms the chart listing of the song. There have got to be more references easily found due to its inclusion in Guitar Hero as well. I don't believe that notability is an issue. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim, under NSONGS, notability is not the only criterion. Assuming notability, what's your argument (implicit in your keep vote is that you have one) for why a standalone article is justified?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that Mazca made a compelling case above, and agree with it. I also believe that the recent references I have added show that the song itself is notable through its being linked to the band more than 10 years after its release. We obviously have a notable artist here, and this is the one song by which they are most known. The now sourced fact of being a top ten song on the mainstream rock tracks chart seems to meet WP:NSONGS, although I don't do enough editing in the music area to know what consensus is regarding the definition of a "significant" chart. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Jim, under NSONGS, notability is not the only criterion. Assuming notability, what's your argument (implicit in your keep vote is that you have one) for why a standalone article is justified?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The single charted, so meets WP:NSONGS. There are multiple reliable sources included in the article other than just the chart position, so meets WP:N. There is enough information in the article as it stands to warrant a standalone article, although sourcing could be improved. Not seeing any reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Heavy MTV rotation and charting is enough to keep it notable. ken20008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ken20008 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 September 2009 (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 result was merge to Mutant (Marvel Comics). — Jake Wartenberg 04:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional race of angel-like mutants has only 94 regular Google hits, zero Google News hits, zero Google Books hits, zero Google Scholar hits and zero notability. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 23:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Skomorokh 17:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason of notability appears to be "a lot of prize[s]" which seem actually pretty unheard of and, when googled, return almost only personal pages of people who won them (and in some case, this very article is the first result returned). Goochelaar (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2009 (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 no consensus. It is of note that the mere existance of something does not make it suitable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unbroken (Katharine McPhee album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a future album supported by no reliable sources, therefore failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and WP:NALBUMS. The Billboard reference talks about her being signed to a new label and working on an album, but no mention of a name or a release date. The tommy2.net is a non-reliable source that has a different album name and different release date. The Amazon link with a release date is not enough to have an article about a future album. Aspects (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a lot of information available about this album, so I think we should improve the article rather than delete it. --Maxime9232 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Verve, McPhee's label, is promoting it as is McPhee herself on her Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter pages. Entertainment shows E! News and Extra have covered it as well. I think there's more than enough information at this point to support creation of this article, assuming of course 6 weeks prior to release is ok with Wikipedia. Ducold (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I was editing this page and was going to put more sources and information up, but I took a break and was going to come back and do some more work on it. I don't think it should be deleted. -GMANGRIFFG (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a page from Verve's website showing the album title, cover, and release date be considered a reliable source?: http://www.vervemusicgroup.com/artist/music/detail.aspx?pid=12071&aid=7353 144.51.89.67 (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums &
. No coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb "Talk" 13:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you seriously kidding me? Why is this article even being seriously considered for deletion? Katharine McPhee and her label Verve Forecast, may not have promoted Unbroken to the big news sources or MTV, but anyone who bothers to do some digging would know that that this album will be released on October 6th. If McPhee herself and the label have stated that this album is finished and will come out in October, that should be good enough to warrant keeping this page, as it will only come back if it's deleted. If you're looking for a reliable third party source, maybe this would work? [48] Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 01:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the album is less than 6 weeks from release and is starting to get publicity and is being promoted by the artist and label, it seems the initial reason for deletion has been overtaken by events. Perhaps the mods can just leave it be at this point. Ducold (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 17:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Isn't this debate overtaken by events? The album will be released in less than 5 weeks and the artist and label have talked about it and promoted it. More thorough discussion seems like overkill at this point. Ducold (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense, but it's kind of ridiculous that this is still being discussed. It's a sure fact that the album will be released in a few weeks, and promotion is slowly ramping up... someone please explain what further proof we need to prove this album exists. Wickedlyperfect18 (talk) 07:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Wickedlyperfect, the debate is still ongoing because a) very few editors have participated thus far and b) those editors who have participated are not in agreement, so there is no consensus so far. Regards, Skomorokh 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The album's existence isn't the issue. My big toe exists, but that doesn't mean there should be a Wikipedia article about it. A topic generally needs to be notable to warrant a Wikipedia article, and future albums generally are not considered notable until there is significant coverage in reliable sources. To some extent, I think this gets silly when articles are nominated for deletion a couple of days before the scheduled album release date, but there needs to be a line somewhere (hopefully enforced with some WP:COMMONSENSE) and in this case the release date is several weeks away still, making the nomination reasonable (in my view). But the key is to add reliable sources (i.e., not twitter, myspace, facebook, etc.) that demonstrate the album is already notable today, even though it hasn't been released yet. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello Wickedlyperfect, the debate is still ongoing because a) very few editors have participated thus far and b) those editors who have participated are not in agreement, so there is no consensus so far. Regards, Skomorokh 10:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I vote to keep Ducold (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Most of the references in the article right now are twitter and the like, which do not establish notability. There is a comment by an editor above that E!News and Extra have covered it, which I am willing to AGF on, and which would (I believe) establish sufficient notability if that coverage was "significant". But it would be preferablt to have references to the shows in the article itself. Rlendog (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rlendog, I think I'm understanding the issue better. Thank you for further enlightening. I knew the Wiki editors were tough on early articles for album (which is why I cautioned some fans who wanted to create the article months ago), but adherence to the standards is tougher than I realized. But I do have to ask, why is an artist's twitter and myspace posts and label webpages about an album release date not considered reliable enough? Even if media reports on it, the album could still be canceled, and in the end, the album information comes from the label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducold (talk • contribs) 04:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the notability guidelines, a topic must have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since anyone can twitter anything, or post what they want to MySpace pages, without independent validation, those generally do not qualify as reliable sources. I suppose that if someone posts about their own upcoming album on their own MySpace (or similar) page, that might be considered reliable, but then it is definitely not "independent of the subject", and so cannot be used to establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, reliable sources Facha93 (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2009 (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 result was speedy delete. A1, apparently not something for article space Tone 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Improper cross-wiki CNR, is not an article and does not point at one. MBisanz talk 01:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Fails criteria for WP:BLP. This article contains significant negative information about living persons, but only offers one article in Portuguese to verify the long list of allegations against five named persons and the club as a whole (54 chapters, unknown number of people per chapter). There are perhaps 20 news articles found by Google that mention this group, but they are all in Portuguese. The language issue would not normally be grounds for any action because the article could wait for translation help. But this article has remained in a poorly-cited state for three years now. If these accusations of drug dealing, extortion, prostitution and so on are false, how many more years will they remain here damaging the reputations of a sizable number of living people waiting for Portuguese and English speaker come along undo the damage? BLP says "We must get the article right" but even if a skilled translator were to come along, aren't there hundreds of far more important articles about Brazil and Portugal that need attention? It might well be that articles detailing lurid criminality by living people, based solely on non-English sources are beyond the current capabilities of en.Wikipedia. Going into this much depth on topics without any English-language secondary sources might have to wait for a future time when circumstances change, but that would avoid harm to real people, at the cost of an article of very low importance. All the negative information could be deleted, but then what is left to justify notability? The fact that they like to ride black choppers? Dbratland (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Listed for 27 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All that I can find is trivia mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 21:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability not established for this Italian alternative rock band. The claimed nomination for "Best New Artist" does not establish notability as they didn't actually win it, we don't know how many bands get nominated and we cannot verify it. No independent sources are quoted to support any statements and the wikilinks included invariably link to irrelevant articles or redirect to the same page. In accordance with WP:BEFORE, the article has been marked for re-write due to advertising for over two years with no sign of progress. Wikipedia cannot be a memorial to bands that failed to make it. Ash (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2009 (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. The burden of proof is on editors favouring the retention of the article to show that it is notable or should for some other reason be kept. That has not been achieved here unfortunately. Skomorokh 03:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Scramble (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable magazine. No indication as to what the circulation is, but it is apparently the house organ of an aviation society that is not notable enough for its own article here. No references aside from the magazine's own website. Google turns up very little relevant about it, other than this article and the web site. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Plenty of mentions and discussions in blogs and forums related to aircraft spotting but the only reliable source I could find was a brief mention [49]. -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Just check which pages on WP link back (used Scramble as a resource) 165.72.200.11 (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That is not a measure of notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -
Info appears to be valid, and nothing is to be gained by deleting an accurate article, at some point in time someone may need itI think if the author can find enough references to provec the article is accurate and notable then it should be kept,unless that happens i think it should be deleted .-- VVLosVegas 19:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Validity is not synonymous with notability, which is the issue here. I'm a valid person, and at some point in time someone somewhere might need me, but I'm not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, regardless of whether it's useful and how many articles link to it, this fails notability standards. Nyttend (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep one of the more important aviation societies, a book publisher and a respected military aviation website that has been cited in Wikipedia articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite one or two of those articles so that we can verify this. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2009 (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 result was delete – a non-notable organization per WP:ORG. JamieS93 20:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article contains details about three distinct organizations: a sorority at Vincennes University, a fraternity at Hope College, and a sorority at the University of Michigan. As far as I can tell, none of the three meet notability criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Peacock (talk) 20:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This fictional drug has no reliable third party sources available anywhere. The article does not claim that is important within its fictional setting. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 22:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contested prod. Book by apparent non-notable author. Only provided refs are to authors homepage and Amazon. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was no consensus. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
edit]] | [[Talk:List of highest paid American television stars | talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/List of highest paid American television stars | history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/List of highest paid American television stars | protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/List of highest paid American television stars | delete]] | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
This is an unsourced, trivial list. Logan | Talk 21:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: While the sourcing for some of the individual salary levels has been greatly improved, there is still virtually no sourcing for the claims that these are the "highest paid" performers. The newspiece which started this whole thing is a feature that runs annually in TV Guide, giving examples of top-level salaries, not a comprehensive analysis. Note, for example, that the "morning" section omits Barbara Walters, verifiably sourced in her Wikipedia article at a much higher salary than all but one of the "top" performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have corrected that error, and as i said it can be changed and updated anytime, so it can be helped and make it acpectable for wikipedia, and again as i said with some work this could become a very good artical. --Pedro J. the rookie 17:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Checked on Tyra, it is solved and what do you mean with Axed. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i see. --Pedro J. the rookie 19:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. One comment normally doesn't constitute a consensus but it did establish that this newspaper exists. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if someone wishes to discuss the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to find a source that indicated that this underground Argentine newspaper ever existed, but failed. It only lasted for one year, until the founder left his country. Bringing to AfD in case somebody has better luck than me. Abductive (reasoning) 21:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not going to give an opinion on notability, but I found this interview with Gustavo Aguerre, the claimed founder of the magazine. It is in German, but it has a picture of the front cover of the magazine thus verifying the existence of both Gustav and the magazine. The article says there were four issues and a circulation of 4000. I don't know how notable that is for an underground magazine but four issues does not sound very many to me. SpinningSpark 12:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Implementing DGG's suggestion.. NW (Talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this term standard?? None of the first 30 results in Google meet both of the following criteria:
|
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. I personally would suggest a redirect until the marriage but that's an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced BLP, fiance of a princess. How is he notable? Lara 20:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was keep. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:59, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:MUSIC Crotchety Old Man (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was redirect to Pussycat Dolls Present: Girlicious. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] AfDs for this article:
Fails WP:MUSICBIO. There are no reliable sources. SilkTork *YES! 00:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
fails WP:MUSIC Ironholds (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
The result was Speedy close as a test page. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is adequately covered by Karhu Sports and Karhu articles. PhilKnight (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|